do you worry about justifying your print prices?

[tlitody]

Was looking at a web site and an 8x10 inkjet print was $35. Same print at 20x16 was $165. Now that's more than 4 times the price. So how do justify the price of the 16x20?
I mean, the increased material costs are negligible relative to the total price and once you set the printer going you don't have to sit and watch it print. So why should the price be more than 4 times an 8x10. It seems just about everyone does it but I just don't get the justification unless it's just that buying public expect bigger to cost more or everyone has a price point that is right for them?

[J. Gilbert Plantinga]

Well my price structure certainly isn't like that, in fact the opposite. Every now and then it bites me though -- the larger the print, the greater the risk that I'll run into an imperfection in the paper (like in the last inch of a 60 inch print). And then I'm out not only the material, but the time as well. Click the "studio" link on the site in my signature to find my price sheet.

[Tim k]

Um, isn't it 4x the size?

[tlitody]

Um, isn't it 4x the size?

the area :p

[Mark Barendt]

Are you selling paper or artwork?

If you are selling artwork the price of the materials is completely irrelevant to the question.

[tlitody]

Are you selling paper or artwork?

If you are selling artwork the price of the materials is completely irrelevant to the question.

I'm talking about selling the same image at different sizes. They are all reproductions.

[JeffKohn]

It is 4x the area, so even just from a materials cost I wouldn't say the difference is negligible, especially if using high-quality fine art media and pigment inks.

Larger prints require more expensive equipment if you're printing yourself. And even if you're outsourcing, check the prices for fine art inkjet prints from labs like West Coast Imaging and you'll see it can be pretty costly.

Larger prints are also more difficult to make, from a quality standpoint. Lots of images that look great at 8x10 may not look so hot at 20x30". You can't get away with sloppy technique (either at shooting time, or when prepping the file for printing) if you want to print large.

I think it also boils down to supply and demand. Just about anybody with a digital P&S and desktop printer can offer 8x10 prints if they want. The number of photographers who can produce high-quality large prints is probably smaller.

[Mark Barendt]

I'm talking about selling the same image at different sizes. They are all reproductions.

So if you aren't selling some kind of artistic value, then you are selling paper and ink. In that case, IMO, charging $35 for an 8x10 that costs $2 is a flat-out ripoff. Paper and ink are commodities.

I decided a long time ago that I was not in the business of selling paper and ink.

[Tim k]

the area :p

Ya thats it, thats what I meant to say. :rolleyes:

[paulr]

So if you aren't selling some kind of artistic value, then you are selling paper and ink.

I don't think anyone is saying quite that. I see the phrase "I'm selling reproductions" ... so I'm guessing these are being sold as posters or secondary prints that are possibly lower quality or in larger (or unlimited) editions.

Even when you buy a postcard or a paperback book, you're paying for more than paper and ink. There's the whole "intellectual property" aspect of it, to bring legal terms into a very old discussion.

With something identified more as an art object, you're buying not just the materials and the vision, but also rarity of the object itself. In these cases, the rarity and the vision aspects often dwarf the material aspects.

[IanG]

It may well be the seller has the facilities to make the 10x8 print but has to use a bureau/lab to print the 20x16.

However print pricing doesn't normally rise purely proportional to or above the area, it's more normal for them to get cheaper (per sq ft/metre) as the profit is so much higher. That's how labs etc price as well.

Ian

[tlitody]

Interesting replies. Thanks all.

If I considered each print to be a work of art in its own right, then I think the 8x10 price is the clue to what the artist values his or her work as worth. Otherwise it would be priced a lot higher. Justs because it's small doesn't mean it should be cheap. The larger sizes should cost more because of additional material costs and time. But not more than 4 times as much in my view.
Personally I think you can tell a lot from the pricing policy that people use. If you consider inkjets to be art, then the artistic value you assign to a print doesn't change with it's size. If you think it does then I would like to hear your justification for that.
All inkjets are reproductions. All prints are reproductions. It seems the concept of an original has metamorphosed into meaning as many copies as you like. That's a convenient concept for "inkjet artists".

[John Brady]

My prices range from $35 to $2700. My $35 pieces are open edition and meant to make my work as accessible and known to as many people as possible.

I can be doing a show selling larger more expensive pieces, but for me it's just as thrilling when a young person reaches deep in their pocket and pulls out thirty five bucks because they love your work and want to own it.

All of my work is relatively inexpensive, by your definition I guess it's not art. By my definition, I'm pretty much unknown and have to pay my dues and try to show my work to as many people as possible. hopefully one day I will be more recognized and collectible and will be able to raise my prices. That will be better for me and the people who are buying my work today.

But I can tell you, even if that day ever comes I will continue to offer a low price point as an entry level. I think art should be accessible.

Go out and work the art show circuit for a few years and come back with your opinion. There is no greater proving ground or education.

But hey I'm just what you refer to as "an inkjet artist". What would I know.

www.timeandlight.com

[Jim Becia]

From the pricing structure mentioned, I assume that the poster is talking about my pricing structure and website (www.spiritlightphotography.com). So I will "try" to explain my pricing structure instead of having everyone guess my motives and justifications.

First of all, when I started selling my work, I was able to print the smaller 8x10s and 11x14s on my inkjet printer at home. The larger images had to be done at other labs, either Laserlight, Photocraft, etc. Made charging more for the larger sizes a no brainer.

I finally bought an Epson 9600. Not a small outlay. A print from the 9600 isn't just the cost of paper and ink, and if you think that is all that goes into it, you are sadly mistaken and misinformed. In February, I spent 4 weeks on the road "chasing" some images. I try to get out at least 8 weeks a year and they are not paid vacations. This is what I do. There's a very real cost to that in both time and money.

Also, once the 9600 came along, there was the need to get more and better scans, drums scans. While not the most expensive things in the world, they add up quickly.
Also, when printing with one of these printers, there is certainly quite a bit of ink and paper waste getting to the final image. Then, as mentioned somewhere in the post, there are problems with paper and ink. Just two days ago, I ran two 32x40 prints consecutively and during the printing, a head clog occurred. Guess what, almost 10 feet of paper wasted and the resulting ink, down the drain.

And there are other expenses that go into this that maybe aren't normal for others but are so for me. I do about 20 art fairs during the summer. Last time I looked, they cost me in excess of about $6000 to do just in the jurying and application process. Not to mention, the time and effort getting to and from, hotel rooms, etc.

Maybe my pricing structure isn't perfect, but it seems to work for me. I don't think my work is particularly expensive, matter of fact, I think it's reasonable. I decided along time ago, that I wanted people to enjoy my work if they liked it. I don't worry about collectibility, limited editions, tiered pricing, and the other stuff associated with collecting. I give my customers a good product at what I think is a fair price. There was an earlier thread about making customers "wince" when they purchase your art, I fail to understand that, and I don't care to do that. You are simply turning your art into an elite product for the elite few, now it that's how you want to do it, not a problem, it's just not my way of doing business.

While I have been doing art fairs for about 11 years now, I have been doing it as my sole source of income for the past 3 years now, and have managed to succeed in keeping my head above water.

I guess what I'm trying to explain is that I don't think my pricing is all that outrageous. Much of it stemmed from having to outsource years ago and really never changing anything since then. As for the idea, that pricing should be based on the concept that I simply am pushing a button and churning out prints, think that if you want, but I certainly know that is simply not the case.

I hope this gives a little insight into the pricing. Perfect? No, but not out of line as I see it. Jim Becia

[D. Bryant]

It seems the concept of an original has metamorphosed into meaning as many copies as you like. That's a convenient concept for "inkjet artists".

APUG prittle-prattle.

Don Bryant

[tlitody]

Seems I find myself in a place of rampant snobbery.

[tlitody]

From the pricing structure mentioned, I assume that the poster is talking about my pricing structure and website (www.spiritlightphotography.com). So I will "try" to explain my pricing structure instead of having everyone guess my motives and justifications.

First of all, when I started selling my work, I was able to print the smaller 8x10s and 11x14s on my inkjet printer at home. The larger images had to be done at other labs, either Laserlight, Photocraft, etc. Made charging more for the larger sizes a no brainer.

I finally bought an Epson 9600. Not a small outlay. A print from the 9600 isn't just the cost of paper and ink, and if you think that is all that goes into it, you are sadly mistaken and misinformed. In February, I spent 4 weeks on the road "chasing" some images. I try to get out at least 8 weeks a year and they are not paid vacations. This is what I do. There's a very real cost to that in both time and money.

Also, once the 9600 came along, there was the need to get more and better scans, drums scans. While not the most expensive things in the world, they add up quickly.
Also, when printing with one of these printers, there is certainly quite a bit of ink and paper waste getting to the final image. Then, as mentioned somewhere in the post, there are problems with paper and ink. Just two days ago, I ran two 32x40 prints consecutively and during the printing, a head clog occurred. Guess what, almost 10 feet of paper wasted and the resulting ink, down the drain.

And there are other expenses that go into this that maybe aren't normal for others but are so for me. I do about 20 art fairs during the summer. Last time I looked, they cost me in excess of about $6000 to do just in the jurying and application process. Not to mention, the time and effort getting to and from, hotel rooms, etc.

Maybe my pricing structure isn't perfect, but it seems to work for me. I don't think my work is particularly expensive, matter of fact, I think it's reasonable. I decided along time ago, that I wanted people to enjoy my work if they liked it. I don't worry about collectibility, limited editions, tiered pricing, and the other stuff associated with collecting. I give my customers a good product at what I think is a fair price. There was an earlier thread about making customers "wince" when they purchase your art, I fail to understand that, and I don't care to do that. You are simply turning your art into an elite product for the elite few, now it that's how you want to do it, not a problem, it's just not my way of doing business.

While I have been doing art fairs for about 11 years now, I have been doing it as my sole source of income for the past 3 years now, and have managed to succeed in keeping my head above water.

I guess what I'm trying to explain is that I don't think my pricing is all that outrageous. Much of it stemmed from having to outsource years ago and really never changing anything since then. As for the idea, that pricing should be based on the concept that I simply am pushing a button and churning out prints, think that if you want, but I certainly know that is simply not the case.

I hope this gives a little insight into the pricing. Perfect? No, but not out of line as I see it. Jim Becia

Whose website it was is an irrelevance. I just used one to make the point that it seems to be common practice and was asking the question out of real interest and not with the purpose of singling out anyone in particular. Seems I have stepped on a few overly sensitive toes.

[JeffKohn]

Seems I find myself in a place of rampant snobbery.
Funny you say that, since only post that really has snobbish overtones in this thread is #12, IMHO.



If I considered each print to be a work of art in its own right, then I think the 8x10 price is the clue to what the artist values his or her work as worth. Otherwise it would be priced a lot higher. Justs because it's small doesn't mean it should be cheap. The larger sizes should cost more because of additional material costs and time. But not more than 4 times as much in my view.
Personally I think you can tell a lot from the pricing policy that people use. If you consider inkjets to be art, then the artistic value you assign to a print doesn't change with it's size. If you think it does then I would like to hear your justification for that.

When you buy a piece of art you're not just buying an idea or expression, you're also buying the execution of that idea or expression. Size matters in art, always has, so I'm not sure why you think the pricing shouldn't take that into consideration. I think you'll find that whether it's photography, painting, sculpture, etc, artists who offer work of a similar nature in different sizes will price the larger pieces higher, and the price premium will not just be difference in cost of materials.

Materials costs are not the only factor in determining the price of larger works; the perception of value by the purchaser should also be taken into consideration if you have any business sense at all. If the market is willing to pay more larger prints, leaving that money on the table seems rather foolish to me. Pricing the 24x30", 16x20", and 8x10" within a price spread of $10-20 (to cover the extra ink/paper) would just ensure that the smaller prints won't sell. From a business standpoint it makes more sense to target different price points.

And I still say your assumption that the only difference between a large print and a small one is a few dollars in ink and paper is misinformed. There's more to making a excellent large print than just loading a larger sheet of paper before you press "print".

[Jim Becia]

Whose website it was is an irrelevance. I just used one to make the point that it seems to be common practice and was asking the question out of real interest and not with the purpose of singling out anyone in particular. Seems I have stepped on a few overly sensitive toes.

I really hope you don't think my response was over the top, I was just trying to give you my reasons for my pricing. And I tried to explain my justifications as best I could. Nothing more and nothing less. And I do think there is a bit of relevance in it most likely being my site, simply because I can then give you my reasons for my pricing structure. Hope this helps any misunderstanding. Jim

[Mark Barendt]

And I still say your assumption that the only difference between a large print and a small one is a few dollars in ink and paper is misinformed. There's more to making a excellent large print than just loading a larger sheet of paper before you press "print".

Actually, not much.

In a digital setting, If you have done a good job of cleaning up the original before any print is made the only real change for a different size, is resizing and resharpening, since resizing and resharpening needs to be done for a nice 8x10 too, it hardly counts as different or extra for a 16x20 or whatever.

WHCC gets $2.20 for an 8x10, $14.50 for a 16x20, other labs are similar. The difference is $12.30 Since WHCC has a $12 minimum order and free shipping the real difference is just $2.50 if only one is sold.

The difference if you print it yourself is essentially just the cost of paper and ink.

The costs of getting a great photo, fixing it right once, and then getting into a shop/gallery is probably 50 if not 500 times greater than the cost of printing it.

The point I want to stress is simply the futility of justifying price by print cost/size.

[tlitody]

I really hope you don't think my response was over the top, I was just trying to give you my reasons for my pricing. And I tried to explain my justifications as best I could. Nothing more and nothing less. And I do think there is a bit of relevance in it most likely being my site, simply because I can then give you my reasons for my pricing structure. Hope this helps any misunderstanding. Jim

No I don't think it was over the top. I was referring to the accumulated toes of several responses. I appreciate your explanation of your costing structure.

[JeffKohn]

Actually, not much.

In a digital setting, If you have done a good job of cleaning up the original before any print is made the only real change for a different size, is resizing and resharpening, since resizing and resharpening needs to be done for a nice 8x10 too, it hardly counts as different or extra for a 16x20 or whatever. You're looking at it the wrong way. The level of equipment required and the time/effort needed for file prep is higher, to be able to produce larger prints. And you're still ignoring that the cost of botching the occasional large print is higher. They also require more care when handling, higher costs when shipping, etc. Why add that extra overhead just to make the same profits you were previously making by selling 8x10" prints? It makes no business sense.



WHCC gets $2.20 for an 8x10, $14.50 for a 16x20, other labs are similar.In other words, they sell based on profit margins rather than fixed markups (you're not suggesting that the 16x20 costs WHCC an extra $12 to produce, are you?).



The difference is $12.30 Since WHCC has a $12 minimum order and free shipping the real difference is just $2.50 if only one is sold. The minimum order fee is irrelevent. Anybody who needlessly wastes $9.50 on every 8x10" print sold will be out of business quickly.


The difference if you print it yourself is essentially just the cost of paper and ink.You're neglecting the investment in a wide-format printer, better lenses, better scanner/computer, etc. Those costs have to be recouped.


The point I want to stress is simply the futility of justifying price by print cost/size.So going back to the original pricing example, are you saying the 8x10" should be priced $5-10 below the 16x20"? How many 8x10's do you think will sell with that sort of pricing?

If you want to argue what the exact ratio of price increase should be, that's fine. Maybe you think the 8x10 is under-priced in that example; but maybe they've just decided they want to target different buyers at different price points. I just can't take seriously the argument that the 8x10" should be priced $5 less than the 16x20". If you know of some artists who price their work this way, I'd love to see an example.

[Mark Barendt]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The level of equipment required and the time/effort needed for file prep is higher, to be able to produce larger prints.

No, I'm not. A Calumet CC-400 with film can be had for under $200 bucks if you keep your ear to the ground, a nice RB can be had for $300, and somebody like Richard Photo Lab is happy to do all the touch up and scanning and prep and resizing.


And you're still ignoring that the cost of botching the occasional large print is higher. They also require more care when handling, higher costs when shipping, etc. Why add that extra overhead just to make the same profits you were previously making by selling 8x10" prints? It makes no business sense.

There are no botched jobs when I let a lab do it, it's right or they redo it, no charge.


In other words, they sell based on profit margins rather than fixed markups (you're not suggesting that the 16x20 costs WHCC an extra $12 to produce, are you?).

No, what I'm suggesting is that WHCC is selling paper and ink, not me.


You're neglecting the investment in a wide-format printer, better lenses, better scanner/computer, etc. Those costs have to be recouped.

Yes, totally and completely, as in never making the investment in that printer, scanner, blah, blah, blah.


So going back to the original pricing example, are you saying the 8x10" should be priced $5-10 below the 16x20"? How many 8x10's do you think will sell with that sort of pricing?

I only care if I'm in that market, volume is the only thing that can make the small print market profitable.

[paulr]

For most people who sell prints, factors like material cost and time mostly serve as justifications. And this justification is for themselves, primarily ... not too many buyers care about this sort of thing.

Unless you're operating essentially like a poster printer, and selling prints for under $100 or so, the actual price will be governed by the market.

And just so I don't sound simplistic, we need to remember that there are many markets. The small town art fair market is different from the online shopping cart market, which is different from the blue chip art gallery market. Each of these has a different set of customers and ideas and rules. One set of customers might balk at a print price that's above $50; while another wouldn't even look at a print that cost less than $500. Or $5000.

If it's more than just an academic exercise, you really need to consider who you're trying to sell to. Details like material cost are going to be a major consideration primarily in the low-price markets.

[Mark Barendt]

For most people who sell prints, factors like material cost and time mostly serve as justifications. And this justification is for themselves, primarily ... not too many buyers care about this sort of thing.

Absolutely!


Unless you're operating essentially like a poster printer, and selling prints for under $100 or so, the actual price will be governed by the market.

The market always governs the price and we generally have to make a market for our art.


And just so I don't sound simplistic, we need to remember that there are many markets. The small town art fair market is different from the online shopping cart market, which is different from the blue chip art gallery market. Each of these has a different set of customers and ideas and rules. One set of customers might balk at a print price that's above $50; while another wouldn't even look at a print that cost less than $500. Or $5000.

I've seen lots of 8x10s over the years hanging in a local gallery that are priced in the $300-700 range.

"Pen Names" can help here, one name for the high-dollar market, one for middle market, one for the cheap seats.


If it's more than just an academic exercise, you really need to consider who you're trying to sell to. Details like material cost are going to be a major consideration primarily in the low-price markets.

You are right.

[Kroma]

I know my printing business, 40 years now. the cost of doing large prints required the purchase of large format equipment, My small printer set up is cost a few hundred, and remakes due to any number of reasons are rare in 8x10 size, the 16x20 requires a 10 to 20 thousand dollar set up and remakes are often due to the variables.

[JeffKohn]

So are you guys seriously suggesting that different-sized prints of the same photo should be priced within a few dollars of each other, or that you just shouldn't sell a photo in different sizes? If the former, I'd like to see some real-world examples of this pricing model.

[Mark Barendt]

So are you guys seriously suggesting that different-sized prints of the same photo should be priced within a few dollars of each other, or that you just shouldn't sell a photo in different sizes? If the former, I'd like to see some real-world examples of this pricing model.

I'm not suggesting that different sized prints have to be priced the same. As others have pointed out there are a variety of markets that one may want to participate in.

What I'm suggesting is that the cost of production is the wrong way to price creative work.

--------------------------------------------

Here's one example. I did some portrait work for a Doctor's family once and the mom's favorite size was 5x7, period. Every photo she owned was printed 5x7, not an 8x10 or 16x20 in the house.

Why in the world would I price a 5x7 differently than a 16x20 for her? (My wife's perfect size is 11x14.)

--------------------------------------------

Another example, I was visiting my dad and step-mom a while back and they took me along shopping for a picture; three requirements; something yellow in theme, about 16x20 framed, and under $500. They had a specific spot to fill. They told each retailer exactly what they were looking for.

The print size in the frame was totally irrelevant to them.

Why would any retailer in this situation sell a matted 8x10 for less than a matted 11x14 or un-matted 16x20?

--------------------------------------------

None of our markets/clients really care what our costs are if it meets their requirements. Price is driven completely by the value the market sees in our "package".

[paulr]

So are you guys seriously suggesting that different-sized prints of the same photo should be priced within a few dollars of each other, or that you just shouldn't sell a photo in different sizes? If the former, I'd like to see some real-world examples of this pricing model.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. There is a perception that big is worth more than small ... this perception, more than actual material costs, seems to lead to the price discrepancies among sizes.

For what it's worth, I do price my smaller prints the same as my larger prints (although i don't offer the same image in different sizes). I'll admit that this has not worked out well for me. It's been a stubborn exercise in idealism that's mostly led to people acting like my small prints are overpriced.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I recently made a print as a commission from a client. I shot a tryptich of 11x14 inch negatives, made the prints out of pt/pd on Arches Platine, matted it in 8ply with a nice wood frame. I made three identical pieces, matted identically, framed identically. When I was done with the printing and mounting I sliced each of the three negatives into thirds and included 1/3 of each of the negatives in a sleeve affixed to the reverse of the mounted piece.

This is not the kind of client who is worried about nickles and dimes, but they love the fact that it is made of beautiful materials and has a bit of exclusivity.

If I tried to justify how much to charge in this instance I would be doing math for years. Instead I just name a price that I feel covers my time, my materials and my creative input. The client is thrilled.

Yes, this is an example that does not happen every day. I wish it would!

http://www.tawayama.com/11x14/triptychtriptychspano.jpg

[JeffKohn]

What I'm suggesting is that the cost of production is the wrong way to price creative work. I didn't argue that cost of materials alone should be used to set the price of the work, if it came across that way then maybe I didn't explain myself very well. I just suggested that there might be other costs associated with producing a larger print than just a few dollars of ink and paper.


I don't think anyone was suggesting that. But I think that's exactly what tlitody was suggesting, if you go back and read his/her posts, particularly #12.


There is a perception that big is worth more than small ... this perception, more than actual material costs, seems to lead to the price discrepancies among sizes.I agree with this, and argued this point in post #18.


For what it's worth, I do price my smaller prints the same as my larger prints (although i don't offer the same image in different sizes). I'll admit that this has not worked out well for me. It's been a stubborn exercise in idealism that's mostly led to people acting like my small prints are overpriced.I'm not really surprised, I would expect most people to think that either the small prints are over-priced or the large prints are under-priced. At least you're selling different prints, and could say that some prints are best expressed at certain sizes. When offering the same print at different sizes the problem would only get worse.

[Donald Miller]

I have seen 2 1/4 inch contact prints that I would pay more for than a 12X20 contact print. In fact I have seen the smaller print priced higher than the larger print. Print size to me is immaterial. The photographic image is the important thing.

Of course if you are dealing with the sofa picture crowd then it is all about size.

[mrladewig]

If I considered each print to be a work of art in its own right, then I think the 8x10 price is the clue to what the artist values his or her work as worth. Otherwise it would be priced a lot higher. Justs because it's small doesn't mean it should be cheap. The larger sizes should cost more because of additional material costs and time. But not more than 4 times as much in my view.

You've chosen a bad example. $35 X 4 is $140. $135 for a 16X20 is a pretty good deal compared with the pricing I've seen from most of my peers, which is typically in the range of $200-$250. In the market where I live, the typical price for an 8X10 matted and bagged is very close to $35. Partly this is due to the tourism crowd here which looks for work in a portable size that can serve as a souvenir of their trip. 8X10 fits this purpose nicely and I'm sure that is where the pricing is coming from.

The price of large artwork versus small work is almost never linear with relation to the area or volume. I really can't think of any gallery showing work by ANY artist in ANY medium where the larger work was not disproportionately more expensive than the smaller work when scaled by area or volume. That is applied to sculpture, painting, photography, mixed media, you name it. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it isn't the rule.

You can try to price your 8X10 prints here at $100 with your 16X20 at $135, but I promise you will not sell any of those 8X10 prints in this market priced that way.'

But I can also see the merit in Don's point, though I'd be surprised if the 2 1/4 contact print and 16X20 contact print came from the same artist.

Mel-

[JeffKohn]

I have seen 2 1/4 inch contact prints that I would pay more for than a 12X20 contact print. In fact I have seen the smaller print priced higher than the larger print. Print size to me is immaterial. The photographic image is the important thing.That's a straw man argument with no relevance to this thread. Nobody is suggesting the the prices of different works from different artists should be priced according to their relative sizes. The question was about the pricing of different-sized prints of the same photograph.


Of course if you are dealing with the sofa picture crowd then it is all about size.As opposed to those snooty rich folks who only care about the name of the photographer?

[Kimberly Anderson]

I thought the OP was wondering if we had to worry about the justification for pricing our work at a certain level.

[Vaughn]

That was a nice set of images/prints, Michael! It would be nice to have such commissions come around on a regular basis!

I only contact print these days (platinum/palladium or carbon prints), so my price tier based on sizes works a bit differently than that of someone making inkjet prints.

But no, I never worry about trying to justify my pricing. I might put a lot of mental effort in determining the price structure, but certainly do not feel I have to justify it to anyone.

Vaughn

[Donald Miller]

As opposed to those snooty rich folks who only care about the name of the photographer?

Precisely. BTW which group to you market to?

[Jim Becia]

There's an interesting article on pricing on the Nature Photographer's Forum by Alain Briot. Would be interesting to hear what others think. Here is the address:
www.naturephotographers.net/articles0710/ab0710-1.html Jim

[Steve M Hostetter]

For most people who sell prints, factors like material cost and time mostly serve as justifications. And this justification is for themselves, primarily ... not too many buyers care about this sort of thing.

Unless you're operating essentially like a poster printer, and selling prints for under $100 or so, the actual price will be governed by the market.

And just so I don't sound simplistic, we need to remember that there are many markets. The small town art fair market is different from the online shopping cart market, which is different from the blue chip art gallery market. Each of these has a different set of customers and ideas and rules. One set of customers might balk at a print price that's above $50; while another wouldn't even look at a print that cost less than $500. Or $5000.

If it's more than just an academic exercise, you really need to consider who you're trying to sell to. Details like material cost are going to be a major consideration primarily in the low-price markets.

I believe this is true no matter what it is you are trying to sell, whether it be art or a roomaddition.

[Nicholas Whitman]

There's an interesting article on pricing on the Nature Photographer's Forum by Alain Briot. Would be interesting to hear what others think. Here is the address:
www.naturephotographers.net/articles0710/ab0710-1.html Jim

Logical and well thought through.

However it is based on parameters I personally have never experienced - such as an audience/client base with sufficient resources and or desire to purchase too much photography. No photographer or gallery in this region is making money selling photographs. It has been attempted every which way, by all different types, with all different offerings.

As for picking a number and deciding how much you'll make in a year - jesh! sounds like something you'd get taught in business school, or a seminar taught by a photographer supplementing his income to compensate for his own missed goal.

A couple of regional photographers have broken through to the major international art markets and are successful beyond Alain's "impossible masterpiece level". Once you're "brand name" sky's the limit.

I've come to believe really being recognized in the art world, with all the trappings - as opposed to doing meaningful work - is akin to making it in professional sports. It is the tiny tip of a very large pyramid.

[QT Luong]

To answer the original question, the market determines print prices. This is art. Production costs are immaterial. To get an idea of the market, I look at photographers with similar work (ie nature/scenic/landscape) and sales outlets. It appears they all price according to size, so who I am to do it differently ?

Nicholas Whitman > sounds like something you'd get taught in business school, or a seminar taught by a photographer supplementing his income to compensate for his own missed goal.

Maybe he will prove me wrong, but from Alain's website it looks clear to me that he is now deriving more of his income from teaching than from selling high-priced prints.

> I've come to believe really being recognized in the art world, with all the trappings - as opposed to doing meaningful work - is akin to making it in professional sports. It is the tiny tip of a very large pyramid

I think that's true. As a consequence, one won't have a retrospective at the MOMA this way, but it's probably easier to make a living by selling, let's say landscapes at art fairs, than trying to get art world recognition.

[Mark Barendt]

As for picking a number and deciding how much you'll make in a year - jesh!

This may sound like bunk but it isn't, in fact it's doable in almost all sales situations.

The only real questions are, 1-whether or not we are willing to do the work of getting in front of enough people and 2-if the product is salable. Most people aren't willing to do the work.

The "prospect to sales" ratios are different for every industry, but they are predictable. Get whatever your selling in front of a given number of people and you will get you a given number of sales.

Do the math and figure out how many people you need to get in front of to get a given number of sales, see all those people in a given time frame and you will probably be very close to your goal.

[Donald Miller]

This may sound like bunk but it isn't, in fact it's doable in almost all sales situations.

The only real questions are, 1-whether or not we are willing to do the work of getting in front of enough people and 2-if the product is salable. Most people aren't willing to do the work.

The "prospect to sales" ratios are different for every industry, but they are predictable. Get whatever your selling in front of a given number of people and you will get you a given number of sales.

Do the math and figure out how many people you need to get in front of to get a given number of sales, see all those people in a given time frame and you will probably be very close to your goal.

Very true. Not only are most people unwilling to do the work but they are also unfamiliar with how to proceed. Not many have made a lifetime of living selling something.

It is not only a matter of placing oneself before enough people but more importantly in front of enough people that have the ability to purchase what we are selling. Qualifying prospective purchasers is one of the most important things to do if we are going to succeed in selling. How to do that and how to go about a definable plan to produce sales is a subject that a lot could be written about.

How to maximize one's time, how to present the product, how to sell the features and more importantly the benefits of the product and how to overcome objections to the sale are all things that would benefit someone that wishes to make a living at selling their work.

I have spent a good portion of my life in selling. First as a salesman, then as a sales manager, and finally in operating my own company. Selling is not some black art. It is a learnable skill and it can be taught.

[Tom Monego]

There are several different pricing models being talked about here.
1) Traditional color prints, materials are almost nil cost wise, equipment is expensive, but if you are doing the volume of White House Color, machine color prints can be i n the $2 range. Smaller more custom labs charge more, as one lab owner told me, I have to charge so I still make a profit when someone keeps returning prints to me. They did a good job but there are always some who are never satisfied. Then these folks also rented printing techs for full custom prints to spec, those prices were in the area of $150 per 16x20. So they had machine prints, custom prints and spec prints.
2) Printing inkjet as traditional prints, I did this for a 5 years and I would use the custom prints from local labs as the price to charge. If the customer wanted fine art paper or canvas the price went up. so this was $10-20 for an 8x10 and $30-60 for a 16x20. Here the materials are more expensive, equipment is less expensive and you don't have plumbing to worry about. Remember here you are doing custom work, you don't want to compete with traditional machine prints. if you want to do Fine Art reproduction, you should charge more.
3) Selling your own work, this is what you can get for your prints. I feel if I am selling my own print, mounted I have to charge $200 to break even on a 16x20. I cut my own mats and frame pictures. I always hope I can do better, I'm sure there are folks on this site that can do much better.

So if someone is selling there own work for $165 I think they are short changing themselves. If they are printing a customer's work they maybe over charging. But they may give their customer a print to all their specs.

Tom

[rknewcomb]

A wise old photographer once told me regarding prints/prices, "charge for your time and talent". When I was printing silver prints for people, I would sometimes quote them a price on an 8x10. Then they would ask, well how much is a 5x7. I tell them, its the same price. Everything up to an 11x14 was the same price. because it wasn't much less work to print a 5x7 then it was an 8x10 so why charge them less. The paper cost was not really a factor.
He was in business for many years so maybe he knew what he was talking about.

[Bill Burk]

I'd like to say each image I am satisfied with is worth $1500. Now I can divide that by the number of prints I am willing to make. Say I would like to make 5. That would place the print at $300.

I suppose Edward Weston would have priced his lower than that, has anyone checked inflation to see whether this is in-line?

I heard from a friend that it was Virginia Adams who set the price on Ansel's work.

So there are two different schools of thought. Set a high price and hope to sell a few, or set a low price and let the lucky people who know a good thing when they see it get a print for a reasonable price.

[al olson]

This causes me to recall around ten years ago where one of the members of the camera club was one of the first to invest into the digital age. He was running off 8x10s on his inkjet and running around to all the flea markets and art fairs to sell these prints.

He claimed that there was a great market for them because women were always looking for something to decorate the bathroom. We jokingly referred to his photography as 'bathroom art'.

When I moved to Pagosa I mentioned this to a colleague of mine who was doing digitals for one of the realtors. He responded that he had recently been photographing an interior when the realtor called out to him, "Hey Bruce, they have one of your photographs in the bathroom." :D

Selling photography is a difficult endeavor. Even the art galleries in this area consider it a success if they sell one or two prints in a show. They survive by selling other items like coffee table books, wine, T-shirts, and whatever else brings in the dollar.

Pricing fine art photography so that it sells and so that the photographer will recover at least the cost of his materials is a difficult analysis. I finally decided that I would prefer to have my prints not sell because the price is too high than have them not sell because my price is too low. ;)

P.S. I think my matted prints at 24x28 are to large for most bathrooms.

[Bill Burk]

I bought an 11x14 SG print for $40 from a young Haitian photographer. It is easily worth $300 but it was what I could afford at the time.

I would return the favor under similar circumstances.

I agree with those who say that the price of art should not be based on material or expenses.

It should be based on what is necessary to sustain the artist, and the patrons should not mind paying what is necessary for your survival or the continuance of your projects.

[Jim Jones]

Was looking at a web site and an 8x10 inkjet print was $35. Same print at 20x16 was $165. Now that's more than 4 times the price. So how do justify the price of the 16x20?

It seems fairly reasonable in my experience and as some others have explained. I've made 2951 prints, from 4x6 to 16x20, on an Epson 3800. This means $.44 per print for total depreciation. Ink costs have averaged much the same, but about $1 higher for the larger prints that I sell. Media costs have varied too much for an accurate estimate. I price prints as low as possible to sell mostly to friends and neighbors at an annual local arts and crafts fair and a few other local venues. This means many repeat customers. Considering the cost of vacations where a few of these photos were taken would add a substantial flat rate to each image, regardless of print size. It might also price me out of the local market.

There are some inexpensive desk-size inkjet printers that can produce attractive and long-lived prints. The Epson 3800 and similar printers cost much more. This is important in determining print prices. So can the cost of packing material and shipping. The prices cited by the OP seem high by my country boy standards, but that's without seeing the prints. Late in his life Edward Weston was selling 8x10 prints for only $25, even though he was famous. However, minimum wages were $1 then.

[Bill Burk]

So $25 adjusted for inflation 1958 to now, about $130.

[Jim Jones]

Yes, for something like a contemporary Ansel Adams print produced by the AA gallery. Few of us deserve such prices. However, A midwestern gallery was selling Cole Weston contact prints from his father's negatives around 1978, the same price as his own 16x20 color prints. Their fair market price is much higher now.