Print Pricing

[Kodachrome25]

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

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

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

[rdenney]

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

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

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

I don't think you're being honest.

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

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

Rick "who knows what his billed rates is" Denney

[Vaughn]

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

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

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

[rdenney]

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

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

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

[Greg Blank]

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

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

[Jim collum]

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

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

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

[Vaughn]

Worked with the curator of the gallery.

[BradS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirk Gittings]

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

[Thad Gerheim]

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

+1
When I first started selling at art fairs there was a some people asking if my prices included the frames. When I said yes, they would look closely, figuring there must be flaws somewhere and eventually walk away. Every year I would raise my prices and sell more. I don't understand people being cheap and wanting to negotiate, I can't go to the grocery store or fine restaurant and negotiate on the price.