9/16/2005

Time Time Time

To run a website with your own photographs for sale - takes much more effort than you'd think. If you've never tried it - you should.

Besides the non-photographic technical skills you need there are constant readjustments. Yesterday began when something went wrong with my shopping cart (which I had built from scratch about five years ago). I was never happy with it. Lot's of Active Server Page code and then there was the cost of a secure certificate, and I was tied in to a system with a merchant bank that charged me $49 a month for the processing of orders plus the credit card companies took their usual percentage.

So when it was going flakey yesterday - and I started to look at the code:

"Line 217: ccur is null" (yes, I knew what it meant - trouble converting a null value to currency but why - why - why?)

I couldn't face the beast anymore. Why ccur should be null yesterday, when it hadn't ever been null before. I hadn't changed any code. Something must have changed on the server. Maybe their database was and one of my stored procs was failing... Maybe their version of ASP was upgraded. Who knows.

And so lickety split I looked at the Paypal cart option (the simplest and cheapest one they have).

By end of day the cart mechansim from the olden days had been replaced with the Paypal cart. Now if something goes wrong - it's going to go wrong with about a couple of million people at the same time.

I like that.

Next step.

I had meant to raise the size and price of a number of items. Did that. Then add new prints. Did that. My workflow was simple and familiar and I was happy. Happy enough that after working on the PC all day - I went out at about 11 p.m. to shoot some film. Mostly, I just wanted to shoot HP5 plus at 800 (which I did). I kept telling myself - this is a test roll - don't shoot anything good! But of course stuff happens and I did take some good shots.

I had asked Matt for his TMAX developer / HP 800 time and temps but I still want to try this stuff again in DD-X. I don't like the idea of having two developers to work with. And so - to show you how my subconscious works - I had a dream about developing the HP5 in DD-X and in the dream I was looking at the negatives and they were perfect negatives.

I shot with the R2A and I have to tell you that late last night - with very few people on the street - the "click" of the little near perfect camera caused a couple of stares.

On my way home I was still puzzled as to why they went through all the trouble of making this Leica clone but neglected to make it quieter. I've heard theories that it's because of the metal vertical shutter, but I don't believe that. The G2 for example (bad viewfinder and all) was quieter. I even have this Russian knockoff that Steve sent me - which has a cloth shutter and slow top speed and it is the noisiest rangefinder I've ever held. Clunk!

I would have opted for a quiter R2A even if it had a slower top speed. The quietness is probably the single most important feature of a good rangefinder.

I'm sure that next year - hopefully I do okay in the holiday (Christmas) season - I'll start looking for a used M6. Did anyone ever tell me that 'you get what you pay for.' In most cases. But the problem is not always. For example the Voigtlander lenses, if you chose carefully - are excellent. At least the 28 f1.9 is.

Well anyway - I haven't done much shooting this week because of futzing with the website. And I'm going to spend one more day (I swear that's it) adding more prints for sale. My next goal is to get up to 125 prints. Of course, my goal after that is 150, then 200! I can't put crap up either. It all has to be good stuff. And it has to have been printed first. I never put anything up for sale just looking at the image on the screen.

But I've got an easy system for doing it now (only took five years).

Then I'm going to close my account with the merchant bank (saves me $49) a month. And next time the dumb SSL certificate expires - let it die. The site is now so simple - just HTML and CSS (no need for SSL or a database) that it could be hosted anywhere.

Paypal also offers a more robust plan for $20 a month that includes a way to take credit cards over the phone / fax etc. If someone can't or doesn't want to do it over the web. This second plan - I think they call it Paypal Pro allows you to integrate the cart etc. into your own site so it doesn't take you to Paypal site for the checkout. I'll have to read through the manual at some point and see if it's worth the effort.

On top of all that - I began putting up Ads through Google. These are ads that you (me) pay for by the click. So there's another "non-photographic" thing to keep an eye with an futz with.

So as I say - you need to have some fascination with how this stuff works unless you can afford to have someone do it all for you. I think they call them Webmasters. For the individual artist to afford a Webmaster - that is a luxury that most photographers can't afford - at least not on a regular basis.

And yes, there are sites that will do it all for you - that specialize in selling photographs - but now you're back in the world of physical galleries (in a way) and they want their cut of the pie.

So - all in all - I'm in good shape in cyberworld. This is just a word of caution.

I often get e-mails asking whether I can make a living from this from (and I'm going to call them kids) - wondering whether they could quit their dayjobs and make a living selling their photographs on the web.

My answer is always the same: if you can go part time with the day job, or get the website going while you're at the job - then do it. You can't count on a dime coming from it - especially when you get started. No one wants to hear that. In fact - I've sent out about five replies with that basic message and gotten no, "Thank you e-mails back." I don't think they want to hear it.

I tell stories about talented photographers (no names) that haven't sold a print through their website during the last year.

I make it as bleak as I can because that is the reality. Oh - reality! We've had enough reality. Follow your dream. But be prepared for hard lifting to make it work - and that hard lifting has absolutely nothing with photographic talent.

And then I was waiting for some order(s) to come in to see if the thing was working. And sure enough - last night - two orders came in through the new system. I got a nice notification. All the info was there.

5 comments:

Matt Weber said...

I felt like that too...for fifteen years I shot with a $149 AE-1 Canon and refused to buy a M6. When they first hit the market, back in the '80s, B&H sold a brand new M6 for $600! I Finally realized that I had been "Penny wise, pound foolish" and bit the bullet and shelled. If I waited till I could afford a Leica, I'd either be in a wheelchair or dead...

Matt Weber said...

My memory is shot, maybe the M6 cost $800...but it still seemed like a fortune to a cabbie cruising the streets for the next $3 fare...

Dave Beckerman said...

Craig, if you want to get rid of that nasty old M4-P and trade it in for a brand new R2A, complete with the fabulous winder (that I think gives uneven frame gaps) - let me know.

SteveR said...

>>I even have this Russian knockoff that Steve sent me <<

Excuse me! "Russian knockoff!?" Surely you jest - everyone knows that the Leica screw-mount design was just a FED-clone!

Ok, just kidding..., but keep in mind that the FED-2 I gave you cost me, in 2003, all of $36.00 *including* the Industar-26M f/2.8 50mm lens *and* shipping from Ukraine :-)

Some of my Commie Camera cronies swear that when they field-strip their Zorkis and FEDs and do a thorough CLA, some of them can be made much quieter. I can't confirm that from my own experience, though.

As for the VC R2A shutters, they are basically SLR designs, so the fact that they are much noisier than a Leica isn't surprising.

Those of you who held on to the Leicas that you bought in the 70s and 80s - despite my passion for my Glorious Commie Cameras - you did the right thing - I wish I had invested in some Leicas back then - a better investment that some of my 401K's!

SteveR said...

>>*including* the Industar-26M f/2.8 50mm lens <<...

Oh, I meant to say, "*including* the AMAZINGLY SHARP Industar-26M...."

- Comrade SteveR