Question about pricing.....

[Michael Graves]

Please forgive me if this is a stupid question. Those of you who know me are already used to that by now, anyway.

But is there a real reason that larger prints sell for more than smaller ones? IMO, if I had the green to shop for a Walker Evans or an Edward Weston, I would much rather have one of their exquisite contact prints than an enlargement from the same negative. However, it seems that price per square inch is the prevalent structure. Am I alone in the world in thinking this?

[Marko]

Please forgive me if this is a stupid answer...

Larger prints require larger walls to hang them on and that implies enough money to buy big houses with such walls, ergo the prints are priced in such a way as to complement their new homes.

As for why people prefer them to the small ones, I guess it's the same reason why they prefer those huge houses - status symbols and such.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael, you are knowledgeable about photography and know what you like. You are not buying wall decor but fine art. When people are buying wall decor on the other hand, like carpet, more yardage simply costs more.

[davidb]

Depends on the artist.

Cartier Bresson only made 11x14

Michael Kenna only makes 9"x9"

[jim kitchen]

My framed 24"X30" images cost three times more than the price of my framed 16"X20" images, where the cost of my finishing materials happen to be the driving force behind my pricing scheme, and then again, the gallery's overhead dictates what they sell for in the end.

jim k

[Brian Ellis]

Depends to some extent on the photographer. For someone of Weston's stature, the size of print doesn't matter. In fact since he made no enlargements himself, an enlargement wouldn't be considered typical of his work and would probably sell for less than a smaller contact print.

[Ross Chambers]

And perhaps avoid sepia toning, as well, if you want to sell prints; seems that way for paintings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/08/art1

Regards - Ross