Inkjet pricing

[clay harmon]

I'm sort of reluctant to post this.. well, notion, because of the obvious potential for it to erupt into a digital vs traditional Mt Vesuvius. But here goes:

Has anyone given any thought to pricing nice inkjet prints in a separate tier from their traditional work? My thought is that you could actually price this in a similar price range as posters, without the huge upfront commitment actually needed to print a poster edition. The edition would be open-ended and the idea would be to target a market segment that is reluctant to pay full freight for a traditionally produced image that would be editioned. I do editioned gum-platinum prints, and because of the work involved in producing one, there is no way I am going to price them low. But if I could scan these prints and produce a high quality (and differently sized) copy of the hand made prints and price them down market, it might be an effective strategy. Order fulfillment would be easy also, since a command-p once the file is cleaned up would be all that is needed.

Anybody doing this? Any thoughts on the idea?

[Jeremy Moore]

I like the idea if for no other reason than that I would finally be able to afford one of your images :D

[j.e.simmons]

Doesn't the Ansel Adams gallery do this or something similar? I think you can buy inkjet prints of some of his famous images for very little. Sounds like a good idea to me.
juan

[Michael Mutmansky]

Clay,

As we have discussed, I think it is an appropriate method to have more then one pricing level, and open up the market to more people.

I do believe it is important that there be a distinction between the handmade print and the inkjet print that goes beyond the simple printing process, to keep the limited edition prints distinct. I would suggest that the inkjets be printed at a different size, and possibly be done so that they are clearly posters (put your name at the bottom, for example).

I have found that I have much better success scanning the negative and then making adjustments to the image in PS to duplicate the tones of a platinum or gum print. The paper texture gets in the way when I scan the actual print. I've done both, and for a magazine reproduction I find that a scan from the print will work acceptably well, but for a fine quality inkjet poster, I think the paper texture could be somewhat of a distraction.


---Michael

[Ted Harris]

An opposite opinion. I spend as much time doing a high quality digital print as I do producing a high quality print in a darkroom. Two differences: 1) I work in the light sitting down as opposed to in the dark standing up and 2) Once I have 'nailed' the final print I can replicte it exactly time and again but I can almost do the same thing in the darkroom, granted there are minute differences in each hand produced silver (or other wet process) print and those do not necessarily exist in multiple digital prints .... assuming you don't fiddle a tiny bit with each new print and yes, I do that if I am coming back to a print after some weeks or months, just as I would in the darkroom. All that being said what I see in the gallery market indicates that we as photographers carea lot more about how the prints are produced than the buyers care.

I wouldn't mind offering some digital prints at lowe prices, even very low prices and in fact do so at art fairs, but not all digital prints. They are different than wet darkroom produced prints but not of necessarily lower value. Remember too that there is a lot of fairly expensive hardware that needs to be considered when pricing the print. I am assuming that for any print that will be sold we are talking a top quality scan so that is an investment of $40 to $100 for the scan (or the cost of a quality scanner ranging from a bit less than $1000 to over $20,000) , then some paper and ink costs and the cost of the printer ranging from $2000 up and finally the software for editing, printing, etc. not to mention the computer hardware that is solely dedicated to your print production (e.g. the 3-4 gigs of memory that you wouldn't need if you weren't manipulating large graphics files). Love to see what others feel about this topic.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Ted,

While you may be right that an inkjet print sometimes takes as long to make as a silver gelatin or traditional color print, there is at least a magnitude of difference in the time involved for a combination platinum and gum bichromate print. In fact, a straight platinum print is actually quite fast in comparison, and that is more labor intensive than any silver or color print that I have made.

Plus, the handmade nature of the coatings on the paper results in more failures than will happen with manufactured papers, regardless of the time involved.

I don't want to speak for Clay here, but I doubt he is talking about a $10 poster. Probably more like a $75 poster, as opposed to a $650 print. So we're not talking about devaluing inkjet prints from what is essentially the going rate for them in art fairs and online, in fact, his pricing will probably be higher than most inkjet prints (that sell for $25 or so).


---Michael

[tim atherton]

While you may be right that an inkjet print sometimes takes as long to make as a silver gelatin or traditional color print, there is at least a magnitude of difference in the time involved for a combination platinum and gum bichromate print. In fact, a straight platinum print is actually quite fast in comparison, and that is more labor intensive than any silver or color print that I have made.

However (depending on the market) photography isn't usually priced according to the labour intensiveness of its production.

Possibly, if you are selling crafts. But if you are aiming to sell some sort of art (at whatever level you deem it), how long it took to produce - either in terms of the printing, or even in terms of "I had to climb for 8 hours and bivouac on a six inch ledge overnight to get this shot" type of claim - such as we often see - is generally irrelevant. It may be a factor, but not the main one.

A similar fairly straightforward silver gelatin print that didn't take long in the darkroom, or a Colour C print produced for the photographer by a lab may also equally sell for the same $650 as that platinum print.

[Brian Ellis]

"Has anyone given any thought to pricing nice inkjet prints in a separate tier from their traditional work?"

You mean charge more for inkjet color prints because they last so much longer than traditional color prints? Or are you maybe thinking of a higher price on b&w inkjet prints because it takes so much longer to make one for the first time than it does a darkroom print? Interesting ideas, I might be inclined to do that if I still did any "traditional" printing.

[Slade Zumhofe]

I agree with Ted on this one. Although I spend as much time producing a digital print as I did in the darkroom I also sell them for less money. As much as I hated pricing my images based on the amount of time involved in making them it is tough to get around. The more an image would sell the higher the price would go--for no other reason than I would almost vomit at the thought of going back into the darkroom and print that same print again, and again, and again.

Now, once the work is done--it is done and priced accordingly. I now offer no questions asked full replacements--just mail back a corner of the original and I ship them a new one. I never would have considered this with my traditional prints--little different pulling up an image on my monitor and pressing "print" vs. setting up the lab and painstakenly attempting to duplicate the original which could take all day for some images.

There is nothing wrong with reaching a larger market and inkjets gives us the opportunity to do just this. As much as I favor pricing my work as "art" there is but a handful of people that can actually make any money by doing this. The rest of us only get the satisfaction of seeing a high price at the bottom of an image but nobody buys them. And isn't the goal (of us non-professionals) to either help pay for equipment and maybe get our work in the hands of more people?

[Michael Mutmansky]

However (depending on the market) photography isn't usually priced according to the labour intensiveness of its production.


Tim,

The secondary market is based on demand. The primary market is based on demand if you are a collected name. The rest of the artists out there have to use other means to set pricing levels, and time involved in producing the work is just as legitimite as the next reason, and should certainly be considered when discussing unlimited low-budget image options.

Claims of the effort involved have no bearing on this discussion, because while that may or may not be part of Clay's marketing schtick (which it is not), the consideration of the time involved is a legitimite portion of the determination of the value of an inkjet print, as it would be for any other print.

Clay works in a particular medium, and inkjet posters is not that medium. He is looking at an inkjet poster as a secondary output option to increase his marketability, just like some photographer use greeting cards. Interestingly, the more commercial use of an inkjet printer that this implies seems to have ruffled a few feathers. While people who do use an inkjet printer as their primary medium may have a problem with the dual nature of the current inkjet printer technology and applications, that is theirs alone to wrestle with.

If Clay decides to make prints in this manner, I'm sure he will be happy to supply them to anyone who wishes at his normal gum-over pricing. For everyone else, I'll be the lower price of a reproduction poster will be a welcome opportunity to get some nice images at a price they can afford.


---Michael

[tim atherton]

Oh absolutley Michael - this really in some ways (though not in all ways) just the equivelent of the whole artists "giclee" market

[Bruce Watson]

Ah, the good old inkjet-is-inferior rant.

Whenever there is a statement that you think is a statement of predjudice, turn it around. If it offends you then, it's predjudice.

So, would you consider selling silver gelatin prints (at a different size of course) as loss leaders for inkjet prints? The inkjets last longer, are sharper, are a more exact representation of the artists view,...

This "discussion" isn't worth any more time that what I've just spent. Enjoy your inkjet bashing boys.

[Jim Chinn]

Brooks Jensen has gone the route of selling inkjets for about $20. From what I understand he has sold far more inkjets then he could ever hope to sell with traditional, thus allowing his work to be enjoyed by a greater number of people.
I don't do inkjet but I suppose once you have the file made and the printer set up your costs are the paper and the ink which can't be more then 3 or 4 dollars for an 8x10 or even an 11x14. From a business standpoint 4X profit is pretty good.
His outlook is the ease of doing inkjets allows for a much lower price price point that makes money with volume.

As others have said, a smaller version of regular work might be a good way to go. It might just wet the appetite of the purchaser to later "trade up" for a larger or traditional print.

Of course Brooks does have a built in client base in the thousands with Lenswork, but with a high visibility web presence one should be able to sell inkjets to individuals who could never afford a traditional print. Better to sell a dozen inkjets at $20 and clear about $200 as oposed to never selling anything to that segment of the market.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Ah, the good old inkjet-is-inferior rant.



Whaaat? I think I missed that argument. There have been no claims of inferiority or superiority made in this discussion, it's purely a matter of marketing to a different clientele than the gallery crowd and production efficiency.

This is a real simple issue as far as I'm concerned. For some people, inkjet is not their chosen medium, and it does not, and may not ever hold the same level in their hearts as their primary medium. This is no different than silver gelatin, color work, cyanotypes, platinum, mixed media, sculpture, oils, arcylics, or any other form of expression that just happens to not be your preferred medium. Frankly, I think the digital advocates out there need to respect the fact that some people prefer something else, and it's their right to do so.

I think Tim is correct in assessing this in a similar manner to the glicee reproduction painting market. I would liken it closer to the quality posters of famous (and infamous, to some) photographers that are availble in the $50 range. A reproduction, to be sure, but still something to be appreciated and enjoyed by the buyer.


---Michael

[QT Luong]

If your original work is hand-made, and the repro a scan, this seems a perfectly sound and legitimate approach. Hey, even some folks (not me) do that while their original work is a digital color print. See those theads that I started:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=13985
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15067

[QT Luong]

Brooks Jensen has gone the route of selling inkjets for about $20. From what I understand he has sold far more inkjets then he could ever hope to sell with traditional.

Of course Brooks does have a built in client base in the thousands with Lenswork, but with a high visibility web presence one should be able to sell inkjets to individuals who could never afford a traditional print. Better to sell a dozen inkjets at $20 and clear about $200 as oposed to never selling anything to that segment of the market.

I am not sure digital is what made that possible. The costs of traditional chemistry and paper are pretty low, and if you want to crank out mass-produced prints you could always hire a low pay slave.

The problem with low cost prints is the time it takes for fullfilment. At one point, I offered $50 prints as an experiment, and just decided to withdraw this offering so that I would have more time to devote to potentially more important tasks.

[Bill_1856]

Why do you "edition" your platinum prints? The amount of labor involved should make their quantity self-limiting, unless you happen to make a Moonrise or Pepper #30, in which case printing a limited edition would be like shooting yourself in the foot.
The price of a print should primarily reflect the cost of the artist's time, plus a reasonable markup for materials and overhead (including the cost of acquiring the image). That cost of his time, however, is a function of supply and demand, might range from virtually zero for a student photographer or retired physician who does it for his own pleasure, to thousands of dollars for a successful professional photographer.
But to answer your question: Yes, a low cost alternative to your expensive prints is a great idea, provided it doesn't intefere with the sale of those prints.

[tim atherton]

The price of a print should primarily reflect the cost of the artist's time, plus a reasonable markup for materials and overhead (including the cost of acquiring the image).

on the contrary - whatever the market will bear combined with the "quality" of the image

time+materials should really have little or no bearing (unless you aren't coveringyour costs...)

[Greg Miller]

I don't do inkjet but I suppose once you have the file made and the printer set up your costs are the paper and the ink which can't be more then 3 or 4 dollars for an 8x10 or even an 11x14. From a business standpoint 4X profit is pretty good.

You mention the variable costs but are forgetting the tremendous overhead items that Ted listed above (printer, PC, scanner,...). You also ar enot considering breakage/spolilage, paper wastage when loading paper, paper watage when paper mis feeds happen, paper 7 ink wastage when a nozzle clogs, ink maintenance tanks, and time and expense of capturing the image in the first plae. I think selling 8x10's for $20 is a qiock way to bankruptcy.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

So, by the same logic of pricing inkjets lower because they (supposedly) take less time, should we price prints made from tranparencies/negatives of scenes that we just happened open by luck less than ones we planned out, shot again and again, and took a long time to get the final result? After all, they took much more of the photographer's time and energy...

People viewing the prints only see the final product. Unless they are educated on traditional vs. digital processes, they can't appreciate what the photographer went through to get the final prints (to say nothing about what the photographer had to go through to get the transparency/negative from which the print was made...)

[Ted Harris]

Michae lhit the nail onthe head ... we lost the thrust of Clay's original post. His point is valid, there is a good rationale to having two or more different pricing points. Even if one is for a 'mass' produced ink jet print on lower quality paper and the other a 'hand' worked inkjet print produced with a proof on a high end printer .... and so on and so on ...

As for all the opricing arguments, it seems that the pricing of art of any kind is very much what economists call "opportunity pricing" simply meaning that no matter the medium, regardless of the production method, the artiust will can should charge what the market is willing to pay. A print that hangs on the wall for months or years unsold with a $100 price tag on it is overpriced. One that files out of the gallery in days for $1000 may be underpriced. No tto mention that, while it may have a lot to do with talent (whatever that is and however we define it), it has a lot more to do with what the buying public wants. Example, I knew Franz Kline well in the 4 or 5 years before he died in 1962. At the time of his death he was gaining more and more repute and respect with his works hanging in all the noted collections such as MOMA. In the years since his death the value of his work has skyrocketed into the millions for a canvas. However, less than ten years before his death he was painting murals in a New York bar for $5! It's the public and the scarcity of the work.

[steve_782]

You are proposing to do what thousands of artists and hundreds of museums are doing today. Copying an original piece of art to sell as a reproduction. Most of the people call these copies "giclees" - check the Louvre, Museum of Modern Art, etc. - the gift shops are rife with fine art "giclee" reproductions.

The nice thing about them is the inkjet reproduction is much better than the old fashioned poster which they've replaced. The poster was a screened copy printed with an offset press - usually on cheap paper. Most of the time, the printing separations were done from 8x10 color transparency photographs of the original artwork and not the work itself.

Today, the museums and high-end reproduction houses use specialty flatbed scanners costing upwards of $200,000, but capable of extremely fine reproduction of large two dimensional artwork. (Cruse Synchron Scanner; Lumiere Technology Jumbo Scan.)

If the inkjet reproduction is done correctly (including lamination or over spraying of the print), the inkjet reproductions have greater longevity, and resistance to fading than the old fashionded posters due to far better papers and ink.

If you want to create a secondary tier of inkjet reproductions at a lower price, there's certainly a precedent set by world reknowned museums and artists.

While inkjet printing can be used for production of original artwork, there is no reason to not use the technology for reproductions of other artwork produced in a different medium. While the giclee reproduction is not an original work of art, it does provide a way for artist and gallery to expand their sales by offerering a lower priced product that can appeal to a certain buyer.

In my opinion, you as the artist and the gallery as the sales agent just have to make sure the buyer understands it is not an original piece of art, but a reproduction of an original piece of art.

[David Luttmann]

I've done the same thing with just using inkjet printing. Inkjet prints that I make from a master that I created from extensive work have one price. The other price comes from a print whereby I create a new master each time. This is the same thing as finding differences between different runs in the darkroom of silver prints. Over time, the photographer changes his vision somewhat.

Therefore, I charge more for the individual, original inkjet prints than I do the ones run off from a master. This is exactly the same as in conventional processes. Haven't had anyone question this yet.

[Jim Chinn]

You mention the variable costs but are forgetting the tremendous overhead items that Ted listed above (printer, PC, scanner,...). You also ar enot considering breakage/spolilage, paper wastage when loading paper, paper watage when paper mis feeds happen, paper 7 ink wastage when a nozzle clogs, ink maintenance tanks, and time and expense of capturing the image in the first plae. I think selling 8x10's for $20 is a qiock way to bankruptcy.

I agree that one needs to factor those things in. I guess I was thinking in terms of someone who produces exclusively inkjets and would be spreading the cost over an entire range of prints offered from the less expensive smaller offerings to larger limited editions.

[clay harmon]

Maybe I should clarify some things about the original post. First, this idea of prejudice (I spell it the same way as Webster's). As a matter of fact, all things being equal, I could switch the traditional print versus inkjet print and make the same economic argument.

But things are not equal. My investment in time is vastly different between print #2 of a traditional print and print #2 of the inkjet print. My variable cost in time is far lower (on the margin) for the incremental inkjet print. Whereas the time required to print is the same for each additional print done using traditional methods.

The statement was made that time and materials should have no bearing on the price. This is precisely the brilliant strategy currently being used by General Motors. The fact is that the two methods have an entirely different labor content.

I intentionally avoided mentioning a loaded term like 'quality' in my original post. And I continue to avoid it, because of the inevitable sh**storm it always causes. Would everyone be satisfied if I will state that I think inkjet prints can have excellent quality, just as I think gum platinum prints can excellent quality? They are different, but both can be done in an excellent way. Well, there, I said it.

My main point is that I have been thinking about the whole inkjet thing, and I am beginning to believe that it may represent an opportunity to make lower priced reproductions with a quality that far exceeds traditional poster printing, and does not require the same commitment to a large sized run of prints. Potentially, this is a VERY GOOD thing in getting your work out there in the world.

Parenthetically, a little thought to ponder. Another statement was made that producing a digital print can require the same amount of time as a traditional print. When was the last time a new technology so rapidly eclipsed an older technology when it offered no benefit to the user in either time savings or ease-of-use?
I think the subtle implication that digital printing is actually just as difficult or perhaps even more difficult than traditional methods is belied by the rapidity of its adoption by the enthusiastic masses. If it was just as difficult to master, people would not be spending big bucks to adopt the technology wholesale.

Finally, a critique of this two-tiered pricing model that I did not hear mentioned is that one could perhaps devalue the upper tier by selling the lower tier on the cheap. Before anyone howls, let's just say that I propose selling small gum platinums for cheap and my monster Epson prints as the "real thing". On the other hand, airlines have no problem filling both coach and first class seats, and the plane takes everyone to the same place. I don't have a good answer for that question.

[David Luttmann]

Clay,

As I mentioned, one of the biggest things to do with any difference in pricing is the perceived amount of work that goes into an original. This is one of the greatest misconceptions about silver vs inkjet printing....that each silver is an original as opposed to a copy for the inkjet.

It is very easy for the photographer to start from scratch, each time, with a digital file as well. Sometimes people talk about working on it once and then hitting a button to make the print again. However, for original prints, I sit down at the computer and start from scratch each time. Thus, my inkjet print is just as much an original as any other process....and should be priced the same.

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is one of the greatest misconceptions about silver vs inkjet printing....:rolleyes:

[David Luttmann]

Good to see you back Jorge.

[steve_782]

My main point is that I have been thinking about the whole inkjet thing, and I am beginning to believe that it may represent an opportunity to make lower priced reproductions with a quality that far exceeds traditional poster printing, and does not require the same commitment to a large sized run of prints. Potentially, this is a VERY GOOD thing in getting your work out there in the world.

As I stated in my original post - you and a thousand other artists and hundreds of museums. Why belabor the point? It's being done. You just have to make up YOUR mind if that's what you want to do.


Parenthetically, a little thought to ponder. Another statement was made that producing a digital print can require the same amount of time as a traditional print. When was the last time a new technology so rapidly eclipsed an older technology when it offered no benefit to the user in either time savings or ease-of-use?

I think the subtle implication that digital printing is actually just as difficult or perhaps even more difficult than traditional methods is belied by the rapidity of its adoption by the enthusiastic masses. If it was just as difficult to master, people would not be spending big bucks to adopt the technology wholesale.

Yeah, and I can take a negative to a lab and pick up a print and have no work in it at all. Likewise, in one hour I can teach anyone to expose a black and white print and slop it through 3 chemicals and wash it. The fact that anyone can learn to make a rudimentary B&W print in one hour does not represent the amount of work it takes to truly master the process - and YOU KNOW THAT.

Then why do you believe that digital printing is any easier? Because it involves a computer assisted system? Or, because it's so easy to get a rudimentary printed image? Okay, anyone can push a button on a camera and get a rudimentary image - I guess that makes everything in photography easy?

And, oh, by the way...millions of people rapidly adopted photography specifically because it was and IS so easy to get an image. Making a photograph takes zero talent and zero technical knowledge.

Now they're just switching over to digital printing because they can afford the equipment and space required, and appreciate the convenience of making their own images. That in no way, shape, or form represents what it takes to make a fine quality inkjet print anymore than using a box Brownie and dropping the film at a lab represents what it takes to get a fine quality photographic print.

Yes, you can push the button and get an average digital print quite easily. Getting a print that represents 100% of what is possible and available through digital printing is a whole different story. Getting the first 90% is quite straightforward - it's the last 10% that's the real bugger and takes a lot of work, testing, and perserverence.

If you don't know about or care about the absolute ultimate quality that can be had out of a digital print - you won't care to put the work into it. But, believe me, with over 35 years of experience in traditional photographic printing, graphic arts, offset printing, and fine art lithographic printing - you really have to work and apply yourself to the digital process to get everything possible out of it.



Before anyone howls, let's just say that I propose selling small gum platinums for cheap and my monster Epson prints as the "real thing".

Who's howling? If your work is conceived to be large prints, and the gum platinums are the intermediate step to the final print - so what? You're not the first person to do that art workflow. There is an artist that does paintings as the intermediate step to the inkjet print. She uses both mediums (painting / photography) for the intrinsic qualities inherent in each, with the final piece of artwork she's envisioned being the the large format inkjet print made from a photograph of the painting.

Perhaps you're just now realizing the vast possibilities available when you are no longer constrained by labels, ideals, or what amount or type of "work" makes up a "real" piece of art.

[clay harmon]

Look, I am not trying to belabor anything. I am pretty much just thinking out loud. I thought I might get some interesting observations and thoughts from others. Instead, this seems to have touched some ridiculous nerve in people who are interpolating what I wrote and somehow think they can crawl in my head and figure out that this is a disguised digital bashing post.

I appreciate your comments. So this is a completely un-original thought that sophisticated artists have been doing for some time? Well good. That is some validation.

I think this horse is completely dead now. Or pony. I don't think this ever had the stature of a horse.


As I stated in my original post - you and a thousand other artists and hundreds of museums. Why belabor the point? It's being done. You just have to make up YOUR mind if that's what you want to do.



Yeah, and I can take a negative to a lab and pick up a print and have no work in it at all. Likewise, in one hour I can teach anyone to expose a black and white print and slop it through 3 chemicals and wash it. The fact that anyone can learn to make a rudimentary B&W print in one hour does not represent the amount of work it takes to truly master the process - and YOU KNOW THAT.

Then why do you believe that digital printing is any easier? Because it involves a computer assisted system? Or, because it's so easy to get a rudimentary printed image? Okay, anyone can push a button on a camera and get a rudimentary image - I guess that makes everything in photography easy?

And, oh, by the way...millions of people rapidly adopted photography specifically because it was and IS so easy to get an image. Making a photograph takes zero talent and zero technical knowledge.

Now they're just switching over to digital printing because they can afford the equipment and space required, and appreciate the convenience of making their own images. That in no way, shape, or form represents what it takes to make a fine quality inkjet print anymore than using a box Brownie and dropping the film at a lab represents what it takes to get a fine quality photographic print.

Yes, you can push the button and get an average digital print quite easily. Getting a print that represents 100% of what is possible and available through digital printing is a whole different story. Getting the first 90% is quite straightforward - it's the last 10% that's the real bugger and takes a lot of work, testing, and perserverence.

If you don't know about or care about the absolute ultimate quality that can be had out of a digital print - you won't care to put the work into it. But, believe me, with over 35 years of experience in traditional photographic printing, graphic arts, offset printing, and fine art lithographic printing - you really have to work and apply yourself to the digital process to get everything possible out of it.




Who's howling? If your work is conceived to be large prints, and the gum platinums are the intermediate step to the final print - so what? You're not the first person to do that art workflow. There is an artist that does paintings as the intermediate step to the inkjet print. She uses both mediums (painting / photography) for the intrinsic qualities inherent in each, with the final piece of artwork she's envisioned being the the large format inkjet print made from a photograph of the painting.

Perhaps you're just now realizing the vast possibilities available when you are no longer constrained by labels, ideals, or what amount or type of "work" makes up a "real" piece of art.

[paulr]

I don't think there's one right answer to this. It helps to consider what the market will bear, as some have pointed out, and also how much or little you're willing to let your work go for.

Weighing these factors, you might decide to sell the inkjet for less, more, or the same.

Personally, I've priced mine lower than my silver prints, but not because of what the market will bear (i have no idea) but for the simple reason that I can print larger editions. So the inkjets don't have the same scarcity element.

My silver prints came from an unusually involved process, typically with a few stillborns in the toner, so my editions range from around four to ten. This isn't an artificial number; its the most i was ever able to print before losing my mind in the dark at 4:00 am. The inkjets, on the other hand, once I've done the initial work (and it's a lot of work ... trust me) I can print however many I want. So the editions size becomes largely a marketing decision.

I'm not sure I've made the best choice on edition size, but people who know more than me have pointed me towards editions two to three times the size of my silver editions. This suggests lower prices to me. Which I'm happy about--I'd like to be able to share the work with people besides serious collectors and rich people. The scarcity of the silver prints made me stingy.

[Helen Bach]

If inkjet prints do not fully represent or express what you envisioned, then why sell them? I wouldn't even give a print away if it didn't look exactly how I wanted it to look.

If they do fully represent or express what you envisioned, then why sell them for less? Because you can? Then why sell the dearer ones if they are no more expressive?

Just questions. Everyone has their own answers.

Best,
Helen

[Kirk Gittings]

Jim Chin

"Brooks Jensen has gone the route of selling inkjets for about $20. From what I understand he has sold far more inkjets then he could ever hope to sell with traditional, thus allowing his work to be enjoyed by a greater number of people."

Enough of the Brook's Jensen pricing strategy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trouble with this "Jensen" senario is that he has his own magazine to advertise and promote his work essentially for the cost of paper and ink. If you had that advantage you might be able to market work in volume and make a desecnt profit on volume, but you don't have this advantage nor are you or anyone else likely too unless you start your own magazine!

Anyone who buys into this stragedy is kidding themselves.

[Brooks Jensen]

True, I do have that advantage -- which is somewhat offset by the fact that I can't work on my personal photography or marketing full time (like, say, Michael A. Smith or Christopher Burkett) because I have LensWork to publish and a staff to manage.

This advantage of mine, however, does not negate the basic principle. Simply said, I believe it is worth it to try to make one's work accessible to as many people as possible by working to make price less of a barrier to people who do find your work and might want to buy it. (I admit that this statement may say more about me and my views about photography and my work than a universal truth applicable to all photographers in all situations.)

I see that a rare and unique collectible car just sold for $3 million dollars. Should that fact influence the price I paid for my Toyota off the dealer's lot? Why should the prices that galleries charge for rare and collectible artwork (mostly by "famous dead guys") be any factor in what we (living and unknown guys) charge for our work?

I see a difference between the market for collectible, investment-quality things that are purchased for their rarity and for their income potential and the market for everyday items purchased by consumers because they want to own them and keep them -- whether talking about cars, paintings, jewels, antiques, or photographs. My photographs are simply not "investments," not today, probably not ever. And if someday they are, well, those people who paid $20 for them will do quite well, even it is unintentionally. I'm trying to be realistic about this.

Maybe someday when I'm dead and gone (Ansel used to say "into the final wash" but I suppose I should say "into the ink maintenance tank") my work will be worth a fortune and collectible. Who knows? Obviously, I won't care nor benefit any more than Edward Weston is benefiting from his escalated prices. In the meantime, I like the $20 idea because everyone can afford it. I like pricing my work about the same as a CD or a nice meal in a good restaurant.

My pricing ideas work for me -- but that certainly doesn't mean that other photographers shouldn't charge more. I make small prints. I don't mat my work. It's not limited. My $20 work is from an Epson printer. All these factors have to be taken into account. If I made large-scale prints, in a wet darkroom, maybe in color, matted and/or framed, with a limit of a dozen or so prints, you can bet your life I'd have a completely different pricing strategy.

All I am really suggesting is that each of us need to think through these issues carefully for ourselves and not let our expectations be overly influenced by the superstar prices. Alex Rodriguez gets $30 million for playing baseball, but I'm not likely to get quite that much for my baseball skills should I decide to quit this publishing gig. That won't, however, stop me from visiting the batting cages on occasion.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork

[Kirk Gittings]

Brooks,

Good to see you jump in. I'm glad that works for you. My main objection is with those who promote your strategy without realizing that it hinges on one owning their own magazine for promotion and advertising. An advantage I certainly wish I had, but having said that I would still not sell original prints as low as you are.

I have sold a fair number of prints over the years, mostly to institutions and mostly silver prints but now primarily ink. I also carefully give a fair number of prints away each year, usually to charitable auctions (only those where I can set a minimum to maintain their value), and occasionally donations to strategically get my work placed somewhere. My work is readily available for people to see in exhibits regularly and posess in books, but if they want to own an original signed print they need to invest in and support my considerable efforts in time and materials to produce something worth hanging on a wall.

I sell the silver now for more than the ink because I consider each of my silver prints unique (the burning and dodging is very complex and no two silver prints are exactly the same) and not truely an edition as the ink prints are. So far that distinction has worked for me with my old private collectors still insisting on silver but now the museums are purchasing the ink prints. When I put the pricing difference that way to them it appears to make sense. But even at over ten times the price of your 8x10's, I consider my prints reasonably priced.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry Mr. Jensen, but I was one of those who got sucked into your strategy and unless you have a free avenue for advertising and promoting your work it simply does not work. I tried selling pt/pd prints starting at $39 which I then raised to $59, even at $59 it was a loosing proposition. When you take into account that you have to keep fresh work (in a way a good thing since it forces you to go out there and take pictures instead of having pissing matches in an internet forum :p ) to be able to sell it constantly, the costs of making the prints from start to finish are greater than the low prices you suggest.

As to Clay's question I dont see the problem. For years many photographers have used a lower price for prints they offer in different materials. Butcher offered RC prints and now he offers ink jet prints for less than those that are made in FB paper. If I had the money I would do the same and make ink jet "posters" to sell, so I guess the correct answer for Clay is check out Clyde Butcher's web site and see what he does.....

[clay harmon]

Helen, that is the best response I have read.

It really hits on a very personal part of this whole equation. IOW, would I consider it a compromise to sell a different version of a given photograph? Everyone will undoubtedly have their own answer.






If inkjet prints do not fully represent or express what you envisioned, then why sell them? I wouldn't even give a print away if it didn't look exactly how I wanted it to look.

If they do fully represent or express what you envisioned, then why sell them for less? Because you can? Then why sell the dearer ones if they are no more expressive?

Just questions. Everyone has their own answers.

Best,
Helen

[David Luttmann]

If I had the money I would do the same and make ink jet "posters" to sell, .....

:rolleyes:

[Brooks Jensen]

Sorry Mr. Jensen, but I was one of those who got sucked into your strategy and unless you have a free avenue for advertising and promoting your work it simply does not work. I tried selling pt/pd prints starting at $39 which I then raised to $59, even at $59 it was a loosing proposition. When you take into account that you have to keep fresh work (in a way a good thing since it forces you to go out there and take pictures instead of having pissing matches in an internet forum :p ) to be able to sell it constantly, the costs of making the prints from start to finish are greater than the low prices you suggest.

Perfectly understandable. From my limited knowledge of the costs of platinum/palladium printing, there is no way a $39 or $59 price is supportable. To compare the cost/retail of an inkjet print to the cost/retail of a platinum print is sort of like comparing the cost to produce a concert to the cost to produce a CD -- well, the analogy is not too good a match, but you get the point. PT is made by hand in a wet darkroom from a large negative -- all expensive procedures. A print from an Epson printer has a completely different cost structure. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised that your prices for pt/pd aren't A LOT more, especially if they are large prints and especially if one's objective is to make a profit or even a living from the activity. Similarly a hand-knit sweater will likely cost more than a machine-made one -- unless you get the sweater from your grandmother as a labor of love. That platinum prints sell for more than inkjet ones makes perfect sense to me.

I think there is some confusion about this because I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been in my original article in LensWork. My fault. I never suggested that people ought to sell their work for $20 -- just that this price made sense for my work, at least some of my work. I'll go even farther and say that I've specifically strategized a way of making these entry-level prints so that this kind of price make sense -- for example, selling them unmatted. Mat board costs a lot!

I am advocating a very specific idea -- that it is important for all of us as photographers that there is an entry-level to collecting photographs for people who have limited means. Worse, when the only people who can afford our artwork are a small fraction of the population who are the wealthy elite it is very unhealthy and stiffles opportunity for new photographers and new ways of seeing, ultimately hurting photography as a whole.

Again, the point of importance is that each one of us would be well served to really think through all the ramifications of both costs and our targeted markets and design a print that fits the market. When Burkett charges $4,000 for one of his prints, it's a perfect match to his market and that is why he is successful selling work. When I charge $20 for mine it's a perfect match to the market I hope likes the work and I am therefore successful selling it.

So how much should a photographer charge for their prints? Clearly, there is no single right answer anymore than there is a single right answer for how much a dealer should charge for a car. It depends on the car and it depends on the photograph.

And, by the way, an extremely important part of selling is telling people WHY a platinum/palladium print is worth more -- and it's not just about longevity. Communication and education is an important ingredient to success in any marketing effort -- at least as important and the actual price.

Hope this helps clarify some of this a bit.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

[clay harmon]

I think it essentially boils down to your own personal utility function, with production cost being one factor. If you optimize your own satisfaction/enjoyment/sense of pride - whatever, by selling more prints, then the cost structure for producing them should reflect that goal. If your personal utility is optimized by the act of production itself, and sales volume represents a less important goal or metric, then a rare, high cost and high priced print may be the answer. After assimilating all of these comments, I think one has to decide exactly what one wants to achieve before deciding how to achieve it.


Perfectly understandable. From my limited knowledge of the costs of platinum/palladium printing, there is no way a $39 or $59 price is supportable. To compare the cost/retail of an inkjet print to the cost/retail of a platinum print is sort of like comparing the cost to produce a concert to the cost to produce a CD -- well, the analogy is not too good a match, but you get the point. PT is made by hand in a wet darkroom from a large negative -- all expensive procedures. A print from an Epson printer has a completely different cost structure. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised that your prices for pt/pd aren't A LOT more, especially if they are large prints and especially if one's objective is to make a profit or even a living from the activity. Similarly a hand-knit sweater will likely cost more than a machine-made one -- unless you get the sweater from your grandmother as a labor of love. That platinum prints sell for more than inkjet ones makes perfect sense to me.

I think there is some confusion about this because I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been in my original article in LensWork. My fault. I never suggested that people ought to sell their work for $20 -- just that this price made sense for my work, at least some of my work. I'll go even farther and say that I've specifically strategized a way of making these entry-level prints so that this kind of price make sense -- for example, selling them unmatted. Mat board costs a lot!

I am advocating a very specific idea -- that it is important for all of us as photographers that there is an entry-level to collecting photographs for people who have limited means. Worse, when the only people who can afford our artwork are a small fraction of the population who are the wealthy elite it is very unhealthy and stiffles opportunity for new photographers and new ways of seeing, ultimately hurting photography as a whole.

Again, the point of importance is that each one of us would be well served to really think through all the ramifications of both costs and our targeted markets and design a print that fits the market. When Burkett charges $4,000 for one of his prints, it's a perfect match to his market and that is why he is successful selling work. When I charge $20 for mine it's a perfect match to the market I hope likes the work and I am therefore successful selling it.

So how much should a photographer charge for their prints? Clearly, there is no single right answer anymore than there is a single right answer for how much a dealer should charge for a car. It depends on the car and it depends on the photograph.

And, by the way, an extremely important part of selling is telling people WHY a platinum/palladium print is worth more -- and it's not just about longevity. Communication and education is an important ingredient to success in any marketing effort -- at least as important and the actual price.

Hope this helps clarify some of this a bit.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

[Brooks Jensen]

Brooks,
My main objection is with those who promote your strategy without realizing that it hinges on one owning their own magazine for promotion and advertising.

Well, certainly one doesn't need to own a magazine to sell photographs! During the first 10 years I owned LensWork I didn't sell squat of my personal work, so there is more to it than that.

You point is valid, however, and that is that promotion, advertising, getting seen and "out there" is a big part of marketing -- and an expensive one, too. Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee travel around and sell their work one on one. It costs them a lot to do so. Chris Burkett sells through galleries who take a substantial commission. Bruce Barnbaum uses his workshops to sell a lot of his work, as do John Sexton, Don Kirby and many others. There are lots of photographers selling work (not just "offering" it, but actually selling it) via websites. There are books, catalogs, online galleries, arts & crafts shows, street fairs, eBay, photo agents -- you get the idea. There are lots and lots of ways to find an audience for your work, some expensive, some less expensive.

The key is finding the way that is a good fit to your work, your audience, your price, your aesthetic, your technology, your interests. It's not easy to do -- but then again, neither is it easy to make a photograph you are proud to sell. I run into far too many photographers who are willing to work like the Dickens and slave for years to make great photographs but who think they should be able to sell them instantly and with little effort. If you think it's hard coaxing light onto film and paper just as you'd like, try coaxing a reluctant public to open their wallets and fork over their hard earned cash! When they do so, you'll know it's because you've earned it -- as it should be. I've said for years that in photography the Zone System is easy to master compared to the Coin System.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

[Kirk Gittings]

"I've said for years that in photography the Zone System is easy to master compared to the Coin System"

Well said.

[Oren Grad]

I think it essentially boils down to your own personal utility function, with production cost being one factor. If you optimize your own satisfaction/enjoyment/sense of pride - whatever, by selling more prints, then the cost structure for producing them should reflect that goal. If your personal utility is optimized by the act of production itself, and sales volume represents a less important goal or metric, then a rare, high cost and high priced print may be the answer.

Clay, if you understand utility functions you also understand that part of the resistance to your setting a low price arises from fear of the externalities. But a guild approach has its own consequences for the place of photography in society, as Brooks Jensen has perceptively reminded us.

I say, figure out what your values and objectives are, then do what's needed to achieve them.

[Brian Ellis]

"I think the subtle implication that digital printing is actually just as difficult or perhaps even more difficult than traditional methods is belied by the rapidity of its adoption by "the enthusiastic masses. If it was just as difficult to master, people would not be spending big bucks to adopt the technology wholesale.

You're lumping all sorts of different types of printing under the rubric "digital." We were talking here, I thought, about photographers sufficiently serious to be selling their work, not snapshots for the family album by the "enthusiastic masses." Good grief, the "enthusiastic masses" never even saw the inside of a darkroom. Nor for that matter do the vast majority of photographs made by the "enthusiastic masses" ever see a printer. Various polls have shown that something like 80% of all family snapshot and similr photographs are never printed, they're displayed on a monitor and saved to a disc or some other storage medium.

And I apologize if I only subtly implied that digital printing is more difficult than traditional darkroom printing. I meant to make it clear that digital printing is in fact much more difficult than traditional darkroom silver printing.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I do the reverse. My colour Type C prints are priced as special editions (unlimited) and the prices are kept to a minimum. This is also to take into account that in 50 years they won't look like I intended them too. My Black and White Carbon on Cotton (inkjets!) are Limited Edition prints and are sold at a premium price.

I must say I agree with Brooks each to their own. You have to sort out a pricing strategy that suits you and your clientele. I think it is a fantastic idea to have work priced at both ends of the spectrum.

Oh and the analogue / digital argument - That doesn't even come into the argument (all of my work is digital after packing up my darkroom), people are charging similar prices for either production method.

[David A. Goldfarb]

You are proposing to do what thousands of artists and hundreds of museums are doing today. Copying an original piece of art to sell as a reproduction. Most of the people call these copies "giclees" - check the Louvre, Museum of Modern Art, etc. - the gift shops are rife with fine art "giclee" reproductions.

The nice thing about them is the inkjet reproduction is much better than the old fashioned poster which they've replaced.

I see this as a fair perspective, and the question is how to do it in a way that brings in another income stream without devaluing the originals. I think it's great to be able to buy, say, a Pictrography repro from the National Portrait Gallery in London, because I'll never be able to afford the original, and it will be better than the reproduction in a book--not as accurate as a 35mm slide usually, but more practical for viewing. On the other hand, if you walk through the touristy galleries in Lahaina on Maui, which are filled with "giclees" of paintings by local artists (which is not to say that there aren't a few nice galleries in Lahaina), interspersed with the occasional original, it all starts to look like shlock, whether it's original or inkjet.

[tim atherton]

Interesting viewpoint. So if it so much harder, why are you doing it? Seems like that would be a pretty poor selling point for a new Epson 7800. Color me sceptical. - Clay
" I meant to make it clear that digital printing is in fact much more difficult than traditional darkroom silver printing

Because in the right hands it can produce superior results

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks Tim, you said it for me.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Because in the right hands it can produce superior results

Hmmm.....superior results compared to what? What do you call superior and how do you know it is superior to other processes or printer. I doubt anybody can make a superior print than Paul Caponigro at his best, ink jet or not.....

[tim atherton]

nice to see you Jorge - hope things are going okay?

and I'd probably have to agree with you on Paul Caponigro...

[Tom Westbrook]

Because in the right hands it can produce superior results

That's sort of a non-statement isn't it? Sure, but the "right hands" are the hands of an inkjet printmaker, who apparently couldn't get what he/she wanted from traditional printing, possibly because they weren't any good at it. Doesn't say anything about the superiority or one process over the other in absolute terms.

[David Luttmann]

Hmmm.....superior results compared to what? What do you call superior and how do you know it is superior to other processes or printer. I doubt anybody can make a superior print than Paul Caponigro at his best, ink jet or not.....

I agree with the comment as to Paul. As to superior or good results.....that depends on how well they sell, and how people appreciate the quality. It seems enough people are satisfied with the quality that we've seen a large shift from silver to inkjet. That speaks volumes. I'm not sure how that impacts sale price though. In my opinion, your pt/pd prints were way underpriced at $59.....considering the skill it takes to get good results with that media. But then again, it takes a fair bit of skill to get good digital results as well.

[tim atherton]

, who apparently couldn't get what he/she wanted from traditional printing, possibly because they weren't any good at it..

big - but entirely mistaken asumption

(as our old Sgt. Major used to say - assumptions are mother of all F@*k-ups... :-) )

perhaps I should have added ceteris paribus

[paulr]

The question raised by Mr. Jensen's approach really has little to do with ink vs. silver vs. whatever.

It's a larger question: what's better for you in the long run ... selling a lot for cheap, or selling a few for a lot?

There are advantages on both sides. Selling a lot for cheap gets your work into more people's hands. This is great, and can work to your advantage someday. But it can also devalue your work in people's eyes. Sadly, a lot of buyers don't trust their instincts and look at price as an indicator of quality. I've heard from more than one dealer that they've had an easier time selling prints of the same image at a higher price point.

Also, if you're looking for representation, a lot of dealers are only interested in selling work in certain price ranges. A gallery in New York will rarely be interested in selling prints that cost under a few hundred dollars. They know from experience that it's bad business in their market. A storefront gallery in a small town, for similar reasons, might be uninterested in selling work that costs more than a few hundred.

So before you ask the question "what price will the market bear," you need to ask "what market?" And you might also ask what practice is going to help or hurt your image over the long haul.

[paulr]

... Doesn't say anything about the superiority or one process over the other in absolute terms.

I'd certainly agree with that. Processes look different from each other; you can only judge superiority in the context of specific images and specific goals.

That being said, I've been floored by the potential of inkjet printing in my personal work. It has actually raised my expectations of how beautiful a print can be.

I've been reprinting a project using jon cone's carbon pigment quadtone inks. The original prints were on Fortezo, developed pretty laboriously in old ansco formulas, and toned in varying combinations of selenium and gold. I'm very proud of a lot of these prints. Which is why I'm as surprised as anyone by how much I like the new ink versions. I'm finding that about 50% of the time I like the ink print more. About 25% of the time I like the silver print more. And about 25% of the time it's a tossup ... they look different, and I like them both for different reasons.

I fully realize that this evaluation is based on my tastes, these negatives, and this project. Change any one of these factors and you'll probably get different opinions.

Possibly most interesting is that I'm no good at predicting which negatives I'll like best in ink vs. silver. I thought this would be straightforward ... that silver would favor images that rely on a strong black, and ink would favor images that rely on midtone and highlight separation. But I'm constantly surprised by the resluts.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I doubt anybody can make a superior print than Paul Caponigro at his best, ink jet or not....."

At his best.....I personaly know a couple of collectors who had to reject prints of his ordered through a gallery from him. When he is at his best, he is brilliant but as Somerset Maughn once said "Only the mediocre are always at their best".

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

"I doubt anybody can make a superior print than Paul Caponigro at his best, ink jet or not....."

At his best.....I personaly know a couple of collectors who had to reject prints of his ordered through a gallery from him. When he is at his best, he is brilliant but as Somerset Maughn once said "Only the mediocre are always at their best".
This certainly does not jibe with all the exhibits I saw of his work. Each and every print was flawless and amazingly done. I guess everybody is entitled to an off day once in a while.

[Brooks Jensen]

So before you ask the question "what price will the market bear," you need to ask "what market?" And you might also ask what practice is going to help or hurt your image over the long haul.

Paul,
Precisely.

I've always thought that the one undeniable lesson about the marketing of photographs taught to us by Ansel Adams is that image familiarity breeds demand. He put images on coffee cans, appointment calendars, magazine pages, government publications, etc by the gazillions -- and those efforts helped (along with his stunning imagery!) to create a market for his original prints and a scenario of escalating prices. Supply and demand at its best.

It seems pretty clear to me that we either have lots of people who like our work or not very many who know about it at all. Most of us are in the later category. If we think what we are creating is important and should be seen, we seem to have two choices as working, living photographers -- do what we can to build an audience or leave that to others to do it for us, probably posthumously. I would hope to end my career with lots or people who enjoy my work and are glad I made it. The alternative is grim.

One of my biggest nightmares is that I will create a lifetime of work and (primarily because of bad marketing or high prices) still personally own most of it in the studio closet when I start pushing up a daisy or two. My kids will then plop the work on the front lawn in the estate sale where it will remain unsold in spite of the 50-cent price tag - per box. The only pieces that will sell with be to other photographers who want to re-use the mats. My cameras will be worth far more than the photographs I made with them. Again, supply and demand at its best, in this case illustrating that when there is no demand and a large supply the law works with equal validity.

Oliver Gagliani used to say that you're in photography for the photographs or you're in it for the money. Sad and probably unfair as it is, most of the people who make money in the art world are not the artists who create it. But, I suppose the same can be said for food, clothing, and lots of other things bought and sold. Why should fine art photographers be any different?

But I digress.

Simply said, How do you define success? (Hint: There are many, many possible answers.) For some of us, sharing is more important than selling -- so when it comes to price, the right price is the one that shares the most work with the most people.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Okay, I'm off to make photographs!
Brooks

[paulr]

One of my biggest nightmares is that I will create a lifetime of work and (primarily because of bad marketing or high prices) still personally own most of it in the studio closet when I start pushing up a daisy or two. My kids will then plop the work on the front lawn in the estate sale where it will remain unsold in spite of the 50-cent price tag - per box. The only pieces that will sell with be to other photographers who want to re-use the mats.

Ha! i'm sure a lot of us share your nightmare.

This actually brings up a nice advantage of inkjet prints ... it's easy to print your edition on demand. with silver prints, i had to print real editions, all at once in the same session, same chemistry, etc...

with ink, the edition is virtual ... just a number I won't go beyond. most of my ink prints exist as one sample. if i sell one or give one as a gift, i just print another, sign and number it, and add it to my records.

automatically guarantees a smaller, less embarassing stoop sale when i die my grisly death.

[Kirk Gittings]

"This certainly does not jibe with all the exhibits I saw of his work. Each and every print was flawless and amazingly done. I guess everybody is entitled to an off day once in a while."

I agree in general. The exhibits I have seen were gorgeous. Except once......there was a print in the Megaliths show-way back when, maybe 92?-where his back had clearly been swung (when it shouldn't have) when he shot it. It was clearly a mistake and many of us could not understand why it was included. When I asked him about it he said it was a long story and changed the subject.

[Brian Ellis]

That's sort of a non-statement isn't it? Sure, but the "right hands" are the hands of an inkjet printmaker, who apparently couldn't get what he/she wanted from traditional printing, possibly because they weren't any good at it. Doesn't say anything about the superiority or one process over the other in absolute terms.

Nobody has, AFAIK, claimed that any one process is inherently superior to another. "In the right hands" means just the opposite, i.e. that the talent of the person using the equipment is critical, that the equipment doesn't automatically produce superior prints but has the potential for doing that if it's used by the right hands, i.e. someone with talent for using it. And frankly I consider the notion that an inkjet printmaker (which is what it's obvious I am) uses that mode because he or she wasn't any good at darkroom printing to be a personal insult, not to mention a ridiculous statement considering the number of outstanding printers (including at least three who are participating in this thread) who now print digitally.

[Tom Westbrook]

Sorry, Brian, I was just using an extreme example to illustrate my point, it being that no particular process has any superior position to any other except in a completely subjective way. Tim's statement implied to me that even with equal skill levels, any hypothetical printmaker would necessarily prefer the inkjet print because it is superior in some way. It can only be superior if it produces better results as a work of art for the artist, it's got nothing to do with superiority of one over any other process. It's so subjective that it's ludicrous to debate it. Perhaps the artist doesn't value the things that the inkjet is supposed to be so great at, or he highly values the things it doesn't do well, but some other process does. Perhaps the artist likes waving their hands around in the dark better than spending time in front of a computer. I was just trying to point out that expression is the goal, not the means of expression. There are no "right hands"--each uses theirs as best suits their vision.

I'm a bit hampered in this debate, since I've never actually seen a B&W inkjet print that was decent, let alone superior, so I remain rather skeptical. I do have an R800 printer, but am not very impressed so far by my prints from it, mostly due to surface and paper issues, but I keep trying. Maybe I prefer silver printing because I suck pretty badly at inkjet.

[peterson821020]

come here and see low ink price:
http://www.inkmore.com

[Brian Sims]

I worked for a hospital for a while. There was a rural physician who always referred to himself as a small business man. His clinic was in a low rent building. He scrounged for used equipment. There were rumors he re-used disposable items. All this might have been fine if he passed the savings to his patients. Instead, he would stop at an elderly patient's house on the way home and ask how they were doing from the front porch. He would then submit a "home visit" bill to Medicare.

For some reason, this discussion of the "price point" of various printing methods reminds me of that business man. When I sometimes spend years shooting the same subject in different light until I get it right, or hike 30 miles to capture an image most of the world will never see in person; when I tweek and re-tweek that image for weeks and months, and then frame the print just the way I want, I am not thinking of the cost of the "inputs" to that "product." I try to charge what I think people will pay to hang my art on their walls. There are times I've given the work away. Sometimes a piece was easy (low cost) to produce, but sold well because people liked the image.

I know that some of you are trying to make a living with photography and may not have the luxury to ignore the cost of the inputs. But for most of us, our main input is our heart. Charge whatever you want or whatever you can get for that. Heart for his work, was what that physician lost long ago.

[paulr]

ha. if i could fund my work by billing medicare, rather than toiling in the graphic design mines, i'd do it in a heartbeat. ;)

[gbogatko]

Once upon a time, in a former life far, far away, I was a struggling composer of music making my living by extracting individual parts from scores. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about: A score is a set of large sheets of music paper that shows all the instructions to all the individual musicians all at once, aligned vertically and bound in book form. A 'part' is the instructions for just one of those musicians (ex. ‘the flute part’).

As recently as 1984 (when I quit), parts were 'extracted' by hand using special gold-tipped pens and india ink. Very laborious, specialized work, not for the timid. At this time, Xerography had advanced to the point that one could make a Xerocopy of a long piece of paper, say 12 inches by 4 feet. We would then extract (or 'copy') out all the stuff that was common between two or more parts, make Xerocopies, and then fill in the portions that differed. For instance, if a score contained 4 trumpet parts, and they were all playing the same set of notes ("playing unison") for most of the piece, we could save gobs of time in extracting those 4 parts in the manner just described, and filling in the differences.

So what does this have to do with the discussion at hand (charging for inkjet prints vs. chemical prints).

We would NOT charge less per part when we did things this way. The individual part price remained as if we had done 4 individual parts each separately in whole and by hand from scratch. Many customers complained about this using the logic that since the machine (the Xerox) had done most of the work than each resulting part took us less work and therefore we should charge less for each part. The answer to that complaint is where I'm heading.

The answer was: “The means by which I produce the resulting product has nothing to do with the price I charge for it. If I choose to charge less for parts, it is for business reasons that have nothing to do with how they were made or how efficiently I made them. Since the results of my effort remains top quality parts, I will continue to charge top prices."

So, that's my answer to the question of "how much to charge for inkjet vs. analog printing." Change what customers are willing to pay without any consideration of how the print was produced. You are not cheating them by using inkjet to make the product instead of analog processing. If they like the result, they will pay what you ask, and if they don't, then they won't.

After all, if analog printing was an easier proposition than inkjet printing, would you charge less for the analog print? This question has meaning when contact prints are produced from negatives made by non-analog processes (such as Imagesetter or Inkjet). Does the fact that you did all your dodging and burning in photoshop to produce the non-analog negative somehow diminish the resulting platinum contact print? Are you really going to say "well, I really cheated on the contact negative so I'll cut off 30% on the price."

Or, another way to ask the question is: Assuming two prints, one inkjet and one analog, and YOU CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE AND THEY HAVE THE SAME ARCHIVAL QUALITIES, is one nonetheless inherently unworthy and therefore should be sold at a lower price because it was made with one method or the other?

George B.