Print Pricing (thread closed)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

The work of making a negative is already done. Its the same amount of work for a 4x5 print as it is for a 16 x 20 print.

The trays and chemicals and lenses and enlargers for larger prints are more expensive, but over time the fixed cost items are really no more expensive. The cost of paper is of course different depending on the size of the print. Maybe a dollar or two or three more for a large print than for a small one.

So how does a 16 x 20 print warrant, say, a price of $750 when an 8 x 10 costs $250?

Or, to put it another way, why the disproportionate price for larger prints compared to the cost of producing them?

[adelorenzo]

I suggest that you try pricing your 8x10 prints and your 16x20 prints a few dollars apart and see which one people buy. :)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

my prints aren't worth selling in any size!

[BarryS]

There's usually a premium on size for art pieces, but it applies to almost everything in life--except popcorn and sodas at movie theaters where--

small popcorn---->$800

ultra-gigantic popcorn----->$800.25

[C_Remington]

I remember Fred Picker saying artists shouldn't charge by the square inch for their work. I agree. I think it's complete bull shit.



The work of making a negative is already done. Its the same amount of work for a 4x5 print as it is for a 16 x 20 print.

The trays and chemicals and lenses and enlargers for larger prints are more expensive, but over time the fixed cost items are really no more expensive. The cost of paper is of course different depending on the size of the print. Maybe a dollar or two or three more for a large print than for a small one.

So how does a 16 x 20 print warrant, say, a price of $750 when an 8 x 10 costs $250?

Or, to put it another way, why the disproportionate price for larger prints compared to the cost of producing them?

[Darin Boville]

It costs very little to write a book--just a few sheets of paper and a ribbon of ink.

It costs the actor essentially nothing to act in a play.

You can paint a painting with a bit of scrap wood and some house paint.

The cost of of production of a specific art work had little to do with the price of that work, regardless of size.

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

IMHO 16x20s are harder to make than 4x5s and consume significantly more materials. Price them accordingly.

Its hard to figure out what your work is worth. the only way I know of is to try and sell it at a particular price and learn from that. Some consistency between images and enlargement prices can help people understand what you are doing. Being completely arbitrary seems unprofessional I believe.


I remember Fred Picker saying artists shouldn't charge by the square inch for their work. I agree. I think it's complete bull shit.


Fred Picker worked in a very different market than exists today, but even in his day I thought he was full of it on a number of things including that statement-in part. Lots of photographers far more successful than Fred did exactly that including AA when I was looking at buying a print of his back in 1975. Lacking any other consistent and logical way to price prints, its perfectly acceptable to price prints from the same negatives but at different sizes based on square footage. Clients will understand that. It doesn't mean that each negatives value is the same. I mean you may base your base price on 8x10s and double that for 16x20s, but one image you may determine to be worth more. So one image may be priced at 400 & 800 where another may be 600 & 1200. Some consistency helps clients, galleries etc. understand how you market your prints.

[gleaf]

It isn't the print that is being priced.....

------------------- example form another discipline --------------------------------

Steinmetz was famous for solving engineering problems at the birth of AC Generators and power circuits.
Jack B. Scott wrote in to tell of his father’s encounter with the Wizard of Schenectady at Henry Ford’s River Rouge plant in Dearborn, Michigan.

Ford, whose electrical engineers couldn’t solve some problems they were having with a gigantic generator, called Steinmetz in to the plant. Upon arriving, Steinmetz rejected all assistance and asked only for a notebook, pencil and cot. According to Scott, Steinmetz listened to the generator and scribbled computations on the notepad for two straight days and nights. On the second night, he asked for a ladder, climbed up the generator and made a chalk mark on its side. Then he told Ford’s skeptical engineers to remove a plate at the mark and replace sixteen windings from the field coil. They did, and the generator performed to perfection.

Henry Ford was thrilled until he got an invoice from General Electric in the amount of $10,000. Ford acknowledged Steinmetz’s success but balked at the figure. He asked for an itemized bill.

Steinmetz, Scott wrote, responded personally to Ford’s request with the following:

Making chalk mark on generator $1.

Knowing where to make mark $9,999.

Ford paid the bill.

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/08/charles-proteus-steinmetz-the-wizard-of-schenectady/#ixzz2nHldhmFn
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The print is not the price. The price is in the knowing Who What Where When Why and How to gather the light and shadow into the image and then turn that image into a print.

[Kirk Gittings]

Quaint stories very much like that are commonplace and frankly pretty worthless. There is the one about the Zen painter too. Yada Yada.

How does that help a fledgling photographer price his work and enlargements?

[Vaughn]

Have you made 16x20 prints? It takes more skill (which is different than effort) to print larger (skill in the creation of the negative and the print). There is the old joke about someone complaining paying someone big bucks to push a button, to which the fellow replied, "You paid me for knowing which button to push." (Yada, yada, yada!LOL!)

You also did not factor in matboard costs (or framing if one does so). Matboard for a 16x20 is 4 times the cost for an 8x10 (assuming 24x28 vs 11x14 sizes for the matboard). That is $20 vs $4.60 for the type I use.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I am looking at it from a buyers point of view. There have been three or four prints I have seen on websites of people who actually post on this forum that I would no doubt have purchased save for the fact that the size I wanted was, in my opinion, way overpriced.

I don't want to have to walk up to a print and stick my nose on it in order to see into it. I want to be able to admire it on my wall from a reasonable distance without having to get up and go over to look at it.

Nor am I, as a potential art buyer, concerned with the skill it took to make a larger print. Rather, I am concerned about the subject matter of the print itself, and what that subject matter says to me.

[jp]

16x20's require a substantially larger darkroom setup with room for very big trays. You can do 8x10's with two school desks and a dark closet. I can barely do 16x20's with a 6' sink. Paper is more apt to damaged when wet. It's harder to flatten when dry, harder to store, ship, etc...

Photographers with standards often go through a lot more hoops to have negatives that make nice 16x20 prints. If you've seen 16x20 silver gelatin Karsh prints, you get the idea of what some photographer's quality is. It's far easier to make a negative that makes a flawless 8x10 print.

There was a time when contact prints were the final output and people were happy with little prints. I like that idea, but it's not the present reality.

[Vaughn]

I don't want to have to walk up to a print and stick my nose on it in order to see into it. I want to be able to admire it on my wall from a reasonable distance without having to get up and go over to look at it.

That is not for you decide except in your own work. The artist is the one who decides on the quality of the piece -- you just decide if you want to buy it or not.

[jp]

I am looking at it from a buyers point of view. There have been three or four prints I have seen on websites of people who actually post on this forum that I would no doubt have purchased save for the fact that the size I wanted was, in my opinion, way overpriced.

Send a private message with what you consider a reasonable offer, and if you get a nice discount, keep it between you and the creator. Prices aren't set in stone if it's coming from the photographer rather than a gallery.

Frank P would have inventory reduction sales to the members here, and other photographers provide prints essentially for a free trade with the print exchange.

[QT Luong]

Being art, this doesn't have much to do with the cost of production.

One could charge a large "creative fee" which accounts for everything you've had to do to create the negative, plus material costs for a specific print size, but I don't think the general public would accept that. On the other hand, it is easy to understand that if you buy something twice as large, the cost will be twice as much.

Prints are priced that way because generally the market accepts that way of pricing.

[Merg Ross]

Being art, this doesn't have much to do with the cost of production.

Prints are priced that way because generally the market accepts that way of pricing.

Exactly. The marketplace determines price.

[DrTang]

heh - hell..that's not a bad idea


a flat 'making art' rate - then add:

price per square in..like flooring




so..like 350 plus $2 a square inch - so for this particular scene: 350 + 160 = $510 for an 8x10





I remember Fred Picker saying artists shouldn't charge by the square inch for their work. I agree. I think it's complete bull shit.

[Drew Wiley]

You charge what you can get. Ya obviously have to recover the cost of your time and materials, if you want to treat this like a mere commodity. Then if you have a gallery involved, they'll want a min 50% or maybe way more, so ya have to add for that. Beyond that, it's all just a game, depending on who you're attempting to
sell to, what you think they're capable or willing to pay, and what you surmise your prints might be worth from an artistic standpoint. And in the latter nuance, size
per se is a largely meaningless variable, though most photographers do tend to charge more for big prints than small ones. But if you're the kind of person capable of bagging thousands of dollars per print, the underlying cost distinction between an 8x10 and 20x24, for example, is largely negligible. However, if you're asking for
fifty dollars a print, the distinction is significant.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

That is not for you decide except in your own work. The artist is the one who decides on the quality of the piece -- you just decide if you want to buy it or not.

Exactly. I decided not to buy.

[Drew Wiley]

... my misunderstanding. So you're a potential buyer? ... So scratch me off your list, and don't even bother looking at my work. Sounds like you need a wallpaper
catalog.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

... my misunderstanding. So you're a potential buyer? ... So scratch me off your list, and don't even bother looking at my work. Sounds like you need a wallpaper
catalog.

Never had you on my list. Never wanted to look at your work.

[Taija71A]

So how does a 16 x 20 print warrant, say, a price of $750 when an 8 x 10 costs $250?
____

Simple Answer:

Correct! It doesn't...

The above cited 'Print Pricing' practice... Usually doesn't warrant said justification. :(
________



Have you made 16x20 prints? It takes more skill (which is different than effort) to print larger (skill in the creation of the negative and the print)...

____

Vaughn... I am sincerely afraid, that I am going to have to 'respectfully' disagree with this statement. Did you perhaps mistake the word 'Effort' with 'Skill'?
--
The 'Skill set' required (Yes, skill in the creation of both the Negative and the Print), in order to produce 'larger sized' Prints... Is *** Exactly *** the same...

... Irregardless of Print Size (up until a certain size point).

More materials and effort (perhaps even time?) are required of course... But that goes without saying...
--

All of this 'talk' here on the forum of pricing your Prints by the 'Square Foot', makes it sound (to me) like people... Are in 'Real Estate Development' or perhaps trying to sell a 'commodity' (like 'board feet' of lumber for a New Home) -- Instead of 'Fine Art'. :D
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
________

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I think Ken Lee says it pretty well.

"This sort of photo is best appreciated at larger size, where we can see the fine details."

[Maris Rusis]

Art work has no inherent value but becomes valorised by discourse. Part of the discourse is to actually put a price tag on the work. Whether the market accepts the price is another matter again. From a personal point of view it is a much less sour experience to fail to sell at $600 than at $6.

[Drew Wiley]

My policy: regular people - they just pay what you ask. They either buy it or don't. Millionaires : always double the price, because they'll want it at half price.
Billionaires... be patient... they'll expect it for nothing, and will expect you to deliver and hang it yourself. Hannibal Lector said it best, People covet what they see.
Size has nothing to do with. I've sometimes priced tiny prints higher than huge ones, because the appeal of the print warranted it. If someone covets it enough,
they'll pay.

[Leigh]

People buy large prints for the same reason they buy any other large thing to be displayed...
for the bragging rights.

The value of an artwork depends entirely on the reputation/familiarity of the artist.

If your name is a household word, like Kirk's, charge through the nose.

If yours is unknown, like mine, give it away, hoping you won't have to pay to do so. ;-)

Basic rule of salesmanship... Ask twice what you think it's worth.
You can always reduce the price. It's very difficult to increase it.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

Over the years I've followed the art marketing game for things like lithographs. Speaking of "names", a favorite trick over the years has been for someone to have
their gallery call them "the next Picasso" or "an American Picasso". I've seen what basically amount to fancy posters by some of these people sell for thousand of
dollars apiece based upon such hype. But by now very very few such samples are worth even as much as the frame they were put in. Most of us are more ethical
than to pull those kinds of stunts. But there is such a thing a psychology. I just returned from the islands, where the tourist rows are absolutely filled with cute
inkjet prints for less than they cost to make and mount. So what distinguishes a two dollar inkjet from a five thousand dollar one the same size next door, by some
"famous" dude? Basically, just a bluff. The two dollar could even be aesthetically better, and if the poor stiff had marked it at a hundred times his overtly humble
price, he'd probably sell ten times as many.

[Taija71A]

___

Good Stuff!!!

Maris, Drew and Leigh have all just... 'Hit the Nail directly on the Head!' :D

________

[Vaughn]

_[FONT=Georgia]Vaughn... I am sincerely afraid, that I am going to have to 'respectfully' disagree with this statement. Did you perhaps mistake the word 'Effort' with 'Skill'?
--
The 'Skill set' required (Yes, skill in the creation of both the Negative and the Print), in order to produce 'larger sized' Prints... Is *** Exactly *** the same...

... Irregardless of Print Size (up until a certain size point)...

And I respectfully disagree with your point. Assuming a 4x5 negative made into a contact print and also made as a 16x20 or 20x24 print. The enlargement from the 4x5 will show any mistakes, etc that is just about impossible to see in the 4x5 contact print. The slightest camera shake, slight out-of-focus areas (unless intentional), poor tonal gradation due to sloppy film/developer choice/technique, poor choice of scale for the particular image, etc. will degrade the over-all image when greatly enlarged. Thus more skill is needed to produce the larger print.

Making larger prints does require a slightly different skill set than small prints...beyond just effort. Ability (learned through experience) to handle large pieces of wet paper, for example. Spotting requires a more refined technique.

But I will reverse myself, in that once one has mastered all the skills required for producing the finest negatives: the finest contact prints, small and large enlargements; using various printing processes; knowledge and expertise on matting and framing in all sizes; then perhaps the 'creative fee' concept makes sense, as the skill set one has is the same no matter what type of size of print one makes -- and one just tacks on a square inch cost to cover the extra time and material needed (and/or add a surcharge for more time-consuming or expensive processes such as carbon printing or platinum printing).

But to me that means if one charges $200 for the 8x10 and $800 for the 16x20, it may not be the 16x20 that is over-priced, but the 8x10 being under-priced.:)

[Vaughn]

Over the years I've followed the art marketing game for things like lithographs. Speaking of "names", a favorite trick over the years has been for someone to have their gallery call them "the next Picasso" or "an American Picasso".

My photo professor/mentor use to introduce me the "Humboldt County Ansel Adams"...bloody embarassing and untrue.

[gregmo]

Pricing is definitely a tricky thing with many factors to take into consideration. Location and target market are very important.
When I do commissions, I use the creative fee plus expenses model and retain the ability to sell the work to other buyers. So the print size doesn't matter to me in that case toward my profit.
On the other hand, when selling prints from my "stock," I use the size & type of product pricing model. It's tough to simply increase the price significantly if one is starting at say $250 for an 8x10 and increasing to $750 for a 16x20 if all other variables are the same and there is no other gain in "perceived" value.
Personally, I treat it more commercially & try to create a variety of products & price points to appeal to a range of buyers. With a step up in price points comes with a different product (ex.. Going from photographic paper on a small size to a fine art paper in larger sizes). So there is no direct comparison between the size & price alone.
I think it has to be treated like a business..otherwise, look for another way to make a living.

[ScottPhotoCo]

There is a saying out there that is used often in the "art" world that something is only worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. I would also say that value is also how much it's worth TO ME to NOT sell something below a certain cost, or at all.

It's all basic economics and "perceived value" both for today and in the future.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Taija71A]

And I respectfully disagree with your point. Assuming a 4x5 negative made into a contact print and also made as a 16x20 or 20x24 print. The enlargement from the 4x5 will show any mistakes, etc that is just about impossible to see in the 4x5 contact print. The slightest camera shake, slight out-of-focus areas (unless intentional), poor tonal gradation due to sloppy film/developer choice/technique, poor choice of scale for the particular image, etc. will degrade the over-all image when greatly enlarged. Thus more skill is needed to produce the larger print.

____

Hi Vaughn!

No worries... It is all good (and 'fodder' of course for a very meaningful and purposeful discussion) -- As is 'evidenced' in this thread! :)
--
I hear you...
K. (*Using your above cited example... Of say a 4x5 Contact Print vs. a 20x24 Print)...
--
To begin of course... We need to understand (and also assume of course), that it is a 'Skilled' Professional Photographer and Darkroom Technician -- That we are thus speaking about here (and not a 'rank' Amateur Hobbyist or Beginner Photographer).

It was my understanding... That the thread had perhaps 'drifted' in this direction?
--
If this is true... Said individual will already have 'Mastered' all of the *Basic* Photography Fundamentals and 'Creative' Camera & Darkroom Techniques that would be required -- In order to produce a 'Fine Art Print' -- Of Any Size!

This should be a 'Given' for any Professional Photographer and/or Fine Art Practitioner. :D

________


Making larger prints does require a slightly different skill set than small prints...

But to me that means if one charges $200 for the 8x10 and $800 for the 16x20, it may not be the 16x20 that is over-priced, but the 8x10 being under-priced.

____

Agreed in full 110% Vaughn! :)

'Slightly different Skill set' -- 'Unequivocally' Yes!
'More Skill' -- Not Necessarily!

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
________

[C_Remington]

How many of you think you REALLY know what your finished prints cost you????

I'll bet VERY few. Like 1%.

[Vaughn]

How many of you think you REALLY know what your finished prints cost you????

I'll bet VERY few. Like 1%.

If you include one's time into the equation, then count me in with the 99% -- I really prefer not to know and would not know what to consider a good hourly rate. And then there are the travel costs to consider (if I must!)

Material cost...that is easy enough...unless one includes all the failed negatives and prints into the total cost to make a particular image, then it gets difficult again (I again prefer not to keep track.)

I keep track of some costs for tax purposes, though. Specific photo road trips and travel to give workshops, for example.

The specific material cost of a single framed print is easy to figure -- done that for donations for tax-exempt causes, as that is all an artist can deduct.

[Merg Ross]

How many of you think you REALLY know what your finished prints cost you????

I'll bet VERY few. Like 1%.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a photograph in the marketplace. I knew one very famous photographer in the 1950's who sold his 8x10 contact prints for $6.00. Some of those same prints have sold for $10,000 recently. At the time, his costs to produce the prints were very close to any profit from sales. He was, however, a photographer in the true sense, with the requisite attributes of passion, dedication, sacrifice, and talent. Today,to a large extent, he has been replaced by those who merely make photographs, devoid of the aforementioned attributes. Anyone can make photographs, few can claim to be a photographer. And therein lies the real answer to this thread; how does one justify the asking price of his product. I believe a lot of the pricing today attempts to capture prices garnered by those who blazed the trail with passion, dedication, sacrifice and talent.

[C_Remington]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a photograph in the marketplace. I knew one very famous photographer in the 1950's who sold his 8x10 contact prints for $6.00. Some of those same prints have sold for $10,000 recently. At the time, his costs to produce the prints were very close to any profit from sales. He was, however, a photographer in the true sense, with the requisite attributes of passion, dedication, sacrifice, and talent. Today,to a large extent, he has been replaced by those who merely make photographs, devoid of the aforementioned attributes. Anyone can make photographs, few can claim to be a photographer. And therein lies the real answer to this thread; how does one justify the asking price of his product. I believe a lot of the pricing today attempts to capture prices garnered by those who blazed the trail with passion, dedication, sacrifice and talent.

Youre talking about art valuation.

The op is asking about pricing methodology. What you ask for your art and what some is willing to pay are often very different. I can ask a million dollars for my print.

But I'm responding to those who are justifying their pricing of print size based on labor and material cost.

If you don't know what that is (my contention), your argument is hallow.

Thus, mr. Picker was on to something.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

In the begining there was basically one reason to purchase a print. The person liked the subject matter and wanted a representation of that subject matter to look at. They couldn't, or didn't want to, go to that place and make the representation theirself, so they bought a print from someone else who had been there.

That has, in my opinion, been spoiled by the so called art market, where people tend to buy things with at least a little bit of hope that what they buy is going to go up in value.

First and foremost I am interested in the thing in the photograph. I would buy a photograph because I am interested in that thing. And I would much rather buy it from someone who represented it because they really cared about it as well, rather than someone who represented it just to make a living.

And when I buy it I want to be able to see it on the wall. I own 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints that I have purchased from photographers.
I have them on my wall. And they are just to damn small. In order to really enjoy them I have to walk up to them and stand a foot away.

[Toyon]

You have to follow the economics a little deeper. The cost of a darkroom capable of printing 16x20 is probably four times higher than for a 4x5. In addition to those fixed there are variable costs such as paper and chemistry that are much greater with larger prints. In addition, it does take more time to prepare a 16x20. Errors and corrections unnecessary with a 4x5 become critical in a large print. And it is more likely one will fold or crimp a large sheet of paper than a small one. That increases the number of throwaways. Lastly, there is the matter of camera size. A 35mm negative printed to 4x5 can be of acceptable grain and sharpness. A 16x20 requires a 4x5 negative for an equivalent look. The costs of operating a large format camera are at least five times higher per negative than for a 35mm camera.

[Drew Wiley]

Sometimes even big prints are worth walking up to and putting your nose right up to them. They can work at two levels: as a general composition from a comfortable
distance, and with a lot of interesting detail which grows on you, as you keep you discovering new things over the years. That's part of the elegance of enlarging
from large format to begin with. But that doesn't necessarily make them any more valuable than a simple contact print. But above a certain size, you've really entering the world of framed decor, because it becomes difficult to store too many of these big things. But the "art market" is a pretty idiosyncratic thing. You've
got certain dealers who operate basically like day traders in the stock market, which are just trying to flip something trendy relatively fast to clients who want the
bragging rights to own current fashion, much of which might have very little value to another generation. Then you've got the smart collectors, who have some
personal taste and sometimes a good hunch, who buy relatively affordable things, but might much later sell off a collection at profit. Then you've got what, in my
opinion, is the best category - they purchase simply because they like something, and have relatively little susceptibility to "investment" hype. I've never sold a
print in my life to either a tourist or a so-called investor. There have been some shrewd collectors at all kinds of income levels, and a number of highly successful
photographers themselves among my intermittent clientele, but every one of those got involved for both the "subject" (the composition) and for the manner in
which it was printed. Often it takes a skilled photographers to recognize what lies behind a fine print; hence we photographers are often the best collectors of one
another.
very little value to another generation.

[jp]

First and foremost I am interested in the thing in the photograph. I would buy a photograph because I am interested in that thing. And I would much rather buy it from someone who represented it because they really cared about it as well, rather than someone who represented it just to make a living.


And that's been replaced/spoiled by "right-click, save as"

I can't really say what I am foremost interested in in a photo that I buy. It varies. Sometimes the thing+composition+colors+photographer, sometimes the composition, sometimes the technique, sometimes the history, it's always a mix of factors.

[C_Remington]

The cost of a darkroom capable of printing 16x20 is probably four times higher than for a 4x5.
This sounds pretty off the cuff. I don't believe it. For example, for me the only thing I needed to buy in my DR to print 16x20 is easel and trays. Proper planning allows me to print UP TO 20x24. Are you saying that if someone had a DR that could ONLY print 8x10 (somehow) they would have to spend four times what they originally spent to retrofit it to print up to 16x20? Are they raising the sealing? Buying new enlarger? What assumptions are you making??


In addition to those fixed there are variable costs such as paper and chemistry that are much greater with larger prints.
Paper, yes. Chemicals??? Not really.

In addition, it does take more time to prepare a 16x20.

Unfounded.



Errors and corrections unnecessary with a 4x5 become critical in a large print.

For example?

And it is more likely one will fold or crimp a large sheet of paper than a small one. That increases the number of throwaways.

There is additional risk that this could happen but the probability is still low.

Lastly, there is the matter of camera size. A 35mm negative printed to 4x5 can be of acceptable grain and sharpness. A 16x20 requires a 4x5 negative for an equivalent look. The costs of operating a large format camera are at least five times higher per negative than for a 35mm camera.

If I already shoot 4x5 than, this is a moot point right? What if I shoot 8x10?

[C_Remington]

]In the begining there was basically one reason to purchase a print. The person liked the subject matter and wanted a representation of that subject matter to look at. They couldn't, or didn't want to, go to that place and make the representation theirself, so they bought a print from someone else who had been there.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You're assuming subject matter was landscapes of remote far away places. What about portraits? Still Life? Abstracts?


That has, in my opinion, been spoiled by the so called art market, where people tend to buy things with at least a little bit of hope that what they buy is going to go up in value.

And art speculators/investors are spoiling what, how?



First and foremost I am interested in the thing in the photograph. I would buy a photograph because I am interested in that thing. And I would much rather buy it from someone who represented it because they really cared about it as well, rather than someone who represented it just to make a living.

If I see something I like, I don't care why they did it.

And when I buy it I want to be able to see it on the wall. I own 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints that I have purchased from photographers.
I have them on my wall. And they are just to damn small. In order to really enjoy them I have to walk up to them and stand a foot away.


Why do you feel you have to stand so far back to admire a print? I've heard many times from artists who want to display their art in such a size that requires observers to get intimate with it and get close.

[Drew Wiley]

Sometimes larger sizes do involve significantly more equipment and space overhead, esp when printing in color. And it can cost hundreds of dollars just to properly
mount and frame certain kinds of large work, with a lot of space involved. I understand this variable all too well. But effort wise, there's almost no difference between
making and displaying a 5x7 print from a 20x24 one, either in black and white or color. Same motions, same amount of time. Once you get much bigger than that, the logistics start to change.

[ROL]

The work of making a negative is already done. Its the same amount of work for a 4x5 print as it is for a 16 x 20 print.

If you're making machine prints that may be true, however for making fine art GSP's using fiber papers, that would be entire B.S., for me. I ramp prices accordingly, except when roll paper and mural sizes are involved. In that regard, larger fine prints are exponentially more difficult to make. There is also more "breakage" along the way. And then there's reputation. All of these factors, and many more, contribute to pricing of your work. I am told in approximate equal number and vigor that I sell my prints both too cheaply and too expensively. They must be priced right!

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I am not assuming anything.

[C_Remington]

I am not assuming anything.

If you can't substantiate with facts then yes, you are assuming or giving your opinion.

"In the begining there was basically one reason to purchase a print. The person liked the subject matter and wanted a representation of that subject matter to look at. They couldn't, or didn't want to, go to that place and make the representation theirself, so they bought a print from someone else who had been there."

[ROL]

I am not assuming anything.

:confused: I'm not assuming anything you're assuming is assuming any assuming. At least that's my assumption.

[Merg Ross]

I remember Fred Picker saying artists shouldn't charge by the square inch for their work. I agree. I think it's complete bull shit.

That is an interesting comment from Mr. Picker. I am only familiar with his 8x10 prints which he offered for $500 in the 1990's. Did he ever make larger prints than 8x10?

[C_Remington]

Seriously though, in theory it may be more expensive to print 16x20 or 20x24 than 8x10 but, in practice, I think the majority of us here, if we sharpened our pencils would see that the incremental costs would be much less than you think.

[C_Remington]

That is an interesting comment from Mr. Picker. I am only familiar with his 8x10 prints which he offered for $500 in the 1990's. Did he ever make larger prints than 8x10?

From a video I saw, If memory serves, and I'm paraphrasing, he said, Weston rarely printed anything larger than 8x10 and Atchet never printed anything larger than 5x7 and those fellows did alright.


He also said he doesn't like the new Rapid Fixers and doesn't understand what the the rush is.

;^)

[jp]

A couple extra minutes in the fixer is pretty moot compared to archival washing.

Much early 20th century work was contact prints. 4x5 or 3x4 RB was a portable snapshot camera compared to 8x10 or whole plate. People didn't have palace sized houses to decorate either. Final output was a small print or a gravure in a book.

[Darin Boville]

From a video I saw, If memory serves, and I'm paraphrasing, he said, Weston rarely printed anything larger than 8x10 and Atchet never printed anything larger than 5x7 and those fellows did alright.


He also said he doesn't like the new Rapid Fixers and doesn't understand what the the rush is.

;^)

Both Weston and Atget (I think that is who you mean) died way before their work was worth anything much. I suspect Picker's work has gone very much in the opposite direction.

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

Some images look good small, some big. A few of em work in various sizes. I print appropriately for the subject and the nature of the neg or chrome in the first place, not for the size of someones sofa. I price however damn well I please. Size got nuthin to do with that, except what I consider the realistic base of overhead. Doing a hermetic nonglare seal of a big 30x40 color print costs about a grand just to do. Add optically coated acrylic, there goes another five hundred. Not like just drymounting something. But I'd rather own a sub-8x10 print by either Atget or BW than anything six feet across by any living photographer.

[C. D. Keth]

The value of any work of art is not in any way based on the cost of the materials or time that went into creating it. Quit thinking of it in those terms and you'll save yourself a lot of headache.

[Drew Wiley]

It sure as hell is based upon the cost of materials if you don't have enough clout to market prints for their inherent alleged "artistic" value. For awhile I had a friend who took some workshops, photo tours, etc, and would constantly pester me (like asking me to 4WD him to "The Wave" - forget it!). So he finally managed to book a little local show, had a bunch of inkjets run up and framed, and afterwards bragged how he sold twenty prints that day for two hundred dollars apiece. Otherwise, factoring in just the framing expense, he lost an average of two-hundred dollars a print. Net zero. I don't know what the gallery take was, if any.... But you get the point. Just how much as you willing to LOSE by selling your prints? You either cut your overhead or do desirable enough work to sail past it.

[photonsoup]

Pat Baker is an artist down the highway from me. Pat is in her 60's and has had a pretty successful career. She has a gallery on the highway (http://visitmt.com/listing/categories_NET/MoreInfo.aspx?IDRRecordID=14127), I don't think she has a website. She has done lots of art shows around the country. She sell cards of her paintings for $1.00, or 13 for $10.00. She told me that she makes more profit from the cards than from selling the original paintings or prints! Everybody buys the cards, most people spend the $10.00 and get 13, I know I do.

[C_Remington]

It sure as hell is based upon the cost of materials if you don't have enough clout to market prints for their inherent alleged "artistic" value. For awhile I had a friend who took some workshops, photo tours, etc, and would constantly pester me (like asking me to 4WD him to "The Wave" - forget it!). So he finally managed to book a little local show, had a bunch of inkjets run up and framed, and afterwards bragged how he sold twenty prints that day for two hundred dollars apiece. Otherwise, factoring in just the framing expense, he lost an average of two-hundred dollars a print. Net zero. I don't know what the gallery take was, if any.... But you get the point. Just how much as you willing to LOSE by selling your prints? You either cut your overhead or do desirable enough work to sail past it.

Drew how much did your last print cost you to make?

[Darin Boville]

It sure as hell is based upon the cost of materials if you don't have enough clout to market prints for their inherent alleged "artistic" value. For awhile I had a friend who took some workshops, photo tours, etc, and would constantly pester me (like asking me to 4WD him to "The Wave" - forget it!). So he finally managed to book a little local show, had a bunch of inkjets run up and framed, and afterwards bragged how he sold twenty prints that day for two hundred dollars apiece. Otherwise, factoring in just the framing expense, he lost an average of two-hundred dollars a print. Net zero. I don't know what the gallery take was, if any.... But you get the point. Just how much as you willing to LOSE by selling your prints? You either cut your overhead or do desirable enough work to sail past it.

My god, sell loose prints. Frame should be extra (sold *at least* at cost)!

--Darin

[Ray Heath]

somebody once told me that "... price should always be what the market can bear."

[Greg Blank]

Based on my experience, selling the work as a print should be the same price at any size IF* The image is done as a series, One number of say 100 total. What size the customer prefers should be non important- if the customer wants the print they pay 750. Most credible artists increase price related to factors of their name and what its worth and perhaps how many copies have been sold of said image up to date. Or they just pick a price they feel their work is worth. If an image is unique + only one copy is made then the price should be a-lot higher!

If I have lots of publications, and my images are already sought after, then I should command more dollars- for any image- because that is how other artists price thier work. If one prices the way that you described, that says amatuer. That said I do have images that print better at certain size versus a range of sizes, therefore I only offer one size.

[Bill Burk]

And when I buy it I want to be able to see it on the wall. I own 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints that I have purchased from photographers.
I have them on my wall. And they are just to damn small.

You can put my 11x14's in a hallway. They can be had for a fair price. The 16x20's are a bit rare. I think two exist.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

What size the customer prefers should be non important-


B. S. What the customer wants should be the most important.

[adelorenzo]

Damien Hirst could sign a restaurant cheque and it would be worth many times more on the art market than the sum total of any body of work I could produce in my lifetime. :)

[Jim Jones]

B. S. What the customer wants should be the most important.

Yes, indeed. It is egocentric to believe an artist is more valuable to society than the farmer who provides our food, the construction worker who builds our homes, or those who makes our clothing. Art is a luxury in comparison. More than many arts, photography can be available to most people. That is good. It should be the goal of photographers who are integrated into society rather than belonging to a clique of elitists.

[Bill Burk]

B. S. What the customer wants should be the most important.

True, but you couldn't pay me enough to make a 16x20. It's just too much trouble.

What's that you say? You'll give me $750? I guess it's not THAT much trouble...

That's probably some of the mentality behind the pricing.

My problem is having to do this all for nothing. At that rate, 11x14 is what I'm willing to produce.

[C_Remington]

Yes, indeed. It is egocentric to believe an artist is more valuable to society than the farmer who provides our food, the construction worker who builds our homes, or those who makes our clothing. Art is a luxury in comparison. More than many arts, photography can be available to most people. That is good. It should be the goal of photographers who are integrated into society rather than belonging to a clique of elitists.

Nope. Art isn't something that is created because there is a demand for it like food or homes. Art is produced because someone was inspired or compelled to create something. If someone wants it, they can buy it for what the artist is asking for it. If nobody wants it, it can just sit there and rot.

[Greg Blank]

That is my point- which you missed. Same price regardless.


B. S. What the customer wants should be the most important.

[Greg Blank]

Damien Hirst could sign a restaurant cheque and it would be worth many times more on the art market than the sum total of any body of work I could produce in my lifetime. :)

If his name is recognized. Most places like cash- no BS required.

[Greg Blank]

This is just plain crap.


Yes, indeed. It is egocentric to believe an artist is more valuable to society than the farmer who provides our food, the construction worker who builds our homes, or those who makes our clothing. Art is a luxury in comparison. More than many arts, photography can be available to most people. That is good. It should be the goal of photographers who are integrated into society rather than belonging to a clique of elitists.

[Taija71A]

Yes, indeed. It is egocentric to believe an artist is more valuable to society than the farmer who provides our food, the construction worker who builds our homes, or those who makes our clothing. Art is a luxury in comparison. More than many arts, photography can be available to most people. That is good. It should be the goal of photographers who are integrated into society rather than belonging to a clique of elitists.



This is just plain crap.

____

IMNSHO... Jim of course is correct in his 'above cited' statement.
When all is 'said and done'... Art ***IS *** just another 'Luxury' item! (*Think $100K+ Warhol's)...

Greg, if you'll 'pardon the expression'... This is most definitely NOT 'Just Plain Cr*p!'

Question:
No disrespect... But, how many $2500.00 (24" x 30" ***Available only as 'One of One') B&W Silver Prints -- Have you sold thus far?

Hmmm.......................
(*No answer, is required of course).

________



That is my point- which you missed. Same price regardless.


____

Hopefully, ??? your $1.67 'Same Price Regardless' Boxed Card Sets made up the 'cavernous' difference... And were able to put some 'non-elitist' items (like Food?) -- On your table???
--
Like they say... 'Just Food for Thought!' :)
--
Best regards,

Always trying to be... Down to 'Planet Earth' -Tim.
________

[Greg Blank]

I base my one off price on what an edition has the potentional to make me. Typically I sell 16x20 prints for a meer 100 dollars each- If some one wants to buy out the whole edition of a negative then yes I will sell them at that price. But if someone wants to sell thier work cheaper I really don't care. The past two years I stopped pushing my own art sales and started working FT for a gallery that sells $100,000 Warhol's, I enjoy being free from the photo community those things I have had bad experiences with. That said, my personal income the past two years is based on a standard most people here would not like to think of living on. I would say anything thing one can make from offset work is a different set of criteria from hand made silver prints but maybe you don't aggree. After getting married this last year, I had a great time at the Grand canyon, Bryce, Zion and other places in the west, with my View Camera and 300 or so sheets of film-cheers!

[Greg Blank]

100 percent accurate.


Nope. Art isn't something that is created because there is a demand for it like food or homes. Art is produced because someone was inspired or compelled to create something. If someone wants it, they can buy it for what the artist is asking for it. If nobody wants it, it can just sit there and rot.

[Kirk Gittings]

"B.S., just plain crap, complete bullshit". This tone of this discussion would seem to be more likely amongst silverback male gorillas than photographers and about as constructive.

[Ken Lee]

This thread is riddled with discourtesy. It is now closed.

If you want to discuss the subject, please start a new thread and observe the forum rules. If you insult others, you will be banned.