On 1/28/03 2:25 PM, "Chris" <nimbo@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > Well.... I suppose my images are not up to much but why should I give them > away free? The web is just another way of publishing and it cost me money > to put them there.... Then donšt do it. > > Those famous? (well I'd not heard of them) photographers can afford to give > away small unprintable images. So can I and I'm not famous. My lame website has generated many jobs (editorial shoots) and other sales. Do you think any editor or art buyer is actually going to pay to view? Do you pay to go to a local gallery to look at work? > > Whereas they can ask $1000 for a print that costs 50 cents to make and sell > hundreds, I can ask $10 and not sell any. 50 cents to make? Done much printing? That's laughable. I've got an idea. Improve your skills so that people actually WANT to buy your prints for a reasonable sum. > Why not show my images to a wider > audience and ask $3 for a larger image? Why would anyone pay to see a bigger image? Porn maybe but that's another issue... > > The web was designed with free interchange of information as its basis, > payment per page should have been designed in to it, where the average bloke > like me could put up an average web page and charge a cent to view it. The > charge being levied through my ISP as a low priced service. That structure would kill the information exchange. Lawrence ---------------------------------- Lawrence W. Smith Photography http://www.lwsphoto.com lsmith@lwsphoto.com ----------------------------------
