So, if limited editions are used to....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Okay, I just did a quick check on some sales figures. Work from some of the best contemporary US artists - outside of the few "mega-stars" - so the work of the more well known artists currently out there regularly goes for $180,000 to $250,000. There are some whose work regularly sells for somewhere between that and about a millions - but they seem to be the recently dead...

So aside from the small few whose work regularly goes for a couple of million or so (your Damian Hirsts, Richters and Kiefers etc), these are the painters who would be your household names and mainstream "celebrities" in the art world.

And there aren't really that many of them

Outside of theMira Goddards and such, the average price in mainstream upscale Chelsea galleries seems to be around 20,000 to 30,000 or so

Here you go, you make this kind of money with your photgraphy? and lets remember this is e bay.

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/05/a...00-on-ebay.htm

[kjsphotography]

Amazing she isn't a photographer. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

[tim atherton]

Here you go, you make this kind of money with your photgraphy? and lets remember this is e bay.

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/05/a...00-on-ebay.htm

I think this is exactly what we need more of. Note, most of her sales are 700 or 4000 a time - it's volume and promotion - which the internet enables. Breaking the grip of the traditional gallery system is a good thing imo

[tim atherton]

I dream of an influential book, and actively dislike the idea of an exhibition. I am unlikely to make the Guild council.

I like John Gossage's belief that the photography book is the thing to done with the work and the exhibition is essentially a waste of time

[Vaughn]

This is what it comes down to, how much confidence you have in your talent.

Editioning has it pros and cons. My quote you copied relates only to the idea that one might lose potential income if one editions a print. For example, let's say an edition of10 at $1000 each (so $10,000 in income) but down the road, perhaps one could have sold 100 for $500 each (or $50,000 in income from that one image). So editioning caused a loss of $40,000 in potential income from that image. From a business sense, I have confidence that I will continue to make images that will sell to replace that possible loss of income potential caused by small editioning.

To use my quote in any other context could lead to erroneous conclusions.

It is interesting to note that many of the old-time wetplate photographers (Whatkins, for example) would judge a negative by how many prints of it they could sell. They would make that number of prints and then scrap off the image to re-use the glass. While the cost and availability of good glass was probably the main factor, it must have hurt a little to treat one's 16x20 glass plate negative that way!

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think this is exactly what we need more of. Note, most of her sales are 700 or 4000 a time - it's volume and promotion - which the internet enables. Breaking the grip of the traditional gallery system is a good thing imo

Like her, there are many painters on E bay who are making anywhere from $1500 to $5000 a month selling their work. I will be glad to provide you with the links. And by the way, they don't fit the vaunted statistic you are so proud of.

Breaking the gallery system is going to require a new way of thinking for photographers, and that is what I was thinking when I posted this.

I know nobody in this forum is making that kind of money selling their photographs...so think about it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Editioning has it pros and cons. My quote you copied relates only to the idea that one might lose potential income if one editions a print. For example, let's say an edition of10 at $1000 each (so $10,000 in income) but down the road, perhaps one could have sold 100 for $500 each (or $50,000 in income from that one image). So editioning caused a loss of $40,000 in potential income from that image. From a business sense, I have confidence that I will continue to make images that will sell to replace that possible loss of income potential caused by small editioning.

There are many ways to look at this as well. For example, what if as you say you make an edition of 10, but since this is a small edition, it frees you to create 10 more negatives for which you make another 10 print edition as well. You are now talking about $100000.

Or look at it the other way, why is it that everybody wants to make $1000 per sold print? What is wrong with selling 20 prints for $200? The answer is greed, an overblown sense of self worth coupled with the myth of the gallery system.

Anyhow, I see your point and I gotta go finish redoing my kitchen doors...

[kjsphotography]

It is interesting to note that many of the old-time wetplate photographers (Whatkins, for example) would judge a negative by how many prints of it they could sell.

But this was before digital where now a photographer can make millions of identical copies. We live in a new age and to separate ourselves from the masses we must take extreme measures. If we want to make a living at it we have to offer a product a digital shooter cannot.

Why would someone pay me $200 for a silver print when they can get one just as nice for $20 or 50 printed on latest ink jet printer?

One thing I can do that they cant is offer the negative with the photograph to prove to the buyer this is a one of a kind original and that is why they are paying more.

This makes it more valuable than a 1 out of X reproduction. AS like a painting there is only now one.

Another point not in relation to the quote but to Jorge assessment;

I have also been researching eBay for 6+ months now as well as auction houses and painters are out selling photographers by a landslide. Why? Because people deem painting a real art form. Many painters on ebay ( EBAY ) not galleries are pulling in like Jorge said $1500 - $5000K a month on average. My life alone who is a new artist with no name reorganization last week did over $500 in sales selling her painting. Give me a unknown photographer doing this?

One painter that does 5" x 5" originals in oil in locations get $122 - $200 a pop on average. Just do some research. Where as the common photographer on ebay with their multiples are hardly selling anything. It is a fact like it or not.

You will also see people bidding on paintings on eBay where the bids are not 1-4 like photographs but 20-40 bid per painting!

These ebay painters are not your famous painters either, they are just average people either starting out or sell only on eBay and making $2-5K a month. $24-60K a year is good money from where I am sitting if you ask me. How many of your guys are making $60K a year from photography fine art print sales? Remember this is normal for painters on eBay alone not including galleries, etc…

So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

[QT Luong]

> So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

It's a contributing factor, but probably less important than the perceived amount of work, skill, and artist's involvement and creativity. Everybody understands why a painting is unique. Even if you limit your photographs to one, you'll have a fair amount of explaining to do. It worked for Jeff Wall, though..

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

> So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

It's a contributing factor, but probably less important than the perceived amount of work, skill, and artist's involvement and creativity. Everybody understands why a painting is unique. Even if you limit your photographs to one, you'll have a fair amount of explaining to do. It worked for Jeff Wall, though..

Isn't this exactly what we should strive to change? The idea that "I can do that".....If I enclose a 12x20 negative with the print, they just might think... "You know, maybe I cannot do this".....