Brooks Jensen on print pricing in Lenswork

[Henry Ambrose]

Did some of you read Jensen's rant in the latest Lenswork about pricing of prints?
I found it very interesting and hard to argue with, especially his example of the $4000 print from the unknown photographer. I'd love to hear what others think about this article.

[Neal Wydra]

If $4000 is too high, don't buy it.

[David Luttmann]

I agree with him, Henry. I've had no problem selling 16x24 that I print on my Epson 7600. My prices are between $125-300. I've never had complaints with this. Two photos that I sold to a bank to put in client board rooms were 16x24 that I sold at about $85 a piece.....but they ordered 80 copies of each....so 160 prints. I was OK with $85 and so were they.

All too often I see pretentious rubbish for thousands of dollars. I guess they figure they only need to sell one. Very often we have photographers blathering on about the integrity of their art. They price sky high. But just as often, these people sell nothing. I think Jensen hit the nail on the head with that article.

[Michael Gordon]

The problem with Brooks' article is that there is no middle ground in his argument; it's either $20 or absurdly overpriced. While there are certainly more than a handful of darlings in the gallery scene selling for pretentiously silly sums of money, there are who-knows-how-many selling prints in the 100's. What about this price bracket?

There's a very fine line between 'just right' and overpriced, but in my opinion $20 prints can be just as harmful as a $3700 print. Americans pay a couple of bucks per liter for designer water, and didn't really understand the value of gasoline until it hit $3 per gallon. How would most value a $20 print? Art, or something to use the back of as a notepad in a pinch?

[tim atherton]

it's very similar to the stock photography argument in recent years - one sale of $3000 for one-time use to a prestigious magazine (who are no longer willing to pay that) - or 1000 $3 RF sales to school kids , scrapbookers and community newsletter.

Again, the middle ground has probably turned out to be the most profitable - even though most focus was out on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

[paulr]

Different markets have different prices ranges. You can price yourself out of a market by going too high or too low. You won't sell a $3000 print at craft fair, just as you won't sell a $100 print at a Chelsea gallery (the gallery would never agree to sell anything at that price ...It would lower the perceived value of what they represent, it would arouse mistrust in their collectors, and it would never pay the rent).

Your personal ideas on what your work is worth are equally valid. If those ideas are above what the market will bear, you won't sell much. It's up to you if you're ok with that or not.

Personally, I'll steal hubcaps and knock down old ladies for their purses before I'd sell prints for under $500.00. If this means I don't sell much, that's perfectly fine. I'd rather work on finding the right market than simply lower the value of the work.

[Bruce Watson]

I can't afford Jensen's magazine - I've gotta put my money into film, ink, and paper. Maybe if he'd lower the price...

[Christopher Perez]

What is the average sale price of a good photographic print over on that auction site?

A friend and I were talking about the price of prints over dinner last weekend. He noted that photographers who sell Azo prints for $50 may be completely nuts. A scarce resource being sold for next to nothing. We speculated that such prints (in the $50 range) were being sold to other photographers.

I don't know, but the argument sounded nearly reasonable.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'd have a hard time selling fiber 8x10s for $20.00 - I'd like more return for my darkroom time and cost of supplies. Inkjets as well - I don't think making up a loss on volumn sales works. Unless I was selling alot of them like maybe from some event or sitting that I'd charged another fee for. On the other hand I've given away plenty for free so maybe it would be nice to get $20.00 instead of nothing.

Now please, no one get upset by the next question--

I have wondered how many people there are who buy big expensive Epsons and actually make money with them. Sometimes reading internet boards I get the impressioin that some folks buy the newest latest thing out every round of improved models. Where does the money come from for that? For that matter how many travel the world and make a real living at it? "It" being selling art prints. And I don't mean the trust funders or someone who's living off his Microsoft stock sale.

It seems to me if you are doing these things and making a living or maybe more than a living you're a pretty damned creative business person. Now I don't expect anyone to spill their guts on-line so just keep it "I know this guy who's cousin makes loads of cash doing................."

: >)

[Henry Ambrose]

One last thing - I didn't mean to offend anyone who is well-off. I'd like to be that too.

Seriously, I am asking to see if anyone is making a real, going business of it in light of the original post I made about Jensen's article.

[Bill_1856]

Which issue, Ambrose? I moved last year and don't get to B&N very ofter and sometimes miss magazines before the nex issue is out.

[Kirk Gittings]

My recent show was primarily archival ink prints. Some earlier collectors of my work were leary of them. However, the museum director, the museum's curator of art and the museum itself all bought ink prints at the same price I was selling silver at before.

[Scott Fleming]

Unless one just wants to get ones work out on other people's walls selling a 16 x 24 print (no frame or mat) for less than $300 is silly ... and that's a lowball figure. The one exception I can see to this is Dave's situation above .... IF they were inkjets and you owned the printer AND there was no middleman involved. And maybe you needed the money real bad.

[Henry Ambrose]

Bill, its in the Jan-Feb 2006 issue, the one currently on the stands.

[paulr]

"I have wondered how many people there are who buy big expensive Epsons and actually make money with them."

i've wondered that too. i assume it's people who already have a big market for their work, and know in advance they can sell a lot. the large format printers are way expensive, and so are all the materials that go into each print.

[William Mortensen]

For a push-the-button-and-out-pops-an-8x10 print shot on a digital camera, $20 may be about right. Next year Jensen might be selling I-pod downloads of his images for 99 cents, so people can just print their own. For an archival, fiber-based overmatted silver contact print, that's something else. What Jensen sells is fairly equivalent of a reproduction poster, in which case one can get a large Moonrise, Hernandez for $30.

But when high-end gallery shopping for originals, one also pays for the artist's pedigree (education, publication and exhibition record, critical reviews), exclusivity of a one-of-a-kind or limited edition run, the prestige of owning something by a known artist represented by a known gallery, and some possibility of investment return. Affluent collectors also appreciate supporting the artist, the gallery, the arts in general, and their own status in the ranking of art collectors.

Not being familiar with the current art world, I don't know whether $3700 is a fair price for the work Jensen cited, or whether the photographer was, in fact, unknown. Then again, by some standards, $3700 is quite reasonable for a large color photograph: http://www.artcritical.com/appel/BAPrinceRecord.htm

[paulr]

to put it in perspective, $3700 is cheap art. a photography collector would consider that in the middle of the range for a well known (but not immortal) photographer. it's well below the price of entry for paintings by known painters.

none of the pricing has ANYTHING to do with whether it's a fiber based print, overmatted, signed in gold pen, or any other craft fair kinds of selling points. the prints going for $10,000 in big galleries are often machine made c-print murals or inkjets, pinned to the wall with thumbtacks.

[julian_4860]

I did a 50x90 inch print for an exhibit last year... it cost me 1200 euros to print and frame. if I sell it for 2400 I cover my costs and the gallery gets its cut. If I want to make 500 euros on it I have to sell it for 3.4k... etc etc

[J.L. Kennedy]

Before Mark beat me to it above, I was going to say that I was formatting my prints for iPod and had already sold a million and a half at $.99 each! Seriously though, I thought Brooks Jensen's article was well thought out and absolutely correct from an economics perspective. Consider this, Ansel Adams work only gets about $20 for an extremely high quality reproduction of 12 prints (the calenders put out every year). The silver prints of his work that are available at the AA Gallery in Yosemite and by mail order (I think?) and printed by Alan Ross are every bit as good as Ansel's prints and are still no more than $200 for an 8x10, I believe. What this proves to me is that if we want good photography, even printed on silver rather than with ink, we can get the best of the most famous photographer of all time for about $200, and I'm pretty sure they're not flying out the door even at that price. I'm not saying that everyone likes AA's work or that nobody likes the fuzzy leaf photo that Brooks used as his example, but I'll bet a lot more people like AA's work. I think that when the fuzzy leaf or an original AA print sells for multiple thousands of dollars, what is being purchased is more than just photography, it is the investment value of the piece. In the case of the AA print, it is well proven investment value and in the case of the fuzzy leaf, it is more speculative (certainly more than I would be willing to speculate on!).

[Jim Rhoades]

A point that Brook's made and is being skipped over is the sucess of other artists. There are a lot of writers out there making money on $7 paperbacks. Or bands with $15 CD's.

This past weekend I went to a Michael Smith exhibit at the Michener Art Musumn in Doylestown PA. Now Mr. Smith is unknown except among L/F or ULF photographers. At $2,000 each he's not selling any to me. Nor to anyone I know.

Mr. Michener on the other hand was a very well known writer. I have a shelf full of his books in hard cover. None more than $15. When he died he had left more than 117 million dollars to various schools, colleges and museums.

What is the cost of printing a book vs poping out a inkjet. Yes I think a FB silver or Pt/Pd print is more valuable than a inkjet or a book. But at what price point?

All of the greatest photographers that ever lived never made or spent as much money as Mr. Michener gave away to the arts. That is a point worth considering.

[Henry Ambrose]

paulr,

I'm guessing that you are in NYC, which is likely the center of "art photography" in the US in terms of galleries and customers. I'd think conditions there are not indicative of the rest of the world. And it could be that those people paying $10,000 for large c-prints thumbtacked to gallery walls are indeed the "fools" being fished for in Jensen's article. I'm not saying they are for sure.

Anyway, lets say someone buys $10,000 worth of cameras and $20,000 computer/scanner/printer systems with a lot of that later stuff needing replacement every 3-5 years. Just to support that requires some pretty substantial sales. I'm speculating that most of these investments are the result of someone who has some cash and wants to see their prints big and as good as they can make them. Which is a fine thing to do if that's what you want. I come back to this as I see it as valuable for artistic expression but not neccessarily a way to make a living. This is only tangent to Jensen's article. But something to consider within the subject.

Anyway, could it be that prints sold for cheap are better than none (or one) sold at high prices? If folks will buy your work at $50 each does that somhow de-value your efforts? Are you "less than" others who fetch higher prices? Is it the work or the investment potential that prompts the purchase?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

We all know E bay is not the place where the big spenders are, at least for photography. So here is an example of a photograph that is selling very well.

http://tinyurl.com/ct4r3

So, what I would like to know is what is wrong with a photographer making a little money before he is dead?

[bglick]

Henry, I have shared this curiosity for years. I also have querried this same issue with many photographers through the years.

For starters, not everyone that buys these printers / scanners, etc. are doing it to sell prints. Many of them end up more in the service bureau business vs. the "selling prints" business. This quite often comes after a few years of shock and awe in learning, how hard it is to sell prints.

For the ones that sell prints using their own equipment, well, many consider if they make enough money to cover film and travel expenses, it's all worth it. For a non artist type person, this would seem absurd. But, it is the reality of the photographic fine art market, at least in the USA. I strongly suspect that other markets, such as the Aussies, have a much better appreciation for fine art photography vs. USA. It's truly remarkable how many oooohs and ahhhhs large photographic prints get, and how few sales they get. Most people who buy these big printers and scanners do it for the passion of the craft. Making money is often a goal, but not often a reality. And even when I hear Lf photographers claim they are making money, when they divide the hours they invest each year into so called profits, well, they are lucky to make min. wages.

There is a few exceptions to this, IMO, these people worked many years getting the formula right to finaly turn a profit and make a living at it. Of course, looking back, they had to throw away 20 years to get there, but, thats life in the arts ;-)

The passion of this field is so strong, it's scary, bordering on psychotic. Photographers like Fatali
www.fatali.com
who have failed at 4 consecutive galleries and continue to open new galleries, constantly searching for the right formula to turn a profit. How many other fields do people have this level of committment? They continue to search for a means to force a square peg in a round hole?

I find it ironic, that recently, many fine art photographers have found a niche in the market they love so much, but its not selling prints, it's operating photo trips / workshops. It seems people will spend $5k - $10k on learning the process or getting to the location to make good prints, vs. ever buying a good print. It seems photography falls into the category of "the quest" vs. a love for the final art.

We see artist like Kincaid who strike it rich in a short period of time, selling millions of prints and overy priced gallery prints. This NEVER has happened in the USA with a new and up coming fine art photographer. And from what I have ascertained, most of the success photography experiences is wild life shots, not landscapes.....and no 8x10 camera is required for that task!

Whether its Fatali selling 32x40" print only for $4k +, or other talented photographes selling the same image for $500, in the end, none of them get rich, and few of them sell enough to pay the rent. For the few that have, Kudos to you, its all well deserved. I never wrote music, but my guess is, that field is even worse, investing $40k in sound gear to perfrom gigs at $300 per pop, to split amonts 5 band members after you make the loan payments on the sound gear.

[robert_4927]

If you are thinking money when you hit that shutter, you're already in the 20 dollar print business.

[Henry Ambrose]

Robert, you might be correct.

Lots of good conversation and observations here -- probably one of the best came from Michael Gordon early on:

"The problem with Brooks' article is that there is no middle ground in his argument; it's either $20 or absurdly overpriced. While there are certainly more than a handful of darlings in the gallery scene selling for pretentiously silly sums of money, there are who-knows-how-many selling prints in the 100's. What about this price bracket?

There's a very fine line between 'just right' and overpriced, but in my opinion $20 prints can be just as harmful as a $3700 print. Americans pay a couple of bucks per liter for designer water, and didn't really understand the value of gasoline until it hit $3 per gallon. How would most value a $20 print? Art, or something to use the back of as a notepad in a pinch?"

[QT Luong]

Henry, would you summarize the Jensen argument for the sake of those for which Lenswork is priced too high ?

Why do Aussies have more appreciation for photography ? It would explain why the success of people like Ken Duncan and Peter Lik in such a small country (population wise) hasn't really been replicated by American photographers.

Personally, it doesn't matter if I sell prints for $20 or $20000 if at the end of the day I make the same amount of money. What people are willing to pay is irrelevant to how *I* value my work.

As for wide format printers, I'd venture to say that it an economically justified option for most of the photographers who work the art fair circuit. There are quite a few of them making a decent living that way.
When you need to have a large inventory, it's much more economical that getting lightjets at a lab.

Even for myself, although I do only on-line sales, it would take only two years to recoup the price of a 44 inch printer based on the difference between ink/paper costs and what the lab charges me. I've been putting off the purchase based on time efficiency, but I get tired of trips to the lab...

[bglick]

QT, why do you think Aussies do have a greater appreciation of photography then USA? Just from the interet, I have met more successful fine art nature photographers then I have seen in the entire USA. And the number of photo gallery failures in USA is a strong indicator of just how little the artform is appreciated. Any thoughts?

[Saulius]

I think Jensen has some valid points in the article. Firstly he does say he sells his 8x10s at $20 but I did not take it to mean all print sizes to be sold at this price. What I believe he's advocating is bringing down the prices so the prints are obtainable to the average person. He states according to the IRS the average American makes $36000. After including sales tax on the item (if your state has a sales tax) taking into account income tax on this average persons' salary they would have to spend 16% of their annual income to buy this $3700 print. As he points out how many average people would spend that amount of their annual income on art? As someone else already mentioned as does Jensen in the article other artists have brought down the costs of their work to be affordable to the general public. Example musicians selling $15 CDs. I take what he says to apply to the young and/or unknown artist selling fine art photographs. You shouldn't just jump in and sell prints at $4000 a pop. Bring it down to a more reasonable level and you should get more sales, get more people buying and owning photographic prints which in turns aids us all in this market who are trying to sell our fine art prints. For those who are well established, famous or have found an elite wealthy niche to sell to this advice is not for you. For those of you who haven't read the article I suggest you pick one up at your local newsstand or order a copy at www.lenswork.com (http://www.lenswork.com) It's a great photographic publication. My take is that Jensen believes that the way the photography fine art market operates now is not a healthy market for us photographers trying to sell. More reasonable prices will get more buyers, help more photographers actually make a living at it and in turn help create an environment that may actually encourage more artmaking. Also he does mention towards the end of the article that there are different price points for different markets- people who just want decor as opposed to someone who wants sophisticated art. So he is not advocating we just sell all prints at $20 each. In general I agree with his article and the points he makes. I am going to be looking into selling my own prints in the future and will give his advice some serious thought.

[Henry Ambrose]

QT,

Saulius summarized the article pretty well. And for what its worth I think Lenswork is a heck of a deal for a good publication on photography. I see good photography, well reproduced, in every issue.

I understand the economics of buying gear for a business - I've been a few rounds with commercial digital imaging gear starting back in 1992. For the past few years I've been sitting it out - not spending any more on gear unless it was an "absolute no-brainer immediate payback situation".

I know several folks locally who use big printers. A couple of them use them regularly and productively for commercial and portrait work. Another (who is a very successful advertising photographer) has bought nearly every new model Epson made in his quest for the perfect print - but as far as I know its mostly for his own enjoyment and personal artistic development. I don't think he actively tries to sell prints.

Besides the Jensen article one of the things that prompted me to ask these questions was taking a scan from an 8x10 negative (one of the portraits I posted here recently) to one of my friends referenced above who printed it big on his Epson 9600. Being immediately struck by the stunning detail and impact of a larger than life size portrait I started thinking about who would want such things and what they'd pay for them. Of course I wondered (well I had a good idea already) about how much it really cost to own and operate the giant printers.

I thought some more about who would really buy and hang a 4X5 foot print of their kids in their house and I realized that not that many people have houses with wall space like that. 8x10s or 11x14s - well there are plenty of customers for those, but the big stuff which requires a big printer I just don't see selling enough to justify the investment. Not on that basis alone. Then I read the Jensen article and that got me really wondering what was going on in the larger world. This forum seems populated mostly with landscape and art people and I'm not seeing the fruits of their labor enough (around here or when travelling) to figure out who is selling big prints or if that is happening in proportion to the seemingly large sales of the machines. Then I posted the question.

So there's my backstory. I don't have any axe to grind or think that anyone should or should not buy a printer or that they need a business justification to own one. Its their money and their life. I do still wonder about the real on the ground situation with selling prints whether its art or commerce, personal or business or any combination of factors.

[Michael Gordon]

What I believe he's advocating is bringing down the prices so the prints are obtainable to the average person. He states according to the IRS the average American makes $36000. After including sales tax on the item (if your state has a sales tax) taking into account income tax on this average persons' salary they would have to spend 16% of their annual income to buy this $3700 print. As he points out how many average people would spend that amount of their annual income on art?

The issue with yours/Brooks scenario is that a photographer/artist whose single print prices are $3700 is NOT attempting to sell to the "average American". I'll also bet that the "average American" wouldn't understand or be interested in your 'average' $3700 photo print. So that leaves the $20 prints to be sold to those who will IMO underappreciate them, and prints priced in the 100's to be sold to the other average Americans who make 40-50k per year and can afford to buy a $500 print.

So why are photographs as art undersold and underappreciated in this country? That's a more deeply rooted problem. Funding for the arts is in a constant state of reduction; art history and appreciation is not taught in public schools (except electively); and as a culture we're more fascinated with football, NASCAR, and WWF, and getting the most bang for our buck at WalMart. Maybe if we can interest Americans in and educate them about the value of art we might have a chance at selling our photographs.....

[QT Luong]

according to the IRS the average American makes $36000

Yes, but aren't 5% of Americans millionaires ?

So why are photographs as art undersold and underappreciated in this country?

From my exchanges with colleagues there, I hear the situation is much worse in France, which has a culture of the word (and not of the image). Yet France prides in its support for culture and arts.

[bglick]

>as a culture we're more fascinated with football, NASCAR, and WWF, and getting the most bang for our buck at WalMart.

Michael, as sad as this commentary is, I think you nailed the trend of the average American mindset. I am curious if the Walmarts, sports etc, have influenced other countries as bad as the USA.

I find it interesting, in Picture Framing Magazine, almost every issue has a serious article dedicated to offering the small independent framer a tool set to fight-off the big box stores who have infiltrated every part of their markets, including custom framing, ready made frames, pre cut mats, finished framed art, etc. I feel, if there was a LF Magazine for fine art Photographers, it too would spend most its pages discussing how to turn photographic art into retail sales.

It's not only the Walmart mindset that has hurt the over all art market, but I also feel its the printing technologies that are hurting Photograhy as an artform. 20 years ago, the difference between a fine art photographic print and a poster was night vs. day. Today, that gap has narrowed considerbly. I have put fine art posters, next to fine art prints, and side by side, the average person sees only a mild difference. And, at further viewing distance, they sometimes notice no difference. (of course, a super high gloss print will have a different look, etc.) How much is that little difference worth? The 24x36" poster sells for $15 - $25 retail.... The day of grainy "Charlies Angels" posters of the 1970's are long over, and many fine art landscape photographers are capitilizing on the concept of the cited article, as they are pricing the same images they charge $800 for, now available for $15 - $25 through the mass market poster market.

The Lens Work magazine web site seems very professional and the articles seem very geared to what many of us do. I must have overlooked this publication in the past, but I have just subscribed thanks to this thread.

[julian_4860]

>>Yes, but aren't 5% of Americans millionaires ?

dunno that stat, but 4 years ago 80% of the wealth in the US was owned by 10% of the people, 70% was owned by 5%...
compared with 10% owning 54% in the UK

Julian

[Alex Hawley]

I'm one of those nuts who is selling Azo prints for $50. And, as Christopher speculated, the majority have been bought by other photographers. So what?

I've been selling for a year now. In that first year, I managed to sell enough to break even on my photography costs. I'm completely unknown in the art world. Never have been exhibited in any low-brow gallery, much less a high-brow gallery. Probably never will. Don't live in NYC nor San Francisco. Never went to art school. Never sold a piece of art in my life until a year ago. I'm still alive so there's no way I'm going to get the real big bucks that all the dead immortals rake in.

So what if I'm a chump? In this last week, I've sold nine prints. Two of the sales were for three-print portfolios. I turn that income into buying supplies for the current year. It may be nuts but I'm enjoying the hell out of it, keeping my photography self-sufficient, and getting work out on the street. And I don't own an Epson of any sort.

The more I read these threads, the more I appreciate Jensen's point. If $20 per print does it for him, that's his business. Holding out for a thousand is like saving yourself during the season games hoping for a Super Bowl game to go all out in. Probably ain't gonna happen no matter how pure the art is.

[Saulius]

Yes, but aren't 5% of Americans millionaires ?

But wouldn't it be easier to sell to the remaining 95%? I think your odds of being successful would increase. My comments are pure speculation as I've yet to go out trying to sell my work via art shows, galleries, via the web whatever. It seems to make sense to me to lower your sights a bit and try selling to more of the masses then hoping to hit the lottery. If some of you out there command the price of thousands of dollars per print then you have accessed that 5%. But for the rest of us, such as an unknown as myself that would be an absurd way to start pricing and selling.
QT, I just looked at your pricing and it seems to me your prices are reasonable. I suspect you are not catering to the wealthiest out there, nor the average Joe on the street but somewhere in between. I think that's the area I'd like to start in.

[Henry Ambrose]

You go Alex!
I bet your $450 (9X$50) beat a lot of people's art sales for the same week or for any week.

This is a really interesting thread - who would have thought of this last twist?
Is there more?

[bglick]

Alex, what size prints do you sell for $50? Do you have a web site?

I applaud your efforts, your common sense and your motivation to establish your a following. Your pricing today, may not reflect your pricing in 10 years. Nothing wrong with that approach. I agree with the other posters, it's not uncommon for photographers holding out for $4k per print, who wait many years to sell any work. Again, Congrats.

[Alex Hawley]

Saulius, go for it! You can't make a goal unless you take a shot.

Thanks for the encorougement Henry.

WG, these are mostly 8x10 Azo contact prints. I've sold a few 11x14 enlargements from 4x5 negatives. No website as of yet. All of my sales are from the auction site (75%) , seeing my work on APUG (24%) or personal contact (1%). Please e-mail me for more details if you like.

Please don't get the impression that I'm selling 9 prints per week all year. I wish I was but that wouldn't leave any time to photograph and print. There were some long dry spells last year. I also work a regular non-photography job.

Also, I'm flattered to sell to other photographers, especially ones that have done a lot better than myself, or whom I consider to be better than myself. That's some good peer recognition in my book.

A couple customers have said they were just beginning LF and bought a print from me because it was affordable and it provided them with an example to strive for. That's very satisfying! If buying a print from me brings a person into the LF analog fold, that helps all of us and I'm glad I did it.

My hat's off to anyone who can get $200 or more per print, anyone who makes a living at this, anyone who gets published, anyone who gets exhibited, anyone who gets collected. Its not easy no matter what level you are working at.

[Ryan McIntosh]

I figured since this discussion somewhat pertains to me, as a self-representing artist on Ebay who specializes in selling 8x10 AZO prints for $50.00...I would make a post.

When I first started selling my photography on Ebay...NOBODY PURCHASED ANY! However, after a few prints sold, my sales continued to rise over the next year. At first, prints would sell for the opening price of 50.00, but soon my print output became VERY high and I could hardly keep up with printing/matting/shipping and all the work the goes into selling your photography. At this point, people were starting to see the quality of work I produce and more collectors/galleries/museums were becoming interested. Very quickly, my opening 50.00 prices would be bid up above $200.00! Without me raising my prices, the market value of my prints went up over 400%! Within the course of 2005, I sold over 150 fine prints, not to mention a few portfolios which contained 20 prints each, selling at 2,500.00 each.

I have always believed in providing fine art photography at a reasonable price that people can afford. Even before Edward Weston passed away, he was still selling his prints for around 35.00! Of course, you could buy alot more for your buck back then...but the same ideals still apply today... To provide fine art photography at a reasonable price that anyone can afford.

However, because of recent collector demand for my prints...I can no longer sell them for such a low price, but my prices are still well below what other photographers are asking today. I expect 2006 to be a great year for print sales and I will continue to offer prints on Ebay for a reasonable price. I am VERY greatful for everyone who has purchased prints from me and I thank them from my heart.

Reagards,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

[paulr]

"I'm guessing that you are in NYC, which is likely the center of "art photography" in the US in terms of galleries and customers. I'd think conditions there are not indicative of the rest of the world."

but it has equivalents in cosmopolitan centers throughout the world ... london, paris, tokyo, milan, los angeles, barcelona, etc. etc... which all represent tremendous concentrations of the population.

"And it could be that those people paying $10,000 for large c-prints thumbtacked to gallery walls are indeed the "fools" being fished for in Jensen's article. I'm not saying they are for sure."

They could be. but not if they love the work $10,000 worth. or if it goes for $20,000 at auction next year!

[QT Luong]

Please don't get the impression that I'm selling 9 prints per week all year. I wish I was but that wouldn't leave any time to photograph and print.

That's the one of the two problems with selling prints for a very low price (the other being to sell enough). I don't know if Jensen is touching on that in his article, but I think the reason he is able to do so profitably is that he benefits from the Lenswork infrastructure for fullfilment, as well as promotion.

[Kirk Gittings]

$20 prints? Here is my point of view as a commercial/fine art photographer. Why would I make and sell a print to someone to enjoy for 20 years, who then probably resells it at a profit (that I get nothing from) for allot less than I sell ONE TIME RIGHTS to a small local magazine for? As a commercial photographer for 30+ years, I know what my time is worth. I would rather sell allot fewer prints at a much higher price and get some real value for my efforts.

[William Mortensen]

I'd hope someone would pen a thoughtful reply to Jensen's viewpoint and send it in to LensWork. Quite often I read fairly provocative viewpoints in LensWork and other art-oriented journals, but I seldom read anything in the way of response. Jensen has surely drawn that, but I wonder whether the counterpoint will be confined to internet forums and coffee-house conversations...

[QT Luong]

Why would I make and sell a print to someone to enjoy for 20 years, who then probably resells it at a profit (that I get nothing from) for allot less than I sell ONE TIME RIGHTS to a small local magazine for?

Numbers. What is the circulation of the local magazine ? Assume that everybody who buys (or gets for free) a copy of the magazine can cut out the photo, and paste it on their wall to enjoy. Some people that I know (including an MD) actually do that even to decorate commercial spaces. By contrast, your print is sold in a single copy.
If you could sell a $20 print to only one tenth of the readership of the local magazine, would that be worth doing ?

[Alex Hawley]

"As a commercial photographer for 30+ years, I know what my time is worth. I would rather sell allot fewer prints at a much higher price and get some real value for my efforts."

Kirk, here is the difference between your view and mine. I'm not a professional photographer. I have made my living completely outside of photography for 30 years and will continue to do so. My livelyhood has never depended on it and never will. I didn't start taking photography seriously until about five years ago.

That being said, I do take this seriously. I'm not out trying to sell cheap shots to flatter my ego. I strive to develop myself to produce something of merit. How much merit it attains is dependent on my own natural ability. There have been other artists that have come from outside the professional photographer world. Henry Gilpin is as the top of my list as an example.

Bottom line right now for me is $50 prints sell, $100 prints don't.

[Kirk Gittings]

" Numbers. What is the circulation of the local magazine ? Assume that everybody who buys (or gets for free) a copy of the magazine can cut out the photo, and paste it on their wall to enjoy. Some people "That I know (including an MD) actually do that even to decorate commercial spaces. By contrast, your print is sold in a single copy. If you could sell a $20 print to only one tenth of the readership of the local magazine, would that be worth doing ?"

QT I find this illogical. How many people cut it out is not my issue. For even 50 bucks, I wouldn't give the magazine 1/4 page. My client is the magazine and he uses it once, it is off the stands, and is largely forgotten. Maybe a few people clip it out this tiny reproduction and put in their office cubby and in two years it has faded past recognition. And it is not signed. It has very limited value except as short term advertising for me to sell them real prints.

A client that buys my prints gets significant more use out of a print than the magazine did and he has the ability to resell it for perhaps a significant profit (the magazine can't). He just can't reproduce it.

Jensen gets away with this because he virtually doesn't have to pay for advertising or marketing his work. His magazine does that for the price of a little ink and paper. It is like when Steve Simmons does workshops. Do you know what a huge advantage that is to have your own magazine to advertise your efforts and give you credibility?

What would Brooks have to charge for his prints if he had to pay for his advertising? The rest of us don't have that luxury.

He is like a foreign country dumping goods below market value in the US just to gain market share.

[Kirk Gittings]

Alex my work once went for those prices also, but my goal was not to stay there and I have worked my butt off for thirty years (recently not taking a day off for 2 years and 8 months to work on my last show and book) to get a higher price for my work.

For christ's sake, I sell non-archival 8x10 commercial prints of to my architecture clients in huge volume for more money per print than Jensen is selling his art work! And I know how little real profit there is even in volume at those commercial rates.

I repeat "He is like a foreign country dumping goods below market value in the US just to gain market share."

[J.L. Kennedy]

Kirk:

First, be aware that I think you are a fine photographer and well deserving of the living that you make with your photography and self-promotion skills. That being said, who would find fault with Brooks Jensen if he sat down fifteen years ago and thought "I think I will try to create a well-respected photography periodical so that I can use it as a venue for selling my prints at a low enough price that a lot of people can purchase them and consequently I will maximize my revenue through volume rather than unit price." I doubt that that was his primary motivation but if it was, it would be perfectly valid.

By the way, I am also one of those weirdo, conservative (nearly libertarian) persons who think that anyone, foreign or domestic, who sells their product at below their cost is simply benefiting the consumers of their product in the short term, until they get tired of losing money. In fact, I wish more producers of products that I consume would do that! And I don't believe that I would suffer in the long run if they did. I think that they would eventually raise their price to a profitable level and I think that no matter how big their market share becomes there will always be someone else who would step in to produce any product that there is a demand for. I guess the bottom line is that I believe the evidence shows that free markets work to the benefit of all, and I think Brooks Jensen is doing a good job explaining how the free market applies to fine art photography.

[Kirk Gittings]

Maybe my main point is being lost. Many people seem to be seeing Brooks approach as a model for marketing photographs. The plain fact is that without free advertising his approach would go nowhere. He would be one of a zillion good photographers with a website and cheap prints. Galleries would not touch someone in that price range, because it won't pay the rent or the postage for invitations. His prices do not factor in many of the costs that most photographers or artists deal with like advertising and galleries getting half. So he is not a good model, and his arguments about other people's high prices are really unrealistic from that point of view as well.

Go ahead start a magazine so you can market your prints for less than I sell an 8x10 C print of a crappy building to an architect client.

[Michael Mutmansky]

I normally stay out of these kinds of discussions, because I don't believe there is anything to be gained by them, but there are a few issues that I think bear keeping in mind here.

I completely agree with Kirk on these issues, and moreso, I believe that Brooks is doing a disservice to the photographers out there who do sell their images by making position statements like this. I'll get to this point at the end.

He has a marketing mechanism in place to be able to sell 1000 prints at $20 a pop, and he is completely discounting the catbird seat he has in this respect. It is unrealistic to presume that others can utilize this mechanism to sell nickel and dime prints. It's also unrealistic to presume that handmade prints can and should be produced in the kinds of volume or at the speed at which would be necessary to produce any kind of sustainability at that pricing level, or even at 4x that level. And no, I'm not talking about the wishful thinking of 'digital handmade', I mean handmade, where the craft of photography still presides.

Also, Brooks is making the presumption that there is a somewhat unlimited number of potential buyers out there if only there were $20 fine art prints available. This is a terribly, terribly incorrect presumption. There are many people who sell images in this manner, and to the best of my knowledge, they do not exactly make a killing this way. To suddenly have a large number of people join in the pricing fun would oversaturate an already limited buyer's market with more options.

Fundamentally, he is advocating a race to the bottom, and I don't believe that this is good for the artists/producers at all. It cheapens the percieved worth of the work, as well as the actual value. They'll spend more time in order fufilment, and less time making images, and ultimately become a cog in the macine rather than an artist. Sort of reminds me of a few scenes from the movie Metropolis.

I believe these kinds of statements cause downward pressure on the public's perception of photography as an art or an art/craft, or whatever you would like to classify it as. When he trumpets to the world that the public should not be spending more than $20 on a print, (even though the examples he gave are laughably extreme on both ends), he is working to undermine the basic mechanisms that the artist/producer use to maintain some level of sales and sustainability.

Ultimately, his dimestore prints will not enjoy the general collector's market price pressure that many other photographers images will receive, because he is selling a Wall Mart product at a Wall Mart price. There's a reason Wall Mart and Tiffany's dont have overlapping products, and as long as he is aiming for the one crowd, I don't expect him to ever attract the interest from the other crowd in the secondary market. I'd rather show enough self-respect to sell my images at a fair price based on my time involved and also my vision. I'm not trying to make a killing on a few suckers out there, but I'm not about to cheapen my work for the notion that I may sell a few more.

I used to be a subscriber because the magazine claimed to be about 'the images'. The printing quality is the best I have seen and for the most part the artists selected are high quality photographers and I generally find the magazine satisfying. Recently, he has become so enamoured by the digital process that he has felt it necessary to sputter on about digital (as if it has anything to do with 'the images'). This last position statement indicated to me that I'm not sure that he and I are moving in the same direction much at all, and I don't believe that it is worth supporting the magazine when it advocates and intends to hurt the very photography market that many of us may be a part of in some small manner. I will let my subscription lapse.

---Michael

[Paddy Quinn]

I'd be interested in why Jensen doesn't follow his own advice as far as his magazine is concerned?

It's one of the higher priced magazines on the newstand. He prices it to fit in with the high end art, design and literature journals.

Surely he would sell many more if he priced it much more at the level of US Magazine, People or Pop Photo?

[Michael Gordon]

Paddy: I've never been involved in magazine/publication production, and I have no clue what it costs for a single copy of LW to be printed, bound, and shipped, but it's clear to me that the quality is quite high. There's no way this quality can be expected for the same price as the rags you mention.

I'll gladly pay LW subscription rates to see that high quality duotone reproduction on first-rate paper, and I'll gladly pay for LW's cerebal discussions over utterly boring gear discussions/reviews any day.

[Paddy Quinn]

Ah - I see. So it's suggested photographers would do best to sell their photographs at bargain basement prices, but heaven forbid we should do so with the magazine. People might mistake it for a "rag"?

[J.L. Kennedy]

What Michael said! I consider LensWork to be an exceptional value and would pay more for it. I won't say how much more because I don't want Brooks Jensen to get any ideas!

[Brooks Jensen]

Michael,

I appreciate your position and respect your decision. Let me ask your indulgence for this lengthy comment.

I turn 52 next month. I've been seriously involved in fine art photography for 35 years now, and have always had a darkroom and a passion for images since the 7th grade. Over the years I've made countless prints, most of which remained my closet, gathering dust. I used to think these would someday be valuable, or that maybe I would be represented by a gallery, or maybe I might even become an "important photographer." I dutifully cataloged all my negatives and archived my printing notes so I could go back in the darkroom and make more prints of an image if they sold.

I now realize this was entirely a waste of my time. You see, there is no such thing as "the future" for an artist. There is only today, only the work you do today, only what you make today -- and (this is the important point underlying my article) only what you send out into the world today. Artmaking is a process that is always in the present. And we will all run out of the present soon enough.

A good friend of mine just turned 50. Last fall he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He is dying, soon. He had hoped to have enough time left to finally get in the darkroom and print the master prints he'd always intended to, but put off to the future as daily concerns and his business pulled him in more pressing directions. He told me the other day he simply does not have the time or physical energy to make those prints. He will die and his artwork will be, mostly, unrealized.

Another friend of mine -- a mentor really, older than me -- died a few years ago in his mid 60s. He left hundreds and hundreds prints behind in his studio, unsold, unseen, boxed away for distribution, someday. He had book manuscripts and several unseen, unexhibited projects. He was always hoping to find a good gallery to represent him, but he was too busy photographing and making prints to spend any time being a marketer. He was a good photographer, a published photographer, but not a world-famous photographer. So, his estate now has all his images and what to do? No museum will fund the challenge of archiving his work for the ages because he is too little-known to be historically important. What happens to all his prints? This is not a rhetorical question.

Thankfully, I am healthy. My eyesight is good. My energy level is high. But, life is short. Before I know it, my life will be over, my artmaking days will be history. I am not morbid about this, just practical. I do not want to, as Ansel Adams said, "go into the final wash" with a closet full of prints that no one has ever seen, a filing cabinet full of negatives I've never printed, a visual legacy that is lost in obscurity. I am just vain enough to think that I might have something important to offer folks in the form of my artwork. If I were to die with my work boxed up for safe keeping in the recesses of the closet like a hoard of some rare and secret treasure I could not help but see this as an act of greed and selfishness that I would be ashamed of.

So what to do? To me, it's simple. I don't care about money, at least as far as my art is concerned. Honestly. I learned long ago that the art world is a poor place to pursue wealth. To paraphrase the old joke about baseball, you know how to get a half a million cash by owning a baseball team? Start with a million! Same with art, at least for most of us. I know it is for me. I will never make as much money selling art as I can in other, more traditional forms of business and investment. I'm in business of life to make money for my art, not the other way around. For me, artmaking is a matter of the soul, not the bank account. In fact, if I could afford it, I'd give away all my art and fund it entirely from my personal wealth. I'm not wealthy, so I sell it. I sell it for as little as I can. I do so on purpose. I do so because I don't want a barrier to come between my artwork and someone who finds it meaningful and wants to own it. I do so because in my system of values, the best place for my work is OUT THERE, in the hands of someone who wants it and treasures it, not in my closet, in storage, waiting for some rich person to cough up big bucks for it. My responsibility to my artwork is to send it out into the world, to let it live, to let it be artwork instead of investment. My job as an artmaker is to make my work go away so I am free of it, unburdened, so in its wake I can make more in the vacuum it leaves behind.

I price my work so I can cover my costs, including my equipment, my travel, my failures, and a few of my project fantasies. I sell enough that I actually do make a profit, at least I have for the last dozen years or so since I started selling work for "real people prices." I don't live on it; I won't retire on it, but that's not my intention. If I am successful, when I am gone, there will be no trace of my work left in my possession. If I am successful, when I am gone, there will be lots and lots of people who will be glad that I was here and did my work, glad because my work will give them something that enhances their life and brings them joy.

You see, to me artmaking is a privilege -- a privilege I pay for by thinking of my work as a gift back to the world, at least as much as I can. Frankly, I would find it distasteful to think of my artwork as means to pry as much money from the well-healed as I could. I don't want people to "sacrifice greatly" to own my artwork -- that seems backwards to me. In my way of thinking, I should sacrifice greatly so others can benefit from my work. Again, my work is a gift I am willing to offer for as little as I can and a privilege and responsibility I am blessed to be able to manifest as my life.

I know my answers are not applicable to everyone, and that is as it should be. We each have the opportunity to think about and decide how we choose to approach our artmaking and our art life. This is my answer. It took me over 20 years to find it and having done so and lived this principle now for almost 15 years, I can say it is the best thing I every did for my art.

Just my 2-cents worth.

Brooks Jensen

Editor, LensWork Publishing

Written Saturday January 21, 2006 at 3:47PM

[Michael Mutmansky]

"People might mistake it for a "rag"?"

Yup, he wants us to sell prints so they may be confused with the posters of the Dukes of Hazard that you can buy at Wal Mart. After all, they are about the same amount of coin. But not his magazine, that's a step above the standard checkout aisle Inquirer. Interesting internal contradiction.

---Michael

[Michael Mutmansky]

Brooks,

I didn't see your post before my last one. My remark was directed toward Paddy, and was following a particular line of thought to the absurd to make a point which I think must be at least considered in the contex of your advocation for a low price print model.

I'll read over your comments and give them the consideration they deserve when I have a block of time to consider them properly.

---Michael

[Brooks Jensen]

I'd be interested in why Jensen doesn't follow his own advice as far as his magazine is concerned?
--paddy quinn

Paddy,

Actually, we do. It's a matter of perspective.

We print on a sheet-fed book press in state-of-the-art stochastic duotone -- like expensive art books. The other magazines are printed on web presses with a 150 or 200 line screen half-tone. We print on book quality paper; most magazines are printed on non-archival "web press stock." LensWork is perfect bound like a book; most magazines are either folded and stapled in the middle or glue-back bound with a thin paper cover.

Since LensWork is printed and bound like a book, I suppose we should price it like a book -- say, $14.95 or even $19.95. We don't. It is $9.95 on the newsstand and as low as $6.12 per copy by subscription. For something that is printed to art-book quality standards, we think this is a pretty good deal.

LensWork is not an "expensive magazine"; it is an affordable book. We try to bring a book-quality publication to the market at prices that everyone can afford. At least, that's the way we think about it -- as do a number of our readers who tell us so.

Does this answer your question? If not, please let me know and I can try to offer more specifics it you'd like.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Saturday January 21, 2006 at 4:22PM

[bglick]

Michael M.

Well thought out post, I think your position shares the sentiment of many photogs. In the end, humans are like wild animals. A pack of wolves will ban together to take down a Bison, as if they don't, they might starve to death. Yet, a pack of Bisons will just watch one of their own be slowly ripped apart with no assistance.... why? Because, they are doing what is best for them, why risk their lives after they escaped the "singling" out.

Many humans work under the same premise, but in our civilized world it's called capitalism. I actually have no problem with it, because, well, there is no way around it. But as you point out, Brooks is making these statements from a unique position and in someways, he is undermining the potential for his readers to sell prints at more fair pricing. But just like this forum, his readers will decide how to react.

As with all markets where suppliers set prices to potential buyers, the old business adage still rings true, "you should never be smarter then your dumbest competitor". Meaning all the intelligence that goes into "fair and profitable" pricing can be wiped out by a few dumb competitors who price too low. Of course the term dumb, does not always equate to low intelligence, although it probably did when the adage became popular as it was coined for complex building construction bids. Walmart sunk many businesses on this same strategy, but obviously no stupidity existed there.

I agree with Kennedy, "Anyone who sells their product at below their cost is simply benefiting the consumers of their product in the short term, until they get tired of losing money."

However, as long as competition remains very stiff, there will always be new batches of photogs to replace the ones worn out by loosing money......as they attempt to sell low priced prints to gain a following. There is no solution for the art world, its a classic indicator of supply overwhelming the demand. Only monopolies set market pricing, such as utilities, mass transit, etc. For the rest of us, keep looking over your shoulder, next $5 prints.

[bglick]

Brooks, when I made my post above, your post had not recorded yet......

Although my post is a general description of the situation (other then your unique position) I would still like to thank you for posting your well articulated reasonings. It's always great to hear from the person everyone is talking about. Although your position is very well understood, I am sure you can understand why it bothers many on this list.... But, different strokes for different folks. I know the great feeling of spreading your art to others and the pleasure that comes from seeing others appreciate it. You can never be all things to all people so it makes sense to please yourself first.

BTW, in the music field, some musicians desire an audience so bad, they volunteer to play gigs in restaurants for "tips only" . This of course angers those musicians that need to make a living performing their music. If I was a poor musician trying to make a living, this would anger me, but not being a musician, I would applaud his/her passion for music, and tip heavily :-)

[Michael Mutmansky]

Brooks,

I understand your sentiment and appreciate that you are willing to discuss the issue on an internet forum where things can sometimes go awry quickly.

I do agree that many of us have a driving desire to have a positive impact on others during our relatively short time on this planet, and I can appreciate that this is the driving factor behind what you are doing, as it probably is for many of us as well. However, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion as to the best vehicle to deliver a photographic legacy. The reason is the perception of value that your $20 prints create in the minds of the purchasers. These prints may be valued no more than a good quality photography oriented calendar. They will probably not be valued any more than a good quality photography oriented poster, which is often priced in the $35 to $50 range. Both of these items are comparable in terms of transient consumerism in the modern world, with the posters normally lasting longer, but ultimately, having little or no resitual value in the minds of the purchasers or those who make the ultimate decision to throw them in the dumpster at some future point.

I don't want that to happen to my photographs (I print primarily in platinum/palladium and combination gum bichromate and pt/pd). I want the original purchaser to value the piece enough that there won't need to be a decision about dumping it when packing a house to move. Not because they paid $2000 for it, because they probably did not (anyone who knows my current pricing structure knows that my prints are on the low end of the gallery pricing spectrum), but because they like the image, and it enriches their life in some manner.

However, it seems to me that we are a terribly materialistic society, and the price we pay for something is at least a part of how many of us may feel the impact of an image on our lives. Some people moreso than others, and very few people will place absolutely no merit on the price of the piece. My belief is that if you essentially give away an image (with the exception of people who you may have a close personal relationship with), you destroy at least a part of the potential perceived value that the purchaser will place on the print at the beginning of their relationship with it. Recognize that for many people, a print they value will remain on ntheir walls and influence them much longer than it influences you, assuming you move on to other images in reasonable order. I believe that your model partially damages the print's abiliy to become a cherished piece for the purchaser for that reason.

Another concern I have is the volume paradigm that you are working within. This is wholly unsuitable for someone who finds at least part of their photographic satisfaction in the making of a handmade print. I believe you do not have any accommodation within your selling model for this, and it therefore cannot apply in any sustainable manner for artists who are making prints in less than mass-production methods. I am especially disturbed that there are several people in this thread who have defended your pricing structure, citing their own experience and print sales. These photographers are not making digital reproductions, they are making handprinted images, and their costs and time per print must be two orders of magnitude over yours. Unfortunately, I believe they are falling into the same trap, but they don't have anywhere near the sales volume you have, so their effort produces a similar result to many other photographers out there (an handful of prints sold), except the prints lose the initial percieved value I discussed earlier, and they have less income to help sustain their photography. That doesn't seem like a good model for anyone to be using.

The desire to give something to the world is not without merit, but I believe there is a fine line between the satisfaction gained through the giving process, and the satisfaction gained through the perceived photographic legacy that you may be building. One it truly noble and selfless, and the other has a certain amount of ego satisfaction built into it. I'm not saying that I am above the ego part, but I also don't make a claim that I am giving back to the world in the manner that you describe. I feel as artists, we all have something to say, and we attempt to say it, and hopefully we positively impact some people with the work we do. Some of us are also concerned with a photographic legacy as a form of seeming immortality, but frankly, it's a lot easier to have a brood of kids to achieve that.

Ultimately, every person must decide what they truly care about. A good test of this is the measure satisfaction you get from knowing that people enjoy your images. Do you get more satisfaction knowing that 1000 people have an image, or do you get more from knowing that a handful of people really loved the image enough to spend a few hundred dollars (insert whatever pricing level you wish here) on it, and that it will hold a place of honor on the walls of their house? I don't normally give prints away, but I will if I know that the recipient will appreciate it as the gift it is. That is critical to me sharing a print in that manner.

The two friends you mentioned; was your life enriched by them? If so, then while they may not have achieved the goals that may have been placed before them (by themselves, or possibly as much by your own value system), they have achieved their goal, to have a positive, meaningful impact on others. So why does there need to be a large scale to the impact? The small scale interpersonal impact is so much more satisfying to my experience thus far.

I think you meet your stated goals better by publishing the magazine. It gets to a large audience on a regular basis, and the method produces both the volume and presumably the quality you wish to have in the images. My impression is that the images you sell are a secondary market riding the coattails of the magazine (as Kirk said above), and while I don't personally take offence with this marketing approach, I do object when you advocate the approach for others that do not have a magazine to use as a vehicle for marketing.

---Michael

[Kirk Gittings]

"while I don't personally take offence with this marketing approach, I do object when you advocate the approach for others that do not have a magazine to use as a vehicle for marketing."

Thank you Michael for explaining the point in much more detail in your posts. This is a very important topic. How do I deal with price concerns for people who love my work, but can't afford the prints? There are always my books which are very affordable and occasionally posters, calenders and cards.

One lesson I learned the hard way. My first monograph Chaco Body was a huge critical success in the SW. I didn't care about the money after it broke even (about 6 months). I went on to give tons of them away to family menbers, charity auctions, people who did me favours etc. I don't regret many of those and would do it again. 15 years later we are still selling them, it is almost out of print, but our biggest competition is all the ones we gave away to people who really didn't appreciate them who now are selling them used through Amazon. What is an easy test as to whether someone actually appreciates something and will hang on to it?

[Struan Gray]

For me there are two lessons here.

First, that making money with photography is more about selling photographs than making photographs.

Second, that one of the best ways to sell photographs is to sell them to other photographers.

[Kirk Gittings]

I forgot to mention above that I really respect Brooks for jumping into the fray here and explaining his point of view. This forum, as we all know, can be difficult.

and Struan your second point has not been my experience. I would say less than 10% of my sales have been to other photographers. By far most of my sales have been to museums and non-photographer serious collectors.

[Struan Gray]

I shouldn't have said 'best'. Mea culpa. I was really only trying to point out that there is an unmentioned market where 'pro' photographers sell images and services like workshops and magazines to amateurs and enthusiasts. I suspect that Brooks is selling more to that market than to the traditional photography buyers you work with.

[darr]

The photographers that seem to be unhappy with how other non-professionals are selling their work reminds me of an experience I went through last year at my niece's wedding. Since I showed up with a Hasselblad at the wedding, the hired pro got angry at the thought of me using it and had his assistant remind me of "no picture taking" during his self proclaimed propriety sessions with my family. Only problem was no one from the family saw it that way, nor did the contract address it as we read later. Maybe some of the readers hear do not see my point, but I do not think anyone has the right to declare property rights on prices, marketing, and use of one's work other than the owner themselves. Sometimes "pros" need to get over themselves.

[darr]

I bought one of Brook's prints because I am an avid reader of his books, I appreciate his contribution to the genre of photography overall, and I pretty much agree with his views on the topics he has spoken out about. I have also paid big bucks for a Curtis, Lange, and a few other works from what I consider to be important photographers to my liking. But, I have decided recently not to buy a print from a photographer that I was going to after I listened to his politics. So like everything else, it is more than one ingredient that motivates buyers.

[bglick]

As Struan, I too find it ironic, that in the field of fine art photography, most photogs you track seem to start out selling prints to the public...... When this fails, most start selling to photographers themselves. They develop a small following, then this often leads to the most profitable aspect of non commercial photography - workshops. One photog recent sold out $600k+ for ONE photo workshop. Very very few photogs could ever sell this many prints in their lifetime.

When someone sees a nice oil painting in retail setting, they are more compelled to find a means to buy it and enjoy it. With photography, many see a great fine art photo in a retail setting, then, go out and spend 20x the cost of the print to buy gear and workshops so they can take similar photographs. I have always been baffled how displaying our work creates more photographers then fine art buyers. My comments are based on USA experiences. From many people I have met in other countries, I feel its not quite like this in other countries.

[darr]

"I have always been baffled how displaying our work creates more photographers then fine art buyers. My comments are based on USA experiences. From many people I have met in other countries, I feel its not quite like this in other countries."

My husband is an international airline captain for a major carrier and in his humble and well-traveled opinion, Americans on a whole have a very "can-do" attitude. As an example, in some other countries in order to become an airline pilot, you have to be from a certain strata of society with connections. But in the US, with enough initiative, education and ability, you can succeed in most things. This is a function of opportunity that can be found in a free market society. This might explain why when some people see a photograph they want, they believe if they obtain the equipment necessary and attend the right workshops, they too will be producing photographic art to their liking.

[bglick]

Darr, nice to hear I haven't been dreaming this scenario.....and it explains why in USA there is probably 1000x the money spent on photo gear and workshops vs. buying fine art photography. Although this can-do attitude may prevail, it does not seem to follow suit with oil paintings. Most Americans who fall in love with an oil painting will buy it - assuming they can afford it. They don't run to the art store and buy paints / brushes / canvases, etc. In addition to the can-do-it-myself attitude, I also think photography has a unique pull to it....the gear is fasicanting, the process is fascinating, experimenting with the print is artistic, etc...

[Michael Gordon]

Most Americans who fall in love with an oil painting will buy it - assuming they can afford it. They don't run to the art store and buy paints / brushes / canvases, etc.

Ah, the mechanical trappings of the medium. Most realize that they shouldn't buy the brushes, oils, and canvas because they require talent and training to use. Photography, on the other hand, appears to require no talent or training. After all, we are just pressing a button, right? Anyone with an index finger can do it ;)

If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.

Bob Kolbrener

[darr]

"Although this can-do attitude may prevail, it does not seem to follow suit with oil paintings."

WG: I agree! This may have something to do with an innate ability to draw and visualize and then add the craftsmanship of being able to apply the paint well. IMO, there is a difference in the creativity displayed between a photographer that works in a studio setting creating his work from scratch and one that captures the beauty found in the landscape. They are both equally good, but the creativity of coming up with a new concept or walking up to one is different. I think painters display more than one type of creativity, techniques, etc., and the "instant gratification" that a lot of Americans are accustomed to does not necessarily exist in oil painting.

[bglick]

> If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.

Michael.... sheeeesh, very painful statement, but very true...Argggggg.....

Darr, photography is not exactly instant gratification, but it's a lot more "instant" then learning to paint! :-)

IMO, I think these two positions are the biggest reasons fine art photography does so poorly in the USA, at least at the price points many try to sell at. For some reason, a reproduction Kincaid on canvas that cost $100 to make can command $2500 in hundreds of a"Kincaid only" galleries, as people beleive in the "investment component" of the art, i.e. it will go up in value, as well as, they enjoy the art itself. However, fine art photography, which uses the same premise, i.e. make one original, then duplicate it many times..... well, the public does not really buy into the print as an investment. Some of this is because fine art photographers do not have the marketing machine behind them like many paniters acquire after becoming popular. But even if they did, I still think it wouldn't do nearly as good as the painter.

While on this subject, I also feel there is one more component that makes fine art Photography less desireable then paintings. (mostly landscape photography) A painting can portray a fictional landscape scene, which makes the vewer think, imagine, wonder, etc. A landscape photograph is a copy of a real-world scene, almost like a historical recording of the area, a documentary piece. Of course, the photog creates slight changes in color, B&W, perspective, etc.

I came to this conclusion years ago, when I notice people at art shows that look at photographic work, and they flip through prints in a bin and you hear comments such as, oh, where is this shot taken? Is this the Grand Canyon? When was this picture taken? What kind of camera did you use? Now, when people flip through bins of paintings, their mind set is not driven towards uncovering or comprehending the documentary facts of the image, instead, they just take in the art, similar to listening to a new music act. They surely would not ask, what kind of guitar does he use, who trained the drummer, who wrote the music? IMO, these differences are huge when it comes to marketability of each.

I am simplifying a bit, but the point is, landscape photography is not fictional, while oil paintins can be. Fiction books dominate book sales, Americans love fiction. Even being an avid photographer, I often get hooked by the uniqueness of fictional paintings. I am sure there is no term as fictional paintings, but I am classifying all non Photo-realistic paintings in this category. Of course, my comments do not relate to other forms of photography such as street scenes, action, etc.

One of the reason I beleive wildlife photography does so well is.... people enjoy a perfect duplication of the animals look, moreso then a fictional representation. But, IMO, this does not hold true in landscapes. Sorry for the rant..... I feel better.... any comments are appreciated....sorry for going slightly off topic....