agent's pricing suggestion---Questionable

[Raymond Bleesz]

I recently received an email from a fine art photographer who has an agent who is representing her out in California. I do not have an agent, but that's not important. Perhaps some of you do or do not. I do not know the pricing of this photographer's art work, but in her email she mentioned the below issue.

The agent's suggestion to the photographer was something I question.

The agent had suggested (in order to creat more sales) the lowering of prices of her art work (traditional b&w prints) due to the "public knowledge" of the cost of digital prints.

I'm of the opinion that this photographer perhaps needs a different agent.

Your thoughts/observations in this matter of pricing--------

With respect-----------Raymond

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes, she needs a different agent. Pricing has nothing to do with the relative comparisons between different processes. Besides, the "public knowledge" is not always right. Some of the guys doing ink jet prints can sit in front of the computer working on an image for days....masochists that they are.... :-)

The best person to know the pricing for her work is the gallery owner/manager. They know their market, they know how well the style and type of photography might move, and they know what the market will bear.

BTW, tell your friend to ask the agent to pay her for learning the ropes with her. Obviously this person has no idea about the photography art world.

[Paul_5410]

Hello Raymond,

I have not had the opportunity to use an agent but last year I did look into pricing prints specifically. The "Rule of Thumb" that seem to be unaminous in the particular discussion was a multible of 6X the production cost.

Im afraid that is very vague but the forum was of fine art artish working in fine art oils, photography and other illustrated mediums.

After framing 25 prints for my exhibit, the cost of a framed 6x9 b&w was just about $90. While the cost of an archival mounted 20x25 museum framed print was $450. Which is about what I've seen at the artshows in my area here in Florida, so I figured it was probably a good multiplier???

Not much help I'm afraid but it is actual experience, Paul

[Bruce Watson]

the "public knowledge" of the cost of digital prints.

I'm sorry, but the public doesn't know jack about the cost of creating art. Any art.

The cost to a good painter is minimal. Canvas, stretcher bars, staples, paints, solvents, brushes, easels, pallets, etc. don't have to come up to the cost of one of my lesser lenses.

The painter can paint anywhere - studio, outside, on location if they want to or it's convenient. But they don't have to go on location if they don't want to. I don't have that choice. I must go to the place where I make a photograph. If that's flying across the country then schlepping the camera up the mountain, then that's what it is. That's a cost (money and time) that is completely optional for painters, but required for me. It's why my photographs are *of* Yosemite, while Bierstadt's paintings are *inspired by* Yosemite.

Then there's time. Van Gogh produced many of his masterworks in a single day. Many painters can do this, and do. I find it ironic that I put so much more time into my work than Van Gogh did. But then, nobody bought his work in his lifetime either ;-)

Finally, there's the cost of equipment. Photography has the highest cost of equipment, the highest "barrier to entry" of any of the 2D visual arts. Many photographers have more money tied up in equipment than sculptors do (including the hoists, welders, grinders, etc.).

So good talented painters are selling originals for 20k USD, and copies for 1600 USD (originals and copies same size - typically 1.0 meter and larger). Photographers, traditional, digital, whatever, are selling original prints for much less and barely surviving.

Fire the agent and get someone who has a clue.

[Mike Chini]

The price of an image should be related to the value of the image, not the print.

[Will Strain]

Sounds like the agent is struggling with the inkjet vs. darkroom process debate, and decided that in his mind, digital prints are less valuable.

Time for a new agent.

[domenico Foschi]

I think the agent if is not right now, he will be.
What I mean is that silver prints are to digital work, what platinum prints are to silver prints.
I price my digital work less than my silver prints .
There is more involvement with a silver print than with a digital work.
This is what I do, it is not a Universal law.

[Steven Barall]

If an agent wants to charge less for work, they can take it our of their end and not the artist's cut. A great agent should be looking for ways to charge more for your work and not less.

Generally, the marketplace determines the price in the long run and that's about it. I have worked with artists who have had pieces in auctions at Sotheby's and Christie's and they have said that it makes them very nervous because if a piece sells low it can affect the price of new works. That's just an example of how the marketplace works. I can't imagine the affect that EBAY is going to have on this marketplace in the future.

That said, a really really great agent can make your work into a commodity and can make you famous. Just think of that painter guy named Kinkade. He can sell anything. A great agent is worth their weight in gold like any great advertising campaign for a given product.

There is no correlation between the amount of time it takes to make something and it's value. You can make the case that the amount of money something costs to produce should influence the price but even that can be a stretch. I take it that no ones photos are made out of solid gold. ( Yeah, I know all about gold toning.)

Saying that a photo is worth more than a painting because a lens costs more than a canvas is just nonsense for just so many reasons.

Genuis is not something you buy at the art supply store. A medium is what it is. It's just the stuff you buy. It's the stuff that gets between the artist and the viewers and that's why it's called medium. It's in the middle.

There is nothing ironic in the fact that Bruce Watson takes longer to make something that Van Gogh did. Van Gogh was a genius.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

Did the absinthe cost enough to drive up the prices???

Just wondering.

[Bruce Watson]

Steven,

You seem to have missed my point entirely. If you read the first line of my posting, you'll see the point that I addressed.

I was just pointing out that the public doesn't know the cost basis for art at all. I did *not* say that a photo is worth more than a painting. That's your idea - but I agree that it's just nonsense.

And what part of ";-)" don't you get?

[Bill_1856]

Probably just a "polite" way of telling the photog that his prints were overpriced for the market. I wou ldn't make much of it.