Never had you on my list. Never wanted to look at your work.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Never had you on my list. Never wanted to look at your work.
____
Simple Answer:
Correct! It doesn't...
The above cited 'Print Pricing' practice... Usually doesn't warrant said justification.
________
____
Vaughn... I am sincerely afraid, that I am going to have to 'respectfully' disagree with this statement. Did you perhaps mistake the word 'Effort' with 'Skill'?
--
The 'Skill set' required (Yes, skill in the creation of both the Negative and the Print), in order to produce 'larger sized' Prints... Is *** Exactly *** the same...
... Irregardless of Print Size (up until a certain size point).
More materials and effort (perhaps even time?) are required of course... But that goes without saying...
--
All of this 'talk' here on the forum of pricing your Prints by the 'Square Foot', makes it sound (to me) like people... Are in 'Real Estate Development' or perhaps trying to sell a 'commodity' (like 'board feet' of lumber for a New Home) -- Instead of 'Fine Art'.
--
Best regards,
-Tim.
________
Last edited by Taija71A; 12-Dec-2013 at 17:14.
I think Ken Lee says it pretty well.
"This sort of photo is best appreciated at larger size, where we can see the fine details."
Art work has no inherent value but becomes valorised by discourse. Part of the discourse is to actually put a price tag on the work. Whether the market accepts the price is another matter again. From a personal point of view it is a much less sour experience to fail to sell at $600 than at $6.
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
My policy: regular people - they just pay what you ask. They either buy it or don't. Millionaires : always double the price, because they'll want it at half price.
Billionaires... be patient... they'll expect it for nothing, and will expect you to deliver and hang it yourself. Hannibal Lector said it best, People covet what they see.
Size has nothing to do with. I've sometimes priced tiny prints higher than huge ones, because the appeal of the print warranted it. If someone covets it enough,
they'll pay.
People buy large prints for the same reason they buy any other large thing to be displayed...
for the bragging rights.
The value of an artwork depends entirely on the reputation/familiarity of the artist.
If your name is a household word, like Kirk's, charge through the nose.
If yours is unknown, like mine, give it away, hoping you won't have to pay to do so. ;-)
Basic rule of salesmanship... Ask twice what you think it's worth.
You can always reduce the price. It's very difficult to increase it.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Over the years I've followed the art marketing game for things like lithographs. Speaking of "names", a favorite trick over the years has been for someone to have
their gallery call them "the next Picasso" or "an American Picasso". I've seen what basically amount to fancy posters by some of these people sell for thousand of
dollars apiece based upon such hype. But by now very very few such samples are worth even as much as the frame they were put in. Most of us are more ethical
than to pull those kinds of stunts. But there is such a thing a psychology. I just returned from the islands, where the tourist rows are absolutely filled with cute
inkjet prints for less than they cost to make and mount. So what distinguishes a two dollar inkjet from a five thousand dollar one the same size next door, by some
"famous" dude? Basically, just a bluff. The two dollar could even be aesthetically better, and if the poor stiff had marked it at a hundred times his overtly humble
price, he'd probably sell ten times as many.
___
Good Stuff!!!
Maris, Drew and Leigh have all just... 'Hit the Nail directly on the Head!'
________
And I respectfully disagree with your point. Assuming a 4x5 negative made into a contact print and also made as a 16x20 or 20x24 print. The enlargement from the 4x5 will show any mistakes, etc that is just about impossible to see in the 4x5 contact print. The slightest camera shake, slight out-of-focus areas (unless intentional), poor tonal gradation due to sloppy film/developer choice/technique, poor choice of scale for the particular image, etc. will degrade the over-all image when greatly enlarged. Thus more skill is needed to produce the larger print.
Making larger prints does require a slightly different skill set than small prints...beyond just effort. Ability (learned through experience) to handle large pieces of wet paper, for example. Spotting requires a more refined technique.
But I will reverse myself, in that once one has mastered all the skills required for producing the finest negatives: the finest contact prints, small and large enlargements; using various printing processes; knowledge and expertise on matting and framing in all sizes; then perhaps the 'creative fee' concept makes sense, as the skill set one has is the same no matter what type of size of print one makes -- and one just tacks on a square inch cost to cover the extra time and material needed (and/or add a surcharge for more time-consuming or expensive processes such as carbon printing or platinum printing).
But to me that means if one charges $200 for the 8x10 and $800 for the 16x20, it may not be the 16x20 that is over-priced, but the 8x10 being under-priced.
My photo professor/mentor use to introduce me the "Humboldt County Ansel Adams"...bloody embarassing and untrue.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks