Inkjet pricing

[Ted Harris]

Michae lhit the nail onthe head ... we lost the thrust of Clay's original post. His point is valid, there is a good rationale to having two or more different pricing points. Even if one is for a 'mass' produced ink jet print on lower quality paper and the other a 'hand' worked inkjet print produced with a proof on a high end printer .... and so on and so on ...

As for all the opricing arguments, it seems that the pricing of art of any kind is very much what economists call "opportunity pricing" simply meaning that no matter the medium, regardless of the production method, the artiust will can should charge what the market is willing to pay. A print that hangs on the wall for months or years unsold with a $100 price tag on it is overpriced. One that files out of the gallery in days for $1000 may be underpriced. No tto mention that, while it may have a lot to do with talent (whatever that is and however we define it), it has a lot more to do with what the buying public wants. Example, I knew Franz Kline well in the 4 or 5 years before he died in 1962. At the time of his death he was gaining more and more repute and respect with his works hanging in all the noted collections such as MOMA. In the years since his death the value of his work has skyrocketed into the millions for a canvas. However, less than ten years before his death he was painting murals in a New York bar for $5! It's the public and the scarcity of the work.

[steve_782]

You are proposing to do what thousands of artists and hundreds of museums are doing today. Copying an original piece of art to sell as a reproduction. Most of the people call these copies "giclees" - check the Louvre, Museum of Modern Art, etc. - the gift shops are rife with fine art "giclee" reproductions.

The nice thing about them is the inkjet reproduction is much better than the old fashioned poster which they've replaced. The poster was a screened copy printed with an offset press - usually on cheap paper. Most of the time, the printing separations were done from 8x10 color transparency photographs of the original artwork and not the work itself.

Today, the museums and high-end reproduction houses use specialty flatbed scanners costing upwards of $200,000, but capable of extremely fine reproduction of large two dimensional artwork. (Cruse Synchron Scanner; Lumiere Technology Jumbo Scan.)

If the inkjet reproduction is done correctly (including lamination or over spraying of the print), the inkjet reproductions have greater longevity, and resistance to fading than the old fashionded posters due to far better papers and ink.

If you want to create a secondary tier of inkjet reproductions at a lower price, there's certainly a precedent set by world reknowned museums and artists.

While inkjet printing can be used for production of original artwork, there is no reason to not use the technology for reproductions of other artwork produced in a different medium. While the giclee reproduction is not an original work of art, it does provide a way for artist and gallery to expand their sales by offerering a lower priced product that can appeal to a certain buyer.

In my opinion, you as the artist and the gallery as the sales agent just have to make sure the buyer understands it is not an original piece of art, but a reproduction of an original piece of art.

[David Luttmann]

I've done the same thing with just using inkjet printing. Inkjet prints that I make from a master that I created from extensive work have one price. The other price comes from a print whereby I create a new master each time. This is the same thing as finding differences between different runs in the darkroom of silver prints. Over time, the photographer changes his vision somewhat.

Therefore, I charge more for the individual, original inkjet prints than I do the ones run off from a master. This is exactly the same as in conventional processes. Haven't had anyone question this yet.

[Jim Chinn]

You mention the variable costs but are forgetting the tremendous overhead items that Ted listed above (printer, PC, scanner,...). You also ar enot considering breakage/spolilage, paper wastage when loading paper, paper watage when paper mis feeds happen, paper 7 ink wastage when a nozzle clogs, ink maintenance tanks, and time and expense of capturing the image in the first plae. I think selling 8x10's for $20 is a qiock way to bankruptcy.

I agree that one needs to factor those things in. I guess I was thinking in terms of someone who produces exclusively inkjets and would be spreading the cost over an entire range of prints offered from the less expensive smaller offerings to larger limited editions.

[clay harmon]

Maybe I should clarify some things about the original post. First, this idea of prejudice (I spell it the same way as Webster's). As a matter of fact, all things being equal, I could switch the traditional print versus inkjet print and make the same economic argument.

But things are not equal. My investment in time is vastly different between print #2 of a traditional print and print #2 of the inkjet print. My variable cost in time is far lower (on the margin) for the incremental inkjet print. Whereas the time required to print is the same for each additional print done using traditional methods.

The statement was made that time and materials should have no bearing on the price. This is precisely the brilliant strategy currently being used by General Motors. The fact is that the two methods have an entirely different labor content.

I intentionally avoided mentioning a loaded term like 'quality' in my original post. And I continue to avoid it, because of the inevitable sh**storm it always causes. Would everyone be satisfied if I will state that I think inkjet prints can have excellent quality, just as I think gum platinum prints can excellent quality? They are different, but both can be done in an excellent way. Well, there, I said it.

My main point is that I have been thinking about the whole inkjet thing, and I am beginning to believe that it may represent an opportunity to make lower priced reproductions with a quality that far exceeds traditional poster printing, and does not require the same commitment to a large sized run of prints. Potentially, this is a VERY GOOD thing in getting your work out there in the world.

Parenthetically, a little thought to ponder. Another statement was made that producing a digital print can require the same amount of time as a traditional print. When was the last time a new technology so rapidly eclipsed an older technology when it offered no benefit to the user in either time savings or ease-of-use?
I think the subtle implication that digital printing is actually just as difficult or perhaps even more difficult than traditional methods is belied by the rapidity of its adoption by the enthusiastic masses. If it was just as difficult to master, people would not be spending big bucks to adopt the technology wholesale.

Finally, a critique of this two-tiered pricing model that I did not hear mentioned is that one could perhaps devalue the upper tier by selling the lower tier on the cheap. Before anyone howls, let's just say that I propose selling small gum platinums for cheap and my monster Epson prints as the "real thing". On the other hand, airlines have no problem filling both coach and first class seats, and the plane takes everyone to the same place. I don't have a good answer for that question.

[David Luttmann]

Clay,

As I mentioned, one of the biggest things to do with any difference in pricing is the perceived amount of work that goes into an original. This is one of the greatest misconceptions about silver vs inkjet printing....that each silver is an original as opposed to a copy for the inkjet.

It is very easy for the photographer to start from scratch, each time, with a digital file as well. Sometimes people talk about working on it once and then hitting a button to make the print again. However, for original prints, I sit down at the computer and start from scratch each time. Thus, my inkjet print is just as much an original as any other process....and should be priced the same.

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is one of the greatest misconceptions about silver vs inkjet printing....

[David Luttmann]

Good to see you back Jorge.

[steve_782]

My main point is that I have been thinking about the whole inkjet thing, and I am beginning to believe that it may represent an opportunity to make lower priced reproductions with a quality that far exceeds traditional poster printing, and does not require the same commitment to a large sized run of prints. Potentially, this is a VERY GOOD thing in getting your work out there in the world.

As I stated in my original post - you and a thousand other artists and hundreds of museums. Why belabor the point? It's being done. You just have to make up YOUR mind if that's what you want to do.

Parenthetically, a little thought to ponder. Another statement was made that producing a digital print can require the same amount of time as a traditional print. When was the last time a new technology so rapidly eclipsed an older technology when it offered no benefit to the user in either time savings or ease-of-use?

I think the subtle implication that digital printing is actually just as difficult or perhaps even more difficult than traditional methods is belied by the rapidity of its adoption by the enthusiastic masses. If it was just as difficult to master, people would not be spending big bucks to adopt the technology wholesale.

Yeah, and I can take a negative to a lab and pick up a print and have no work in it at all. Likewise, in one hour I can teach anyone to expose a black and white print and slop it through 3 chemicals and wash it. The fact that anyone can learn to make a rudimentary B&W print in one hour does not represent the amount of work it takes to truly master the process - and YOU KNOW THAT.

Then why do you believe that digital printing is any easier? Because it involves a computer assisted system? Or, because it's so easy to get a rudimentary printed image? Okay, anyone can push a button on a camera and get a rudimentary image - I guess that makes everything in photography easy?

And, oh, by the way...millions of people rapidly adopted photography specifically because it was and IS so easy to get an image. Making a photograph takes zero talent and zero technical knowledge.

Now they're just switching over to digital printing because they can afford the equipment and space required, and appreciate the convenience of making their own images. That in no way, shape, or form represents what it takes to make a fine quality inkjet print anymore than using a box Brownie and dropping the film at a lab represents what it takes to get a fine quality photographic print.

Yes, you can push the button and get an average digital print quite easily. Getting a print that represents 100% of what is possible and available through digital printing is a whole different story. Getting the first 90% is quite straightforward - it's the last 10% that's the real bugger and takes a lot of work, testing, and perserverence.

If you don't know about or care about the absolute ultimate quality that can be had out of a digital print - you won't care to put the work into it. But, believe me, with over 35 years of experience in traditional photographic printing, graphic arts, offset printing, and fine art lithographic printing - you really have to work and apply yourself to the digital process to get everything possible out of it.

Before anyone howls, let's just say that I propose selling small gum platinums for cheap and my monster Epson prints as the "real thing".

Who's howling? If your work is conceived to be large prints, and the gum platinums are the intermediate step to the final print - so what? You're not the first person to do that art workflow. There is an artist that does paintings as the intermediate step to the inkjet print. She uses both mediums (painting / photography) for the intrinsic qualities inherent in each, with the final piece of artwork she's envisioned being the the large format inkjet print made from a photograph of the painting.

Perhaps you're just now realizing the vast possibilities available when you are no longer constrained by labels, ideals, or what amount or type of "work" makes up a "real" piece of art.

[clay harmon]

Look, I am not trying to belabor anything. I am pretty much just thinking out loud. I thought I might get some interesting observations and thoughts from others. Instead, this seems to have touched some ridiculous nerve in people who are interpolating what I wrote and somehow think they can crawl in my head and figure out that this is a disguised digital bashing post.

I appreciate your comments. So this is a completely un-original thought that sophisticated artists have been doing for some time? Well good. That is some validation.

I think this horse is completely dead now. Or pony. I don't think this ever had the stature of a horse.

As I stated in my original post - you and a thousand other artists and hundreds of museums. Why belabor the point? It's being done. You just have to make up YOUR mind if that's what you want to do.



Yeah, and I can take a negative to a lab and pick up a print and have no work in it at all. Likewise, in one hour I can teach anyone to expose a black and white print and slop it through 3 chemicals and wash it. The fact that anyone can learn to make a rudimentary B&W print in one hour does not represent the amount of work it takes to truly master the process - and YOU KNOW THAT.

Then why do you believe that digital printing is any easier? Because it involves a computer assisted system? Or, because it's so easy to get a rudimentary printed image? Okay, anyone can push a button on a camera and get a rudimentary image - I guess that makes everything in photography easy?

And, oh, by the way...millions of people rapidly adopted photography specifically because it was and IS so easy to get an image. Making a photograph takes zero talent and zero technical knowledge.

Now they're just switching over to digital printing because they can afford the equipment and space required, and appreciate the convenience of making their own images. That in no way, shape, or form represents what it takes to make a fine quality inkjet print anymore than using a box Brownie and dropping the film at a lab represents what it takes to get a fine quality photographic print.

Yes, you can push the button and get an average digital print quite easily. Getting a print that represents 100% of what is possible and available through digital printing is a whole different story. Getting the first 90% is quite straightforward - it's the last 10% that's the real bugger and takes a lot of work, testing, and perserverence.

If you don't know about or care about the absolute ultimate quality that can be had out of a digital print - you won't care to put the work into it. But, believe me, with over 35 years of experience in traditional photographic printing, graphic arts, offset printing, and fine art lithographic printing - you really have to work and apply yourself to the digital process to get everything possible out of it.




Who's howling? If your work is conceived to be large prints, and the gum platinums are the intermediate step to the final print - so what? You're not the first person to do that art workflow. There is an artist that does paintings as the intermediate step to the inkjet print. She uses both mediums (painting / photography) for the intrinsic qualities inherent in each, with the final piece of artwork she's envisioned being the the large format inkjet print made from a photograph of the painting.

Perhaps you're just now realizing the vast possibilities available when you are no longer constrained by labels, ideals, or what amount or type of "work" makes up a "real" piece of art.