Inkjet pricing

[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.in...ad.php?t=13985
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.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...)