Images for Fine Art prints

I am currently trying to cull down a selection of images for Fine-Art printing. And it got me wondering what are the particular attributes to look for in an underwater image for making prints to hang on the wall.

I realise that the answers to many of these questions depend on who is the customer and where is the picture going to be hung, how big is it etc etc.

But I hope that we can find some generalisations through a discussion.

In my limited experience. Charasmatic species (read big animals) tend to do well. As do other marine life if captured in ways to enhance their character. Abstracts are also versitle and popular - and it is good to provide some variety in colour to coordinate with decor.

What about having divers in the frame? I think that this can enhance sales to divers, as long as the diver is a secondary subject. I have found that behaviour shots are rarely popular. And neither are creepy crawly macro subjects.

I also struggle with image simplicity. Simple strong compositions tend to attract attention, but they also age quicker (on the wall) than more subtle photos.

What do others think? Please feel free to post images as good or bad examples.

Alex

What "average" viewers tend to like:

1) Defined Aquatic Subject

2) Color

1) Subject:

a) Sharks or other recognizable big animals (diver to show relative size OK, otherwise no diver)

b ) Clownfish/puffers - people like cute fish. They prefer bad and/or poorly framed cute fish to well composed other.

c) Reef Scenes are not defined subjects. Schools of fish aren't a defined subject. Most casual viewers and divers just aren't in to hard corals like some of us.

2) Color.

a) The eye is drawn to contrast. If there isn't strong color contrast, then it better look good black and white.

b ) Reds and oranges are great (you know, like a clownfish).

c) Light blue water is really popular in the background.

A mediocre Tiger Shark shot gets all the comments at the shop vs. a couple of other really good shots.

Your comment about simplicity is worthy of a whole other discussion. The importance of how things age depends on where it's hanging.

I believe you have an image that is a perfect example. I believe it was GC, Stingray City. I believe it contained water, sand, sky, dive boat and a sting ray. The composition was a perfect expample of compositional strength through simplicity. The image was taken with a fisheye lens. While many here are strong propenents of the ultra-wide (weitwinkel) lens, I am not because it is usually difficult to compose a frame with this few elements. Most people take a very wide angle lens end up with too much inventory in the frame.

As to your simplistic shot, if it hangs at dive shop, customers will always enjoy it, but the staff will soon tire of looking at it. Which is more important?

So far, only a few people ever care for my abstracts. I love my abstracts, but most people prefer looking at another one of my nauseating flamingo tongue shot.

CFWA is always popular. I like fisheye stuff, not corrected.

Hi Alex,

Kind of a FWIW:

Most of the interest/comments generated on my website are from sharks and eagle rays. Younger people seem very keen on the Dolphins. I've no idea what would sell myself.

This one was requested for Tshirt:

Rand

Hi Alex,

Kind of a FWIW:

 

Most of the interest/comments generated on my website are from sharks and eagle rays. Younger people seem very keen on the Dolphins. I've no idea what would sell myself.

 

This one was requested for Tshirt:

 

 

Rand

Great shot, just wondering what settings you used?

I think there are two potential groups of good or great images - mostly if we work hard at it, we may achieve that first group of images - those images demonstrating excellent technique and graphic qualities, composition etc that in the end are still carried over the top by the power of their natural subject matter. That is, the subject is still key to success.

And then the second group are those far more rare and evasive photographs that most of us rarely, if ever, achieve . These are the photographs that appeal to the viewer primarily on the strengths of the technical perfection and graphic qualities of the image, irrespective of the subject matter.

Folks like Alex achieve the first group almost routinely; the second group, I’m not sure who achieves these in underwater photography. Do we have any ‘Ansel Adams’ amongst the world’s underwater photographers?

I think Rand’s photograph is a nice example of an image that succeeds first on graphic value, and then only secondarily as a nice shot of a ray.

Some thoughts on the subject to quote Dan Burkholder:

" Art, photography, and the decisions that unify the two are the pivotal elements to make photographs with, dare I say it, soul and meaning."

"You struggle to translate the reason-for-shooting into an image that has meaning to others (and maybe they'll even purchase it)."

Hi Alex-

My most popular photo to date (requested by others and sold is this)...It is actually one of my least favorite.

I agree with previous posts...larger, more well known species and clown fish always are more interesting to my patients... we show my images at my office all day to kids ages 6 to 18.. the jaws always drop when I say "open" and when they see the sharks from Guadalupe..

The 3mm amphipods just don't make the cut.

M.

Michael,

I am surprised that this is not one of your favorites (though I have not seen your favorites). It's a great shot, that I think has excellent balance and tension in how you've framed and/or cropped it. Great dramatic lighting to enhance the mystery and scariness of the subject, as well.

And big teeth, especially big ugly teeth, always help to get everyone's attention. It's hard to ignore this photograph.

Hi Mike,

Wonderful photo!! Can easily see why this is most often requested! WTG!

Best,

Tom & Therisa Stack

http://www.tomstackphoto.com

I think there are two potential groups of good or great images - mostly if we work hard at it, we may achieve that first group of images - those images demonstrating excellent technique and graphic qualities, composition etc that in the end are still carried over the top by the power of their natural subject matter. That is, the subject is still key to success.

And then the second group are those far more rare and evasive photographs that most of us rarely, if ever, achieve . These are the photographs that appeal to the viewer primarily on the strengths of the technical perfection and graphic qualities of the image, irrespective of the subject matter.

Folks like Alex achieve the first group almost routinely; the second group, I’m not sure who achieves these in underwater photography. Do we have any ‘Ansel Adams’ amongst the world’s underwater photographers?

 

I think Rand’s photograph is a nice example of an image that succeeds first on graphic value, and then only secondarily as a nice shot of a ray.

 

Some thoughts on the subject to quote Dan Burkholder:

" Art, photography, and the decisions that unify the two are the pivotal elements to make photographs with, dare I say it, soul and meaning."

"You struggle to translate the reason-for-shooting into an image that has meaning to others (and maybe they'll even purchase it)."

Very nicely put Loftus. Your second category of images will be of interest to no-divers too.

For a photograph to be more than a mere record of an event (quite easy to acheive these days) it needs an emotional component. Don't get me wrong there is a place for record-style pics, but not in this "fine art print" discussion. Many critics of greats like Mr Doubilet put way too much emphasis on what they see as outdated technique and not enough weight on the feelings created by an image, and what that image communicates to the viewer (with each viewer bringing their own bias into the equation).

talking about equations, here's one (I'm sure there are others)

successful art print = interesting subject + adequete technique + simplicity X (emotion to the power of ten)

And BTW I love Michael's barra.

darren

I think there are very large differences between prints to hang on the wall, prints that sell and prints that are fine art. A few of David Doubilet's prints are fine art IMHO, many more sell well and many more than that would hang on walls all over the world if people had a chance to put them up. The mother in law of my best friend recently had a show in Beverly Hills at a fairly nice art gallery. Mostly very big prints of pretty ordinary subjects but they sold for $5 to $6 K each. The interesting thing is that they weren't very "photographic" but rather people were buying them because they needed something "red" or "blue" for a specific room in their mansions. So I guess this was fine art, and it surely sold but wasn't quite what I would call UW photography in the same sense. So one of the rules I guess is print it bit. Big sells, smaller prints of some of the big ones that were only $400 or so didn't sell at all, but all of the big ones had sold tags on them.

I guess that if i could figure out what "art" was then I could afford to buy some.

Bill

...people were buying them because they needed something "red" or "blue" for a specific room in their mansions....

There is a guy at the local markets here, he paints abstracts to order. He has 10-12 standard "designs", you take in your paint colour swatches and material samples and he paints you a canvas in your chosen design to the colour scheme of your room.

I'd call that "decorative" art, he does too. It's a lucrative business for him...when he does that work he considers himself more as an interior designer than an artist.

Really interesting discussion. And thanks all for the advice and input.

I am always getting asked for fish pictures for people's bathrooms! When I get the dozen or so images online - you'll have to guess which are the colour coordinated bathroom shots!

Alex

Really interesting discussion. And thanks all for the advice and input.

 

I am always getting asked for fish pictures for people's bathrooms! When I get the dozen or so images online - you'll have to guess which are the colour coordinated bathroom shots!

 

Alex

Probably not the one you use for your avatar. No one wants a pair of eyes peering at them while on the throne.