the rationale of print pricing - is there one.

[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.