Look into the sky and see what you see.

Today’s post isn’t about Maxfield Parrish.


I didn’t mean to mislead you.¬† The sky reminds me of his work. Now that I looked at some of it via Google Images, the entire picture reminds me of his paintings. I suppose that means I’m in good company.

There’s one thing to look at. The thing that caught my eye. The thing that forced me to make a radical crop so that you could see it.

The moon.

It’s lurking in a white puffy cloud that is about two-thirds of the way down on the left side of the photograph. That’s it. That’s why I made the picture.

But, the sky.

That’s a winter sky in Southeastern Louisiana. Soft. Looking like cotton. Or, cotton candy. For me, this is a great time of year. I get to wear long pants. I can wear heavier shirts and jackets. I bought some shirts when we returned from the desert. Some of them are on the heavy side. Do you have any idea how new they look after coming up to eight years? I get to wear them about five days a year. Luckily, they are “classic,” like me. They don’t go out of style very quickly.


As I assemble and edit my archive and get the pictures ready for easy licensing and sales, I’ve started thinking about style. For the most part, I process similar genres of pictures in the same way. You know, Mardi Gras Indians might be bright but I don’t do much experimenting with them. Meanwhile, with a picture like the one today, I might add a lot. I believe it helps you to feel what I felt when I made the picture.

Conventional wisdom suggest that there is not much variance between pictures in each collection. I agree. I think. That usually slows me down as I rework some pictures to have the same general feel in color, contrast, and weight.

Not to worry. Building this thing has become a hobby to me.

I have a question.

I’ve been poking around Smug Mug, where all of this will live. I’ve looked at other photographers work. Really what I want to learn is how they price pictures. For the most part, unless they are selling specialties like canvas, stretched canvas or some sort of metal or glass print, their prices seem a little low.


What’s a picture worth to you? I kind of have a problem pricing a picture by size, because I think the content is what you pay for. That is not the case in this world. Buyers pay for size. Let’s say you want a photograph printed on archival paper at about 16×20 inches — about, because digital file sizes are not the same as traditional file sizes — what would you pay for it?

It won’t be signed because¬† it comes straight from the photo lab to you. I suppose I could sign it, if you’d be willing to pay additional shipping from the lab to me and from me to you. That’s a side issue for right now.

I ask this because I would like this to have a reasonable return on investment. If I price pictures too high, they might not sell. If I price them to low, a smart collector understands that you get what you pay for. I’d like to hit the proper price point.

Help me out with this and there might be a picture in it for you.

There you go.