the rationale of print pricing - is there one.

[percepts]

So can someone explain why it is that a print which is made at 16x20 should be priced at say $400 and one made at 8x10 should be priced at $200.
Fact is they both take about the same amount of man hours to make and difference in material cost is maybe $5 if matting is included and the same negative was used to make both. What would be the justification in making such a big price differentiation between the two sizes? It just seems to be taking the **** out of any potential buyer if they think about it.

[jnantz]

i have seen some 8x10s go for less than 20$ and some 20x24 for for a 1000$
i don't think it has anything to do with size, just what the market will allow and
what the buyer is willing to pay.

[vinny]

I price my prints that way actually but the rest isn't true for my work. An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. I think that's true for most color work from labs as well, different of course if you do it yourself. While I do my own drum scans, others pay much more for larger files required for larger prints. For me, a 16x20 silver print costs much more and takes much longer to complete than an 8x10 since I make many work prints before the final results are achieved. 320 square inches of paper costs about 4 times as much as 80 square inches. One 16x20 print exhausts 4x chemicals of an 8x10. Make a mistake on a matt for a 16x20 and you've just bought an entire sheet of board. If there's an overcut, a spec of dirt, or a smudge, I scrap it and start over. I sell very few 8x10's.
Maybe think of it as small prints being "bargain prints" for those who like an image but can't afford the expense of big ones. I've never had anyone ask why prints cost more as they get larger.
Just my two cents.

[QT Luong]

Most people are willing to pay more for a larger print.

[Martin Miksch]

...An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. ...

Hmmm???

[jp]

In the field, you've got to have a better photo to look just as good at 16x20 as 8x10. A 35mm iso 400 handheld snapshot can be reasonably good at 8x10, but might not be suitable for 16x20. Go much bigger and you're apt to need a tripod, more light, nicer lenses, have a preference for larger formats, etc..

In the darkroom, most people don't have big enough trays, easels, enlargers, so it makes the 16x20 much more special. You've really got to have a large wet area to your darkroom to have 4 16x20 capable trays going. As people have also mentioned, the additional chemical use also adds to the cost.

With digital, a 16x20 requires a substantially more expensive inkjet printer than 8x10.

On the wall, no question 8x10 is a bit too small sometimes, especially if it's complementing additional larger artwork or is in a large room. If you've got a modest place, an 8x10 is nice, but given a choice, I would prefer slightly larger. For digital, I like printing 10x15 and 11x17 ish inkjet prints; they make a nice image in a 16x20 custom frame.

A good many 8x10 prints, if cheap, will end up in walmart frames where people don't clean the glass before use, no matting so the print is pressed to glass, and the frame is terribly cut and off 1/8" where it is stapled together.

Having used various methods to produce photos, I understand higher prices for 16x20. If someone really likes the photo and wants one to display, and they have a big enough space to display a 16x20, in many cases can afford the higher prices.

[Mark Barendt]

Cost has no real bearing on selling price except with commodities like say corn, coffee, milk, paper and ink.

The ONLY thing that matters in pricing is supply and demand. Commodities can be replaced easily, originals and limited editions can't.

So the question becomes, are the prints you are referring to commodities (simply paper and ink) or are they limited resources (original art) that only someone like you or I can create with very limited supply?

One of the reasons I've chosen analog methods for myself is that each print is essentially an original with it's own personality.

There is no finished digital original so I can't just press a button and get an exact duplicate, so in my case I'm not selling a commodity that can be easily mass produced.

I physically make each print and my time and willingness to create more prints from a given negative is limited. I never intend to produce more than 25 prints from any given negative and plan to cut the negative in half whenever I reach that limit.

(BTW this is not to "dis" digital work in any way, it is simply my business model choice, with it's own challenges, and the medium I like to work in.)


So can someone explain why it is that a print which is made at 16x20 should be priced at say $400 and one made at 8x10 should be priced at $200.
Fact is they both take about the same amount of man hours to make and difference in material cost is maybe $5 if matting is included and the same negative was used to make both. What would be the justification in making such a big price differentiation between the two sizes? It just seems to be taking the **** out of any potential buyer if they think about it.

[percepts]

My question was prompted by seeing so many sites where the same image is offered at several different sizes with big price differentials between each size.
Some of the points raised are valid but often not so. It was just something that ocurred to me as I wondered if asked, how would I justify the price differential. Not that I should have to, but I couldn't see how I could. It just doesn't seem to make sense. But then buying art isn't something you can rationalise unless you are buying it purely for investment.

[Mark Barendt]

It was just something that ocurred to me as I wondered if asked, how would I justify the price differential. Not that I should have to, but I couldn't see how I could.

The only reason I see for offering different sizes at different prices is to participate in different markets.

Basically you are describing a business plan where you are wanting to be able to sell to both $200 customers and $400 customers without any limit on volume. Size is an easy way to differentiate.

[vinny]

I price my prints that way actually but the rest isn't true for my work. An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. I think that's true for most color work from labs as well, different of course if you do it yourself. While I do my own drum scans, others pay much more for larger files required for larger prints. For me, a 16x20 silver print costs much more and takes much longer to complete than an 8x10 since I make many work prints before the final results are achieved. 320 square inches of paper costs about 4 times as much as 80 square inches. One 16x20 print exhausts 4x chemicals of an 8x10. Make a mistake on a matt for a 16x20 and you've just bought an entire sheet of board. If there's an overcut, a spec of dirt, or a smudge, I scrap it and start over. I sell very few 8x10's.
Maybe think of it as small prints being "bargain prints" for those who like an image but can't afford the expense of big ones. I've never had anyone ask why prints cost more as they get larger.
Just my two cents.

that should say a 16x20 costs 3 times as much as an 8x10.

[Brian Ellis]

Sure, there's several rationales. Buyers will generally pay more for a large print than an otherwise identical small print. Materials, lab costs, mailing costs, etc. are more for a large prints than a smaller one. And since almost everyone charges more for a large print why would someone do any differently to their disadvantage? Those may or make sense to you but I think those are the rationales.

[Charles Carstensen]

Large prints are more impressive to the viewer. Large prints cost more to create, deliver by the artist. The skill level necessary to create a larger print is greater (IMHO). Large prints take up more wall space.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

So can someone explain why it is that a print which is made at 16x20 should be priced at say $400 and one made at 8x10 should be priced at $200.
Fact is they both take about the same amount of man hours to make and difference in material cost is maybe $5 if matting is included and the same negative was used to make both. What would be the justification in making such a big price differentiation between the two sizes? It just seems to be taking the **** out of any potential buyer if they think about it.

If you're selling a 16x20 for $400, I think you're asking the wrong question, unless you don't limit your editions.

The biggest turn off to people who are buying is something that's priced too low. You can always negotiate down - you can never negotiate up. If you saw a Lexus sitting in a new car showroom for $5,000, brand new, all the trimmings, you would run away pretty fast. The same should be thought about for your photography - it's a luxury item (if you don't want to consider it one - you should), and it has to be priced accordingly. Limit your editions to 25 or less per size and anything over an 8x10 sell for at least $1000. Hypothetical scenario: Somebody says to you "That's too expensive, I'll give you $800" when you were considering selling it for $400, you know you've made the right decision.

[QT Luong]

anything over an 8x10 sell for at least $1000.

One needs to have the bio to justify those prices. Not a good advice for emerging photographers in my opinion. Overpricing is often done in an attempt to make the work look more important than it really is. Serious buyers know better.

[percepts]

If you're selling a 16x20 for $400, I think you're asking the wrong question, unless you don't limit your editions.

The biggest turn off to people who are buying is something that's priced too low. You can always negotiate down - you can never negotiate up. If you saw a Lexus sitting in a new car showroom for $5,000, brand new, all the trimmings, you would run away pretty fast. The same should be thought about for your photography - it's a luxury item (if you don't want to consider it one - you should), and it has to be priced accordingly. Limit your editions to 25 or less per size and anything over an 8x10 sell for at least $1000. Hypothetical scenario: Somebody says to you "That's too expensive, I'll give you $800" when you were considering selling it for $400, you know you've made the right decision.

Unfortunately you haven't a clue what my images are worth because you have never seen one in the flesh so are not qualified to comment on what price they should be. Besides that wasn't the question which was asking for the rationale between relative pricing of different print sizes from the same negative and not absolute pricing.

[Daniel Grenier]

.... If you saw a Lexus sitting in a new car showroom for $5,000, brand new, all the trimmings, you would run away pretty fast......

Are you kidding? A Lexus at $5,000? I'd buy the thing right on the spot. Same for a $100 Ansel Adams !

The car price analogy can be applied to FA Photography. For instance, I have bought 8x10 contact prints for $40 and other 8x10s from better known artists for $1500. You are buying experience, supporting a body of work, a vision, a commitment to craft and medium. Joe new face asking $1000 for an 8x10 would be exactly like Hyundai asking $75,000 for their cars. There's no way in hell I'd buy a $75,000 Hyundai OR a $1000 8x10 from some unknown wannabe (no reference to OP is implied, thanks). I would, however, pay a couple thousands to a REAL Artist's work just like I'd pay serious money for a "real" car.

As for the original question, print pricing does have to do with sheer size IMO. Yes, size matters in this business. It's a male appendage issue thinggy built in our genes, I guess.

[Mark Sawyer]

The biggest turn off to people who are buying is something that's priced too low. You can always negotiate down - you can never negotiate up.

This raised an eye-brow. I've always heard the rule was "never negotiate and never lower your prices, as it's unfair to thers who've bought your work". And of course, if a gallery is involved, they have their own concerns in pricing...

But David is much more in tune with these things than I. So, begging the forum's pardon for going a little OT, are an artist's prices negotiable?

[Mike Putnam]

I believe Charles is on the money in that there are complexities, especially with large framed prints which justify a higher price. Also, I don't think you should underestimate the "Wow" factor of a large nicely done print. One more thing! In some markets(mine is included) larger prints eliminate many of the "I could have taken that picture" perceptions from the minds of potential buyers whereas smaller prints are less likely to give the perception that the artist must be a Professional. This is not to say that I think all images are better at a bigger size, because I don't think they are. I do , however, believe that perception of value is critical, if you want to make money.
Mike
Mike Putnam Photography (http://www.mikeputnamphoto.com/)
Pacific Crest Stock Photography (http://www.pacificcreststock.com/blog/)

[QT Luong]

are an artist's prices negotiable?

Heard this year from Charlotte Cotton (head of photography at LACMA) talking to collectors: in this economy, gallery are not going to change the sticker prices, but they are going to be much more flexible.

[Frank Petronio]

I think you end up charging plus or minus within 20% or so of what your peers in the same market are getting, whether it's a county craft show or a world-class gallery.

Frankly if you offer the same photo in different sizes, it puts you in the lower end of the art market and you take what you can get. If you were in the truly high end, your piece would be a one-of-kind -- you don't see Jock Sturges or one of those Germans (Gursky, etc.) giving collectors a choice of sizes and mat colors....

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

One needs to have the bio to justify those prices. Not a good advice for emerging photographers in my opinion. Overpricing is often done in an attempt to make the work look more important than it really is. Serious buyers know better.

Although I've only exhibited at 4 trade shows (Photo NY twice and Photo SF twice), I've studied dozens of others, published over 100 photographers for thousands of collectors to view. I've spoken with dozens of galleries about helping emerging photographers price their work correctly. Though I'm not the preeminent expert - all knowing and all seeing - I believe my experience helps me understand this a bit.

When I've spoken to my subscribers who are collectors, the number one complaint I hear is "It's so cheap - what's wrong with it?" when they're discussing photographers who've exhibited in my magazine before. They're afraid to buy it. This has happened so often that in order to be published in the magazine these days, a photographer must adjust the price of their work to fall more in line with the price point of what my subscribers are buying. I.E. - They're not going to even consider for two seconds an 8 x 10 PRINT ONLY under $450. Nor would they consider a 16 x 20 for $4000 without a name to match the justification for such a price.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

This raised an eye-brow. I've always heard the rule was "never negotiate and never lower your prices, as it's unfair to thers who've bought your work". And of course, if a gallery is involved, they have their own concerns in pricing...

But David is much more in tune with these things than I. So, begging the forum's pardon for going a little OT, are an artist's prices negotiable?

You'd be surprised how often art is negotiated at galleries. I don't have any hard data or percentages, but I know I was surprised when I heard how many galleries, some of them very high up on the food chain, will negotiate... especially in this economy.

Really, I think it depends on the photographer and I think it depends on the gallery. If you're uncomfortable with negotiation, I would set a price point that you're comfortable with and then go $100 lower. People have an emotional attachment to their work and if they're uncomfortable negotiating, they might accidentally set the price too high and reject any other offers other than the set price. I've had collectors negotiate with me before at art fairs and I know other photographers who've sold work in my magazine who've negotiated.

[Turner Reich]

Frankly if you offer the same photo in different sizes, it puts you in the lower end of the art market and you take what you can get. If you were in the truly high end, your piece would be a one-of-kind --
you don't see Jock Sturges or one of those Germans (Gursky, etc.) giving collectors a choice of sizes and mat colors....
__________________

Sounds like E.W., I don't do retouching and you get a 2 1/4" X 3 1/2" print, no exceptions type of offering. I think as an "Artist" you need to set the rules and not let the "Public" decide. Should get a lot of no, no, no, on this but what the hey.

[percepts]

I think you end up charging plus or minus within 20% or so of what your peers in the same market are getting, whether it's a county craft show or a world-class gallery.

Frankly if you offer the same photo in different sizes, it puts you in the lower end of the art market and you take what you can get. If you were in the truly high end, your piece would be a one-of-kind -- you don't see Jock Sturges or one of those Germans (Gursky, etc.) giving collectors a choice of sizes and mat colors....

I'm inclined to agree. Putting up the same image at different sizes does make a photo site look like a picture shop as opposed to an artists gallery or potfolio. I guess it's really about where each us choose to position our work in the market rather than a pricing rationale. The pricing rationale comes as a result of market positioning. And whether we like or not, putting the same image at several sizes and prices, positions it at the lower end of the market.

[Peter De Smidt]

Pricing is a very tricky business. There seems to be two extremes: price for the rich, or price for the common person, ala Brooks Jensen. Decent arguments can be made for both positions, and I see no way to prove that one method is superior to the other. I've seen work in Museums and expensive galleries that I've detested, and I've seen lots of decent work that was affordably priced.

Once consideration, though, is that it's very hard to lower one's prices, as that's not being fair to those who purchased at the higher price, and these buyer's will no doubt be offended if they find out. It's easier to raise prices, if that seems justified, which will make prior purchasers happy.

[QT Luong]

Frankly if you offer the same photo in different sizes, it puts you in the lower end of the art market and you take what you can get. If you were in the truly high end, your piece would be a one-of-kind -- you don't see Jock Sturges or one of those Germans (Gursky, etc.) giving collectors a choice of sizes and mat colors....

Not necessarily, and irrelevant anyways (what makes you "high end" is your place in the art world, not your offerings).

[Charles Carstensen]

This raised an eye-brow. I've always heard the rule was "never negotiate and never lower your prices, as it's unfair to thers who've bought your work". And of course, if a gallery is involved, they have their own concerns in pricing...

But David is much more in tune with these things than I. So, begging the forum's pardon for going a little OT, are an artist's prices negotiable?

EVERYTHING is negotiable. The key is being prepared to negotiate.

[Drew Wiley]

I start out by figuring what it actually costs to provide the print - time and materials,
including the framing and any potential waste. This gives me a baseline so I can figure
reasonable markup, including my own reasonable rate of labor. (Since I do all my own lab work and framing, this puts me at an advantage compared to someone who farms it out.) The degree of markup itself must factor in any hypothetical discount or commission involved. This is the LEAST the print should fetch. After that, it's a matter of perceived artistic value, which can be much higher than the baseline. One also has to account for the demographic audience involved. Around here, most people
pay the asking price (ironically, it always seems to be the millionaires who haggle, while
the much rarer billionaire expects it for free!). There are just too many photographers
who either give their work away and don't know how to factor real expenses, or else
look over their shoulder to see what someone else is doing. Unless your prices are
unreasonable, people should be buying your work because that is what they actually
want, not because it is a shopped commodity. It also depends on the education level
of the client, and whether they understand the difference between different print
media, factors of craft and scarcity, permanence, etc. And there is what I call the airhead factor, when someone is buying a famous autograph as an "investment" rather than an artwork for its own sake.