Just curious but what the most you have ever sold a B&W Landscape print for?

[The Joker]

Topic title says it all really but it would also be useful to know what the actual image size was and the method of presentation such as framed with glass or mounted to dibond etc.
I'm curious becasue I've just seen a 100cm X 100cm print sold for $2750 which I thought was quite high but maybe I'm wrong since I never tried to sell images that big.

[Barry Trabitz]

Topic title says it all really but it would also be useful to know what the actual image size was and the method of presentation such as framed with glass or mounted to dibond etc.
I'm curious becasue I've just seen a 100cm X 100cm print sold for $2750 which I thought was quite high but maybe I'm wrong since I never tried to sell images that big.

$250, 16x20 matted and framed 20x24

[Jac@stafford.net]

Over $8,000 for one image, ~32X40". Printing done by client who is a billionaire.

Funny, perhaps: you should ask for the least sale. Mine, a cover and inside photo for syndicated Parade Magazine. Considering its distribution, I made squat for it. There's a story there because Joe Rosenthal (http://spartacus-educational.com/USAProsenthal2.JPG)was the picture editor at the time. (LF on-topic!) :) Inside page image. (http://www.digoliardi.net/surgeons.jpg)

OTOH, I have gifted lots of prints, the latest to a gallery owner in Oxford England for his sister who visited this site (http://www.digoliardi.net/alma_good_1.jpg) near my home.

[The Joker]

Over $8,000 for one image. Printing done by client. About 40" on the horizontal. The client was a billionaire.
.

That helps!!! :D

[Jim Jones]

A standard rate of $50 for a 10x14 or 12x16 print in a 16x20 frame in a local arts & crafts fair. It's more of a community service than a business.

[Tin Can]

This is a big 'like'! :)

There is 'Joy in Mudville (https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/casey-bat)'.


A standard rate of $50 for a 10x14 or 12x16 print in a 16x20 frame in a local arts & crafts fair. It's more of a community service than a business.

[DrTang]

Occasionally I will place an ad in the creative services section of my local Craigslist offering a large, framed custom B&W Portrait shot with an 8x10 camera
- if you have to ask the price..you cannot afford it!

I have no idea what I'd charge as no one has ever asked

the ad was just kind of to poke fun at all those $125 portrait ads..but hell..if someone took me up on it

[Bill_1856]

$3.00. (When I was in High School.)

[Corran]

$150 32x40... framed

Come on, that isn't enough to even buy a simple frame and glass at that size.

[Tin Can]

Come on, that isn't enough to even buy a simple frame and glass at that size.

Starving artist...

[jnantz]

Funny, perhaps: you should ask for the least sale. Mine, a cover and inside photo for syndicated Parade Magazine. Considering its distribution, I made squat for it. [/URL][/U]




its funny that you say you got squat for it :)
when i worked for a newspaper, i made a photograph of the city
that i was paid $50 for, it was a view that no one had taken before &c ...
the paper turned around and syndicated it, rented it out to the city,
and it was on every bus, bus shelter, billboard &c for months and months,
they probably made 10s of thousands off of it in about 6months.
===

[Jim Andrada]

$375 for a 15 X 21 B&W from a 5 x 7 negative. Framed and glassed. Sold a couple of dozen 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 prints at $45 matted.

[jnantz]

its funny that you say you got squat for it :)
when i worked for a newspaper, i made a photograph of the city
that i was paid $50 for, it was a view that no one had taken before &c ...
the paper turned around and syndicated it, rented it out to the city,
and it was on every bus, bus shelter, billboard &c for months and months,
they probably made 10s of thousands off of it in about 6months.
===

and, i got diddly (squat)

[Vaughn]

Before or after the gallery's take?

I will assume before. $1500 for an 11x14 carbon print. Framed 20x24. Vertical redwood landscape.

[Drew Wiley]

I won't say much, except that if you want custom moulding and nonglare acrylic on a 30x40 print, it's a thousand dollar upcharge, as if I had any large prints left. Gotta start color printing again, then we'll see. That's cheaper than the frame shops want. Had an interesting case last month where a big wholesale framing house wanted a very large dead-straight frame, yet in hardwood. So they welded and polished the inner frame, and thick-veneered the hardwood over it (precision saw-cut, not a thin veneer). Twenty grand frame alone, plus the mounting. Otherwise, I duuno how I'd price things. So many have involved barter for services or custom furnishings. In the 70's I'd get around $2500 for a 20x24.

[The Joker]

Before or after the gallery's take?

I will assume before. $1500 for an 11x14 carbon print. Framed 20x24. Vertical redwood landscape.

Before the galleries take which was 30%.

Actually there is another photo selling for £198000.00 in the gallery but it's by and of a very famous performance artist, Marina Abramović. Hasn't sold though, but if she's charging that much then it's probably fair to say she expects to get that much.

The most I sold a print for, and you could count the number I have sold on one hand, was £250 each for a pair of images framed in 20x16 with 2 inch mat border so visible image size was 16x12.

[Tin Can]

That's quite a Performance for Marina. I have an Exhibition catalog of hers. Affordable Proformance.

[Vaughn]

Before the galleries take which was 30%...

In my case it was a 20% commission for the gallery. One of the advantages of being part of an artist cooperative run gallery. When I sell/sold work at another gallery, it is a 50% commission. So while I have had other $1500 sales, I made the most off of the latest one.

Now if I could make such sales regularily -- rather than every few years! :p

[The Joker]

In my case it was a 20% commission for the gallery. One of the advantages of being part of an artist cooperative run gallery. When I sell/sold work at another gallery, it is a 50% commission. So while I have had other $1500 sales, I made the most off of the latest one.

Now if I could make such sales regularily -- rather than every few years! :p

Well I think thats the crux of the problem for most artists trying to make a living from what they do. Their work is simply not on view and for sale where it is most likely to sell for most of the time. And of course there is the galleries commsion to consider too. Now if I had my own gallery ;). But that requires being there which is in direct opposition to being out taking photographs and printing. It requires a lot of time spent selling. I guess there is a happy medium somewhere between the two, I just need to find it.

[Drew Bedo]

8x10 = $250
11x14 = $250
16x20 = $350

[Jim Fitzgerald]

A few years ago I gave a lecture about carbon printing to a group of Chinese photographers. At the end one of the photographers bought a wonderful 14x17 carbon print that was matted to 20x24 for $1,800. I wish his friends would have bought more. My 8x20 sold for 1,200 the same night. Cash is good and I was a happy camper. No gallery involved so it was even better. I need to see those guys again.

[The Joker]

A few years ago I gave a lecture about carbon printing to a group of Chinese photographers. At the end one of the photographers bought a wonderful 14x17 carbon print that was matted to 20x24 for $1,800. I wish his friends would have bought more. My 8x20 sold for 1,200 the same night. Cash is good and I was a happy camper. No gallery involved so it was even better. I need to see those guys again.

Are you aware your website security certificate is being flagged as dodgy. It may have just expired but I think it will put a lot of people off viewing your site.

[The Joker]

On second check I think it may be becasue you are using https in your signature links and not http. i.e. you don't have a security certificate for your site but are sending people to https and you don't have a security certificate. That flags your site as being potentially dodgy. I'm sure it isn't but changing your signature if LFPF will solve the problem (from LFPF anyway)

[rich815]

I've sold many 11x14 landscapes for $300-800. I don't really actively market myself (just random emails I get from people who see my stuff on Flickr or my website) so I do not sell many, maybe 4-5 a year.

[Taija71A]

On second check I think it may be becasue you are using https in your signature links and not http...

'Good Catch'. Yes...

http://www.jimscarbonartphotography.com . or
www.jimscarbonartphotography.com

... Work just fine for me on Firefox. -Tim.

[StoneNYC]

I only matte I don't frame (usually).

Most I've sold 8x10's for is $120
11x14's for $200
16x20's for $500

I haven't sold any 20x24's or larger pano style shots yet but I hope to print some before the summer is over. We'll see.

[Vaughn]

Well I think thats the crux of the problem for most artists trying to make a living from what they do. Their work is simply not on view and for sale where it is most likely to sell for most of the time. And of course there is the galleries commsion to consider too. Now if I had my own gallery ;). But that requires being there which is in direct opposition to being out taking photographs and printing. It requires a lot of time spent selling. I guess there is a happy medium somewhere between the two, I just need to find it.

That is what is good about a cooperative gallery, and especially ours. A place to always have work up that is well-visited by locals, tourists and travelers...yet with a limited time (and financial/risk) commitment. Presently we have 26 members and we work two to three 4-hour shifts at the gallery per month, some committee work, and a general meeting 3 or 4 times a year. Even so, members occasionally take leave of absences (6-months to a year) to concentrate on their work or for other personal reasons. We have three photographers; myself using film and wet processes, and two digital printers.

[The Joker]

How does it work with regard to the gallery space, do you rent it or did you all buy it?
Do new member have to buy their way into the coop?

[seezee]

On second check I think it may be becasue you are using https in your signature links and not http. i.e. you don't have a security certificate for your site but are sending people to https and you don't have a security certificate. That flags your site as being potentially dodgy. I'm sure it isn't but changing your signature if LFPF will solve the problem (from LFPF anyway)

OT, but you can get a free SSL certificate via CertBot (a.k.a. LetsEncrypt) now. You'll need server access to install it, or help from your hosting company, but it's not particularly complicated. Main thing to look out for is no mixed content on your site, which can throw up a warning in some browsers & will prevent you getting the nice green padlock in the address bar.

[Vaughn]

I have been the the cooperative since we we started it up 12 years ago. I am also on the membership committee. We review new membership applications and make recommendation at the general meeting, and then the coop as a whole votes in new members (presently 26 members). There is a $300 'buy-in' -- and the dues (or rent) is $60/month, which goes towards our lease. Members work 2 to 3 four-hour shifts a month at the gallery. Best way to get to know your customers/buyers of art! The cooperative collects a 20% commission of sales to cover electricity, maintainance, bags, and all that.

The big difference is that one is not just getting work into a gallery, one is joining a cooperative...a family of sorts.



2-D artists get a 4x8 foot display wall space, 3-D an equivilent in counter space. Every 12 to 18 months, two of us get a show in the front corner of the gallery (as 'featured artists'-- two good size walls and 3-D space. This encourages us to produce new work (and/or larger works that don't fit in the 4x8 spaces). And the gallery shifts around a little every month (people going in and out of the featured artist corner)...keeping things fresh and new for the locals.

https://www.facebook.com/arcata.artisans/

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of galleries now want 80%, then you've still got the overhead. So what's the point? I know photographers who get thrilled just getting a crack at a third tier
show, then brag about selling a certain number of prints, and when it is all over have a substantial net loss. They pay more for just the framing per print than they sell the prints for! Rite of passage, I guess. I've always framed my own work, and have never given up any unrealistic percentage to a gallery. Still, I would be a difficult way to make a living if one factors in all the real overhead of travel, film, equipment amortization, etc. I sure don't mind spurts of dedicated income to pay for the addiction; but I think that this kind of thing is something one if born with, and has to work out in some kind of medium, or go nuts. I wonder have many cave bears men once had to kill with a spear to make claw necklaces to pay for their red oxide pigments?

[The Joker]

I have been the the cooperative since we we started it up 12 years ago. https://www.facebook.com/arcata.artisans/

I think this sounds like a really good way to get your work on show. Your rent seems very cheap by comparison with what we have to pay in UK.
However, I see high street outlet rents reducing as online shopping takes over and retail outlets are struggling to find people take them on. But for some things, there is no substitute for actaully being able to see the product before you buy and I think art and photography falls into that category.

[Drew Wiley]

Whether or not the co-op gallery concept works or not has a lot to do not only with the specific people involved, but just how expensive a neighborhood lease goes for. Around here in the SF Bay area, you have the choice of either some shot-up bad neighborhood, where nobody in their right mind will attend an event, or better venues where a sixty, or hundred, or two hundred member art co-op is lucky to be able to afford a two-week scheduled event, and at best manage four to six square feet apiece of wall space! In other words, a street fair might be a more realistic. Either way, it's damn tricky to break even. Except for selling directly to collectors and certain publicly sponsored exhibitions, I've been out of the gallery scene for a long time. It was fun for awhile, back when I had more
nervous energy, and profitable too. Don't think I'd want back in the game unless I owned a gallery venue outright. That's still a distinct possibility, but not a priority at the moment. Just too many T's to cross, and I's to dot before I finally retire from the salt mine, and start digging a new one.

[bob carnie]

I own a exhibition space, which is called The Dylan Ellis Gallery. I find it difficult to keep it financially sound , its a lot of work and you have to decide whether its a space for photographers to exhibit in through rental, or be a representative for photographers work and take a cut.
I prefer the first method and so far it seems to work. You live in a major financial market where rents are in the high end like mine and as a retirement option it could drain any savings if you
do not approach it properly.

If you are not already working with clients who are purchasing work then I would suggest its a 15 year climb , are you willing to do this?

Whether or not the co-op gallery concept works or not has a lot to do not only with the specific people involved, but just how expensive a neighborhood lease goes for. Around here in the SF Bay area, you have the choice of either some shot-up bad neighborhood, where nobody in their right mind will attend an event, or better venues where a sixty, or hundred, or two hundred member art co-op is lucky to be able to afford a two-week scheduled event, and at best manage four to six square feet apiece of wall space! In other words, a street fair might be a more realistic. Either way, it's damn tricky to break even. Except for selling directly to collectors and certain publicly sponsored exhibitions, I've been out of the gallery scene for a long time. It was fun for awhile, back when I had more
nervous energy, and profitable too. Don't think I'd want back in the game unless I owned a gallery venue outright. That's still a distinct possibility, but not a priority at the moment. Just too many T's to cross, and I's to dot before I finally retire from the salt mine, and start digging a new one.

[Vaughn]

Our cooperative is just plain lucky. Good group of people over the years (13 yrs as of this month) Our lease just went up, but our landlady has delayed any rise for many years. She supports the arts and loves having a gallery in her building (I think she owns half the retail property in town). Our location is prime -- on the town plaza. Lots of support from the community, and tourist business. But we would not survive if transplanted to SF...that's a whole different ballgame.

We do not have to make money as a cooperative (show a net profit)...no employees, just pay the rent, staff the gallery, keep the lights on, buy supplies, keep the computer running, and maintain 6-months to a year operation expenses in the bank. No one's retirement funds are at stake. No need to build up equity so that one can sell the business and retire. Very different from a privately owned gallery!

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Bob, but I learned a long time ago that those who play by the conventional rules automatically lose. With a gallery, they just lose faster. And nearly every "successful" gallery in a high-rent district is actually some rich dude's tax writeoff, or some way to get his trophy wife out of the house with a hobby. There are a few exceptions. Besides, I have zero interest in representing anybody's work other than my own. Yet there are detours around the cul-de-sacs. Thinking outside
the box is what I've done my entire life.

[bob carnie]

You may want to consider the Art Fairs that have smaller venues tied into them where artists can showcase their work to all attending.
I feel this is the way I want to get the market to see my work and others that I print for.

Each year its an investment , but nothing like a bricks and mortar investment. Also allows for a lot of interesting travel and write off.
Basically Drew if you have talent then you will be picked up by a few gallerys that see your talent, At each of these fairs you can sell your work and finance at least part of this journey.

I would never recommend a hard gallery situation to anyone unless they have good financial backing and an excellent foundation in all aspects of the photographic world.


Thanks, Bob, but I learned a long time ago that those who play by the conventional rules automatically lose. With a gallery, they just lose faster. And nearly every "successful" gallery in a high-rent district is actually some rich dude's tax writeoff, or some way to get his trophy wife out of the house with a hobby. There are a few exceptions. Besides, I have zero interest in representing anybody's work other than my own. Yet there are detours around the cul-de-sacs. Thinking outside
the box is what I've done my entire life.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't want to sound pretentious or snooty, Bob, but my work is realistically WAY above the street fair or group show leagues. I'm not embarrassed to show it
beside prints by anyone living or dead, and for all practical purposes, have done that already. I also dress up my prints in full "suit and tie" presentation - not
something I want anyone mishandling. I genuinely need a personal venue, but might contemplate one or two trusted partners on a rotating show basis - not a
"group". My target audience has always been select. It's not touristy or cutesy fare.

[bob carnie]

Drew Art Fairs that I am talking about are going to run you around $10 k to get in , I will guarantee your work will not be way above the others presenting at these fairs. I am not talking about local outdoor fairs.


I don't want to sound pretentious or snooty, Bob, but my work is realistically WAY above the street fair or group show leagues. I'm not embarrassed to show it
beside prints by anyone living or dead, and for all practical purposes, have done that already. I also dress up my prints in full "suit and tie" presentation - not
something I want anyone mishandling. I genuinely need a personal venue, but might contemplate one or two trusted partners on a rotating show basis - not a
"group". My target audience has always been select. It's not touristy or cutesy fare.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, I'm aware of those kinds of venues too. More for "autograph" collectors as far as I'm concerned. I'm not dead yet. Don't want to give too much away, but I run in a circle where just the architectural detailing on the kind of venue me and my friends could put together would be capable of attracting interest from people with real money and taste. No retail overhead, just casual or official appointment business. I used to do that out of my home - not that there's anything architecturally exciting about it, quite to the contrary; but I did have a little studio area or mini-gallery where I could set up the kinds of pieces they asked to see, and even had cases when buyers flew clear across the country to see it. Marriage changed that, hence I need a dedicated separate space. The lab and framing setup is in an entirely different building. But no, I won't do anything risky with my retirement funds, never. Either something pulls its own weight or I don't go there. But the demographics are different here.

[bob carnie]

Drew - demographics are the same everywhere, simple fact your work needs to be seen and the trick is to find the best vehicle for that. Everything is a risk these days, investing in art fairs is a cost of admission, for others with influence to see your work.

[Drew Wiley]

I've had my "scout" at the costly art fairs, both NYC and SF (not Miami). He was pretty disappointed the lackluster attendance (SF), and frankly, the material (NY). Kinda predictable "art dealer" fare. But maybe he was just getting bored with the whole NYC contemporary art scene, which seems to have lost some of its edge. The auction houses here do better at selling famous "autographs", and I have an inside contact there too, but in that case, you really do gotta be dead a long time. I'm not particularly worried. I could make a go of it selling only one print a month out of a small nice location. Everything else would be butter and gravy. I'll have plenty to do with my time, regardless. More concerned with just getting enough momentum going so that the collection has recognized value to my heirs. It would be easy enough to set up a trust. What I think about is shooting and printing, shooting and printing. Gosh knows I'm sick of selling stuff. But
that has its amenities too. Just had someone about an hour ago give me a substantial stack of genuine Hondouras mahogany moulding left over from an expensive remodel in Marin, which will become some very nice picture frames indeed!

[StoneNYC]

This is cracking me up! [emoji23]

[Drew Wiley]

???

[Jim Andrada]

!!!

[Drew Wiley]

No response. Stone didn't take the bait yet. But it's always fun when a starving artist chimes in on an economics topic.

[jnantz]

Topic title says it all really but it would also be useful to know what the actual image size was and the method of presentation such as framed with glass or mounted to dibond etc.
I'm curious becasue I've just seen a 100cm X 100cm print sold for $2750 which I thought was quite high but maybe I'm wrong since I never tried to sell images that big.

OP if you had said how much have you sold your photographic images for,
and not pigeon-holed it being black and white landscapes
but other images made using light and emulsion ... you might have gotten a broader response.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm curious becasue I've just seen a 100cm X 100cm print sold for $2750 which I thought was quite high but maybe I'm wrong since I never tried to sell images that big.

That's not high. But there is no "high" perse as there is no uniformity in pricing. It is what the market will bear and that is a result of many factors. That would be outrageous for many photographers and quite a deal for others. I sell inkjets smaller than that in Santa Fe for more unframed-sometimes with a rep getting half and sometimes straight from me. William Clift get about 9K for a 16x20 silver print. It's all good.

[Drew Wiley]

Its a custom for some printing services (labs) to give advice for how much a particular print typically sells for. Its a way of justifying the printing and mounting expense in the eyes of new clients. For instance, you pay $1200 for a 30x40 mounted color inkjet, but these allegedly sell for $2500. That kind of talk
makes sense reselling commodities. But in the real world, artwork has no inherent value other than in the eyes of the beholder. A two by two inch print could sell for a hundred thousand dollars if someone covets it enough; and a print six feet wide might be lucky to fetch ten bucks if nobody really wants it. Frankly, I often tailor my prices to the ability of the person to pay! If they really really like a print, I find some way to sell it to them. And ironically, the middle class pays what you decide, fairly, and doesn't haggle like billionaires. But size has nothing to do with it, once the cost of materials and my own token labor is factored in. A small print might sell for way more than a big one. There are no ironclad conventions.

[Andrew O'Neill]

$300. 8x10 carbon transfer print in Japan.

[jnantz]

for a 30x40 mounted color inkjet, but these allegedly sell for $2500. That kind of talk.

its not just talk. some people have / do sell large pigment ( sometimes color, sometimes b/w ) prints for that much. ... or
larger and for more than that much.

[Drew Wiley]

You missed my point. There is no such thing as "you can expect to get a predictable sales price because a print is a certain size". That's just wishful thinking attached to some lab marketing its services. You could get a million dollars for a print if you're famous enough or slick enough in your own marketing efforts, or get exactly zero, which is the far more common scenario. Otherwise, I'm perfectly aware of what people are willing to pay if they really want something.

[jnantz]

You missed my point. There is no such thing as "you can expect to get a predictable sales price because a print is a certain size". That's just wishful thinking attached to some lab marketing its services. You could get a million dollars for a print if you're famous enough or slick enough in your own marketing efforts, or get exactly zero, which is the far more common scenario. Otherwise, I'm perfectly aware of what people are willing to pay if they really want something.


yeah i guess i missed the point :)

that said, you nailed the problem, and it is a problem in the commerical field too ..
people " down the road " with a new nikon/canon who shoot weddings or portraits or mitzvah on the weekend
( maybe they are the "thousands of professional wedding photographers" referred to in a different thread ? )
and charge $50 or 150$ and give the files have made it nearly impossible for an actual professional
to get work since we have been hung to dry. my stratagy nomatter the print or whatever is to charge 3x the cost
it has been my way of pricing things for 30 years and it works out fine. takes care of overhead, materials, production costs
and allows me to make a little bit of profit. the people who give away their services and work, seems like
they only bill to make enough for a bucket of chicken at KFC or beer money / gas money. to illustrate this, had a guy in a bidding war with me farther away
from the job site than i was ( and i was a 3 hour drive ) who basically just charged for film and travel, it was before
the neighbor down the street would have had a digislr, and he did the work just to get out of the house ..

yup, if someone really wants something, they will pay for it ... and unfortunately they sometimes pay very little ..

[Drew Wiley]

Commercial bidding for services is quite different from "art" sales. The same billionaire who might have a"price is no object" attitude toward some framed piece of art or fancy item of furniture for his own mansion, and might literally throw it away a year or two later, might turn around and either refuse to pay you entirely for a completed service, or refer you to his legal department, who will starve you out with delays if you even try to collect. I could mention names, but certain current topics are not allowed on the forum. Some even refuse to pay cab fare because they are "so important" that the cabbie should feel "privileged just to drive them". The point is, I have interacted in various ways with "hired guns" who do print commissioned photographic images going in the hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, or even higher. Since they are public, museum, or personal commissions, they do not even appear on the statistics of alleged AUCTION sales of photos. Conversely, some of those tourist gallery types who go around bragging about huge sums of money they've allegedly bagged seems to
be more marketing hype or BS than fact. ... But yeah, I'd hate to be in any kind of commerical photography right now unless I had a running start with well-heeled clientele. The general public seems to have very low expectations of quality.

[Drew Wiley]

Guess we each need to our own strategy in this respect. I'd go out an do a tech consult for architects, for example, charge them for that plus travel time, and rope in a shoot to go with it, and print their portfolio myself. Not a bad gig back when I had more time and nervous energy and film still ruled the day. Now everybody wants it already up on the web the day before yesterday. No sense chasing that kind of business. I charge by the print, and anyone who comes to me does so because they want me to do it, and not anyone else. If I'm invited to the wedding, for example, I really don't care how many digital cameras or wannabee photographers are there. They can do their thing; I do mine, which is likely to be exactly one view camera shot, beautifully printed and dearly paid for. And while this is really more of a favor, even if it pays decently, and not my usual avocation, there are a few photographers in this area who still make their living doing personal studio or location photography, yet fend off the mosquito swarm of digital cameras by still using black and white film and printing it in a darkroom. Given the high cost of studio leases in good neighborhoods here, that ain't a shabby niche. But it is a niche, not for everybody.

[StoneNYC]

It's great to hear opinions from so many people.

However, I'm personally very curious to hear more from professional photographers who's work sells regularly with examples of the types of images so that we can all see what types of work sells. Sure it won't be the same as the print but would certainly give examples of what actually sells vs unsubstantiated opinion which is less valuable to the OP and other readers.

Thank you to the few who have shown examples.

Here are some of mine.

8x12's at $120 multiple copies sold of each.

Kodachrome 35mm originated Metalic C-Printed with LightJet

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/5466f852359567a5080dedab5806aa61.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/07a90a5defbb876089300944ec610a02.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/ac746b941373a3a3fe9dc86c46ebb28f.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/722af6ad0a83db2210b6a714ca5e7448.jpg

[StoneNYC]

(It's great to hear opinions from so many people.

However, I'm personally very curious to hear more from professional photographers who's work sells regularly with examples of the types of images so that we can all see what types of work sells. Sure it won't be the same as the print but would certainly give examples of what actually sells vs unsubstantiated opinion which is less valuable to the OP and other readers.

Thank you to the few who have shown examples.

Here are some of mine)

Continued...

These are two that I honestly were surprised sold, they weren't my favorites and both were requests from people who had seen the images on my social media.

Velvia50 4x5 originated 16x20 Metalic C-Print with LightJet $500

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/13186455d886331caf176138b65eedf1.jpg

Acros100 4x5 originated 16x20 Silver Gelatin Print $300

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/0d991ec8315ca347bf101c823212d7f1.jpg

[jnantz]

Guess we each need to our own strategy in this respect. I'd go out an do a tech consult for architects, for example, charge them for that plus travel time, and rope in a shoot to go with it, and print their portfolio myself. Not a bad gig back when I had more time and nervous energy and film still ruled the day. Now everybody wants it already up on the web the day before yesterday. No sense chasing that kind of business. I charge by the print, and anyone who comes to me does so because they want me to do it, and not anyone else. If I'm invited to the wedding, for example, I really don't care how many digital cameras or wannabee photographers are there. They can do their thing; I do mine, which is likely to be exactly one view camera shot, beautifully printed and dearly paid for. And while this is really more of a favor, even if it pays decently, and not my usual avocation, there are a few photographers in this area who still make their living doing personal studio or location photography, yet fend off the mosquito swarm of digital cameras by still using black and white film and printing it in a darkroom. Given the high cost of studio leases in good neighborhoods here, that ain't a shabby niche. But it is a niche, not for everybody.

your approach is a good one.
i've clients like that
and on the short list, have made portriats &c hand prints
used tradtional materials and have been paid handsomely ..
( its part of the silver print market these days )
in this world of the "digital swarm" ( i like that ! )
it does pay to be one of the only local ones left who knows how
to make prints by hand, couldn't agree more ..
have fun !

[Corran]

Looking back to the original post here the OP says an image sold for $2750 "which [he] thought was quite high." I think the question I have is where that sentiment comes from. In my experience when a photographer thinks another photographer is charging too much for a given print or service it comes from a mindset of jealousy or perceived superiority, especially when they don't charge as much. Not always of course and I'm not accusing that here - he states he has never tried selling that big. So the other option is a backdoor "how much should I/one charge for (large) prints." Which is a common question, though as one can tell it highly depends on where you are, who you are, and what you are trying to do. It seems like some are happy to just break even on materials. Also limiting the question to specifically b&w landscapes is a bit specific - I'm surprised no one has mentioned Lik's "Ghost" yet which purportedly sold for $6.5 million (let's not get into the semantics of that again though!).

I admit I've often "asked" these questions myself (via asking mentors and other research) and I just don't think one can take anecdotal sales info from other photographers from all over the globe and make any kind of assumptions from that. When I had work in a decent local gallery I was told that photographs simply didn't sell. He was generally right but I did sell a couple of pieces, one of which is the highest-priced photograph to sell at that gallery ever which thankfully paid for all of my framing costs for the show, but still small potatoes really. I've stumbled upon a formula that works for me in terms of pricing but I wouldn't assume anyone else here should/would adhere to it. I am sure there are some who say I'm overcharging in some respects (the above was a color inkjet print :p but from a 4x5 negative at least :)).

[Michael R]

I'll chime in with my brief, anomalous experience. I only tried selling once when a gallery here asked me if I was interested (I had framed some paintings and other artwork there and the owner, who happens to be a photographer, asked to see some of my stuff). I gave them five matted B&W prints (the prints were a little larger than 5x7, all happened to be enlargements from 35mm negatives).

I had to pay for the framing. The gallery suggested a price of $450 each. I thought that was high, but they are relatively difficult prints to make so I figured what the hell. I don't remember what the commission rate was. Surprisingly, they all sold. To be fair, if I remember correctly three of them were purchased together by an interior designer for a client. I don't know if it was a commercial or residential client. To answer Stone's question, the images, like most of my work, were urban landscape in terms of broad genre.

[The Joker]

My motivation for asking the question was driven by my considering submitting an image or two to an open exhibition. Having looked around at the likes of http://www.beetlesandhuxley.com/ and http://www.charliewaite.com who is considered one of the UKs top landscape photographers, my impression is that $2750 (£2500) is rather high for an unknown photographer or rather one unknown to me. I could understand it for for a print by Michael Kenna or someone of similar status but not for an unknown. I would have thought more like £1000 for an image that size.
But I also think it very much depends on the demographic of the people coming to the gallery and status of the gallery. If a small local gallery has built up a mailing list of local clients who are willing to spend the money then the gallery should have a fair idea of the price point of those clients. Depending on the the particular gallery that price point could be $250 or $2000 for the same image.
I've also seen art programs where newbies were being selected for entry to open exhibitions by recognised art critics (in the UK) and anything above £500 was considered a lot for a photographic print by an unknown person. So I just wondered what other peoples thoughts were. And it seems that those who maybe aren't seriously into the selling side of their hobby are quite happy to accept much lower prices than those who are maybe making a substantial part of their living from their photography or are trying to do so.

[jnantz]

hello the joker

if you use google and searchbar >>> site:http://www.largeformatphotography.info "how much do i charge for prints"

this is part of what comes up, its a question that gets asked often here -

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109225-Print-Pricing-(thread-closed)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?64138-do-you-worry-about-justifying-your-print-prices
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?16753-Limited-vs-unlimited-edition-prints
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15017-Do-lower-priced-prints-sell-better



you can change the search string around ( the part in quotes ) to suit your question.
in the end you have to charge what you feel comfortable with charging. some people don't like charging small amounts
because they think it reflects their skill &c, rather than making their photography affordable to the people who would like to buy it.
and some people don't like charging high prices because they think if they do it makes them seem like a pompous artist-type.
its a fine line between the 2.

good luck with your sales

[jnantz]

So I just wondered what other peoples thoughts were. And it seems that those who maybe aren't seriously into the selling side of their hobby are quite happy to accept much lower prices than those who are maybe making a substantial part of their living from their photography or are trying to do so.

hi the joker

i have sold things that weren't "b/w landscapes"
printed by an off site printer, sold by me locally
for not very much $$ not because i don't care about
making $$ but because i wanted to sell the photographs
to people who couldn't afford the price of an expensive print.
i've sold things in cafés for a few hundred dollars, and sold online
in a venue that prints, ships, frames &c for me, for even more.
none have been b/w landscapes in the traditional "grand landscape" genre
but hand coated, or hand painted, abstractions, urban grit, still life floral-stuff
and photograms ... interior designers like big things these days, and the company/s
i use can print big for these folks who want something a little bit different.
photography is always hard to sell because unlike painting or sculpture or designing a
landscape or building, everyone with a camera things they are a photographer, and
everyone truly believes they "can do that" as good as or better than the original photographer.
oh well ...
i'd be happy to share actual $ amounts with you via PM ( won't do that in a thread ),
i'll just say its enough to allow me to donate a substantial amount to relief efforts/food banks &c at least once a year,
and still have $ in my pocket ... after i pay the tax-man.

[The Joker]

No need to share prices. I think there are big differences between the US and UK anyway and even bigger differences between venues and the clientelle (potential buyers) that visit them. Everyone has their price point. If its too cheap they won't buy it and if its too expensive the won't buy it. People love to look at B&W prints in galleries and restaurants and public places but that doesn't necessarily translate into wanting a dominant B&W image in their personal living space.
One artist friend knows this and prices according to location of gallery. Another artist aquaintance sells portrait commisions(impressionistic paintings) to clients in the west end of london for £75,000 a pop. So it's mostly down down to the demographic of the buyers you are marketing to and not the size of the work or B&W or photography. But generally you won't get near as much with photography as you will with paintings.
The best ploy is to do your research and take advice from the gallery you are going to exhibit in. If they have held photographic exhibitions previously then they should have a clue and be able to give you good advice about expectations for selling price to their clients. But what you need to be careful about is having several similar types and size of work in different galleries selling for widely varying prices. I spoke to one gallery who told me that people are smart these days and don't trust the galleries. They look up an artist on the web(via their mobile phone) and find out the pricing of the artists work at other venues. The buyers are just like everyone else, they want the best deal even if their price point is much higher than the next persons.
I only asked the question because I was just surprised at the price an unknown photographer (at least to me) was selling his work for, albeit a nice photograph. But then it was a west end of london venue and it doesn't get any pricier than that neighbourhood which may have been a big influencing factor. Getting your work shown in a west end of london gallery would be no easy task but should pay dividends. Well it would if the gallery aren't taking a massive pecentage but mostly they do. Gallery rental must cost a fortune up there so prices are ramped up accordingly to cover venue costs and to suit the local clientelle (mega rich). In my little backwater we're at the opposite end of the scale.

[Taija71A]

... i have sold things that weren't "b/w landscapes"...

I was just glancing at the following article...
And you definitely just reminded me of someone else here -- On the Forum.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/07/rebecca-goldstein-personal-identity/
--
Yes, pricing one's own B&W Prints today (*Albeit Landscape or otherwise)...
Is definitely a 'Philosophical Conundrum' -- As stated above.

[Drew Wiley]

Location, location, location. I was amused last winter when we briefly stopped at the most expensive shopping center on Maui just to use the restrooms. The two
galleries right next to the Gucci store were listing $25,000 price tags on painting so pathetically kitchy and amateurish that they wouldn't realistically fetch $25 on
the mainland. But closer to home, I've seen nicely framed yet mass-produced photolithographs (basically posters, not real lithographs) selling for $10,000 apiece
in tourist galleries in SF; yet I happen to know the wholesale cost on some of those unframed was around $15 apiece! Just shopping for an honest reputable gallery to place your work in is itself a lot of work! I got tired of that game long ago.

[jnantz]

I was just glancing at the following article...
And you definitely just reminded me of someone else here -- On the Forum.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/07/rebecca-goldstein-personal-identity/
--
Yes, pricing one's own B&W Prints today (*Albeit Landscape or otherwise)...
Is definitely a 'Philosophical Conundrum' -- As stated above.

interesting article.
it reminds me of a friend
who had hair down to his waist
before he moved to california ..
he shaved his head and said he believed
like they did in the 60s if he moved to SF he
could be a different person, reinvent himself someone new.
didn't really happen, he was the same guy there as he was before he left.

[jnantz]

No need to share prices. I think there are big differences between the US and UK anyway and even bigger differences between venues and the clientelle (potential buyers) that visit them. Everyone has their price point. If its too cheap they won't buy it and if its too expensive the won't buy it. People love to look at B&W prints in galleries and restaurants and public places but that doesn't necessarily translate into wanting a dominant B&W image in their personal living space.
One artist friend knows this and prices according to location of gallery. Another artist aquaintance sells portrait commisions(impressionistic paintings) to clients in the west end of london for £75,000 a pop. So it's mostly down down to the demographic of the buyers you are marketing to and not the size of the work or B&W or photography. But generally you won't get near as much with photography as you will with paintings.
The best ploy is to do your research and take advice from the gallery you are going to exhibit in. If they have held photographic exhibitions previously then they should have a clue and be able to give you good advice about expectations for selling price to their clients. But what you need to be careful about is having several similar types and size of work in different galleries selling for widely varying prices. I spoke to one gallery who told me that people are smart these days and don't trust the galleries. They look up an artist on the web(via their mobile phone) and find out the pricing of the artists work at other venues. The buyers are just like everyone else, they want the best deal even if their price point is much higher than the next persons.
I only asked the question because I was just surprised at the price an unknown photographer (at least to me) was selling his work for, albeit a nice photograph. But then it was a west end of london venue and it doesn't get any pricier than that neighbourhood which may have been a big influencing factor. Getting your work shown in a west end of london gallery would be no easy task but should pay dividends. Well it would if the gallery aren't taking a massive pecentage but mostly they do. Gallery rental must cost a fortune up there so prices are ramped up accordingly to cover venue costs and to suit the local clientelle (mega rich). In my little backwater we're at the opposite end of the scale.

i think it is all about figuring out who will buy your work and pricing it accordingly.
you are right gallery rents are expensive. like vaughn, i used to part own a gallery,
and the closer it is to the main road and traffic the more $$ it is, the further away, the more affordable
but the harder it is to find, so the rent is cheap. established galleries
( like the ones you mention ) are nothing more than advertising and pr agencies putting their regular customers
in touch with, the work they like. or the work they are collecting. it isn't an overnight thing to be collected,
it takes a long time to establish oneself, get people interested and wanting to buy what you have...
not saying there aren't 1 hit wonders ... but that usually isn't the case.
if you have $$ there is a gallery in nyc called the agora gallery. they have a client list, of collectors
and will market your work and do a blow out show for you/yourwork. i think, like most galleries theyare 50% commission
on top of their fee, so it isnt' cheap. that doesnt' even count the matting and framing of the work which can be expensive.

good luck !

[RSalles]

Sample from Clyde Butcher website - received via newsletter:

Western Everglades - Big Cypress - gelatin silver fiber base, 15x18" matted 2x26, archival - $1.195; 27x37" matted 36x46" - $4.295
Those prices are from a established pro with years of experience, probably large (>100) limited editions.

I remember have made a expo in the 90'ies at Sao Paulo of 23 prints 8x10 of my work made in France and Brazil, sold 18 prints, not expensive, maybe $200 or near that.
Next November I'll show 15-20 prints in Swiss, I have no idea what the price tag will be, and expect to - at least - pay for the flight ticket and lodging. Nothing granted, just expectations.

Cheers,

Renato

[bob carnie]

I sell my Solarizations for $1250.00 Canadian Framed

Series is of 7 of any image, which means I will only make 7 different prints. Some are PD with Gum over, some are Silver Gelatin.

At this point I do not distinguish close common size pricing , which means an 11 x14 is the same price an 16 x20.

I have a mural size where I charge more, at this point I find the smaller prints sell better.

I have no image off the market yet, some are at the 4 out of 7 position. I may escalate the price for these last three prints of each image.

[The Joker]

I think the Clyde Butcher and Bob Carnies prices are more real world examples. It's all too easy to get sucked into trying to do the "Art market" thing of ramping up prices without looking carefully at who you are actually selling to. Since I live in a backwater where we don't have lots of wealthy people with money to burn, I wouldn't expect to be able to command any high prices. Infact I did put a couple of 20x24 frame size prints in a local open exhibition a few years ago and priced them at £250 each. The gallery told me they were too expensive which I thought was rediculous when you consider how much time and effort goes into making a single print. It's a full day just being out to capture the image and you'll likely spend another day printing and framing it. With all the expenses involved in that, fuel and materials and equipment and the gallery thinks that £125 a day is too much to ask. It just goes to show that some galleries and buyers are clueless about what these things cost to make let alone being able to take a small profit out of it. I rekon you should always be careful not to under sell your work but also not to over price it for your market.

p.s. They didn't sell and I don't suppose I'll ever know why. i.e. whether they were over priced or people just didn't like them enough although the gallery visitors comments book did have some nice comments about them.

[Drew Wiley]

Statistically, relatively few galleries have realistic business plans to begin with, and tend to bleed money until it's no longer feasible, so it's not likely any individual photographer has good odds with them either. There are a few exceptions. It's a lot like the restaurant business. In this city we have more restaurants per capita than any other city in the US, with tremendous variety, and some very famous restaurants. I even had a friend that did so well in just three years that he retired for life on the proceeds, at least until he got bored an opened another very successful restaurant. But the odds are only 20%. Within six month to a year, 80% of local restaurants fail. These locations turn over so fast that a major source of city tax revenue consists of start-up fees for restaurants. For instance, they want $6000 just to turn the water on in a new restaurant. Then inspection fees etc etc. By contrast, they charge galleries zero, once beyond a minor business license fee of around $150. There are a few very successful art dealers selling out of their homes or via appointment only galleries. But if you
have exceptional work, there is absolutely no sense underpricing it. People either like your work or they don't. In wealthy towns I always overpriced, simply
because millionaires and billionaires tended to haggle or bargain for multiple images, so the wiggle room was built in. But I always did my own framing, so
even the presentation stood out.