Print Prices for Online Sales

[Ed Richards]

I am about to add a paypal option to my WWW site to allow people to buy prints. At least in the US, shipping will be flat rate ($10) and I am thinking about pricing black and white prints at 8.5x11 for $40 and 11x14 for $75. I am curious how about this compares with art fair pricing and other online pricing.

Thanks,

Ed

[Brian K]

Ed, I can't tell you how it compares to art fair pricing, but that comparison is pointless anyway. You price your work based on what you need to earn from it and what it costs you to produce.

[BarryS]

I think those prices are ridiculously low for original art. I have a lot of experience coordinating a very large (1000+ visual artists) art exhibition and even if you doubled those prices, you'd still be at the low end.

[darr]

Ed, I recently had a fellow photographer question me about my print prices. The comparison they were making to my prices had nothing to do with how I price my work. I reminded them that I do not sell 'a print' per se, but work from my portfolio. Price your work for what you feel you are worth. If you sell a lot, raise your prices. :)

Kind regards,
Darr

[John Brady]

I am assuming these are open edition prints and since you can sell unlimited quantities of each the pricing is not far off. I would probably raise the 11x14 to $95.

I do about ten juried art fair shows a year in Florida. These are not easy times to sell your work. My advice would be to offer your open edition at aggressive prices and hold your ground on your limited edition work.

www.timeandlight.com

[QT Luong]

Personally, I don't see why online prices should be any different (lower) than other venues. There are original Ansel Adams or Brett Weston prints that have been sold online.

[Frank Petronio]

You can charge what the guys who already have a good gallery deal going want you to believe they are worth, and not sell very many... Or you can make them affordable and somewhat frivolous, impulse purchases by selling them dirt cheap so that decent art gets into the hands of an average, poor Joe or even a fellow photographer.

I wouldn't pay over $100 for any living photographer hawking a little inkjet or silver print. However there are a lot of interesting $50 to $100 photos if artist's made them available at a do-able price.

You have to experiment, you don't want to get overwhelmed with a low margin item, but it seems like you have work that people might buy 10-20 prints of, and you could offer them as portfolios for a nice price.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm in an exhibit now where the photographs range from about 16x20 to maybe 20x50 (large panoramas). Each photographer set his or her own price. Most are digital in one form or another, only a couple darkroom prints. The prices range from a low of $150 to a high of about $1,000. Of course they're all matted and framed which obviously adds to the price. I mention this just to illustrate the range of prices charged for similar work by similar photographers (some known in this part of the world but most unknown).

I think pricing is a matter of balancing your desire to sell as many prints as possible with the idea that you don't want to virtually give your work away. My own theory is to price on the high side - not outrageous, just on the high side of what I think is reasonable - just because I'm not going to make enough money from print sales to have any effect on my lifestyle no matter what I charge and I don't want to go to the trouble of packing and shipping for peanuts. But I'm not a professional or even an amateur who makes a big effort to sell his or her work. I enjoy photography too much to start photographing for sales rather than for my own pleausre.

[Ed Richards]

QT,

If the public were clamoring for my art, I would agree. But since I think pricing matters, with an online sale I get most of the proceeds, while with a gallery I would get 50% at best, and that would require a lot of up front cost in making and perhaps framing prints for inventory and display. With art fairs, I would have to spend time and gas, and putting a value on those would make sales even less remunerative than a gallery. So a print sold on the WWW is worth a lot more to me than a print sold for the same amount of money in other venues. If I get swamped, I can always raise the price a little. I do not buy into the "once low, always low" mentality - I can remember when even I could have afforded an AA print as a student. (I also remember a friend at college in the late 60s saying I should buy some Escher prints, they were cheap and they would be really valuable when he died.)

[Merg Ross]

QT,

If the public were clamoring for my art, I would agree. But since I think pricing matters, with an online sale I get most of the proceeds, while with a gallery I would get 50% at best, and that would require a lot of up front cost in making and perhaps framing prints for inventory and display. With art fairs, I would have to spend time and gas, and putting a value on those would make sales even less remunerative than a gallery. So a print sold on the WWW is worth a lot more to me than a print sold for the same amount of money in other venues. If I get swamped, I can always raise the price a little. I do not buy into the "once low, always low" mentality - I can remember when even I could have afforded an AA print as a student. (I also remember a friend at college in the late 60s saying I should buy some Escher prints, they were cheap and they would be really valuable when he died.)

Ed, I understand the points that you make.

If you plan to sell your prints online, you have set the worth of your work at x-dollars. You can only expect to market it in a gallery for the same price. This is an ethical consideration. Also, the "once low, always low" concept works both ways. You can raise your prices, however you can not at a later date lower them, assuming that you are offering the same product; again, an ethical consideration.

You have done some good work, best of luck with your venture.

[mercadov]

I'm in the process of building a LF body of work for future print sales and personal satisfaction in learning the art. I am currently developing skills with a 4x5 Speed using 120 (6x9) film and testing a variety of old lenses. One of my interests is female portraits which I am willing to pay $25-$40 for 8x10 prints. When I look at portraits and fall in love with the subject matter and lighting my next thought process is how the image was captured and print materials used. That's just me, for example if the photographer processed the complete workflow using professional materials and or alternative process, that justifies my mind in print value and of course my paycheck determines my budget. Any comments on the values that make you want to buy prints?


~vm~

[Frank Petronio]

Buying inexpensive artist prints from your peers and heros saves you the awkward moment of when your offer of "trading" prints is met with reluctance. Been on both sides of that one....

[Ed Richards]

Hi Merge,

I do not see how pricing is an ethical issue in either circumstance. People constantly make a choice between buying online for lower prices than from local merchants - they trade off convenience and service for price. I can see why a gallery would not want to sell art that could be bought on the WWW - they probably would not care what the price was, it would undermine their sales even at the same price.

I especially do not see why you cannot lower prices at a later date - are you hypothecating that prints are intrinsically different from other goods? These are open edition prints, which, to me, means there are no representations that the price you pay is going to be protected in either direction. I think a limited edition must be respected as to the limited number of prints, but even that does not imply any protection of prices. All of this changes when you start making representations about price stability, which could include saying that your prints are a good investment.

For myself, I am not offering prints larger than 11x14 so that I have the option of offering larger prints at higher prices or through a gallery, and I am not offering any limited editions. I must admit that I am not holding my breath for gallery representation. I am resolutely not trendy and my Katrina prints are very strong - several gallery folks have admired the prints but made it clear that no one wants to hang such depressing prints on the wall.:-) They made the very reasonable suggestion that I should do a book, which I may do when I get the WWW sorted out.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Also, the "once low, always low" concept works both ways. You can raise your prices, however you can not at a later date lower them, assuming that you are offering the same product; again, an ethical consideration.


What is wrong ethicaly for selling prints cheaper down the road? Do stores break some kind of ethics rules when they have a sale? What if 5 years from now ink and paper are cheaper or I find myself with a stack of prints that I want to get rid of and sell on the cheap? Would it be wrong to lower the price?

Or what if I find it is better to sell 3 prints at $50 a pop instead of 1 at $100? Should I be forced to limit my income just because I sold a print for $100 a year ago?

[jnantz]

wallace, there is kind of an unwritten code that suggests prices can only go up ...just like day-rates.
commercialphotographers are never allowed to lower their rates either ...

but .. sometimes rules are meant to be broken ...

good luck with your venture ed !

[QT Luong]

We are not talking about mass-produced widgets here, but works of art. A work of art is in general priced proportionally to the reputation of the artist. When you lower your prices, you give the signal that your reputation is declining, or that it was over-estimated in the first place. I wouldn't call that "ethically wrong", but still I don't think it is a good idea if done in a systematic way (as opposed to a temporary sale).

[Merg Ross]

We are not talking about mass-produced widgets here, but works of art. A work of art is in general priced proportionally to the reputation of the artist. When you lower your prices, you give the signal that your reputation is declining, or that it was over-estimated in the first place. I wouldn't call that "ethically wrong", but still I don't think it is a good idea if done in a systematic way (as opposed to a temporary sale).

I agree with the first comments in your reply. I would not use the term "ethically wrong" either, because ethics by definition, refers to the morals of a particular person. I merely suggested that selling for less was an "ethical consideration".

I sold my first prints fifty years ago to George Eastman House for $15 dollars each. My most recent sale to a collector was for considerably more; however, never have I sold a particular image to a buyer for less than was paid by a previous buyer or buyers. This is simply my personal way of doing business and what I consider ethical.

I made mention to Ed in case he had not considered how his work would be viewed with reduced prices in the future. It has nothing to do with a guarantee of price stability, but rather how highly one regards his or her work. There are many ways to market art, no right or wrong way.

[Bill_1856]

I believe that Edward Weston charged $10 for an 8x10, eventually went up to $15. He was somewhat higher than St. Ansel or Imogene.

[Merg Ross]

I believe that Edward Weston charged $10 for an 8x10, eventually went up to $15. He was somewhat higher than St. Ansel or Imogene.

The most that EW received in his lifetime for a print was $25. That was the going price in 1958 when his sons divided up his work and started selling it.

[Ed Richards]

I wonder if there is a lesson here - some of the most valuable prints are those of artists who had little financial success from their art for most or all of their lives. I recently read the sad words that WeeGee wrote after talking to the then very elderly Stiglitz, whose work was ignored and who felt he had failed as a artist. Wonder what Gursky will be selling for 50 years from now, when those early Frank Petronio bad gurl pics will be the rage among collectors?

[Frank Petronio]

Hey maybe I could get an advance from the Art Capital Group in NYC, Annie Leibovitz's benefactors?

[mandoman7]

I know that some artists are doing well with selling their work on the internet. I'm still curious to learn if anyone is doing so who doesn't have some career momentum in another respect, like a magazine article, or a popular book. Can you actually just put work on the internet and get good sales, without anything else on your resume?
Are the successful people on the internet only those who have good exposure elsewhere? I have no idea really, just curious.

[QT Luong]

> Can you actually just put work on the internet and get good sales, without anything else on your resume?

In my experience yes (see also Dan Heller), but maybe not "just" (it's a *lot* of work. one word: google). Note that in the process, you can also pick up opportunities that will end up building your resume.

[PViapiano]

Anyone can put up a website, but the traffic has to be directed to it and that's the rub, as the Bard would put it.

It definitely helps when an article or portfolio is featured in a magazine like LensWork.

I once took a seminar in self-promotion for freelancers (not photography-related) and one of the basics I learned (and never forgot) was that people perceive your position in the marketplace by your price. If you're the low-price leader, people will just assume you're not that good, and vice-versa regardless of the actual quality of your product or service.

Customers who can't afford you now, will come back to you when they do have the money, because they'll perceive you as the best.

This is an oversimplification but the basic tenet holds very true. How many times do you go to the store to buy something and you're faced with 3 price points. Depending on the product, you rarely choose the lowest priced one.

You have to value yourself and have the self-esteem to step up to the plate with your work. It is very hard to make a living in the fine arts, especially without teaching or doing commercial work.

[Ed Richards]

> If you're the low-price leader, people will just assume you're not that good, and vice-versa regardless of the actual quality of your product or service.

Brooks Jenson has taken a very different view, and seems to have built up a pretty good business on his model. But I think there is a huge difference between a service provider like a free lancer, and a product whose attributes are completely obvious to the buyer.

QT points to the key issue - if you want this to be a real business, it takes a lot of work. For myself, I have a demanding but flexible day job. I take pictures for relaxation. I would like for them to available for the public, and I would like to recoup my expenses and make a little profit, if possible. If I were trying to be a full time professional photographer, I would do things very differently. (Starting with not taking pictures of stuff no one wants to see hanging on their wall.) Maybe I will do some work that survives me - I think history is clear that the original selling price of the work has little to do with its long term value.

[Frank Petronio]

Obviously QT has a working business model, with commercial stock and retail print sales, but he also has beautiful work that mainstream customers want.

Hurricane and disaster photos just aren't the sort of things "normal" people hang over the couch, and the stock agencies are flooded with Katrina images (please excuse the pun). It's not like Ed is going to hang out at a craft fair... But same for me, people don't generally buy portraits of strangers and while some of my photos maybe have broader themes, most of my stuff isn't "hangable" to regular people or even that marketable to advertisers.

It takes a lot of work to get yourself into a gallery situation where you can make real money, and in my case getting into a gallery is not a primary goal, just something that may happen organically some day. And actually I think if demand requires a gallery, then I am in a great position since I'd be on the high end of the market.

So why not just set the price at what is easy and worthwhile to do like Ed suggests?

Looking around Etsy, you see a lot of $10 photos. But they take barely any effort -- an inkjet and a stamp -- not that I would go that low but more power to them.

[Robert Hall]

The most that EW received in his lifetime for a print was $25. That was the going price in 1958 when his sons divided up his work and started selling it.

IIRC Edward received $200 each for a series of Kodachrome 8x10's he made for Kodak to market the film.

I'm sorry, I don't have the book handy from which I recall this information and technically those were transparencies not prints.

[mandoman7]

I had the opportunity to work at a gallery a couple of years ago that sold a lot of paintings. One of the most successful galleries at selling the work of living artists in the SF bay area. In the area that I live, N. Calif. wine country, many rich folk were (!) building expensive houses with large walls needing artwork. It was a great opportunity to observe the circumstances under which people are really pulling out their checkbooks.

One of the main things I learned was that people would more readily spend $8000 on the work of an artist with a resume than they would spend $300 on an unknown artist's work. The resume would include a good educational background (association w/name artist hopefully), a good list of exhibitions (in institutions hopefully, not just galleries), and thirdly, the work must be in recognized collections. These three aspects of the artist's resume were working in conjunction with a knowledgeable and attractive person who would be describing the artist's intentions and character. If a good resume was indeed present, it was shocking to see how freely people bought these painting at 5 figures. Since I had shown work in photo galleries a fair amount without very good sales, it made an impression.

To understand the nature of that process, we have to go back to the basic principle that almost everything people do is to impress their peers :D . The big cars, the big house... why bother with that crap? Well, its to impress their circle of cronies. Not everyone would agree with this, but stay with me for a moment.

This need for peer approval plays a role in the selection of what art they want to fill their wall space. Having selected an artist with a background story, they cite this information at the cocktail party when they're showing off their nice house. They can point to the investment value, which is always a safe area to get endorsement with the landed gentry. These concepts are circling around the decision maker's mind as they begin to focus on a piece.

It sounds cynical, but its always been this way in the art world, and others too. Good work is helped a great deal by good credentials. People need corroboration.

It helped me to observe this stuff in that I realized that I was clearly in the unknown and uneducated category, and that I had to recognize that reality in my pricing. That there was no point in making comparisons with the pricing of a recognized and credentialed photographer's work, no matter how bad I might think it was ;). It was a matter of trying to get real with expectations.

[Merg Ross]

IIRC Edward received $200 each for a series of Kodachrome 8x10's he made for Kodak to market the film.

I'm sorry, I don't have the book handy from which I recall this information and technically those were transparencies not prints.

Robert, you are correct. He was paid by Kodak for the Ektachrome and Kodachrome work on a per transparency basis. I should have been more specific. It was his black and white work that sold for $25, top price, during his lifetime.

[PViapiano]

> Brooks Jenson has taken a very different view, and seems to have built up a pretty good business on his model.

Brooks Jensen is well-known and has 18,000 subscribers that read his magazine and editorials each month. This is the built-in audience that drives print sales for him, although I have no idea how many prints he actually sells, of his own or of the newer portfolios of others he's been releasing lately.

The other thing to realize is that mostly Brooks is selling prints to other photographers.

[PViapiano]

Also, according to one of the various online inflation calculators, a print that sold for $25 in 1955 would sell for $177 today, taking 708% inflation since that date into account.

This is just a broad generalization, as many things have risen far more in the same amount of time, take movie tickets for example, which sometimes seem to move that much between movies ;-)

[PViapiano]

And another thing... ;-)

Didn't Edward Weston purposely keep his prints at $25 as part of his feeling for a democratic ownership of fine-art photographs?

Merg, what were other photographers selling their prints for in 1955? What was Edward's philosophy a reaction against back then?

[Merg Ross]

And another thing... ;-)

Didn't Edward Weston purposely keep his prints at $25 as part of his feeling for a democratic ownership of fine-art photographs?

Merg, what were other photographers selling their prints for in 1955? What was Edward's philosophy a reaction against back then?

Hi Paul,

It was really a case of the market, when Edward Weston was selling his prints for $25. In 1952 when his 50th Anniversary Portfolio was offered for $100, sales were slow. It contained 12 prints for $100. Although printed by Brett, that is still about $8 per print. Brett said that when they raised the price to $200, sales dried up, and they went back to the $100 figure. In the mid 1970's that same portfolio was selling for over $8,000. In 1951 when Brett produced his Special Edition Prints, they were marketed at $6 each, including postage.

The Weston's, by their own admission, were poor at marketing. Ansel, on the other hand was skilled at marketing, although as late as 1968 was selling his 11x14 prints for only $100, and 16x20 prints for $150. That same year, Brett was selling his 8x10 Garrapata Beach photograph for $35. I was in a 1961 National Competition Photography Exhibition where Paul Caponigro was high man at $50 per print, with Don Worth at $35, and Jerry Uelsmann and myself at $15.

So, it is safe to say that the real explosion in print prices occured late in the 1970's and into the 1980's. Edward died with $300 in the bank.

[Robert Hall]

Also, according to one of the various online inflation calculators, a print that sold for $25 in 1955 would sell for $177 today, taking 708% inflation since that date into account.

This is just a broad generalization, as many things have risen far more in the same amount of time, take movie tickets for example, which sometimes seem to move that much between movies ;-)

I like to think of Charis Weston stating her concern over the 36 cents a sheet for 8x10 film in 1936 which today would make it 8.67 a sheet by the inflation calculator. And I complain at 3 something a sheet. :)

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Merg. I hate to see personal experiences like yours lost to time.

All the best,

[Frank Petronio]

SEVEN DAYS IN THE ART WORLD

http://www.amazon.com/SEVEN-DAYS-ART-WORLD-ebook/dp/B001FA0NK6

[Donald Miller]

Hey maybe I could get an advance from the Art Capital Group in NYC, Annie Leibovitz's benefactors?

You have the right idea...something on the order of a reverse mortgage. Structured payments based on the expectations of the eventual true value. You are really quite the diamond in the rough...Those unappreciative oafs will live to see the day they regret missing the boat by not buying your work now.

[Robert Hall]

Ya know, with Don, it's so hard to tell if he's pulling your leg or serious! :)

[mandoman7]

And another thing... ;-)

Didn't Edward Weston purposely keep his prints at $25 as part of his feeling for a democratic ownership of fine-art photographs?

Merg, what were other photographers selling their prints for in 1955? What was Edward's philosophy a reaction against back then?

Prior to Ansel, there wasn't a photo art market per se. It was really rare to find photos in galleries prior to the 60's. The idea of photos being collectable or resold had not materialized in the culture at large. Comparisons to an era when there would be collectors would have limited value being quite different circumstances. You could buy the work of all of the great photogs in that era for what seems like nothing now. Someone like Atget couldn't give his work away.
Its kind of crazy to look to print sales for any kind of reliable income now, but then it was really crazy.

[William McEwen]

I like to think of Charis Weston stating her concern over the 36 cents a sheet for 8x10 film in 1936 which today would make it 8.67 a sheet by the inflation calculator. And I complain at 3 something a sheet. :)

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Merg. I hate to see personal experiences like yours lost to time.

All the best,

In 1985, I saw Avedon lecture in Dallas about his "In the American West" project, which was funded by the Amon Carter Museum. He mentioned the need for funding for a project like that, and uttered the words I'll never forget: "8x10 film is expensive."

Kinda made me laugh. Avedon was a wealthy man!

[pocketfulladoubles]

Start with a price that feels comfortable to you. If it works well, slowly raise your pricing for new prints, and keep doing so until you just pass the apex of the Profit*Quantity curve, and then back off just a nudge.

[claudiocambon]

I have done a number of on-line sales in the past with varying degrees of success since about 2002, and, although I am not active on that front these days, I think they are a great way of getting your work out there, and to build an audience for your work.

Commenting on why which ones worked better than others may be less helpful to Ed than simply to say that the same fundamentals of business apply to selling photographic prints as do to anything else, and having a sense of them is crucial.

I remember telling a friend in the garment industry how happy I was after my first one, given how surprisingly successful it had been. When he asked me how I structured the pricing, I explained that I had sold the prints at wholesale for x amount in y size, and had sold so many (he asked me all these things specifically). He told me, "Congrats, you probably found the right price point for your pictures." Initially I cringed at the image conjured of my work swinging around on clothing racks with price tags and sensormatics punched through them, but in a blunt way he was right on.

It goes without saying that it is hard to be nuts and bolts about selling our work because it is something very personal to us, and a sense of the work's relative mystique, if you will, blinds us as to how best to sell it. One constantly feels as if one risks profaning the work. Plus, the traditional sales model, the gallery, is often a bit of a joke (I realize that is a bit incendiary, but so be it.)

In the end, though, calculating what it should be in fairly mathematical terms is the way to do it. I am not a business expert, but your line of questions should be something along the lines of:

How much money do you want to make by having this sale, even roughly?

What are your costs going to be in terms of print production, marketing, shipping? Start with the fixed costs, and then add the variable costs, such as the print expenses, on a sample basis, ie if you sold 25, 50, or 100 prints, to get a sense of the range of costs.

This should give you a price/number ratio of how many prints you need to sell at how much in order to reach your goal, ie a range of what your profit margin should be per print, on a unit basis.

Now that you have a sales target, ask yourself, can I get there?

Is my print price comparable to the market (and the overall state of the economy, which is a factor these days), and within the realm of reasonable expectations of my community/audience/public? This is where you decide on your price: for example, shall I sell 100 prints for y higher price, or 200 prints for z lower price?

Is my audience big enough? (This question applies whether you are selling at high dollar, or at bargain prices.) If not, how do I increase it? (Audiences are never big enough, unless you're U2.)

Then, ask yourself how attractive the product looks to the individual buyer. This is where photographers spend a lot of their time, but it may be the last step. This is where you factor in how to package the work (kind and size of print, editioned or not, and so on), reputation or brand identity (does the pricing make me look too expensive or cheap), pleasure of sale experience for the buyer (assurances given, smoothness of transaction, etc.), basically all the stuff that makes a buyer want to have a piece of your work above and beyond it being beautiful.

All I can say is, in retrospect, my more successful sales were ones in which I instinctively gauged these parameters correctly, and in others that yielded less, I overlooked or misread them.

Good luck, Ed!!

[Michael Roberts]

FWIW, regarding Edward Weston's print prices, the Consumer Price Index is about 13 times what it was in 1930 (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt), so his "standard" $15 price in the early 30s would be $195 for an 8x10 contact print.

I seem to recall Charis mentioning films at .20 each in her memior, or $2.60 in today's dollars.

[kub]

What is wrong ethicaly for selling prints cheaper down the road? Do stores break some kind of ethics rules when they have a sale? What if 5 years from now ink and paper are cheaper or I find myself with a stack of prints that I want to get rid of and sell on the cheap? Would it be wrong to lower the price?

Or what if I find it is better to sell 3 prints at $50 a pop instead of 1 at $100? Should I be forced to limit my income just because I sold a print for $100 a year ago?

If what you are selling is "art", price of ink or paper doesn't play any role in determining the value of it. The cost of a 11x14 is few $$ in material to produce, what is the reason for selling it for $95??

Also, by selling your work cheaper and cheaper(whatever the reason may be)you reduce market value of your work to close to zero. That's already happening to many pro photographers, amateurs willing to give away their prints for a free spotlight.

People buy an "art" work because it has a perceived value. If you lower your cost, you betray those who already bought your work. And that is a good way of ruining your name.

These are only few reason you should price your work carefully