Print Pricing

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

The other thread was closed because some people felt that other people were being discourteous. And of course soon thereafter the thread was closed along with a threat of being banned.

I think that there is a big difference between being discourteous to an idea and being discourteous to a person. It is far different to call an idea "B.S." than it is to say to another person that "YOU" are full of "B.S.". (You hear it all of the time in congress. They will step up to the mike and say "My very dear friend, the congressman from wherever, has just advanced the most idiotic and stupid bill I have ever heard of.)

Regardless, I still think that the print size discussion has merit, and I return to my original point: the idea of selling larger prints for unproportionately higher prices than the added effort and cost to produce them seems counterproductive if people who wish to purchase prints would prefer larger prints.

That does not mean that I personally think people shouldn't sell their prints for whatever they want to sell them for. Rather, although I cannot prove it, I think people would sell more prints if they offered their prints at the same price for all sizes and let the customer determine what size they need for their particular application.

[Ken Lee]

I think that there is a big difference between being discourteous to an idea and being discourteous to a person. It is far different to call an idea "B.S." than it is to say to another person that "YOU" are full of "B.S.". (You hear it all of the time in congress. They will step up to the mike and say "My very dear friend, the congressman from wherever, has just advanced the most idiotic and stupid bill I have ever heard of.)

On this forum, please be courteous at all times and in all ways. Otherwise you will be banned.

Also, please remember that this forum is international.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I think its discourteous to threaten to ban people for their ideas, and especially when "courteous" is subjectively determined.

[tgtaylor]

People expect to pay more for a larger version of anything: Doesn't the local fast food restaurant charge more to "supersize" its artery clogging meals? Do you pay more for the SUV...?

Thomas

[Ken Lee]

I think its discourteous to threaten to ban people for their ideas, and especially when "courteous" is subjectively determined.

The moderators are unpaid volunteers with limited time to police the forum guidelines. We try to be as impartial and objective as possible, but nobody is perfect.

That being said, the vast majority of forum members are able to share their photos and ideas within the limitations imposed by those guidelines. For those who find them too confining, there are roughly 1 billion other web sites available to us - or we can start our own.

[Greg Lockrey]

Actually you pay more for so called "healthy" diets like sugar and gluten free.... ;)

[rdenney]

The discussion can continue. But the atmosphere of the other thread was turning poisonous and that actually undermines a discussion of the subject. A thread closing is a way is pushing the reset button. Then, the subject can be attempted again without the poison. The mods are just people and have their own subjective opinion of what is poisonous. But that is how this forum is managed.

My own darkroom, when I had one, was six feet square. I had a 4' sink and room for an 11x14 washer. To make a 16x20, I had to use a tube, which took much more time because I couldn't work in parallel. So, by any objective measure, 11x14 cost incrementally more than 8x10, but 16x20 was a quantum leap. Larger than that was not possible.

In my current setup, making a print larger than 16x20 would require adding on to the house, and buying a vastly more expensive scanner and printer, if I want to make the prints myself. And I can't imagine not wanting to make the prints myself.

So, even if print prices were solely driven by costs (which they are not), there are thresholds for each photographer where costs increase dramatically.

11x14 is still my preferred size. And what large format has to offer is still visible at that size. But I don't sell prints.

My wife likes bigger stuff. I'd have to sell larger prints to make any money, I expect.

The statement that photographers would sell more prints if their prices for large sizes were lower seems to me obvious. But when large sizes have a more limited production capacity, and if a photographer sells that capacity at that higher price, then it would be commercially foolish to sell for less. Many photographers raise their prices as they get deeper into a limited run to reflect the relative scarcity of those that remain.

Rick "who apparently missed a lot since yesterday" Denney

[Bill Burk]

Are you talking about inkjet prints? That changes everything.

In the darkroom, it is very difficult for me to make 16x20 prints. Not because it's hard work, but because I don't have the trays or paper. So if I were to offer that size, it would need to be for a sure sale and at a price that would cover trays and paper and drying racks. Not a great cost, $750 would just about do it, so I only half-joking and half-seriously said you couldn't pay me enough but if you offer that much, it's enough.

I also worry that history might repeat itself, I once sold a 20x24 blue-toned copy print for $60 but it took me over a year to build the tray, perform the work and deliver the print. I finally did. I'm sure my customer has since passed on, it was a long time ago and they were an elderly couple. At the time I was more than a little worried it would happen before I delivered the print. I'd hate to take the money and not deliver the print.

My 11x14 can be had for a very fair price, because it's really no trouble for me. All it takes for me to make one is the turn of a faucet. OK I have to figure out where to put that Cake Tray that's sitting in my sink right now. But literally, I am setup and ready at any time to make an 11x14 print.

Smaller prints are hard for me too, but for different reasons, inconvenience, shorter printing times, having to prop up the easel. And my fingers would have to be the size of a rat to do the dodging. So my small prints don't have the quality. I don't dodge and burn them and I don't worry about getting print exposures within 1/3 f/stop like I do when I make my standard prints at 11x14.

So there's my logic for pricing: Smaller prints might be offered for a smaller price to reflect the fact that they are not my best, artistically valuable work. Seek my 11x14 prints if you want consistent quality that reflects my best work. And my 16x20 would have to be commissioned. It would be high quality, and it would also be rare, but it would carry a substantially higher price than my standard series 11x14.

Now I know a lot of us here can make 16x20 Silver Gelatin prints in the darkroom by traditional enlarging methods. So Kevin, if you really want a print, I am sure you can find what you are looking for from almost anyone here, for a lower price than I can possibly offer.

If you want one of my 11x14's, like I said a few times, can be had for a fair price (and I really mean fair... including possibly print trade).

[Jim Andrada]

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but since I just finished a large show during which I sold a fair number of prints of various sizes, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on the subject. And by the way, I use a hybrid film/scan/inkjet process.

I offered approximately Whole Plate size prints matted to 11 x 14, as well as some of the same prints completely framed at varying sizes up to approximately 16 x 22 (print size) and a couple at around 36 by 48 inches.

I found that the cost for producing the larger prints on my own printer was significantly more than the cost of smaller prints. Not only was ink consumption and paper cost higher, the number of times I had to remake a print was higher. What I found was that the larger the print area, the greater the odds that there would be a tiny (< 1/8 inch) print head strike on the paper, or some other defect that would force me to scrap the print - in one case it took six attempts to get a 16 by 22 print that I would be willing to offer for sale. In this case I was printing on roll fed paper on my 4880 and as I got closer to the end of the roll the curvature of the paper was more pronounced and the tendency for a head strike was greater near the start of the print. I finally got it to work by running a couple of extra feet of paper at the beginning of the print so the vacuum could flatten the paper sufficiently.

For 17 x 22 sheet feed, there were a couple of cases where the sheet wouldn't feed perfectly straight and had to be reprinted. I also had one or two cases where the large prints were damaged in handling, once by me and once by my framer.

Then of course there were the really large prints that I had to send out for printing on canvas. One 36 by 48 print was damaged in handling and had to be reprinted.

As in other disciplines (like semiconductor fab) the larger the surface, the greater the likelihood of a defect somewhere along the line.

And beyond all the "mechanical" issues, There were a couple of times when I just felt that the larger print wasn't as aesthetically pleasing as I felt it should be and spent a lot of time making small adjustments until I was happy with the way it looked.

So yes, larger prints should cost more IMHO! Even if they're done by inkjet.

[Kodachrome25]

I don't know how much more needs to be said on this that was *politely* said in the other thread which was indeed nasty, I avoided it for that reason. I print up to 16x20 from 120 and 4x5 negs in vertically stacked trays in my closet darkroom, 20x24 using a Jobo 3063 in the kitchen. We are talking a space that most would have a hard time even doing 8x10's with trays side by side because there is no room, the tray stacker is a custom made affair that has all but one side enclosed for exhaust fans, the developer tray on top with its own vent under LED safelights that are on a rheostat.

11x14's are by far the easiest for me to print regardless of format due the print times being easy to deal with versus smaller prints and the spotting is usually less than a 16x20 or larger....the bigger the print, the more the spots and scratches show up.

I am not one to question why larger prints are more expensive but they do cost me more per print, take more time to get right and definitely more time to spot, increased mounting and matting costs so of course I charge more, after all, I need to make a living at this and don't need to be a doormat in the process...

[Bill Burk]

So yes, larger prints should cost more IMHO! Even if they're done by inkjet.

Thanks for illustrating that every discipline has its challenges...

[Greg Blank]

I am going to trepidly step back into this discussion, and add something else to consider- hopefully my words will be read carefully before I am jumped all over: Would you sell your prints at differing costs dependent on the camera system used? Say someone wanted a 16x20 image from 35mm and you have lots of those negatives? Clearly to a photographer the prints look different- hopefully perhaps better from a Large format negative. <Which is the prime reason I know that I shoot 4x5 and 8x10.

I do tend to agree with Kevin, yet I will say as others have said as an edition sells I charge more for popular prints or even more difficult ones to make that are unique enough not to discard.
I have small run editions so I feel justified charging an averaged price for all sizes between 8x10 and 16x20. A 24 x 30 is a lot more difficult in a Silver edition to make- so yes, that is where I would jump in price.

[Kirk Gittings]

As a reference point, as primarily a commercial photographer, I am well aware of what my time is actually worth and what my costs are, but my b&w print sales (both silver and ink) are not insignificant and a vital part of my income so I take their pricing seriously. Right now I average about 15k in sales a year starting at the bottom with an 8x10 inkjet in an open edition for $400 and a 16x20 at $800 or 16x20 silver at $1000. The difference in price between inkjet and silver is the perceived archival qualities of silver by some collectors-NOT because silver is any more difficult or costly to make. It simply is not IME. I have found that some people will pay more for silver so I charge accordingly. I am not discounting the inkjet but charging a premium for silver.

I figure that with these sales I am not even breaking even on my FA efforts if you look at it as a separate business and include my time. I would need to triple that to really make a profit of 15k. But it has other value-such as satisfying my true artistic interests AND all the FA shows are tremendous advertising for my talents which then generates commercial work. So they are really not separable-just different facets of a diverse career with some facets more financially successful than others.

Another way perhaps to look at larger prints for more money is to compare it to magazine usage and fees where a larger usage always carries higher fees-for example a quarter page pays way less than a full page like $75 compared to $250. My point is that this is common standard practice for all photography in many different ways of using photographs. I wouldn't consider, because of industry tradition, leasing an image to a publication for a flat fee and letting them use it however they want at any size they want.

[BradS]

In a free maket, pricing is simple...it boils down to supply and demand.
Period.
End of story.
Move along.

[C_Remington]

I think the people that justify their larger print sizes due to an incremental increase in time and materials are dishonest.

1. I can almost guarantee they don't know exactly how much more a 16x20 print costs compared to their 8x10. I don't even think they know what their 8x10 costs them or even how to account for those costs. They just go with the notion that it does and mark it up and say, "it costs me more to make."

2. And if you are telling me you are basing your prints on what it costs to make will you charge less if it ends up costing less than your 8x10 print? What if you spend a ton of time and money trying to print some 8x10 because you just happen to make a ton of mistakes, waste paper, spill your chemicals, etc. Then, you make a 16x20 perfect first time. Will you charge more for the 8x10 and less for the 16x20?? I doubt it.

I don't think you're being honest.

[Jim collum]

I've always held the cost of materials & time to be almost completely irrelevant in pricing work (just have to make sure that's my rock bottom price.. which is frankly, just a few dollars for pretty much any kind of print). The price is based on what the market dictates, in the market in which I sell prints. The price of a print also increased based on the number of prints left in that edition. Most of my platinum are in editions of 9, 7x7" & 12x12" for the square ones. 1st 3 of the editions are $900 & $1500. 2nd 3 are $1200 & $1800 . last 3 are $1500 & $2100.

[Jody_S]

I am perfectly willing to sell prints at a loss, if need be, so I don't buy the 'increased cost of production' argument either. I don't think fine art print sales are governed purely by the 'free market' and 'supply and demand', because for many photographers, the sale of the print is not motivated by market considerations. It can be motivated by anything from a desire for exposure or the photographer's ego (why I might be willing to sell at a loss). I have never expected to make money from this, certainly not from my lf photography, so I think it's a little mistaken (polite enough?) to talk of print sales, for most of us, in terms of market forces.

[Jim collum]

selling thru a gallery is interesting.. from what I've gathered, there are unspoken rules. You never lower your price. (giving a discount to a customer for quantity is ok). You never personally sell lower than your gallery. Selling in an art or craft fair is a big no-no. (unless it's something put on by all of the other galleries.. Photo LA, AIPAD). Typically, it's a 50% commission. (mounted, matted work). The gallery will typically offer the framing themselves.

I know a photographer who was selling so much, they were spending all of their time printing, mounting & matting. They cut their edition size in half, doubled their price, and are still selling quite well.. with editions frequently selling out. (one should have those problems.... :) )

[Kodachrome25]

Jody, just curious....what is the motivation then? Because as a full time pro with 23 years in the business ( started selling prints at a profit at age 19 on an aircraft carrier ) my ego has never felt uplifted at selling something at a loss, so I never have.

And C. Remington, like it or not, that is the way it works and always will, I already gave my example above about large prints needing a lot more spotting and how it does indeed take me more time to make a sale ready print.

I understand why photo enthusiasts think and do the things they do, why do they often not understand what professional photographers do and seem to fully enjoy criticizing them? There seems to always be an immense lack of respect if not ugliness towards those who are doing photography because they love it and also make a full time living at it on here, far more so than any other photo forum I have been on actually. And I never encounter this bitterness and ugliness with people in person, just the Internet.

It's the one thing that makes me not want to come back...

[richardman]

I am not sure why there are 3 or more threads on this. Supply and demand. If you don't want to charge more or pay more, then don't. If you want to charge more or pay more, then do.

Plenty people have given their reasons for how much they charge and how much they want to pay, what more are we discussing here? The morality of such decisions? The business benefits of the same? Been there, done that. Are we trying to dictate people's choices? If not, then... what are we talking about?

[Kodachrome25]

I am not sure why there are 3 or more threads on this. Supply and demand. If you don't want to charge more or pay more, then don't. If you want to charge more or pay more, then do.

Plenty people have given their reasons for how much they charge and how much they want to pay, what more are we discussing here? The morality of such decisions? The business benefits of the same? Been there, done that. Are we trying to dictate people's choices? If not, then... what are we talking about?

Agreed. I will now follow wife's advice and get off of here..

[rdenney]

I think the people that justify their larger print sizes due to an incremental increase in time and materials are dishonest.

1. I can almost guarantee they don't know exactly how much more a 16x20 print costs compared to their 8x10. I don't even think they know what their 8x10 costs them or even how to account for those costs. They just go with the notion that it does and mark it up and say, "it costs me more to make."

2. And if you are telling me you are basing your prints on what it costs to make will you charge less if it ends up costing less than your 8x10 print? What if you spend a ton of time and money trying to print some 8x10 because you just happen to make a ton of mistakes, waste paper, spill your chemicals, etc. Then, you make a 16x20 perfect first time. Will you charge more for the 8x10 and less for the 16x20?? I doubt it.

I don't think you're being honest.

Actually, I think that most are saying that they charge more because people pay more. That's a price issue. That alone is sufficient justification, even if you don't agree with it.

But the assertion that the differences in cost are merely incremental have also been disputed. In my own case, when I was doing silver prints, 16x20's required three times the time in the darkroom, irrespective of materials. Yes, a weakness of my darkroom. Now, that quantum jump is above 16x20, for those images where I can sustain my quality model at that size.

Rick "who knows what his billed rates is" Denney

[Vaughn]

selling thru a gallery is interesting.. from what I've gathered, there are unspoken rules. You never lower your price. (giving a discount to a customer for quantity is ok). You never personally sell lower than your gallery.

The only exception I (and others) have made to this "rule" is when I sell prints directly to paying participants of my workshops. Typically, I offer prints at about halfway between full gallery price and the 'wholesale' price.

The "rule' does have its drawbacks. Because I sell/have sold carbon prints through the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite for $1000 for an 8x10, I rarely show carbon prints through my own gallery (a cooperative gallery, actually) in my home town because almost no one can afford such a price (except, perhaps, an occasional grower coming out of the hills). So I tend to offer silver gelatin and/or platinum prints, and an occasional smaller, non-editioned, carbon print.

[rdenney]

I am perfectly willing to sell prints at a loss, if need be, so I don't buy the 'increased cost of production' argument either. I don't think fine art print sales are governed purely by the 'free market' and 'supply and demand', because for many photographers, the sale of the print is not motivated by market considerations. It can be motivated by anything from a desire for exposure or the photographer's ego (why I might be willing to sell at a loss). I have never expected to make money from this, certainly not from my lf photography, so I think it's a little mistaken (polite enough?) to talk of print sales, for most of us, in terms of market forces.

If I'm giving away gifts, then I charge nothing. But if I set it up as commerce, and can't make money, I won't do it. Selling at a loss undermines my value (and that of those who need the income to be positive). Giving things as a gift does not.

Rick "who plays music, too, for free or at market rates, not between" Denney

[Greg Blank]

It seems like a lot but not all photographers sort of lag behind making the kind of money they should, would or could like to make. When I see some art and what it does sell for I scratch my head, some prices for paintings, sculpture or whatever else I can sort go with. Some of its about personal taste. As an FYI I see frames for art sell for more than the print prices people are discussing here.

There are many books on photo pricing and how to negotiate fees or prices, it seems like photographers in general either have exaggerated self worth or lack of it. I wonder if those folks that sell prints from the multiple 100's of dollars range & up that post here would mind sharing wether they use a rep to achieve those prices or if they negotiate the print price themselves, not asking for rep names mind you only if you use one or not.

[Jim collum]

I sell through the Susan Spiritus Gallery. She does all the negotiation and selling (of which i'm really really bad at...)



It seems like a lot but not all photographers sort of lag behind making the kind of money they should, would or could like to make. When I see some art and what it does sell for I scratch my head, some prices for paintings, sculpture or whatever else I can sort go with. Some of its about personal taste. As an FYI I see frames for art sell for more than the print prices people are discussing here.

There are many books on photo pricing and how to negotiate fees or prices, it seems like photographers in general either have exaggerated self worth or lack of it. I wonder if those folks that sell prints from the multiple 100's of dollars range & up that post here would mind sharing wether they use a rep to achieve those prices or if they negotiate the print price themselves, not asking for rep names mind you only if you use one or not.

[Vaughn]

Worked with the curator of the gallery.

[BradS]

I am perfectly willing to sell prints at a loss, if need be, so I don't buy the 'increased cost of production' argument either. I don't think fine art print sales are governed purely by the 'free market' and 'supply and demand', because for many photographers, the sale of the print is not motivated by market considerations. It can be motivated by anything from a desire for exposure or the photographer's ego (why I might be willing to sell at a loss). I have never expected to make money from this, certainly not from my lf photography, so I think it's a little mistaken (polite enough?) to talk of print sales, for most of us, in terms of market forces.

It is still governed by supply and demand. In your example, the sale price includes non-monetary considerations (of value to the seller). There is often more to a sale price than purely money. Consider a pure barter arrangement, If one trades art for...oh, say sheep. No money changes hands but the sale "price" is still governed by supply and demand.


I have found that some people will pay more for silver so I charge accordingly. I am not discounting the inkjet but charging a premium for silver.

BINGO! There is more demand for the silver print than for the ink-jet and you apparently are willing and able to supply either one at the same level.


I figure that with these sales I am not even breaking even on my FA efforts if you look at it as a separate business and include my time. I would need to triple that to really make a profit of 15k. But it has other value-such as satisfying my true artistic interests AND all the FA shows are tremendous advertising for my talents which then generates commercial work.

Here is another example where the producer gets something more than just money...where the sales price includes a non-monetary component. The price is still governed by supply and demand.

[Kirk Gittings]

Oddly enough in the recession, where I was cutting prices for my commercial work to attract new clients, I raised the price on my prints significantly AND increased sales. I'm still not sure why that is. I don't think perceived value was increased by the higher price but it may be a factor. I know of many artist personally who have had the same experience-raising prices increases sales. I think also it coincided with a level of recognition and exposure that I have reached.

[Thad Gerheim]

Oddly enough in the recession, where I was cutting prices for my commercial work to attract new clients, I raised the price on my prints significantly AND increased sales. I'm still not sure why that is. I don't think perceived value was increased by the higher price but it may be a factor. I know of many artist personally who have had the same experience-raising prices increases sales. I think also it coincided with a level of recognition and exposure that I have reached.
+1
When I first started selling at art fairs there was a some people asking if my prices included the frames. When I said yes, they would look closely, figuring there must be flaws somewhere and eventually walk away. Every year I would raise my prices and sell more. I don't understand people being cheap and wanting to negotiate, I can't go to the grocery store or fine restaurant and negotiate on the price.

[BradS]

Oddly enough in the recession, where I was cutting prices for my commercial work to attract new clients, I raised the price on my prints significantly AND increased sales. I'm still not sure why that is. I don't think perceived value was increased by the higher price but it may be a factor. I know of many artist personally who have had the same experience-raising prices increases sales.

This is a very common phenomenon - not just for art but for many (all?) goods. It is only true upto a point however. If you raise prices too far without raising the "marketing hype" then sales decline, for example. Humans are not entirely rational beings.



I don't understand people being cheap and wanting to negotiate, I can't go to the grocery store or fine restaurant and negotiate on the price.

There maybe a cultural difference at work. There is also a consideration for venue. That is, if you sold prints in the supermarket, the very same people would not attempt to negotiate price but, in an art fair or outdoor market atmosphere they feel it is expected (in some cultures, it would be an insult to the artist if the buyer did not attempt to negotiate in such a venue).

[Jody_S]

Jody, just curious....what is the motivation then? Because as a full time pro with 23 years in the business ( started selling prints at a profit at age 19 on an aircraft carrier ) my ego has never felt uplifted at selling something at a loss, so I never have.

Please understand I am not criticizing the people here who sell prints, regardless of how they price them. I'm simply commenting that I don't think the prices we (the mostly non-professional photographers, or those who do not derive a substantial portion of their income from print sales) set for our prints is market-driven.


It seems like a lot but not all photographers sort of lag behind making the kind of money they should, would or could like to make. When I see some art and what it does sell for I scratch my head, some prices for paintings, sculpture or whatever else I can sort go with. Some of its about personal taste. As an FYI I see frames for art sell for more than the print prices people are discussing here.

There are many books on photo pricing and how to negotiate fees or prices, it seems like photographers in general either have exaggerated self worth or lack of it. (...)

For print pricing to be based on market forces, whatever those are, we would have to sell a substantial number of prints in a free market where we are basically negotiating the price of each print to somehow arrive at a maximum charge that the customer will pay. This might work at your grocery store selling quarts of milk or some other high-volume item, but for someone who sells 10 or 15 prints a year off a website that gets updated once every couple of years, prices are simply not market-driven. Many of us are just not interested in spending a substantial amount of our time and effort into building up a print sales business, and any sales we get are incidental. Or, we put our stuff up on some aggregator website and sell 8x10s for $15 or $20 so we can feel good about how many prints we sell or we think this will get us some exposure (again, please don't assume I'm criticizing anyone's personal habits, I'm commenting on the prices we get for prints).

If I sell a print, it's usually to someone I know, or someone I met while shooting or collecting (not very often). I don't particularly care if I get $20 or $200 for it. My photography is therapy, not a business. As such, any price I set depends more on how I will feel about the resulting transaction than it does about some theoretical maximizing income vs. expenses.

Unfortunately for the professional print-sellers, the glut on the market of prints from people like myself who don't care about pricing tends to drive down the overall prices people can realize for prints. At least for those prints that people intend to hang on a wall and look at.

[Kodachrome25]

Jody, not as a slam against your work but I highly doubt your print pricing is having even a trace of an effect at all on the very talented and established professional print sellers.

[Drew Wiley]

People buy what they like. It's a very different thing selling on a street fair to passer-bys than to alleged collectors in a reputable gallery, for example, which in turn is quite different from selling a vintage auction commodity by some well-known past name. Things like the recession obviously affected the elective spending of the middle class and well as the ability of many dealers to maintain their overhead. But there were still plenty of obscenely rich people getting richer the whole time. But overall, the market for photographic prints has always been quite small. Every welfare bozo on the block seems to be a able to spend fifty grand fixing up some catchy old car or motorcycle or speedboat. It more a cultural priority. But really, for the print collector crowd, the difference between two hundred and two thousand is negligible. ... until you encounter a billionaire, who will probably want it for two dollars.

[Jody_S]

Jody, not as a slam against your work but I highly doubt your print pricing is having even a trace of an effect at all on the very talented and established professional print sellers.

As I walk out of my local Costco, there's a big display at the door for printing and laminating. They're offering a selection of 20,000+ photos for free (high-quality!), if you purchase a 24x36 photo printing & lamination (these are not posters). You don't think this has some effect on the price you can get, or the volume of prints you sell? Since the Internet grew up, we are saturated with images, many of them beautiful and from extremely talented photographers, and no one has to pay for an image to put on their wall. They buy frames, and the frame happens to contain an image. In this environment, print sales may have as much to do with social networking as it does with appreciation of art and market forces.

[Kodachrome25]

As I walk out of my local Costco, there's a big display at the door for printing and laminating. They're offering a selection of 20,000+ photos for free (high-quality!), if you purchase a 24x36 photo printing & lamination (these are not posters). You don't think this has some effect on the price you can get, or the volume of prints you sell? Since the Internet grew up, we are saturated with images, many of them beautiful and from extremely talented photographers, and no one has to pay for an image to put on their wall. They buy frames, and the frame happens to contain an image. In this environment, print sales may have as much to do with social networking as it does with appreciation of art and market forces.

Jody....ummm...no, my typical clients ( Wealthy collectors, high end interior decorators and high end resorts ) don't even set foot in those places let alone consider art from them. At one time during the early stages of the recession, I thought the above might have an effect on places like where I live and work, but it turned out to be more like what Kirk wrote above.

You simply can not even begin to compare the "iStock-Flickr" junk print scene to the real art scene, not even in the same end of the solar system sir, I am surprised you would even consider it really. And regarding that grown up internet, I have not had a website for over 5 years, took down a lot of work from 08-09 due to a lot of reasons.

[Drew Wiley]

So Jody, are you worried about McDonalds putting Chez Panise out of business here, since they're only four blocks away, and will sell you a dinner for 1% of what
the other place costs. Hmmm.... you wait in line about three minutes for the burger, while the expensive place, you wait in line about a year, if you're lucky or famous enough to get on the list at all.

[vinny]

Several years ago before I had sold any prints, I had one listed on ebay for $50 plus $10 shipping. A friend of my dad's wanted the print but he questioned the high shipping price. Tire kickers, who needs 'em?
I sold my first print ($150 /8x10)by accident at work and several following that. Everyone (not those buying them) was telling me I should be charging much more. I've been charging a bit more for 8x10's since and double that for 16x20's. I have no problem selling the 16x20's for what I'm asking when presented in a gallery setting. Why would I want to charge 1/2 that?

[Darin Boville]

The simple math of things:

$300 prints divided by two (gallery commission) with another $20 in materials deducted plus $20 overhead divided into a projected pre-tax income (let's say $50,000) means you have to sell about 450 prints a year at that price, about 40 prints a month, more than one print each day, weekends included. Even cutting the target income in half to $25,000 doesn't change the basic point. Even doubling the retail price of the print doesn't change the basic lesson here. (And I was cheating big time on the materials and overhead costs--they are much higher.)

Some photographers may decide that the all this effort and thought might be better spent on making images, pushing themselves, forget about sales. They will face significant social and internal pressures without the legitimizing effect of sales but maybe a "zero sales, 100% create" approach would work for some people.

Another way to look at it: If you consider print sales as merely the way to supply resources to your art making you may find that doing something else, even part time, is a more efficient way to supply those resources. Less time making money, more time making art.

The bottom line for this discussion? For most people the price of the prints--$50, $300, whatever--doesn't matter at all in any substantive way. At least not in any meaningful financial sense.

--Darin

[Jim collum]

I know of only a handful of photographers who exhibit in high end galleries (in the range of Photography West in Carmel, Susan Spiritus in Newport..) who can live on just print sales. Most augment their work with teaching/workshops, commercial. Those who can, typically end up not living in places like San Francisco, etc)



The simple math of things:

$300 prints divided by two (gallery commission) with another $20 in materials deducted plus $20 overhead divided into a projected pre-tax income (let's say $50,000) means you have to sell about 450 prints a year at that price, about 40 prints a month, more than one print each day, weekends included. Even cutting the target income in half to $25,000 doesn't change the basic point. Even doubling the retail price of the print doesn't change the basic lesson here. (And I was cheating big time on the materials and overhead costs--they are much higher.)

Some photographers may decide that the all this effort and thought might be better spent on making images, pushing themselves, forget about sales. They will face significant social and internal pressures without the legitimizing effect of sales but maybe a "zero sales, 100% create" approach would work for some people.

Another way to look at it: If you consider print sales as merely the way to supply resources to your art making you may find that doing something else, even part time, is a more efficient way to supply those resources. Less time making money, more time making art.

The bottom line for this discussion? For most people the price of the prints--$50, $300, whatever--doesn't matter at all in any substantive way. At least not in any meaningful financial sense.

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed. Most of those who might seem to be eminently successful in this game do in fact make the majority of their livelihood in some other manner, whether teaching, commercial photography, consulting, or something completely unrelated. That "starving artist" lifestyle never appealed to me.

[Jody_S]

Jody....ummm...no, my typical clients ( Wealthy collectors, high end interior decorators and high end resorts ) don't even set foot in those places let alone consider art from them. At one time during the early stages of the recession, I thought the above might have an effect on places like where I live and work, but it turned out to be more like what Kirk wrote above.

You simply can not even begin to compare the "iStock-Flickr" junk print scene to the real art scene, not even in the same end of the solar system sir, I am surprised you would even consider it really. And regarding that grown up internet, I have not had a website for over 5 years, took down a lot of work from 08-09 due to a lot of reasons.

The low end of the print sales business has been very much affected by the availability of (frequently stolen) images off the 'net; just like McDonalds and Burger King put most mom & pop roadside diners out of business. Unfortunately, I am personally very much at the lower end of print sales, and I suspect most of us are in the same situation. In fact, that Costco 'free photos' thing probably has quite a few of my images, for which I'm most certainly not getting any royalties (my best images from about '95-00 were stolen by a local lab running a stock photo agency out the back end).

The high end print sales business has changed also, but I don't move in those circles any more so I can't comment on the changes in those markets. From personal experience, I have worked for quite a few multimillionaires; only one of them had photographs on the wall and that was only because his daughter is a photographer. They were collecting antiques, vases, figurines, watches, horses, pedigree bulls, antique British cars & silver, and other tangible objects that were more certain to appreciate with time. The art business, certainly where it comes to photography, was too risky for them. Plus, outside of certain 'old money' circles, most business-type 'nouveau-riche' multimillionaires are not readily conversant in photography; besides a few names like St-Ansel, they can't name-drop and brag to their friends about the famous photographers they have hanging on their walls. BTW, McDonalds and the 'family' chain restaurants did put a dent in higher-end restaurants also, because dining at one of these is now almost purely a social event or done for bragging rights; very few people, average rich people included, dine at a 4- or 5-star restaurant simply because they're hungry and want some lunch. Although you'll never catch one admitting he had lunch at Trader Joe's.

As for high-end decorators, now we're talking. Most of the ones I know work with kickbacks based on a percentage of what they buy, not to mention they're paid with another cut off what they buy; it's a lot easier to get kickbacks from a local photographer/gallery than from an auction house selling off estate pieces (no I'm not accusing anyone here of paying out kickbacks to decorators to buy their prints; I'm speaking of personal experience with decorators doing the homes of multimillionaires and some higher end clothing stores where I happened to be in contact with them). In this instance, there is absolutely no incentive for the decorator to try and knock down your price, unless it is to give them a portion in cash; even then, they're just as likely to insist you raise your price because it looks better on their proposal and they personally stand to profit. So this is still a far cry from market forces pricing artwork (or maybe that's how most 'free markets' work now).

[sanking]

Indeed. Most of those who might seem to be eminently successful in this game do in fact make the majority of their livelihood in some other manner, whether teaching, commercial photography, consulting, or something completely unrelated. That "starving artist" lifestyle never appealed to me.

That is my experience also. Perhaps we are just not fortunate enough to have become acquainted with the lucky few that make a good living from their print sales!

In any event, in my own work it definitely takes a lot more effort, time and use of materials to make a really nice 16X20" or 20X24 " or larger print that an 8X10". I am somewhat perplexed that anyone would argue the contrary.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

As per 4 or 5 star restaurants.......my wife is a professional chef with an emeritus certification from the American Culinary Federation for years of service to the industry.

Lots of people go to 5 star restaurants because they simply love food and are willing to pay a premium for it. We are certainly not rich and neither are any of our close friends yet we have on occasion dropped over $1000 for 4 at restaurants like Charlie Trotters or the French laundry. These are some of the most memorable culinary experiences of my life (which also include some meals my wife has prepared at home and dishes I grew up with and cherished that my mom made). They were not memorable because of the cost. They were memorable because of the creativity and craft of the chef, the service and the atmosphere and the company-worth every penny.

[Michael Kadillak]

As per 4 or 5 star restaurants.......my wife is a professional chef with an emeritus certification from the American Culinary Federation for years of service to the industry.

Lots of people go to 5 star restaurants because they simply love food and are willing to pay a premium for it. We are certainly not rich and neither are any of our close friends yet we have on occasion dropped over $1000 for 4 at restaurants like Charlie Trotters or the French laundry. These are some of the most memorable culinary experiences of my life (which also include some meals my wife has prepared at home and dishes I grew up with and cherished that my mom made). They were not memorable because of the cost. They were memorable because of the creativity and craft of the chef, the service and the atmosphere and the company-worth every penny.

If I were you I would ask my wife to get out of the box in the kitchen, augment the event with a $50 bottle of wine and put the $1,000 in your retirement account. In this day and age entering our golden years with necessary financial horsepower you will need is not an option. It is a requirement.

[Kodachrome25]

As per 4 or 5 star restaurants.......my wife is a professional chef with an emeritus certification from the American Culinary Federation for years of service to the industry.

Lots of people go to 5 star restaurants because they simply love food and are willing to pay a premium for it. We are certainly not rich and neither are any of our close friends yet we have on occasion dropped over $1000 for 4 at restaurants like Charlie Trotters or the French laundry. These are some of the most memorable culinary experiences of my life (which also include some meals my wife has prepared at home and dishes I grew up with and cherished that my mom made). They were not memorable because of the cost. They were memorable because of the creativity and craft of the chef, the service and the atmosphere and the company-worth every penny.

A BIG amen to that, I had no idea of what food could be like until I moved to where I live now, 55 restaurants in a town of 6,500 people. But when I did three ad campaigns for Patrick Oconnell's Inn at Little Washington and dined on 7 course meals he did "specifically" for the crew...that was simply beyond food....I still remember exactly where I was seated. My wife and I are devout food & winers, there are times we really should have taken notes on some of our own concoctions but did not.

I don't think either of us are trying to add to any possible perceived snobbery by being enthusiastic about the world or arts and cuisine, but it is a fun and memorable exploration of all the senses when one is in treat mode...

[Drew Wiley]

Around here both high-end gourmet and relatively affordable yet very creative restaurants outnumber the fast food ones about ten to one, though we do have a
representation of all those too. You can lose a lot of money on a gourmet restaurant, or make a lot of money. It has less to do with the food than with your ability
to realistically manage a business, and what kind of distinct niche you carve out. But obviously, the food and service have gotta be good. Same with art, except running a gallery is much riskier as a business model than even a restaurant, and for that reason is often a rich person's hobby or tax writeoff, much like botique wineries. You've got your slikered-up tourist galleries too, with the short-skirt high-heeled salesladies, just like in the timeshare scams, etc, predictably adjacent to overpriced not-so-special Fisherman's Wharf restaurants, etc. Different marketing models. Even if you just sell out of your own living room you still need some kind of strategy, and whether you're just trying to bring in a little income to help your hobby along, are are attempting to not only recover overhead, but turn a bit of profit. Making a living at it takes a lot of courage - more than I've got. I just can't afford to sell prints cheap, though I've been known to discount them for people
who really really wanted a particular image but weren't technically able to afford that kind of thing. But just add up all your paper and supplies over a year, and it
can be a significant factor, not to mention your own labor, if you value that. Then amortize the value of your equipment investment and travel expenses. And that's just overhead. You still aren't actually making money.

[C_Remington]

Actually, I think that most are saying that they charge more because people pay more. That's a price issue. That alone is sufficient justification, even if you don't agree with it.

But the assertion that the differences in cost are merely incremental have also been disputed. In my own case, when I was doing silver prints, 16x20's required three times the time in the darkroom, irrespective of materials. Yes, a weakness of my darkroom. Now, that quantum jump is above 16x20, for those images where I can sustain my quality model at that size.

Rick "who knows what his billed rates is" Denney

So, there are two main financial concepts that have inter weaved in the posts of this thread and its recently closed predecessor: Costing and Pricing.

Having been with my current company for almost fifteen years, I have spent the first ten years in finance and the last five in sales & marketing. I can tell you that Costing is very close to a science. There are various approaches and different philosophies but, in general, it's a well defined, repeatable, standard set of methodologies.

Pricing on the other hand is an Art (no pun intended). All of our service-based solutions are custom and we consume many resources trying to present the right price.

Of course, when your net margins are in the 3-6% range, understanding your costs is critical.

In photography, where your margins are likely to be huge, I guess it's not as critical to be that precise.


FWIW, I can print up to 20x24 in my darkroom. I can contact print most LF sizes up to 8x10. I can enlarge from 35mm to 8x10 negatives.

Honestly, sometimes I can spend more time/materials printing an 8x10 than I do a much larger print. It all depends on the negative and how determined I am to realize my "vision."

With regards to setting up your dark room: Measure twice, cut once.

Anyone that builds a darkroom that limits their output is short sighted. Agreed?

[rdenney]

Yes, many don't get the difference between price and cost.

But I get Jody's point than few of us really know the market well enough to price appropriately. Art is a luxury good in one sense, and a higher price might actually improve sales because part of how people perceive value is the price.

The presumption for most things, though, is that the higher the price, the smaller the market. For those with limited production, the trick is finding those willing to pay the highest price for those, not the marginal price that would be paid for the next print. That's why artists court better galleries, etc. That's where those willing to pay the most hang out.

There--that's two different models of price vs. supply. It would be damned hard to know which is the correct model, or how to describe the curve in each.

I suspect most look for the flinch point--that price where people flinch but still buy. The key to higher prices with that approach is finding customers with a higher flinch point. And that brings us back to courting good galleries, etc.

By the way, my darkroom was limited by the house I could afford, not the size print I thought I could sell. It is a hobby. I already have a job.

Rick "rejecting print sales as a productive income supplement strategy" Denney

[C_Remington]

Great thread.

I like the term "flinch point"

The other complication in pricing art is you have at least two types of buyers: Speculators and Afficianados.

[Bill Burk]

"zero sales, 100% create"

That's the secret that works for me!

[hoffner]

I think its discourteous to threaten to ban people for their ideas, and especially when "courteous" is subjectively determined.

That's a good and correct point you made there.

[Sal Santamaura]

I think its discourteous to threaten to ban people for their ideas, and especially when "courteous" is subjectively determined.


That's a good and correct point you made there.Both of these posts misinterpret the moderators' statements about behavior. Courtesy refers to behavior, not ideas.


...Humans are not entirely rational beings...No, they're not. The qualifier "entirely" is, in my opinion, too limiting. If humans made only rational decisions, their need for (basic) food, water and shelter would be the only drivers. And they wouldn't buy photographic prints at any price.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I hesitate to offer this quote from Fred Picker, (may he rest in peace) because I certainly don't want to turn the discussion to one of the merits of what he believed. I just think its an interesting statement.

"Effective sizing of prints is an aspect of creative photography that has had less attention than it deserves. There is a significant difference in the emotional response generated from different size prints made from the same negative. It is dangerous to generalize, but a few thoughts might be considered.
Big landscapes may work well in 11 x 14 or larger prints. However, if the subjects in the landscape are delicate and well defined . . . a small print about 5 x 7 will often add to the effect. Portrait heads larger than 8 x 10 are often distracting (I disagree) while contact prints from 4 x 5 portrait negatives often embody great power and beauty. (I think great power and beauty come from the subject matter itself, not the size of the print). My preference for prints of moderate size is also influenced by physical considerations as well. For example, unless a print is exhibited at a distance, viewers will approach and view a print from reading distance, and if the print is large, the eye must wander over it and the print will be seen as a group of parts rather than as a unified whole.
Edward Weston's 8x10 negatives we all contact printed so all are roughly 7 1/2 x 9 1/2 when trimmed. Whether the subject was a translucent shell printed larger than life size or the Oceano Dunes, Weston's single print size admireably suited. There is a mysterious rightness in photographs visualized print-size on the ground glass. (spoken in terms of the photorapher, not the print purchaser).
A different approach is employed by Paul Strand. I understand that Strand often makes a group of prints of graduated size from a negative before deciding on the dimensions of the final exhibition print. When I viewed his retrospective exhibit in 1970 of over 500 prints, it was impossible for me to discern any patter of sizing. Landscape, heads, full figures, and small forms in nature ranged in size from 5 x 6 contact prints to almost 11 x 14. Only a half dozen landscapes were printed large, but none of these measured as much as 16 x 20. In all cases the prints seemed beautifully proportioned. Although Strand's flexible approach to the dilemma is contrary to Weston's (whose print sizes were didicated by his equipment) both men produced exquisite work." (but were commercial flops during their lifetime)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

[QUOTE=Sal Santamaura;1089668]Both of these posts misinterpret the moderators' statements about behavior. Courtesy refers to behavior, not ideas.

The ""behavior" was the posting of the threat, but as has been said, let's not go there.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem here is that Jody is not necessarily trying to price his work according to what many of us would classify as the "fine art" genre. But still he can employ
certain analogous strategies to differentiate himself from the mass-produced kind of thing people can simply order inexpensively from Natl Geo or Ikea, or Costco, etc. Factoring actual cost as a baseline is important in such instances. But then one needs to find a niche which says, "I made these myself, these represent me and not just some abstract commercial entity". You start with acquaintances and neighbors, then wiggle your way upwards from there. Your own prints identify you as a
specific real person with a personal way of looking at your world, photographically. What that entails in terms of composition and technique can evolve and mature
as you proceed, but it has to begin somewhere.

[Bernice Loui]

Spoke to a friend yesterday who is closing his studio and breaking the lease.. He works as a portrait, family, and related photographer. What drove his demise is the public perception that image making is easy and smart phone images are fine.

There is a generation that relates greatly to digital images that can be shared, transmitted and altered at a whim. Due to the ease of this, it has caused a great separation between great expressive images and the millions upon millions of images produced daily using digital.. This was not true years ago before the age of smart phones, digital cameras and one hour film photo labs.

Many times it is not the artist that get the full economic benefits of their work, it is more often than not the collectors and speculators that use works of art for their economic benefit. This environment has made it difficult for many image makers to survive.. for some, survival means doing all they can to find a niche that can support their work in a world that is driven by instant gratification.

This entire discussion saddens me as it is an indicator of what and where the current state of photographic image making lies.. This is also an indicator of how culture and society values art as a whole..


Bernice

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"picture making" is now as easy as you want it to be.

I think "picture making" is setting up something, such as a portrait, the way you want it, and then making the image. There might be some art in that.

But representation making is another story. The art (the creation of it) is already there. It can be seen differently by as many people as have eyes to see it.
Maybe there might be a little "art" in looking at it from the left as opposed to the right. But basically unless you are doing things strictly for your own satisfacition (not a bad thing) its really a matter of finding someone else who likes it the way you saw it and presented it, be it a painting or a photograph or a story or whatever.

[Drew Wiley]

Some modern mythology here. It is wonderful how people can take and post pictures, and even print them, with so much ease nowadays. But making really fine prints is just as involved an endeavor as ever, and frankly, every really good digital printer I happen to personally know probably puts at least as much time and effort, and maybe even expense, into it as they did back in their darkroom days. Quality doesn't arrive out of a vacuum. Never did. The shame is that so many people have no idea of what print quality is anymore, even at an institutional or academic level, it seems. The internet has become the very low common denominator of visual communication. But that doesn't in any manner mitigate the actual potential of photography, and it does seem that there will be a resurgence of visually stimulating tactile output. Tons of this will simply be artsy/craftsy, but over time there are always standouts, just as there will be when the dust finally settles around all this adolescent digital imagery. I don't worry about any of it. I just do what I personally find gratifying, and if someone chooses to purchase a bit of it, I can always use the financial boost. Once in awhile I do pretty good in that respect, and then the inevitable droughts appear. But I don't do my work for market purposes to begin with, but for myself. I know how to do certain kinds of commercial photography too, and understand the strategic distinction (an important one), and how not to confuse the two. Different cerebral pigeonholes (though maybe I'm getting a few wormholes too over time). So I'd
argue to Kevin that "picture making" is still a LOT of work. Real home cookin takes love and effort. If you just want a greasy burger and some fries, that's a different story.

[Kodachrome25]

Spoke to a friend yesterday who is closing his studio and breaking the lease.. He works as a portrait, family, and related photographer. What drove his demise is the public perception that image making is easy and smart phone images are fine.

There is a generation that relates greatly to digital images that can be shared, transmitted and altered at a whim. Due to the ease of this, it has caused a great separation between great expressive images and the millions upon millions of images produced daily using digital.. This was not true years ago before the age of smart phones, digital cameras and one hour film photo labs.

Many times it is not the artist that get the full economic benefits of their work, it is more often than not the collectors and speculators that use works of art for their economic benefit. This environment has made it difficult for many image makers to survive.. for some, survival means doing all they can to find a niche that can support their work in a world that is driven by instant gratification.

This entire discussion saddens me as it is an indicator of what and where the current state of photographic image making lies.. This is also an indicator of how culture and society values art as a whole..

Don't be sad, there are some really successful portrait and fine art photographers out there. I bet there are more nuances as to why your friend had to close shop that are not being touched upon. And how good was their work compared to the best out there, what market are they in, where did they operate their business geographically speaking?

In some ways, it is no different than it has ever been, some are going to hit it out of the park, some are going to strike out. Your friend's case does not the entire market make...there will always be stars in the arts who do well, that is what I focus my energy on and don't really pay much attention to anything else....

I have no choice, I have to make fine art work, failure is simply not an option, it's totally unacceptable.

[Greg Blank]

I think you are correctly stating this, Like any other business you have to pay attention. In weddings and portraiture you can make the most money. But you have to be a people person, you have to be able to offer two things quick service and something artistic that is unique. I really tire quickly of the latest greatest stuff shown in magzines because it does not last and to do something unique requires thought not copying other peoples style. I think I could probably make millions of dollars doing weddings, "IF" I did not care about the reasons I went in to photo -Fine Art- and publications. I 've always wanted to travel and do travel photography. A fellow photgrapher who's work I like stated to me do the portraiture not everyone can do that well and I do per his asessment, but you know just following dollars is not where my heart is at- I would rather weld :)


Don't be sad, there are some really successful portrait and fine art photographers out there. I bet there are more nuances as to why your friend had to close shop that are not being touched upon....snip other good stuff