Monetising Astrophotography Shots

[wildman]

Hello,

 

Does anybody have any experience of making money out of the astrophotography shots that you have taken? If so, do you have any suggestions on creating an image gallery so that customers can order prints etc.?

 

Many thanks.

[tomato]

Sorry I can’t help with that, but I have loads of experience of spending money to  take Astrophotography shots.☺️

[ollypenrice]

I've collaborated with my friend Tom O'Donoghue and sold astro prints we've imaged together, though Tom did all the marketing and website construction. I won't link to his website out of respect for the forum rules, or the spirit of those rules. The image in which I collaborated had 400 hours of capture and probably a month's full time work in processing. It was also runner up in the APOTY competition.

I have, though, made a satisfactory living out of astrophotography, but not by selling my images. My images have been the 'advertisements' which publicized my astronomy guest house and imaging workshops and I've also generated income by being asked by magazines to write feature articles on aspects of AP.

One thing's for sure: I would not try to sell any image which did not contain something new, something not seen in any existing images. Over the last fifteen years that might leave me with about five images which meet this requirement, so not many!

Sometimes I get nice messages from folks who ask if they might buy an image from me and, if the images are only mine (I do a lot of collaborations) I usually just give them away.

Olly

[TiffsAndAstro]

Thing is I think any image you take you can (by default, is?) copyright, so in theory no one else can use it.

My camera even offers a field for copyright info, which I like to imagine is a stenographically imprinted watermark, but is probably plain text meta data ;(

 

Edited April 12 by TiffsAndAstro

[TiffsAndAstro]

Is there a commercial market for astro pics? Maybe some monetisation of social media?

[Steve Ward]

Easiest way is to post them on Facebook/Instagram , preferably in various groups with NASA , SPACE or SCIENCE in the title , and let all the flat earth , NASA-hating ignoramuses loose in the comments sections ... 😄

If you also intentionally add a 'mistake' in the description the likes and comments will flood in making you millions ... 

[John_D]

If you do intend selling images then check carefully the licencing terms of any software you use. For example, Autostakkert is only free for non-commercial use.

[TiffsAndAstro]

15 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

Easiest way is to post them on Facebook/Instagram , preferably in various groups with NASA , SPACE or SCIENCE in the title , and let all the flat earth , NASA-hating ignoramuses loose in the comments sections ... 😄

If you also intentionally add a 'mistake' in the description the likes and comments will flood in making you millions ... 

The idea of monetising grammar Nazis makes me 😂

Yes I did have to Google grammar/grammer as I suffer from unintendedironyosis 

Edited April 12 by TiffsAndAstro

[Oortraged]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I've collaborated with my friend Tom O'Donoghue and sold astro prints we've imaged together, though Tom did all the marketing and website construction. I won't link to his website out of respect for the forum rules, or the spirit of those rules. The image in which I collaborated had 400 hours of capture and probably a month's full time work in processing. It was also runner up in the APOTY competition.

I have, though, made a satisfactory living out of astrophotography, but not by selling my images. My images have been the 'advertisements' which publicized my astronomy guest house and imaging workshops and I've also generated income by being asked by magazines to write feature articles on aspects of AP.

One thing's for sure: I would not try to sell any image which did not contain something new, something not seen in any existing images. Over the last fifteen years that might leave me with about five images which meet this requirement, so not many!

Sometimes I get nice messages from folks who ask if they might buy an image from me and, if the images are only mine (I do a lot of collaborations) I usually just give them away.

Olly

Olly, I hope you don't mind me asking a question (and without intending to derail the thread from it's original question) - when you say 'a months full time work in processing'. What does that look like? Is it just the sheer amount of data that generates such timescales when you have 400 hours to integrate? Or is it more down to becoming an astronomical Michelangelo, taking slivers of data from a digital David in pursuit of perfection?

[ollypenrice]

10 hours ago, Oortraged said:

Olly, I hope you don't mind me asking a question (and without intending to derail the thread from it's original question) - when you say 'a months full time work in processing'. What does that look like? Is it just the sheer amount of data that generates such timescales when you have 400 hours to integrate? Or is it more down to becoming an astronomical Michelangelo, taking slivers of data from a digital David in pursuit of perfection?

With a large mosaic there are new problems to be overcome besides those which present themselves with a single frame image. The big ones are field geometry and field illumination. At the time we made the big Orion mosaic we were stitching in Registar and this does not generate a global template or 'cartographic projection' of the full field geometry. If you just stitch images together from one near the middle, for instance, the distortions will be crazy by the edge of the field. We had to experiment with ways of addressing this. Modern software can help with this, up to a point. We still find enormous mosaics defeat it.

Software is also pretty good at seamlessly stitching two panels but, on larger scales, the brightness begins to vary so the background sky will be brighter or darker in different locations. I have worked round this by laboriously creating 'patch' sections to cover irregularities and blending them in by hand and eye. I've also worked in strips, making a strip of images across the top, then adding the neighbouring strip below that, adjusting it by hand along the way and so on down.

Star removal software makes mosaics much easier but can introduce problems of its own, notably a visible tile pattern across the image. This needs a cosmetic fix if the imager can come up with one...

Astronomy Now published an article in which I ran through my approach to the processing of Yves Van den Broek's Galactic Equator Mega-Mosaic. This project was easier than Orion and took about a working week. https://www.astrobin.com/full/g82xf7/B/

How long people spend on post-processing a single image, I don't know. In my case it will be about four hours then, after walking away from it, a couple more on tiny details or mild adjustments.

Olly

Edited April 13 by ollypenrice
typo

[Oortraged]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

With a large mosaic there are new problems to be overcome besides those which present themselves with a single frame image. The big ones are field geometry and field illumination. At the time we made the big Orion mosaic we were stitching in Registar and this does not generate a global template or 'cartographic projection' of the full field geometry. If you just stitch images together from one near the middle, for instance, the distortions will be crazy by the edge of the field. We had to experiment with ways of addressing this. Modern software can help with this, up to a point. We still find enormous mosaics defeat it.

Software is also pretty good at seamlessly stitching two panels but, on larger scales, the brightness begins to vary so the background sky will be brighter or darker in different locations. I have worked round this by laboriously creating 'patch' sections to cover irregularities and blending them in by hand and eye. I've also worked in strips, making a strip of images across the top, then adding the neighbouring strip below that, adjusting it by hand along the way and so on down.

Star removal software makes mosaics much easier but can introduce problems of its own, notably a visible tile pattern across the image. This needs a cosmetic fix if the imager can come up with one...

Astronomy Now published an article in which I ran through my approach to the processing of Yves Van den Broek's Galactic Equator Mega-Mosaic. This project was easier than Orion and took about a working week. https://www.astrobin.com/full/g82xf7/B/

How long people spend on post-processing a single image, I don't know. In my case it will be about four hours then, after walking away from it, a couple more on tiny details or mild adjustments.

Olly

Thanks for such an in depth explanation Olly, really fascinating to understand a bit more of what goes into producing images of your standard. 

Just had a proper look at your linked mosaic - stunning. A week well spent in post!!!

Edited April 13 by Oortraged

[Louis D]

Take a look at what images get selected for APOD to get some idea of what makes an interesting image.  It's not always just technical virtuosity.  Sometimes it involves planning to combine elements into an interesting composition.  Being a professional photographer of any subject is a tough profession to make a living out of.

[gorann]

This is hobby for me and I never thought about making money out of it, just loosing money. Some seems to try to do it by selling images on the net. I wonder if they have any success. Why bother to pay for something that you can download for free (just pick any of the superb images posted on Astrobin) and print yourself to put on the wall. So, if you think there is any money to be made of this hobby, just forget about it.

[tomato]

The better business model could be hosting remote imaging sites or selling quality datasets to processing enthusiasts. However, there must be big start up and on going running costs but a number of these ventures have appeared in recent years.

Or invent a cloud gun that really works, you’ll make a fortune.

[Whistlin Bob]

As the joke goes: it's easy to make a small fortune from astrophotography, just start with a large one.

More seriously, my local club converted to a micro charity to help us fund an observatory and support our outreach work. We sell prints at local events, and it does yield a little profit. It's a good way of promoting our group and acts as a conversation starter with interested folks. I suspect the hourly rate is rather unimpressive!

[Elp]

Most of us do it for the joy of discovery and that "we" did it. I think the amount of hours and efforts you'd have to put into it taking the photos (I assume you'd be taking the photos and not using other peoples work) to commercialise it you may as well just work a day job.

A select few do AP full time on YT, but they've likely been doing it for years prior as a hobby and most of their revenue does not come from selling prints.

[wildman]

Hi, thanks for the reply and interesting discussion. Some of which has sent me down the rabbit hole 🐰🕳️

[wildman]

On 12/04/2024 at 20:21, ollypenrice said:

I've collaborated with my friend Tom O'Donoghue and sold astro prints we've imaged together, though Tom did all the marketing and website construction. I won't link to his website out of respect for the forum rules, or the spirit of those rules. The image in which I collaborated had 400 hours of capture and probably a month's full time work in processing. It was also runner up in the APOTY competition.

I have, though, made a satisfactory living out of astrophotography, but not by selling my images. My images have been the 'advertisements' which publicized my astronomy guest house and imaging workshops and I've also generated income by being asked by magazines to write feature articles on aspects of AP.

One thing's for sure: I would not try to sell any image which did not contain something new, something not seen in any existing images. Over the last fifteen years that might leave me with about five images which meet this requirement, so not many!

Sometimes I get nice messages from folks who ask if they might buy an image from me and, if the images are only mine (I do a lot of collaborations) I usually just give them away.

Olly

Hello, any idea whether somebody like Tom would put the prints in the post himself or is it something that is outsourced?

Cheers.

[Elp]

You'd have to run the numbers, do it yourself or get a company to do it for you. At least with the former you can QA check each product yourself.

[900SL]

I did a start up business course many years back. The golden rule was to find a gap in the market, and not enter a crowded one.

With AP, the internet is chock a block with stunning high resolution images, and they are free. 

[ollypenrice]

10 hours ago, wildman said:

Hello, any idea whether somebody like Tom would put the prints in the post himself or is it something that is outsourced?

Cheers.

Tom did the postage and packing.

Regarding printing, even when you follow the correct colour protocols you'll want to see a test print or two first before committing to a big one. I now do my own prints, up to super-A3, and find results unpredictable, so I'll do several 10x15 tests first, adjusting the image accordingly. Usually this has to do with the brightnesses at the bright end but blue saturation can often be sky high for some reason, even with a calibrated monitor.  Tom went to the printer in person to run through this procedure. A 1.0 x 1.8 metre print costs several hundred euurs so you don't want to lose one!

Olly

[JOC]

The only thing I think you might make a little cash out of is possibly selling merchandise with images on, like mugs, calendars etc.  For example, I used to regularly buy a calendar for my son with lovely false colour images of the night on, which I used to assume had been taken by some flashy deep sky satellite.  It was only many years later that I discovered SGL and found out these highly impressive images were probably taken from 'little old planet earth' with kit that some folks had in their 'back yards'.  However, I did buy images of the night sky, but not the images themselves it was more what they were printed onto as they were cool things for an interested kid to have in his room.  I even used to cut the old images up off the calendars and stick around his walls.  I hope this helps.