Print prices.

[Kirk Gittings]

Are established photographers who have developed a firm price for their silver or platinum prints in the market changing their pricing when supplementing their portfolio with inkjet prints? This is a real question for me this fall with a couple of shows and I am not inclined to price inkjets any different than traditional prints. Edition length is no different for me. From an effort point of view the inkjets are easier to reproduce in mass but the pre-production work is substantially more than the traditional prints. Everything I produce is as archival as possible within the limits of available technologies for a given media and that information is made avilable to the buyer. What are peoples thoughts?

[Ryan McIntosh]

I went into a gallery one time and had this talk with the owner on pricing in his gallery. He said to me that you should take the price of the "hand crafted silver print" and take 1/5th of the price for a digital computer print.
Now, I think this is abit steep, but personally...I would rather purchase a handmade silver print for X price, then a computer digital print for the same price.
If I were doing both digital and silver, I would sell my digital prints for maybe 25% cheeper then my silver prints, mainly because they took less time, money and effort to produce.

Ryan

[Will Strain]

Kirk - I had this discussion with the last gallery I had representing me - we decided that they would not be priced differently provided that the size and edition were comparable.

Confusing the customer was one concern. Forcing an issue that may not even exist in the purchaser's mind. And - as you mention - the equipment, expertise and time to print well just about equals out.

I noticed at the Alan Labb show that his prints were all inkjet quadtones...I did not talk to the gallery owner about that issue - since I was busy trying to get my own prints up in there... :-) - but he might have some insight.

[David Luttmann]

That's a tough one Kirk. I'd agree for the most the the inkjet print could be reduced from the pt/pd or maybe silver. Ryan suggested 25% less. People have always been willing to pay a premium for hand made goods as long as the quality was there. A pt/pd print may take a lot longer to make than the silver or inkjet, thus demanding a higher premium.....as long as the print was of decent quality. Hand made junk is another matter all together!

I'd have to go with 25% less as there was probably more time involved to get the silver or pt/pd print just right as opposed to being able to do it quicker in Photoshop and the inkjet.

[tim atherton]

I'd say the same for the same size/edition

There isn't necessarily a corrolation between how long it might have taken to make the print and how much you are selling it for (would you charge more for a print where the negative required you to hike 20 miles in to some mountain, then wait for three hours for the light to be right, compared to one where you jumped out of the car, camera was already on the tripod, set it up in two minutes and took the photograph in five or less?).

It really depends as well what market you are pricing in as well? Arts and crafts/art fairs? Fine Art galleries? Internet galleries? etc etc. Some will place more value on the hand made craft aspect. Others will place more value on the artistic vision aspect with all sorts of variation in between. If prints are selling for $75 or $100 I would think the market will pay less for inkjet prints. If they are selling for $1000 to $3000 and up then they will probably be priced the same, if you see what I mean...

[David Luttmann]

All good points Tim. I guess we should just focus on the final product and how it appears when judging value.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If people are buying your prints because they like the content I dont think they will care how it was made. If people are buying your prints for collection and speculation then they might. I think you should discuss this with the gallery owner and ask him about his/her type of clientele.

You know my feelings about ink jet posters, but I have to say that if digital is to become a medium on itself and that if those of us who demand ink jet printers stop the silly and misleading propaganda, then we should also give you the same respect other processes have. I would not price the ink jet prints lower, in the end people are buying your "talent" not the ink and paper.

The only caveat I see is the issue of longevity. Regardless of what Wilhelm and Luttmann would like us to believe, it is not a 100% certain that ink jet prints will last 200 years, heck it is not certain they will last 50 years. What kind of warrantee you plan to offer? certainly you dont want to find yourself in the position Clyde Butcher found himself with the RC prints he made. So then, will the issue of longevity be a factor with those purchasing your prints? If you plant to offer a longevity of lets say 50 years, collectors might value the print less, if you plan to offer a 200 year warrantee and risk having to replace them sooner then the price should be the same as any other process.

As I see it, if you are asking this then you do not have the confidence on the materials that you did with your previous work and you should think about this long and hard. If "the process does not matter, it is the end result that matters" then why price them lower? if the process does matter, at least in some manner, then price them lower.

[Bruce Watson]

What we do is photography. Photographic capture is done to either film or computer imaging chip. The original photograph is either a negative or positive film, or a computer file. Clearly, selling the original photograph is a non sequitur.

What we can and do sell is prints from this photograph. How these prints get made is a decision by the artist. The artist should use the techniques that best fit his/her artistic vision, be they platinum, dye transfer, albumen, cyanotype, silver gelatin, carbon, inkjet, or any other kind of prints. No one way of making an image is inherently superior or inferior to any other. Each technique has its strengths and its weaknesses. In the end, it's about the image.

You can price prints to whatever the market will bear. But IMHO, it's the image you are selling, and all other things being equal (editions, size, etc.) the image should sell for a given price regardless of technique.

As an aside, my experience is the opposite of Ryan's. It takes me more time, money, and effort to make an inkjet print than it does to make a conventional darkroom print. Worse, the effort is made up front before any copies sell. That's especially painful for the images that don't sell at all, as some of them are wont to do. If I could make the prints I want to make in the darkroom, I surely would.

[Frank Petronio]

Inkjets are selling for top dollar in major markets, so why would you want to price them less than an old-fashioned silver print?

Price for the market, above and beyond your overhead. Do you charge a residential customer the same price as a major international architecture firm for the same amount of work?

[Michael Mutmansky]

"All good points Tim. I guess we should just focus on the final product and how it appears when judging value."

I suggest you try this on one of your buyers. Sell them an inkjet print for a certain price, and then as they are walking out the door, tell them that instead they could have purchased a comparable sliver gelatin or platinum print of the image for exactly the same price. See if they would like to stick with the inkjet print at that point.

There is a (rightly) perceived value assigned to a handmade print that the buying market does not place on a machine print.

In Kirk's situation, I think he needs to be very careful that he does not sell an inkjet print for anywhere near the price of a comparable silver gelatin print for two reasons. The biggest is that he doesn't want a buyer to come back six months later angry because they purchased an inkjet print when a silver gelatin print of the same image is available at a similar size and price.

The second is that the inkjet prints devalue the handmade prints that he are making if they are the same price. He may feel the digital images take more work up front, but part of that has to do with the years he has spent in the darkroom vs. the relatively short time working in the digital medium.

When it's all said and done, buyers value a handmade print more than a machine made print, and that is as it should be. Fine art photography is just as much about the object as it is about the image. It also is sometimes about the artist as much (or more, truthfully, anyone really want to look at one of those nasty Witkins?) as it is the object and image, but I don't believe you can remove the object from the equation for most buyers and most artists.

---Michael

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

Huntington Witherill recently announced some print price differences between the two, check out his web site at www.huntingtonwitherill.com but this was for a limited time - a promotion I suppose.

[Kirk Gittings]

Some truly great insights.

The biggest mistake I ever made was to sell some Cibachromes years back to a museum as "archival" based on Wilhelms 200 year estimate which was way off as we all know. I always offer a lifetime guaranntee to the original buyer on all my art prints against fading, oxidation, dry mount failure etc. as long as the prints were framed and treated reasonably well by the client. I have only had to make good on this once because I must have inadvertantly exhausted my fixer on a print and I once went a whole year with my dry mount press being cooler than I though so a bunch of prints came loose and I had to take them back and cook them a second time. Ink jets would have the same guarantee.

Andrew Smith told me the other day that he is not discounting inkjets with his established clients and friends of mine like Alan Labb are pricing their inkjets in the thousands and selling well.

As per effort? I have an inkjet right now that I have almost 900 hours in the file work. That is neither quick nor easy.

[domenico Foschi]

I always price my silver prints more than c-type prints because of : 1 ) c-type prints have inferior archival stability.
2) Because of a more personal relationship with each silver print ( dodging , burning, flashing , toning etc.)
When i give to my clients the choice , the overwelming majority buy the silver images.

[Brad Rippe]

Hi Kirk,

I agree totally with Michael in the previous post. Collectors want to know the genesis of a print, and the traditional black and white film and print methods are far more desireable than digital inkjet prints at this point. There may be a time when the inkjet process surpasses the 3 dimensional depth and quality of a good silver print, but I haven't seen one yet. The key issue here is to make sure people know what they are buying, and let them make the decision. However, I can't imagine selling inkjet prints for anywhere close to the price of traditional black and white photographs.

-Brad

[Kirk Gittings]

"There is a (rightly) perceived value assigned to a handmade print that the buying market does not place on a machine print." Except for all the "gicle" prints from established painters and printmakers who are selling these prints in the $ multi-thousands.

I agree with Michael in theory, but right now the only prints that I am making digitally are from negatives that I simply cannot get what I want from in a traditional process. So for my work there is no one on one comparison. As someone said it is all about the image. Next year I will explore digitally enlarged negatives for platinum, but that is next year.

I don't buy photography (or art at all for that matter), I trade my work for it. I have traded silver prints for similarly priced inkjets with friends and I don't feel slighted by that perceived value difference.

If it were all up to me, independent of market pressures etc. I would charge more for digital prints because of the investment of time and costs of equipment.

As per longevity-have you ever visited a museum with Jackson Pollack's that have a tray underneath to catch the paint chips that are continually flaking off? Handmade is not always what it is cracked up to be.

[Bill_1856]

Depends a lot on the price range you are considering. Cheapee prints from the bin at a arts/crafts show, medium price spread by (relatively) unknown photographers, or bigbucks prints by famous arteests. Clyde Butcher charges a lot less for his inkjet prints than his individually hand-crafted silver prints, in order to make his work available to people who couldn't afford his standard prints. It doesn't keep him tied down in the darkroom when he could be outside and up to his arss in a swamp somewhere. (Incidentally, IMHO the inkjets are finer prints than his sil/gels.)

[Brad Rippe]

On a related topic, the fabulous series written by Alan Ross in View Camera Magazine shows, in the 3rd article, a detailed method of local masking using a film made in photoshop and sandwiched with the negative and printed traditionally. Should this digital/ computer component be mentioned in the description of a print for sale? Does it matter?

-Brad

[Oren Grad]

Kirk -

I think the right question is what the market will bear, not what somebody intuitively thinks they're "worth", or whether anybody thinks hand-made prints are somehow more "authentic".

As it happens, I prefer contact prints in silver and Pt/Pd myself. I can't imagine paying thousands of dollars or even many hundreds of dollars for an inkjet print, but then I can't imagine spending that for a C-print or a Cibachrome either. But I separate my own feelings from the commercial question. There is evidently a market for such work, and there's no reason you should let other people's craft prejudices get in the way of your serving that market.

As for the permanence issue, you should just write a couple of paragraphs explaining what is currently known and not known about the stability and longevity of the materials you use, and about your warranty policy, and print it as a handout that you share with your clients. I think if you do that, you can sell with a clear conscience at whatever price the market will bear.

[paulr]

Personally, I'm planning to sell my inkjet prints for significantly less. But I don't think this has to be a rule for everyone.

In my case, the price of my silver prints has been dictated simply by how hard they are to make and by the resulting size of the editions (at most 10). I'm just not willing to let them go for cheap ... it's not worth it to me. Especially when you consider the 50% cut that a gallery takes.

Working with Piezography prints, I can produce an edition of any size, easily. The limit becomes an arbitrary decision.

Perfecting the iniital print still takes a lot of work and the same esthetic decision making, but once that's done, the rest is mechanical. I'm happy to use this as an excuse to lower my prices, because I fear that the old constraints have priced my silver prints out of the range of a lot of people. I want friends and family to be able to have my work. I want people who like it but who don't happen to be rich to have it. For the first time ever I can now be less stingy with the work and let in into these people's hands.

Easier, larger editions may make the work less precious, but so what, if it's just as beautiful? Photography has always been a printmaking medium. It shouldn't be looked down on just for becoming a more efficient one.

[David Luttmann]

You're right Brad. I think maybe too much is made of the "how" you got to the print you did rather than on the print itself. The nice thing about inkjet is the fact that I can give a lifetime guarantee on ALL of my prints as everything in terms of Photoshop workup is stored in duplicate on archival CD.....which I have in place to copy onto fresh media every 10 years or so. If a print is damaged or fades in 50 years....I'll print another for them for free in a couple of minutes.

Kirk, I think you've got a good sense from this thread in terms of how to proceed. In the end though, no matter what the process, if the client likes the print and sees value in it for themselves, they will pay. And based on what is appearing in galleries, it appears that inkjet is an accepted choice for critical, high quality output and as such is commanding top dollars as are silver, pt/pd, etc. In other words, if it's a great shot, price it how you want. I haven't discounted myself, but I guess if someone was more interested in how the print was made,dodged, burned, toned, etc, rather than how it looks, , than maybe they'll pay a premium for that knowledge.

<! --
Thanks for showing up Jorge. It must be tiring following my threads in order to attempt a new battle. I however, prefer photography as a passion. Your bias against all things digital is known and as such I believe you have only replied to Kirk's request to satisfy your confrontational personality and to further attempt to solidify your position. You must be bored!
-->

All the best, Kirk.

Let us know how you decided to go ahead.

[Brad Rippe]

How many of us own posters of fine art photographs? These posters are made to put inexpensive reproductions of art into the hands of those who cannot afford an original print or painting. How is it that I can set up my inkjet printer, push a button, wait awhile, and print 500 identical prints and then in all honesty state that these are comparable in value to my silver prints made in the darkroom? How is this any different than having posters made of my work? I think inkjet prints provide an opportunity to make copies of our work available to those who cannot afford originals for a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.

-Brad

[bob carnie]

Kirk
I have an unique situation at my facility, we are fortunate enough to have a variety of end output devices for printing needs.
from traditinal silver to lambda silver, traditonal colour neg and cibachrome to digital lambda colour neg and lambda cibachrome. As well we are fully involved with inkjet (epson 9600) and the front end systems to complement. As well we have a platinum work station for handcoating fine art papers and exposing.
This has been accumulated over the years by necessity to compete in my local area. I was tired of clients wanting to try giclee methods and going to competition.
We have found by far the easiest process to work with is ink jet. the hardest process to work with would be platinum.
We will sell an 16x20 inkjet for under $100 .00 but I would not consider selling an platinum same size for less than $400.00.
For pure love of printing I can say with all honesty and practice that silver printing in a wet work room is the most rewarding and creative method that * I * enjoy.
My 20 year old intern is totally crazy about lambda fibres from his new fangled digital camera.(his out put is quite good and he will have a show in our gallery July 15th.
Personally I would price platinums high, silver prints next, then followed by any of the colour processes . This is only my opinion , based working daily with these medias.
I do not work with photoshop myself as I am just a couple of years over 50 and I prefer ordering the 20year old to do the dodge and burns, colour shifts and contrast blings. He was born with a computer in his hand and it is second nature to him. I quess if I spent hours in front of the moniter , doing all the PS manipulations I would value inkjet more but I don't.
The value issue may be as simple as *is it a good photograph* taken by a excellent photographer. Not the material the image is printed on. The folks on this forum seem to have a good grasp on longevety issues probably *too go* much more than say a gallery owner who only pays rent by selling prints.(inkjet or Platinum)
Someone here said they have seen crappy inkjets and crappy platinums of excellent images as well one could say that there are a lot of beautiful inkjets and beautiful platinums of crappy images.
I value good prints and excellent imagery no matter what method used just bear in mind a hand crafted platinum or silver is definately harder to master IMO.

[David Luttmann]

"I value good prints and excellent imagery no matter what method used..."

I agree wholeheartedly Bob. I was born with a computer as well. Maybe some are threatened by it but oh well....different strokes.

Cheers,

[Gary Samson]

Kirk-

I charge the same price for silver and inkjet prints. I do not sell inkjet versions and silver versions of the same image.
The Currier Museum of Art in NH has aquired a no. of my photographs (both silver and inkjet and there was never any discussion of a price variation). I do charge more for hand coated processes (albumen, palladium) but again there is only one version available.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the inkjets that are selling for thousands are more likely going to buyers who purchase contemporary art in various media than to buyers who think of themselves as collectors of photography or fine prints per se. I'm sure there are some exceptions, particularly photographers who are doing very innovative things with digital that could not be done with conventional processes.

Which is your market? If you're doing more or less straight B&W photography (color is another story entirely), I'd stick with silver and pt/pd and price the inkjets as a low cost alternative. If the inkjets are something that could only be done that way and that represent a different kind of photography that depends on digital technology, then I'd price them the same as the pt/pd prints.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

It is good to know that good o’l Jorge is still alive and kicking. I missed you :-)) and I mean it!

Good, fun fight. I still think the paper is more or less “immaterial”, unless it is junk. The image should define the value not the substrate or the difficulty or the ease of getting it on film.

As for some believing to sell low “good way of getting your name out there” is a fabulous way to make irreparable damage to all present and future photographers. Good thinking!?!

G.S.

[Henry Ambrose]

Since we've drifted off the original post already I don't feel too bad about asking this series of slightly related questions:

Do artists in other media worry about this permanence issue?

If I buy a "found object collage" for $20,000 and it falls apart 10 years later did I get screwed?

If a famous painter slung some latex onto a piece of hardboard that we knew would fall apart sooner or later would she be unable to sell the piece? Or would someone give an astounding price for it anyway?

Did the Mona Lisa come with a longevity guarantee?

I do not sell many prints, but the last LF related print I sold I offered the buyer either an RC or a fiber print of the same size for the same price. She liked the look of the RC print better! (whiter paper base so a bit snappier looking) I had to work to convince her to select the fiber. Later, I wondered why I offered two papers. She would have been happy with either one I sold her, I was the one who had a preference.

Anyway, is this whole thing just the remnant of some ancient photo merchandising trick? Is print permanence just a sales gimmick that's been passed down to us?

[Frank Bagbey]

Jorge, please bring me up to date on the Clyde Butcher and RC print problem (situation). It is something that has escaped my attention. Thanks.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Frank, at one time Butcher offered his prints on RC paper at reduced prices and he offered a longevity warranty. Unfortunatelly he relied on reports about the longevity of the paper and said prints started to turn yellow and flake off in very short times through no fault of his own (ei they were well processed) and he had to spend a lot of money and time replacing many of these prints.

Apparently he did not learn from his mistake and he started offering ink jet posters at reduced prices claiming they had 200+ years longevity....well it became a big stink in some circles and some people e mailed him reminding him of his RC fiasco, so he promptly removed the claim from his web site.

Cant fault the guy, he relied on reports given by the manufacturer and it bit him in the ass, but he made good on his promise to replace the prints, gotta give the guy respect for that.

[Oren Grad]

Is print permanence just a sales gimmick that's been passed down to us?

There's nothing immoral, illegal or fattening about making prints that don't last. From my perspective, the only issue is whether the customer understands what he is getting. Some customers won't care. If you're buying a print as a piece of decor that you're going to change in a few years, it doesn't much matter. However, many people buy pictures for other reasons and do want a picture to last. For those buyers, the question is whether knowledge of the uncertainties associated with inkjet print longevity is sufficiently widespread that you can assume the average buyer will know the story. At the moment, I think the answer is probably no, so if you're selling inkjet prints the honorable thing to do is to explain it and let the buyer make an informed decision.

There's plenty that can be debated about Wilhelm's current methods for assessing print longevity. But I entirely understand the fury he felt thirty years ago at the film and paper vendors who were selling unstable product with advertising slogans about preserving your memories forever.

[Frank Bagbey]

Jorge, I think the lesson here is to guarantee only that a print has been archivally processed. Other than that, I would not guarantee anything. There are too many factors out of my control. For example, how do I know Ilford has not made a paper manufacturing error when I have done the best on my part. I would guarantee to replace any fiber base print that might develop a problem that could possibly be construed as my fault, but not a fault of bad exhibition or storage.

Just as an aside, I have fiber base prints that are over 50 years old, RC prints that are around 25 years old, and Cibachromes that are around 20-25 years old. No problems whatsoever that I can detect.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Frank, I like Oren's response to this topic, as he says if you are selling ink jet posters the honorable thing is to appraise people of the possible problems this way there is no misunderstandings.

Personal experience tells me you are somewhat safe with traditional materials, but as you say there are many more variables than just light fastnes that affect the print.

In the end is up to each seller, I have no problems giving a longevity warranty for the life of the purchaser, but then I have pt/pd prints I have really, really mistreated and they still look like the first day I bought them.

[RichSBV]

So much from a photographer's viewpoint and so little from a buyers..... So, what the heck...

I admit that right now I own only one original piece of artwork, and it's not even a photograph. We paid a few hundred for it. The artist also made a limted edition set of "prints" from this art which sold for about 40 bucks a piece...

Maybe as a person behind a camera, I really can't see why people spend any kind of money on photo-prints in the first place. But that's just me... To be honest, the first print I have ever seen that I actually wanted to buy was shown here by Jorge (the hats on the wall). I would still like to buy that print... So maybe I can understand it to some degree after all...

As a buyer, I see absolutely no difference between the digital print and the art "print". They can not be worth the same. If anyone ever sold me an original "photographic print" which I found out to be a digital print, a demanded refund would quickly be in order! And I'm NOT saying I couldn't tell the difference, that's not the subject here...

If someone sold me a digital print that was specified as a digital print, I wouldn't complain, but I certainly would not spend decent money on it.

The whole concept of "limited edition" in digital is a farce. Sure the artist may mean it now, but in a year or two when something happens that severely hurts their monetary situation, what's the problem with hitting the print key and spitting out another thousand copies??? (no inference meant or intended!)

It's truly a shame that the word "print" was ever used because it has a totally different meaning in any other kind of art. A digi-print should really have a different name...

And I really don't care what some people will pay for a famous artists digi-prints. Barnum sumed that up nicely a long time ago...

[tim atherton]

"The whole concept of "limited edition" in digital is a farce. Sure the
artist may mean it now, but in a year or two when something happens that
severely hurts their monetary situation, what's the problem with hitting
the print key and spitting out another thousand copies??? (no inference
meant or intended!)"

Which is of course basically what artists (painters, etc) said about photography from the start - and a number still do - that the limited edition makes no sense with photography (see Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction etc) - with a negative you can also basically spit out as manyprints as you want - might take you a bit longer, but there is no limit to them really. Presumably though, you want to have your cake and eat it too it seems?

I'd add that in numerous US and other jursidictions there are laws about what consitutes a "limited edition" etc for those who sell their work. So there is often something to stop somone "spitting" out a few more. "Orginal work", "editions" "copies" etc are codified

(BTW Jorge and I have had this "discussion" before, so everyone can save themselves a lot of trouble by just reading the archives... ;-) )

[Mark Erickson]

Jorge,

Your intentional use of the term "poster" in reference to inkjet prints in posts above
and in other threads piqued my curiousity. To satisfy it, I did a little web research
and found the following. [/url]
The sixth definition of [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=print]"print" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=print) over at http://dictionary.reference.com seems most
relevant:


A photographic image transferred to paper or a similar surface, usually from a negative.

Nowhere is there an indication of whether the print is made using a silver
halide chemical process, inkjet,platinum process, gumoil, etc. Here is the relevant
definition for "poster" from the same source:


An artistic work, often a reproduction of an original painting or photograph, printed on
a large sheet of paper.

My current imaging process typically involves exposing and processing negative film, scanning
the negatives and editing them with Photoshop, and transferring the resulting images to
paper (8.5"x11" at the largest) with an Epson color printer (an R800). The results are
not particularly large, nor are they reproductions of images made via another process,
so I don't call them posters. They are, however, photographic images transferred to
paper from a negative. From the above definitions, I think that "print" seems appropriate.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I see the term "poster" in your contributions above I read a value judgement and an inherent criticism. If that's the case, the following bit of wisdom might be worth pondering. I first heard it from an Aikido instructor a number of years ago. It was attributed to a very senior instructur named Koichi Tohei, but it is probably much older than that.


The mountain does not laugh at the river because it is lowly, nor does the river speak
ill of the mountain because it cannot move.

Just a thought.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh brother, spare me the zen BS.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not with me Atherton, I happen to beleive limited editions are a gimmick be they prints or ink jet posters created by galleries to give more "importance" to the work, lets remember that a lot of their income comes from trading limited prints, the photographer gets bupkus.......

[Kirk Gittings]

Here is my plan at the moment. To come in with my inkjets at my pre-retrospective silver price but bump the silver to a new and higher level. I think a 30 year retrospective museum show and book justifies the increase.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sounds like you got a plan, good luck!

[RichSBV]

Tim...

I was simply expressing my opinion as a buyer since everyone else here is expressing a photographer's opinion.

I have no idea what you mean by " Presumably though, you want to have your cake and eat it too it seems?" ??

As far as photography in general compared to painting, it never has. Show me a photograph that would get the price of the Mona Lisa???

But as far as "prints" go, there is still a difference even with your example. If a photographer stands in their darkroom and makes a hundred prints from a single negative: First, they will never be exactly identical no matter how hard it may be tried... Second, each and every print takes the same amount of time and work to produce, from the photographer's hands. This makes them all as valuable. This discounts situations such as the death of the photographer, loss of the negative, etc...

The digi-print only requires a machine and someone to push the button. All exactly identical, unless there's something wrong with the machine... They are "prints" in the truest sense of the art world. Exact duplicates of an original made with no work from the artist and usually with no touch from the artist. To me, they have no more value than any other print I may buy at a flee market or wallmart...

I personally know many artists who sell both original work and 'prints' made from the original. Originals go in the hundreds or thousands, prints go for 20 to 40 depending on whether or not they get signed. I don't see any difference in photography...

And again, this is simply my expressed opinion as a buyer. I don't believe in argueing such things. I just thought the other side should be represented here for a little balance...

[Struan Gray]

I have no ambition to sell prints, but were I to do so they would be inkjets. For me, computer imaging is a transparent tool in a way that the darkroom will never would be. If I had the dexterity and timing to produce my prints in the wet I would work as a pianist not a photographer. More fundamentally, I find the tonal response and reciprocity relationships of traditional materials to be too limiting.

A lot of photographers seem to yearn to be paid by the hour. Perhaps it is a natural response to the endemic job insecurity. I can see that if you run a lab or print shop you need to charge for extra time and extra materials, but then you're doing work for hire. There's nothing wrong with that (personally I love the applied arts almost more than the fine), but it determines a relationship between you and your viewers and buyers which allows them a share of the credit as comissioners. In photography that usually means you have a status more like the uncredited master mason who made an architect's design actually stand up than, say, Haydn writing symphonies for largely forgotton patrons.

Given how widely and in how many media successful photographs are published and distributed, buying a print from the photographer has become more about provenance than aura. You are buying a direct personal connection, not a piece of paper. I assume Kirk's retrospective book will be well printed, so what is to prevent fans from mounting the sliced-out pages on their walls? I would say that it is not - as many here would argue - because his fans yearn for a 'real' a silver-gelatin print, but rather because they want something that has come from him and not just a publisher's warehouse. 'Come from him' can just as well mean 'printed from his file' as 'turned his fingernails black'.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Clever argument Struan, you almost had me convinced until your last sentence. If, as you say the only consideration is that "it came from him" then wouldnt a print that was carefully labored over be more valuable than one that was spat from a machine?

Yes, I realize that Kirk or the ink jet poster maker can sit in front of the computer for 900 hours (Which BTW Kirk with all due respect these have got to be lawyer hours.....or there was something terribly wrong with this negative or you suffer from OCD.... ;-)) but all this work does not result in a print but a computer file, the print is nothing more than the result of clicking "print" and this perception is what makes a world of difference to many people.

IMO the generalization that it is about provenance and a conection to the artist is flawed. I dont know about anybody else here, but when I buy a print I dont feel a special "connection" to the artist, I bought it because I liked it. If the specialness lies in the "connection" with the artist, then an EW print made and signed by him should have the same value as one made by Cole, Brett or now even Kim, after all the negative was made by EW, the prints are just the result of the "machines"....So I have to disagree, the "black fingernails" do make a difference, at least to me.

[Struan Gray]

I fully respect your position and purchasing decisions Jorge. My point is that even they represent a convention and not a cold assessment of material value or time invested. Would you sell a Pd print for less than a Pt one? Would you sell a print of a negative you exposed and developed just right for less than one that required more work?

I prefer photographs that work in the world of ideas as well as the world of beautiful objects. If the ideas are strong enough, the presentation becomees immaterial. For many of my favourite photographers an online jpeg suffices to get the gist, and a real print is just icing on the cake. If, on the other hand we're talking about a wet maple leaf on a it needs to be encrusted with rubies and diamonds before I'll pay a dollar.

I therefore see purchasing a print as a bit like getting a book signed by author, or buying the copy they had in their own library. You seem to want the manuscript, and nothing but the manuscript. Fair enough, but it's not the only game in town.

[Struan Gray]

hmmm. That leaf should be on a rock. Preferably with blurred white water in the background.

[bob carnie]

The ability to reproduce a colour image 20 years after it was taken is a factor that bothers me, I have negatives from the very first weeks of college in black and white that are still very printable. Any print from that time I can reproduce in fact I just reprinted 12 negatives that are in excellent shape. I do not have any usable colour film from that period. The negatives lasted no more than 10 years before huge cyan blobs appeared.
If I was selling large colour negative murals , (we see them in every gallery now) for thousands of dollars(they do go for large sums) I would be crapping my pants within 15years of the sale.(what do I do when the print is returned by the buyer).
This is a serious problem for high end wedding photographers that have sold these cheap colour prints to their clients for big bucks and now trying to fix the problem.
Anyone who works with these materials know this print/negative fade factor and a lot of photographers seem to ignore the problem and in the end blame the Manufactures .
Longevity is a factor to be considered as a photographer selling to the masses, The only colour print I would consider extremely safe to call permanent is the Carbon Colour Print, and I am only aware of one or two photographers producing these prints.
Everyone with a valid Visa card is producing ink jets.

[Will Strain]

"Second, each and every print takes the same amount of time and work to produce, from the photographer's hands."

No. Not in my darkroom workflow. I spend 2-4 hours typically making a fine print, sometimes longer. But once I'm happy with that final print, all subsequent prints in the edition, I'm just following my notes. 5 minutes, max + chemistry.

I see little difference between spending that 4 hours arriving at a final image in the darkroom. And spending that same 4 hours doing the same type of work in Photoshop.

For me it is not as simple as "just hitting print." There is a rigorous process of color matching, tweaking, paper testing, etc. Just as there is in the darkroom. I take this very seriously as an art and a science. I am very proud of my skills - both digital and traditional.

And I am happy and honored that there is an audience who enjoys my work.

[Pascal Quint]

RichSBV

"As far as photography in general compared to painting, it never has. Show me a photograph that would get the price of the Mona Lisa???"

Many questions.

Initially, what is the value of the Mona Lisa? No one really knows?

Then, what gives it its value? Is it considered a unique work of art? Perhaps the best and greatest work of art ever in history (so far)? Is it the painting's reputation and history? Its mythologie? Is it something else? (probably a combination of all those things ). And remember some people would say it is really a great "popular" piece of art, but not the greatest work ever.

After that, never mind photography, if you believe the Mona Lisa is one of the greatest works of art, what other paintings compare? What other sculptures? Very few. And how many modern or contemporary works of art compare to it? Many would say none, or, possibly one or two - a Picasso? A Kandinsky? Maybe, maybe not. And photography has only been here for such a short time by comparison. Those classic arts have a difficulty producing something as unique and beautiful and enigmatic as the Mona Lisa - but it is surely possible an artist could emerge whose work might equal it. And so it is for photography. If a photograph was made that embodied such unique and individual artistic vision, with an equally unique mythologie, then certainly, perhaps such a photograph (or any work of art) might equal the Mona Lisa in monetary value.

And know that in monetary value photography (often in editions) can equal other forms of contemporary art at the auction houses.

"Second, each and every print takes the same amount of time and work to produce, from the photographer's hands. This makes them all as valuable. "

Or all as equally invaluable. The value of a work of art really has little to do with how long it took to make.

"I personally know many artists who sell both original work and 'prints' made from the original. Originals go in the hundreds or thousands, prints go for 20 to 40 depending on whether or not they get signed. I don't see any difference in photography..."

So is a silver print an original? If so, then so is a digital print. In photography, both are made from the original matrix, which in photographic tradition, is rarely sold, especially if it is a negative. This is different and entirely accepted practice in the art world from a painter, for example, who then makes prints from an original painting. These things were settled some generations ago when photography became accepted as an "art" and are similar to (but not quite the same as) the stonecut print maker/lithographie

"I happen to beleive limited editions are a gimmick be they prints or ink jet posters created by galleries to give more "importance" to the work, lets remember that a lot of their income comes from trading limited prints, the photographer gets bupkus......."

Georges, not always true at all. If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist", which means when a work is resold then the artists also receive a percentage of such a sale. Many other civilised countries are now recognising that their laws need to include this aspect.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist"

I guess this was meant for me...although my name is not "georges".....yeah, Califronia is the only state that recognizes this and if you are are foreigner you still get nothing.....so one state in one country is not a mayority, right?

Would you sell a Pd print for less than a Pt one? Would you sell a print of a negative you exposed and developed just right for less than one that required more work?

Nope.... maybe.....

[Pascal Quint]

If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist"

yeah, Califronia is the only state that recognizes this and if you are are foreigner you still get nothing.....so one state in one country is not a mayority, right?

And of course France, and I think possibly Ireland? among some others. Australia and Canada are considering it, as also is the UE

[David Luttmann]

Pascal,

You are correct. The government here in Canada has been looking into this in quite a bit of detail. There has been talks in other countries in Europe also,as well as other developed nations about this type of protection. It may take awhile, but I hope that logic and common sense prevails and the artist remains protected.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

And of course France

Yeah...."Of course"....:rolleyes:

[Paul Butzi]

re: rights of artists

It seems nice that the artist gets to share in the appreciation of the art when it's resold.

To be fair, though, it seems to me that the appreciation should be discounted against inflation. For example, you sell a print to someone for $1000. 25 years later (during which inflation worked out to 4%/year), the buyer sells the print to someone for $2660. Does the artist really deserve 5% of (2660-1000) = $83? As far as I can tell, according to the California law, the artist does, even though the 'appreciation' was entirely due to inflation. That seems just wrong.

And, if the work of art sells for LESS than the original price, then the artist should be obliged to fork over his/her share of the loss. Suppose you sell a print for $1000, and then five years later, the buyer auctions the print off, and it sells for $75. I think the artist should be forced to hand over 5% of the loss - $46.25.

After all, it doesn't seem right to impose all of the risk on the buyer, and then expect to share in the proceeds.

[Mark_3632]

As long as the images are CLEARLY marked as INKJET and not some silly name like carbon pigment print-which is very misleading-price them whatever you want.

As a buyer I want folks to be honest with me. If a print is produced on a computer printer I want to be told it was produced on the latest epson with the best inks. Call it inkjet or giclee or quadtone ink but Don't ride the coat tails of traditional photography by labeling the image with with a name thet is linked traditionlly with a specific process. Silver geletin is silver geletain, Carbon is carbon, Pt/Pd is Pt/Pd, inkjet is an inkjet, a lambda is a lambda. An inkjet will never be a carbon print. I don't care what is in the ink.

Don't try to dupe the public by labeling something what it is not. If you spent 900 hours on an image, and printed it on an injet printer, be proud of what you got. Call it what it is. Nothing wrong with that.

[Richard Schlesinger]

It is with some trepidation I write this as no one else seems of my opinion, but so be it.

I have a problem with the above entry in that it is my understanding this site is dedicated to large format photography. Pricing of photographs is certainly a legitimate concern of those of you in the busines of selling photographs, but so is the pricing of the bird houses I make in my garage. Does the price of prints, digital or otherwise belong on this site? The photograph as commodity?

I realise I can just not read the entries regarding pricing, or any others I choose to skip. I can also read entries on other sites. Or not.

I mean no offense for those of you involved in this, but again, does it belong here?

I have another additional problem with what is going on. The rancorous exchanges between several of you, regarding I'm not sure what. I wish you would STOP! Take it out back or wherever.

This site performs a wonderful service for a great many; there are extremely knowledgable people contributing, from which I have learned much. There are also "beginners" from whom I also learn a great deal. I hope this site can remain as it has been; a Large Format Photography site.

[David Luttmann]

Richard,

Where should Kirk have taken his question?

[tim atherton]

Richard,

Kirk is a LF photographer who has made his living and career licensing and selling his images.

I am somewhat the same (perhaps of a different sort) - though not quite up to a 30 year retrospective yet...

There are many professional/full-time (call them what you will) LF photographers on this list. Some are commercial photographers, some architectural photographers, some full time photographic artists (some of international reputation) and many combinations within that.

I think the photograph is as often a commodity as it is not... it seems entirely appropriate that the post is on here is it not?

[Juergen Sattler]

I agree that this question is appropriate and very interesting. I am not a commercial photographer - I do this as a hobby, but I find the question asked here very intriguing and I am not sure I have formed an opinion yet - I am a wet darkroom guy myself, but I know from the few times I tried to scan and manipulate a slide that it takes a lot of time and knowledge to do so. I agree with you though on the bickering that is going on here. It seems that every threat about inkjets and digital darkroom provokes this kind of reaction. People are passionate about their art - that's a good thing too, but it doesn't have to become so insulting.

[Bill_1856]

Miller Lite.

[David Luttmann]

Cause it tastes great....and it's less filling. Thanks Bill!

[Kirk Gittings]

Richard,
This why I posted my question here. I am exclusively a LF photographer and have been all my professional life. I only participate in this particular forum because of that. The people on this forum are a uniquely targeted group of my peers much like the View Camera Conference.

There is something unique to the creator and to many of our customers about large format images. For instance I collect some photography but only large format images.

I believe LF is different and unique in all ways including marketing. Who better to ask about issues related to marketing LF images than LF photographers?

[paulr]

"To be fair, though, it seems to me that the appreciation should be discounted against inflation. For example, you sell a print to someone for $1000. 25 years later (during which inflation worked out to 4%/year), the buyer sells the print to someone for $2660. Does the artist really deserve 5% of (2660-1000) = $83? As far as I can tell, according to the California law, the artist does, even though the 'appreciation' was entirely due to inflation. That seems just wrong."

All of this business about an artist getting a share of the appreciation seems bizarre to me. It would be fair if the artist also agreed to pay a share of any loss ... and considering that most art sold loses value faster than a new car, I'd be surprised to see too many artists agreeing to this.

[paulr]

"Have you found yourself getting your work into more peoples hands with reduced prices? This is probably a good way of getting your name out there in a more broad fashion. This may actually gather more money for you through referrals. It would be intersting to follow how that works.?"

Still too early to know. I haven't produced any editions yet. Still figuring out the process ... which is taking at least as much time as it took me to learn any traditional process, for whatever that's worth.

To the person who commented that pricing work low devalues photography in general, I should clarify and say that I'm lowering my prices to be more in line with actual market prices. I'm not trying to undersell everyone. Currently, my silver prints are priced somewhat above what the market will normally bear, which is why I only sell work once in a while, and when I do it's to collectors or curators with a lot of money--a very small audience. I'd like to broaden it to include anyone who's willing to pay market price. How big an audience that is, only time will tell.

[d.s.]

I have found this entire thread to be informative, thought provoking, and amusing.

My opinion is that a traditional hand made print should cost more than a digital print. I know that a lot of work goes into a digital print prior to pressing the PRINT button, and there is some value and cost in that. I just feel like the tried and true processes and materials will last longer, and therein lies the value/cost difference. I also feel that there should be a price difference between the various traditional processes as some are more difficult to master than others.

A local gallery where I live will not even show photographs because "They are not considered to be orginal art."

dee

[tim atherton]

"All of this business about an artist getting a share of the appreciation seems bizarre to me. It would be fair if the artist also agreed to pay a share of any loss ... and considering that most art sold loses value faster than a new car, I'd be surprised to see too many artists agreeing to this."

"After all, it doesn't seem right to impose all of the risk on the buyer, and then expect to share in the proceeds."

Does it seem fair for a buyer to make many hundreds of percent profit on an artists work?

I fe this highlights fundamentally different views of art and the artist between, broadly speaking, a European and N American view.

One approach is allow the artist benefit from the (often unrealistic) increase in value of their work at auction - a work that sells for $5,000 and then sells a few years later for$25,000 (most good art will appreciate somewhat - some, like Gursky's for example will appreciate significantly).

The other is forget the artist - let the dealers benefit - that's commerce and the free market.

It's really only an extension of Copyright. If you accept the idea of copyright and licensing, then it should make sense to accept an aspect of the Droit a whatever it's called. That over a certain period of time, the artist still holds certain rights over their work, even if it is sold (Disney certainly underastands that). It's not exactly the same as copyright, but it is, like Patents, a parralel aspect of intellectual property.

N Maerican sensibililtes seem to prefer a more Laissez Faire approach to the art market - which might be fine if we really loved in a free market economy.

[Paul Butzi]

Does it seem fair for a buyer to make many hundreds of percent profit on an artists work?

Well, I see two possible fair systems:

1. The artist and the buyer share in both the profit (if any) and in the loss (if any).
2. The buyer is entitled to 100% of both the profit (if any) and the lost (if any).

What is definitely NOT fair is for the artist to share in any profits but not in any losses. If you're not taking on any of the risk, then you shouldn't have a share in any profits.


It's really only an extension of Copyright. If you accept the idea of copyright and licensing, then it should make sense to accept an aspect of the Droit a whatever it's called.

Well, I grew up in a family of intellectual property lawyers. I've earned my living primarily because the things I've created were protected by copyright and patent law - and it's been a good living, indeed. I'm foursquare behind copyright protection of work. I vigorously pursue those who violate my copyrights.

That said, I don't see how this is an extension of copyright, licensing, or patent law. You make an object. You then sell it to someone else. They, in turn, sell it to a third party.

If the object happens to be 'art' (however you define that), then you're saying you should get a cut of all future sales.

If the object happens to not be 'art' then you say you should NOT get a cut.

So tell me: how would you categorize the following objects ('art' or 'not art'):
<ol>
<li> a blanket </li>
<li> a quilt</li>
<li> a building </li>
<li>a rug </li>
<li>a wood carving of a snowy owl </li>
<li>a mass produced plastic simulated wood grain statue of a snowy owl, mold was made from carving mentioned above</li>
<li>a polished piece of driftwood </li>
<li>a woodworking tool (say, a try square) of extraordinarily beautiful design, mass produced</li>
<li> a very fancy, collectible woodworking tool (say, a try square with a rosewood handle, hand engraved blade, signed by the maker </li>
</ol>

Talking about copyrights and "artist's rights" as being similar is a canard. Absent some written transfer of copyright, when an artist sells an artwork, the artist retains all copyright to the work, and the buyer owns the artwork but does not have the right to reproduce it.

If you are an artist, and you feel that your work is going to appreciate in value by a factor of 1000 over the coming years, you have an easy solution to the problem - don't sell the work. Just keep it, and sell it later. You take all the risk, you take all the reward. Or, if you prefer, sell the work to a ownership syndicate (like they do with racehorses) and retain a share (as breeders sometimes do). Again, you have a partial share in any profit, as well as a partial share in any loss.

But I don't see this as a problem in need of solving. Last time I read the paper, there was no story on the front page with a headline reading "Artists forced to sell work at fair market prices at gunpoint, and lose opportunity to share in possible future appreciation of work".

As an artist, I can look after my interests on my own, thanks. I don't need a paternalistic government deciding what I may or may not sell, and how I may or may not sell it. And, I believe that other artists are capable of doing this as well, unless they're so profoundly impaired that they are not competent to manage any business dealings at all.

[paulr]

"My opinion is that a traditional hand made print should cost more than a digital print. I know that a lot of work goes into a digital print prior to pressing the PRINT button, and there is some value and cost in that."

In the grand scheme of things, this really is a decision for the market to make. It's easy to get stuck in an old fashioned, artist-as-craftsman view that equates the value of art with the craftsmanly labors involved in making it. If you look at how art has been valued over the last 70 years or so, you'll see that this really plays a very small part.

"I just feel like the tried and true processes and materials will last longer, and therein lies the value/cost difference. I also feel that there should be a price difference between the various traditional processes as some are more difficult to master than others."

It's all really conjecture. From an archival standpoint, there aren't any tried an true photographic processes. Photography hasn't even been around 2 centuries, but we have claims made that X medium will last 500 years. The only meaningful research that's been done at all has been done in the last couple of decades, and it's been done on old and new processes equally.

"A local gallery where I live will not even show photographs because "They are not considered to be orginal art.""

Do they show lithographs or etchings? Or are they just ludites?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ok Butzi, then explain to me why Galleries insist that photographers make "limited editions?" If the photography art world was a true free market, then I would agree with you completly. It would be like buying stocks, you take your chances and assume the risks, but the wins and loses are yours. This is not the case with photography, galleries create an artificial market for their sole benefit and which main purpose is to leave the photographer out of the deal.

Lets say for example that you agreed to a show and at the gallery's insistence you agree to limit your photographs to editions of 25. You mount the show and to your delight and pleasure "slow time" by Paul Butzi becomes another Moonrise and it sells like hot cakes and all 25 prints from that edition are gone in one month. Let say for the sake of argument you sold each print at $500, of which you kept $250. A year later a customer who bought one of your prints from the gallery goes back and tells the gallery owner that he wants to sell your print. The owner knowing that you agreed to limit the edition of this photograph (at his/her insistance) knows this is the only copy of your print in the market, so he passes this info to his network of galleries and prices the print at $50,000....and it sells the next day.... the gallery keeps $25,000, the person who bought your print keeps $25,000, you get bupkus..In the mean time, there you are sitting with the negative and the ability to make more of these prints but unable to profit from this since you agreed to a limited edition.

Explain to me where the person buying your print and the gallery took a "risk." Presumably people buy art because they like it first and foremost, unless you are buying art already at very high prices for speculation purposes. Limited editions are a gimmick and artificial market that benefits only the buyer and the galleries, not the photographer. Why do you think many photographer then came out with the "artist proof" idea?

[Kirk Gittings]

Let me explain the 900 hour print remark. I don't want to mislead anyone. I used that print to teach myself the process. I was completely new to this at the start. So I chose as the first print the hardest one I had. It took 7 months. The second print took about 16 hours.

[paulr]

"Limited editions are a gimmick and artificial market that benefits only the buyer and the galleries, not the photographer."

Maybe. But I think this is an oversimplification. The idea of limited editions started with traditionl printmaking processes, like lithography and etching, which would actually wear out the plate with repeated printings. The edition limit was a quality control measure. But it also served to stabilize people's ideas of the value of a print. With one-of-a-kind work, like painting, there's no question as to how many of these images exist. With a finite limited edition, it's more complicated, but you can still extrapolate whatever portion of the value is based on rarity.

When photography came along (more specifically, photographic print making, wth Fox Talbot) the potential for infinite editions troubled people. A certain amount of the value of anything collectible lies in its rarity. It was a simple decision to cary over the convention of limited editions to solve this problem. Yes, it's an artifice. But it it's an artifice with solid historical precedent, and it serves everyone involved, photographer included, in more ways than one.

For example, you will absolutely get higher prices for your work if you limit the edition. Some collectors would probaby refuse, as a matter of principle, to buy uneditioned work. Also, I don't know too many photgraphers (at least ones who spend a lot of time and energy printing) who WANT to revisit and reprint old negatives. I know I don't. I want to print an edition and be done with it. Personally, my own edition sizes in silver prints have not been artificial. My process is hard to work with, and by the time I'm exhausted in the darkroom, and have thrown out the runts, I typically have fewer than 10. And I will never be able to duplicate those prints exactly, thanks to the fickleness of toneers, and so that's it. I have a whole body of work spanning 10 years that exists in editions of 3 o 10. And there will never be more. This guarantee has been sealed by the paper company going out of business.

In the world of digital printing, there's less of a physical constraint. But not always 100%. Materials will continue to change and be discontinued, and some processes will involve some hand work. The digital edition I'm working on now is varnished. Each print gets up to 6 coats of various hand-applied finishes. Granted, this is much more mechanical than the kinds of work i was doing int the darkroom, but I promise, it's work. My editions will be larger than in the past, but I'll be more than happy to make sure they're limited. For everyone's sake.

[Paul Butzi]

"Ok Butzi, then explain to me why Galleries insist that photographers make "limited editions?"

The reason why Galleries [sic] insist that photographers make limited editions is that it's in the interests of the gallery owners to do so.

You see, gallery owners are running a business. If we exclude artist coop galleries and galleries such as those run by various governmental arts commisions, galleries attempt to actually make a profit.

That means that you can expect them to behave in ways that will increase the amount of money in their pocket. To the extent that this conflicts with money ending up in your pocket, the gallery owner's interests are contrary to yours.


This is not the case with photography, galleries create an artificial market for their sole benefit and which main purpose is to leave the photographer out of the deal.

Yes, galleries create an artificial market for their sole benefit. What else would you expect them to do?

However, as you well know, the artificial market created by galleries is not the only market. There's no law saying I can only sell my artistic output through licensed galleries, at least not yet. There's no government regulating what price I can sell my art.


Lets say for example that you agreed to a show and at the gallery's insistence you agree to limit your photographs to editions of 25. (snipped for brevity) In the mean time, there you are sitting with the negative and the ability to make more of these prints but unable to profit from this since you agreed to a limited edition.

Well, that's a mighty long hypothetical. It's nothing but a long list of assumptions, all of which you've assumed 'for the sake of argument'. The odds of this particular sequence of events happening is essentially zero.

In particular, it wouldn't happen for the very simple reason that if a gallery owner insisted that I do limted closed editions, with a uniform fixed price for all the prints, I'd almost certainly decline. Certainly if I had reason to believe that in one short year, my prints would be selling for $50,000 a pop, I'd decline.

What I'd suggest to the gallery owner is tiered pricing, where as more prints sell, the price rises. Let's say that, if they had originally suggested an edition size of 25, I'd counter by suggesting that we raise the price for each subsequent print in such a way that the price for the 25th print would be something large - $50,000.

Why would a sensible gallery owner decline this offer? The gallery owner gets (in your example) 50% of each sale. If we increase the price of each subsequent print by 21%, that 25th print will be sold for 50,000. The share of the sales that I get (which is the same as the share the gallery owner gets) goes from $6250 to $142,000. That's what I'd call win/win.


Explain to me where the person buying your print and the gallery took a "risk."

Well, when I buy art, I take risks. There's the risk that, in ten years, the art work will be worthless (this is the substantial risk, since the odds are great that this is the case- a great deal of the art I buy falls into this category). There's the risk that my home will burn down and the art will be destroyed. (I defray this risk by buying insurance, which should be a cost which offsets the profit calculation of "artists rights" but is not). There's the opportunity cost, which is the risk that since I have purchased this particular work, I no longer have money to invest in some other (perhaps more lucrative or lower risk) investment.


Limited editions are a gimmick and artificial market that benefits only the buyer and the galleries, not the photographer.

Someone stop the presses! Check to see if pigs are flying and Hell has, indeed, frozen over!

Paul Butzi and Jorge Gasteazoro actually AGREE on something.

I agree, completely! Limited editions are a gimmick that benefits galleries and art speculators at the expense of artists!

That's why I don't do limited editions, and why I strongly urge everyone else to avoid them as well!

Amazingly, though, no one can compel you to do limited editions. And that's why limited editions don't make a very good argument in favor of "artist's rights".

[Paul Butzi]

For example, you will absolutely get higher prices for your work if you limit the edition.

The question to be asking when setting prices and deciding on editioning is not "what should I do to get higher prices for my work"; the question is "What should I do to make the most money from my work?"

They are not the same question. Higher prices on a smaller volume (and that's what limited editions are all about) can easily work out to lower total profit.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Fair enough Paul we both presented our points and rather than make this another pissing contest I figure we leave it at that and agree to disagree, at least up to the point where you asked to stop the presses.. :-)

I only have one more comment, like you I do tier pricing, I learned this from Dan Burkholder who is a good friend. Would you beleive than even he has been pressured into doing limited editions and is now doing them. So the tier pricing solution is at best a stop gap measure for us who sell prints.

[tim atherton]

"Well, I grew up in a family of intellectual property lawyers. I've earned my living primarily because the things I've created were protected by copyright and patent law - and it's been a good living, indeed. I'm foursquare behind copyright protection of work. I vigorously pursue those who violate my copyrights.

That said, I don't see how this is an extension of copyright, licensing, or patent law. You make an object. You then sell it to someone else. They, in turn, sell it to a third party.

If the object happens to be 'art' (however you define that), then you're saying you should get a cut of all future sales.

If the object happens to not be 'art' then you say you should NOT get a cut."

Paul,

I didn't say it was the same as copyright law. Copyright, trademark, patent and others are all forms of intellectual property, each run parallel, but each is often substantially different in concept and form in different areas.

The Artists Right to Resale is well established in several countries such as France, Germany, Holland, and it often exists alongside copyright legislation.

Your example seems to come from the fairly limited US view of copyright (which, bear in mind has been substantially distorted in many aspects to suit the movie and recording industries via their lobbies, and not the artist). And which has resisted many other aspects of copyright common to other jurisdictions (including implementing aspects of various international copyright conventions) . I'm not saying it's any better or worse, just different from most of the rest of the worlds

Most other major jusrisdictions for example also include Moral Rights as part of copyright law, alongside Copy Rights. This is in some ways similar to your example above. You can sell the created object/work outright, but the artists still retains Moral Rights to the work (which, unlike copyright, may not usually be sold, though they may usually be waived). These rights usually cover among other areas things such as the right of the creator to be associated with their work, and the integrity of the work.

So, for example, McDonalds Canada buys a nice piece of modern sculpture for its corporate collection, which stands proudly in front of its headquarters. A few years later, some marketing wag decides it would be a good idea to paint Ronald McDonalds face on the sculpture as part of an ad campaign. In such a case the artists can sue McDonalds for damaging the integrity of the work, even though he sold it outright previousky. In the same sense, legislation allowing the artist some reward/control in future resales of their work, even when it has passed from their hands, are entirley compatible with the broader spects of copyright in other jurisdictions.

All copyright effects some form of greater or lesser monopoly for the creator (or owner of the creation). That's the basis of copyright. Droit de Suite is really just another form of that monopoly in a different area.

[Paul Butzi]

I didn't say it was the same as copyright law. Copyright, trademark, patent and others are all forms of intellectual property, each run parallel, but each is often substantially different in concept and form in different areas.

Tim, sorry, I guess I just miscontrued what you'd written.

Thanks for the excellent description of both Droit de Suite and moral rights.

But I'm still puzzled. Who decides what qualifies as 'visual art'?

To go back to my examples - is a quilt 'visual art', or just a fancy blanket? Is a blanket visual art? How about a blanket woven on a hand loom? If an artist comes up with a design, punches a bunch of cards, and runs off 5 blankets on a Jacquard loom, is that art? How about 1000 blankets? If he hands the design over to a major mill, and they manufacture half a million blankets, is that art?

I take it a photographic print qualifies as 'visual art' and the photographer would retain rights. Presumably, then, a portfolio of prints would likewise be 'visual art' and the photographer would retain rights. How about a book, with prints tipped in? How about a book, with the prints on paper that's just bound right in? How about a custom printed book done on a short run hand press? How about a hugely mass produced book?

Where do we draw the line? I have several Kashkuli rugs in my home. Are they art, or just fancy floor covering?

[Oren Grad]

Here are a couple of links to interesting overviews of droit de suite...

www.caslon.com.au/droitprofile.htm (http://www.caslon.com.au/droitprofile.htm)

...and moral rights...

www.caslon.com.au/ipguide17.htm (http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide17.htm)

Although written from an Australian perspective, the discussions are careful to describe differences in how these concepts are seen in Australia, the EU and the US. It nicely illustrate's Tim's point that not everybody sees these things the same way.

But by the same token:

It's really only an extension of Copyright. If you accept the idea of copyright and licensing, then it should make sense to accept an aspect of the Droit a whatever it's called.

...doesn't follow. It depends on how you interpret copyright, a concept which can arise from different sources under different legal and philosophical systems. What may be a natural extension from one point of view might seem quite unreasonable from a different one.

[Oren Grad]

Paul -

California actually has a droit de suite, implemented via the California Resale Royalty Act:

www.cac.ca.gov/index.php?id=210 (http://www.cac.ca.gov/index.php?id=210)

It applies to "fine art", which is defined as "an original painting, sculpture, or drawing, or an original work of art in glass." No doubt there will be a trail of litigation that over time clarifies the boundaries of that definition.

Is that arbitrary? Yes. Do I like it? No. I think the droit de suite principle is a really bad idea. But it can in fact be practically implemented, and is being implemented, not just in Europe but also in California.

[Dave Moeller]

This has been a fascinating thread, with some of the most interesting, entertaining, and thought provoking posts I've read in quite a while. I'd like to thank you all for that.

I do have a questions that those of you who work with galleries might be able to answer: When a gallery insists that you limit the edition of a print, do you ever hold a few of those prints back for yourself as insurance against the inflation of the price of your work? If a gallery insists on a limited edition of 25, are you normally asked to provide all 25 prints to the gallery? It seems to me that if a gallery were insisting that I limit my editions then I'd be insisting that I keep a few of those limited editions for myself so that I could share in the wealth if my work appreciated significantly. Would galleries balk at this?

Now, it's probably pretty obvious from how I ask these question that I have no experience in working with galleries. I also have no experience with selling my work; I photograph as an artistic release and for my own fulfillment. The only prints I've made that are not in my posession are those that I've gifted to friends and family members at their request. I have a fine job that pays me good money, and really don't have any interest in selling my work.

My apologies in advance if this reasoning is simplistic or unrealistic. I simply don't have the experience to know if this solution is a reasonable one, but it seems it might be a good way to protect oneself if one were to go the route of limited editions.

[tim atherton]

"To go back to my examples - is a quilt 'visual art', or just a fancy
blanket? Is a blanket visual art? How about a blanket woven on a hand
loom? If an artist comes up with a design, punches a bunch of cards, and
runs off 5 blankets on a Jacquard loom, is that art? How about 1000
blankets? If he hands the design over to a major mill, and they
manufacture half a million blankets, is that art?"

well, the majority of States in the US have laws regarding the sale of art in one way or another. They have all seem to have found ways to define "fine art", "original" "edition" and contrast them with things such as "industrial design" "commercial art" etc (the terminology varies slightly from state to state) - but they all cover this exact same ground, but for a different purpose.

[tim atherton]

"...doesn't follow. It depends on how you interpret copyright, a concept which can arise from different sources under different legal and philosophical systems. What may be a natural extension from one point of view might seem quite unreasonable from a different one."

which is actually what I was saying overall - much worldwide copyright is based on British copyright law - australia, canada, new zealand, india etc etc. Another big chunk draws on the Napoleonic Code tradition. Others such as Germany etc still draw on what is effectively an Anglo Saxon type pof legal and philosophical tradition. The US's has been greatly infulenced by the entertainment industry as well as it's own unique legal traditions going back to Independance etc. Somewhere I used to have an interesting article on all this...

[Oren Grad]

Tim - Yes... The Australian pages I pointed to have further links to articles and other materials on the different national approaches and their histories. It's a rich lode of interesting discussion on the varying legal, economic and ideological arguments associated with these ideas in different countries.

[paulr]

"The question to be asking when setting prices and deciding on editioning is not "what should I do to get higher prices for my work"; the question is "What should I do to make the most money from my work?"
They are not the same question. Higher prices on a smaller volume (and that's what limited editions are all about) can easily work out to lower total profit."

Well, I'll put it this way ... I can't think of a single buyer of my work, not counting my parents, who would have purchased a print if it hadn't been a limited edition. Serious collectors and curators just don't seem to be interested. I could be wrong about this, but it's the impression they give me.

On another note, I don't see how a gallery profits by imposing a limit on the edition if this in fact reduces your total profit. If you have a contract with them that they want to keep, then the total profit should be greater for them as well, yes?

Finally, your line of reasoning seems to presume profit motive as the only motive. I don't want an infinite numer of original prints of my work out there (not that there's a danger of it, but that's beside the point). I like knowing that I'm making X number, and that's it. It's my project and I can decide how many there will be, and that has something to do with how valuable the individual ones will be--not just to the market, but to me. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if it is an artifice. Art is an artifice, after all--not something dictated purely by natural laws.

As a side note, the only time I've butted heads with galleries has been because my editions were too SMALL. As I mentioned before, my silver print editions number less than ten, and this has been profoundly annoying to some dealers. They did not see it as an oportunity to sell these rare things for extreme prices, they saw it as an inconvenient limit on what they could sell. I held my ground because with that work, edition size was dictated by my process, my patience, and my own feelings about the work. This might have hurt some relationships, but it was worth it to me. I have not yet heard of anyone being told by a dealer that their editions are too large.

[Oren Grad]

David Vestal, on his business habits:

I have the good luck not to be well known among photo collectors and curators. I have no cash cows and next to no publicity. Yet a couple of dealers sell my prints for more than I could pay for them, and those sales are a large part of my income. From what Ansel Adams and others taught me by example, I learned to tell my dealers that I do not print to order. People can call up to order something in 20x30, but they won't get it. If all my prints of a photo are sold, I'll make new prints if I want to, and all but one, which I keep for myself, can be sold if they're wanted. I make no editions or portfolios and certainly no 'limited editions' a euphemism that means mass production.

I tell the dealers that not printing to order is almost as good for business as being dead, which boosts sales in the art market. And I have the advantage of being alive.

I print what I want to print, period. If people want my prints, they can buy what I've already made for whatever the dealers charge. My policy is, shun publicity and concentrate on sales. Let the pictures sell themselves if they can. If they can't, tough.

That's not what they teach in business school, but I'd be a flop in business. My print sales are not enough to live on, but bring in more than enough to pay my photo bills. I do other work for money. I choose freedom to be my own photographer over the dollar-baited trap that too much publicity tends to provide. My motto echoes that of the French Revolution: "Liberty, Frugality, Eternity."

hobokenalmanac.com/exposure/vestal.html (http://hobokenalmanac.com/exposure/vestal.html)

[paulr]

If you want to know if vestal's advice would make sense for you, it would be helpful to know who's bying his prints. some audiences truly don't care; if they're the ones who want to buy your work (and if you'd rather not limit editions) then by all means, don't limit them. But some audiences do care. And so do some artists. The people who have bought my work seem to expect limits. But more important than that, I want to limit the editions for my own reasons. So it just happens to work out.

If limiting your editions rubs you the wrong way, you certainly don't have to do it. Just be aware that it might have a significant impact on what dealers and what buyers will be interested in your work. There isn't just one "art world." There are many little niches and cultures, all with their own standards and rules. It can help to know which one, if any, you want to participate in, and to learn the way they do business.

[tim atherton]

Here's Brooks Jensens take on editions btw:

http://www.dpandi.com/essays/jensen.html

[Paul Butzi]

I can't think of a single buyer of my work... who would have purchased a print if it hadn't been a limited edition.

Yes. There's market stratification. Either you sell prints to the serious collectors, or the rest of humanity. For someone willing to print large numbers of prints of any given image, it makes sens to ask whether you'll make more selling high priced rare stuff to collectors, or selling more moderately priced larger volumes to the hoi polloi?

For people like you, who are *already* limiting the number of prints for reasons entirely unrelated to pricing and profit, the question turns into a third question: given that only 10 (or 15, or 8) of these objects will ever exist, how can I get the most profit? And, of course, the answer is to get the highest possible price for each of them - which means that the market size is not really an issue.

I just wonder how many of us are in your situation. Maybe I'm the odd one out?


On another note, I don't see how a gallery profits by imposing a limit on the edition if this in fact reduces your total profit. If you have a contract with them that they want to keep, then the total profit should be greater for them as well, yes?

Assuming they are the only channel for your work, yes. Otherwise, it's better for them to have smaller editions and for them to control the majority of the edition.



Finally, your line of reasoning seems to presume profit motive as the only motive.


Yes. I definitely assume that when you're pricing work, the primary motive is profit.

If, for instance, your goal is social change and you're charging for the prints just to cover darkroom and film costs, then you'd clearly price differently.


I don't want an infinite numer of original prints of my work out there (not that there's a danger of it, but that's beside the point). I like knowing that I'm making X number, and that's it.

That's an excellent argument for you to be doing limited editions (and, in fact, it's the first persuasive reason I've read).

But I still think that the vast majority of photographers are not well served by limited editions.

[Paul Butzi]

There's an interesting interaction between droit de suite and editioning.

It appears to me at first glance that droit de suite is an attempt to solve a problem caused by limited editions of works - that once the edition is sold, the artist can't share in the rising value of the prints unless there's some royalty scheme imposed (like droit de suite).

But if the work is not part of a limited edition, there's no need. If the prices of your own personal 'Moonrise' have risen and you (as the artist) want to participate - just make another print.

And it's worth pondering why the collectors that Paul is selling to would decline to buy if the work was not limited in edition size. My guess is that it's because, without the limited edition assurance, they feel that when the price rises, Paul would just print more prints to share in that rise. Since Paul would control the supply, he would indirectly control the price, and thus their profits.

It seems that not only do the interests of galleries and artists sometimes conflict, but also the interests of the collectors and the artists.

[tim atherton]

Paul, I think perhaps you are looking at droit de suite through one narrow lens? (Possibly) the majority of art it would/does apply to is painting, sculpure, installation etc of the type whereby there is only ever one original. So there is never the possbility of "running off another one".

Editioned work, whether "traditional" and self limited whereby the "plate" or the mold wears out , or "modern" such as photography, digital etc, are only one part of the equation.

As for the comment on (the other) Pauls collectors? Editions for photography in mainstream/major art galleries has now basically become standard practice/industry standard. Whether the edition is 5 for a $300,000 Gursky or 25 for a $4,000 Tice

The possibly older or more "traditional" practice in photography of open "self limited" editions seems to be practiced more by those who can afford it - either the gallery elite whose "name" is such they can do what they like, or those whose work sells for a much lower price (ot through their own chanells - own gallery/internet) that they also can basically do what they want. This older (and venerable and perhaps more preferable?) tradition though really predates the acceptance of photographyy into the mainstream gallery market. Look how much Atget or Weston sold their work for, even in relative terms? The turning point probably came around St Ansels time and the history of his print marketing I think shows a change from a more open ended approach to a closed edition approach (though with his own pecular variations in the process). In the end, this aspect isn't so much about art as about marketing. Some artists/photographers are much better salesmen than others....

[Calamity Jane]

WOW! This has been a VERY thought-provoking discussion!

Since I have absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute on the subject of "art", I thought I'd post ;-)

When I was setting up my Tintype business (4x5) this winter I thought long and hard about how to price my work. Considering the facts:

1 - I am a nobody, not somebody famous

2 - Tintypes have an inherently large degree of uncertainty - you're never sure exactly how a plate will come out due to the miriad of factors that can't be strictly controlled

3 - Processed plates cost me about $3.00 each IF I can run my solutions to exhaustion rather than having them expire on the shelf

4 - To have a reasonable chance of getting a good plate for the customer, I'll run 1 or two test plates to verify the process before running one or two plates for the client, so my cost is up to $12.00 for about an 80% chance of getting a saleable plate.

5 - There is no negative and no ability to "make more" of the same image that will be the same quality, so each plate is unique.

So I set my price at $25 U.S. per plate. It's a bit steep for "the average Joe" but I decided that anything less devalues the work and the uniqueness of the product must carry a higher value than something which can be accurately reproduced in quantity.

When I get to be a famous Tintype photographer, I'll just add a zero and sell my plates for $250 :-)

I, personally, feel that the value (and price) MUST be tied to the uniqneness of the item and the difficulty of making more the same.

JMHO

[tim atherton]

There is an excellent essay by Vid Ingelevics in the current Prefix Photo (on the newsstands now...) called "Damage Done: Materializing the Photographic Image" that addresses a number of theses issues.

It goes from Walter Benjamin and his lack of an "authentic" print in photography, to the difference between image and print as object, to Adams destroying some of his negatives, to the rise of limited editions and Gursky's big prints, to digital and the fact that up to 10% of consumers no longer print their photogorahs in any way at all (are they still photogorahs if they are never printed...?). And from the viewing of Lange's Migrant Mother as an image - it can be (and usually is) viewed as an image in itself - it doesn't matter what form of reproduction - book, newspaper, modern print, vintage print - to the collectors requirement of (usually) the earliest possible vintage print (and makes the point that the collectors are about the tiniest sector of viewers and consumers of photography). And goes on the fugitive nature of even traditional photography and photographers who have emphasised this intentionally - especially with "damage done" to their work.

Fascinating (and plenty of interesting photography in the rest of the issue)

(Cross posted to two different threads)

[Wayne]

and the fact that up to 10% of consumers no longer print their photogorahs in any way at all (are they still photogorahs if they are never printed...?)

Of course not. They arent even photographs even when they ARE printed.

[tim atherton]

"and the fact that up to 10% of consumers no longer print their photogorahs in any way at all (are they still photogorahs if they are never printed...?)

Of course not. They arent even photographs even when they ARE printed."

So is this snobbish elitism? (coonsumer) snapshots aren't photographs?

Or are you assuming that it's printed on an inkjet, so it isn't a "photograph" (because it uses ink not light?)

But if it's printed via light on sensitized paper is it still not a photograph? (because it started out as light "writing" on an electronic sensor instead of film?

[paulr]

Tim,
I've started wondering if Socrates had many friends. Notice how people don't like it when you point out their beliefs to them?