the rationale of print pricing - is there one.

[percepts]

So can someone explain why it is that a print which is made at 16x20 should be priced at say $400 and one made at 8x10 should be priced at $200.
Fact is they both take about the same amount of man hours to make and difference in material cost is maybe $5 if matting is included and the same negative was used to make both. What would be the justification in making such a big price differentiation between the two sizes? It just seems to be taking the **** out of any potential buyer if they think about it.

[jnantz]

i have seen some 8x10s go for less than 20$ and some 20x24 for for a 1000$
i don't think it has anything to do with size, just what the market will allow and
what the buyer is willing to pay.

[vinny]

I price my prints that way actually but the rest isn't true for my work. An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. I think that's true for most color work from labs as well, different of course if you do it yourself. While I do my own drum scans, others pay much more for larger files required for larger prints. For me, a 16x20 silver print costs much more and takes much longer to complete than an 8x10 since I make many work prints before the final results are achieved. 320 square inches of paper costs about 4 times as much as 80 square inches. One 16x20 print exhausts 4x chemicals of an 8x10. Make a mistake on a matt for a 16x20 and you've just bought an entire sheet of board. If there's an overcut, a spec of dirt, or a smudge, I scrap it and start over. I sell very few 8x10's.
Maybe think of it as small prints being "bargain prints" for those who like an image but can't afford the expense of big ones. I've never had anyone ask why prints cost more as they get larger.
Just my two cents.

[QT Luong]

Most people are willing to pay more for a larger print.

[Martin Miksch]

...An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. ...

Hmmm???

[jp]

In the field, you've got to have a better photo to look just as good at 16x20 as 8x10. A 35mm iso 400 handheld snapshot can be reasonably good at 8x10, but might not be suitable for 16x20. Go much bigger and you're apt to need a tripod, more light, nicer lenses, have a preference for larger formats, etc..

In the darkroom, most people don't have big enough trays, easels, enlargers, so it makes the 16x20 much more special. You've really got to have a large wet area to your darkroom to have 4 16x20 capable trays going. As people have also mentioned, the additional chemical use also adds to the cost.

With digital, a 16x20 requires a substantially more expensive inkjet printer than 8x10.

On the wall, no question 8x10 is a bit too small sometimes, especially if it's complementing additional larger artwork or is in a large room. If you've got a modest place, an 8x10 is nice, but given a choice, I would prefer slightly larger. For digital, I like printing 10x15 and 11x17 ish inkjet prints; they make a nice image in a 16x20 custom frame.

A good many 8x10 prints, if cheap, will end up in walmart frames where people don't clean the glass before use, no matting so the print is pressed to glass, and the frame is terribly cut and off 1/8" where it is stapled together.

Having used various methods to produce photos, I understand higher prices for 16x20. If someone really likes the photo and wants one to display, and they have a big enough space to display a 16x20, in many cases can afford the higher prices.

[Mark Barendt]

Cost has no real bearing on selling price except with commodities like say corn, coffee, milk, paper and ink.

The ONLY thing that matters in pricing is supply and demand. Commodities can be replaced easily, originals and limited editions can't.

So the question becomes, are the prints you are referring to commodities (simply paper and ink) or are they limited resources (original art) that only someone like you or I can create with very limited supply?

One of the reasons I've chosen analog methods for myself is that each print is essentially an original with it's own personality.

There is no finished digital original so I can't just press a button and get an exact duplicate, so in my case I'm not selling a commodity that can be easily mass produced.

I physically make each print and my time and willingness to create more prints from a given negative is limited. I never intend to produce more than 25 prints from any given negative and plan to cut the negative in half whenever I reach that limit.

(BTW this is not to "dis" digital work in any way, it is simply my business model choice, with it's own challenges, and the medium I like to work in.)

So can someone explain why it is that a print which is made at 16x20 should be priced at say $400 and one made at 8x10 should be priced at $200.
Fact is they both take about the same amount of man hours to make and difference in material cost is maybe $5 if matting is included and the same negative was used to make both. What would be the justification in making such a big price differentiation between the two sizes? It just seems to be taking the **** out of any potential buyer if they think about it.

[percepts]

My question was prompted by seeing so many sites where the same image is offered at several different sizes with big price differentials between each size.
Some of the points raised are valid but often not so. It was just something that ocurred to me as I wondered if asked, how would I justify the price differential. Not that I should have to, but I couldn't see how I could. It just doesn't seem to make sense. But then buying art isn't something you can rationalise unless you are buying it purely for investment.

[Mark Barendt]

It was just something that ocurred to me as I wondered if asked, how would I justify the price differential. Not that I should have to, but I couldn't see how I could.

The only reason I see for offering different sizes at different prices is to participate in different markets.

Basically you are describing a business plan where you are wanting to be able to sell to both $200 customers and $400 customers without any limit on volume. Size is an easy way to differentiate.

[vinny]

I price my prints that way actually but the rest isn't true for my work. An 16x20 lightjet costs me 3x the price of a 16x20. I think that's true for most color work from labs as well, different of course if you do it yourself. While I do my own drum scans, others pay much more for larger files required for larger prints. For me, a 16x20 silver print costs much more and takes much longer to complete than an 8x10 since I make many work prints before the final results are achieved. 320 square inches of paper costs about 4 times as much as 80 square inches. One 16x20 print exhausts 4x chemicals of an 8x10. Make a mistake on a matt for a 16x20 and you've just bought an entire sheet of board. If there's an overcut, a spec of dirt, or a smudge, I scrap it and start over. I sell very few 8x10's.
Maybe think of it as small prints being "bargain prints" for those who like an image but can't afford the expense of big ones. I've never had anyone ask why prints cost more as they get larger.
Just my two cents.

that should say a 16x20 costs 3 times as much as an 8x10.