Quote Originally Posted by gbenaim View Post

I want the lights on, just don't see why photographers should bear an unproportionate share of the burden. Aren't there other sources of income, other than up and coming artists? Isn't there something ultimately counterproductive and, honestly, opportunistic in requiring people to pay their way into exhibits, or rather, into being considered even for an exhibit? I think so.

PS: I've linked this discussion to a related post on my blog, to see if we can get more people interested and involved.

This is why good research is helpful. Here in Boston, the PRC does a juried show each year. You can submit ten images for $25. I looked at the Spider Awards once, and to submit five images cost closer to $90. Guess where I entered?

There are venues that aren't charging an arm and a leg, and there are some that are charging much more than what it might cost them in administration. PhotoLucida, for example, has an online review process, but it actually works out to be about a $1.25 per review if you jury past the first screening. And that is with a submission of 10 pictures. The reviewers choose one or two photographs, and they publish a monograph. Everyone who participates gets a book. Not a bad deal, in my opinion. Their in person reviews every other year are expensive, but it's for four days of reviews, and a portfolio walk. So, there's a lot there... per dollar.

There do seem to be a lot of these things cropping up, juried shows, portfolio reviews, etc., etc., and some feel like they are praying on young, desperate photographers who want to get their work out, but I think it's up to you to research and work out which venues, portfolio reviews, etc. work with your budget.

Most venues can't operate for free. Neither can most photographers, so you have to find a way to have some income... whether from your photography or not to have the funds to market the work.