how to price prints

�These are nothing more than arguments to "lower" the value of traditional photography in order to make digital equal to or as valuable.�

 

No, No and No!

 

The Image is Paramount, and not the Substrate it is on. The fundamental value of both Traditional and Digital prints are the same provided they are having Equally Exceptional Content (however you define it) and the realization (exceptional printing) of that Image.

 

Jorge, when the time comes and you will produce your work digitally, you�ll make the same wonderful images you do now regardless of the process. Please, don�t say �I rather be dead� because to world wouldn�t be the same without you.

<i>Jorge, when the time comes and you will produce your work digitally, you�ll make the same wonderful images you do now regardless of the process. Please, don�t say �I rather be dead� because to world wouldn�t be the same without you.</i><p>

 

Cute Geoffrey, Thankfully I am sure film will always be available within my life time....

You have to believe me on this one! I love to take pictures on film with my 45 and not with digital cameras. I also don�t want film to disappear, but it will disappear, as I�ve just heard some ominous news of a major manufacturer abandoning film production in the near future. If it is not true now it will be true soon enough. It is a shame, but blame it on the cruel rules of commerce and so called �progress�.

 

Unfortunately, way of doing things often evolves into other avenues that we don�t necessarily like or find out later that they are not that bad�just different!

 

�Thankfully I am sure film will always be available within my life time....� That is what I hoped for myself, but I�m afraid that won�t be the case.

 

We just have to wait and see. Regards G.S.

Geoffrey, apparently you are not aware of bergger, efke, forte and a few other who have precisely geared up production to fill those gaps.

 

Even if they disappeared, I have already made a couple of films myself using the old dry plate technology and the backing from messed up negatives. They are slow as hell, but the results are very good.

 

So nope, dont think I will, and besides the "rumors" you have heard are just that wishful thinking from digital practitioners, let me put it this way, as long as Kodak has not recover their investment in the new plant, THEY will keep on making film....

Mark My Word! You will be working in Digital one day. Not because it is an absolutely better path, but that is how the cookie crumbles.

 

Let me be the first one to say: Welcome to fold! (This statement to be used later :-)), �..much, much later). When you�ll be spotting in Photoshop, or equivalent and say; Ahhh this is sooo easy, why didn�t I listen to good ol� Geoffrey many, many years ago!

 

Why would you enslave yourself by making film, when photography is to be enjoyed and not to keep it doing the hard way, just because it is harder? Just listen what the Dye Transfer guys are saying. B&W is not that far removed from color. You still don�t have to make the jump now, but keep an open mind! Will You?

 

Cheers, G.S.

<i>Let me be the first one to say: Welcome to fold!</i><p>

 

LOL..this sounds more like..."you have been assimilated"...sorry bubba, dont think so. Yet you seem to have the same persistance as the borg....so tell you what, for the sake of closing this thread lets agree to disagree. I am glad you are happy with your process, allow me the same courtesy..ok?

Now I realize that the main reason of this exercise that you want to be the last word in this thread. So be it! I really liked this comment in your other thread and it applies here.

 

�Is anyone else struck by the apparent irony that those who seem to argue most forcefully for photography being art also seem to be those who appear most caught up in the minutiae of the craft? As well as appearing to be most unaware of art history, art theory, critical art discourse and so on?�

 

Go ahead and make your last remark if that makes you happy. Oh Boy!

<i>Now I realize that the main reason of this exercise that you want to be the last word in this thread</i><p>

 

Oh brother!!..whatever bubba...

Has anyone here ever sold prints to the MoMA permanent collection? Any ideas on where to start with pricing? I'm looking at archival lightjet dye coupler prints - size will be 24"x30"

 

thank youyou

Jeez, Marianne, and Jeeeehosaphet, people squabble a lot (and have what seem to be mutually exclusinve ideas that are actually all correct).

 

Well, I haven't really worried about how to price prints until recently, and I'm still exploring. I'm not based in the U.S., and don't *have* things like platinum/palladium available. In fact, for color output, I have a choice between Fuji Frontier on glossy paper (ewwwww, IMHO) and an HP 6 color print on cold pressed watercolor paper. The thing is, THE DAMNED THINGS REQUIRE SPOTTING! And, often the ink lies so poorly on the paper that it takes 2-3 prints to get a good one (and that still has some inconsistencies that need to be smoothed out...errr...Windsor and Newton watercolors, by the way....and a single hair brush).

 

TELL me that isn't hand made (go ahead, try....takes me longer to print the way I do than most o'ya spend on a print in the darkroom).

 

BUT, that isn't the real purpose to this post, the real purpose is to ask clarification on a couple of points (opinions, informed or not, are most welcome). I have problems printing to the watercolor paper sometimes, in fact...I have 6 prints that I can NOT get the skin tones right on. I'm planning an exhibition, and am thinking about having those six prints done on Frontier/Glossy (see above "ewwwwww," I hate glossy prints for my own stuff).

 

I don't know why I've always viewed glossy prints as vulgar tabloid photography, and I have *never* heard anyone refer to it like this. Is this just one of my quirks, or is this the way prints are viewed from a buyers perspective? (there, I finaly got to the question).

 

Oh, and having them printed in the U.S. and shipped here is not an option, things disapear from customs and often come through damaged, so my only real options are 6-color HP on watercolor paper or Frontier on Crystal Archive glossy.

 

I'm insanely jealous of all of you who have OPTIONS to defend, if I had my choice, digital enlarger to platinum print for black and white and....errr....I dunno for color, I'm still rather new to the concept of color, lol.

Oh, here's an afterthought to my question, which is this: Why don't watercolor painter, oil painters, and sculptors come to blows about which medium is better?

 

Better yet, why don't we argue that tri-x is better than Provia, that would be interesting.

 

Fer kerist sakes, people...we might as well argue that 35mm is better or wirse than 8" x 10" view cameras (go ahead, TRY doing street photography with an 8x10...I'll bring popcorn, a lounge chair, and a video camera...).

 

Digital is digital, film is film. I shoot both, and (*horrors*) often shoot black and white AND color in BOTH media (idealogues worldwide are turning over in their graves).

 

Truth be told, I'm lusting after a D2X *and* a 4" x 5" view camera...and truth be told, I'd scan the 4" x 5" for ease of recreating what *I* see, instead of what a )@#@#@$ machine sees (face it, a camera alters reality in the taking of a picture, we don't have time to notice certain "flaws" when observing someone in the dynamic reality of life, and our eyes are drawn to things which simply fade into a picture).

 

To me, the beauty of photography is photographing people as *I* see them, and that's why two people with identical cameras, identical lighting, identical models, identical poses, and identical angles will end up with two VERY different prints (and yes, my final output IS a print, and I keep threatening to quit posting my work to the web where everyone's monitor is different, and you can clearly see the tweaks I have done on some shots to more accurately reflect *my* reality, and how I see the person...which is different than you would have in the same situation). Errr, there's a great example in my portfolio where a leg extension is painfully obvious on some monitors, and not on others...but the fact is that I had not even NOTICED the length of the legs on the model until I got the shot into the darkroom (in this case digital). I simply adjusted the proportions to what I see when I look at her (and I happen to work with her, and have found that I still see her in the way I modified the photograph)...

 

...its all about different media, the aspects of media in photography do not make one superior or inferior, just like the fact that Mr X. chooses to do his watercolors on Windsor & Newton bright white paper doesn't make it better or worse than Ms. Y who uses Arches cold press...

 

Oh...and I realize that I often do things that are rather out of vogue with the current trendy ways of looking at photography, but...I am NOT a journalist, I simply try and create the world as seen by one (most likely psychotic) soul. Simple as that.

 

Take it or leave it, buy it or don't buy it--depends on whether what I do speaks to you :-).

Both sides make great points. Both sides (for the most part) fail to answer the question.

Why don't you darkroom addicts just tell us how much you charge for your prints? And

how many do you sell at that price? Same for the guys running digital prints? THEN we

have something real to compare. Alot of you have commented, but few of you have given

us your own pricing strategy other than to say mine is worth more than yours. To

expostulate (is that a word? :) ) upon all the benefits of both worlds with no pricing and

sales data is meaningless (to me anyway). How much do you all get for your prints?

 

I am betting that all of you have sold the same print for various figures depending on who

is buying and for what use!

 

To take my own medicine, here is what I do as a semi-pro (horrors - I had to start

somewhere). I now shoot with a Nikon D200 - used to shoot a Nikon F5. It does not

matter to me which camera produced the print someone wants to buy. I take stock at what

the person wants to do with the print. Size does not matter unless they want something I

cannot print myself (which means 8x10 is my largest capability right now). I use standard

Epson Archival Enhanced Matte or Heavyweight Matte paper - I just don't have the feel for

glossys that others do. If the buyer is a friend, I charge anywhere from $20 to $50

(depending on if they are rich or poor) so that at least the user "sees" that there is value in

the print they want. Anything given away free is just junk - so get something for your

visionary effort. This gets my photos out into the public when the friend shows off his

photo. I tell them this is a special rate for them so that a friend of a friend (not my friend

or better known as John Q Public) does not think they will get that pricing. If a stranger

wants a print, then I charge around $125 for the print. Don't get all bent out of shape - I

don't sell enough to be hoarding business and upsetting the apple cart. I am getting name

recognition and will be able to begin charging more. Isn't that what some of you have said

about building your name recognition? As someone said, if I cannot get that for my work,

then too bad. If it is not worth it to them, then they can go find the same vision I had from

someone else - grin. Of course, this is will be stated in a nice way if it ever comes up.

 

I have a portfolio on the web and have pricing set up way too low. It doesn't matter...have

not sold any prints from them directly anyway and I ask people to contact me first for

higher resolution possibilities. I have sold sets of digitals that were first seen on the

website. As an example, I negotiated with one buyer for his use. He is putting together a

family history book and will use a few of 38 images in the book. He will lose money on his

book as there is no market for it. He buys whatever he can find related to his family name.

It is a work of love for him and I happened to shoot a cemetery plot that interested him

and me ( a long ago ancester was there). He probably would have paid what the website

stated of about $700 if he bought each print through the site. I offered a break for $400

for the entire set digitally in both resolutions I already had. He bought them. No one else

will probably ever want to buy them again; not that they are bad shots - just limited

appeal. So, shoot me. I made $400 on a series of shots I wanted anyway and had already

shot.

 

I scan my F5 slides into the computer and Photoshop them a little to get the vision I saw

when I decided to take the shot rather than what the camera was able to produce -

hmmm, seems alot like why people spend time in darkrooms and same for people who

spend time in Photoshop as stated by so many. If the shot was digital to start, then I

Photoshop that until it pleases me - after all, isn't that the result we all want - to please

ourselves with our work? Then if someone appreciates my end result, all the better.

 

I tell my customer what the labs say about the paper and the ink as far as how long they

may last depending on where they display them. I also tell them that if it fades, let me

know - I will craft them another print free of charge as long as it is obvious the photo has

not been left in direct sunlight or damaged in a human way. How many of you do that with

either format? I have to say I do not have 100 or 200 years to wait and find out how long

my prints will last. I kinda doubt any of my customers will either. When I'm dead, someone

will just have to get the last file I used and hope that the printer they use gives what I

gave. The customer is happy that I acknowledge that and they feel comfortable that I will

provide outstanding customer service to them after the sale. On my limited sales, low

hundreds, no one has come back complaining although they do come back and others

have been referred to me.

 

I hope this helps the user who only wanted to know how much to charge for his shots.

Anyway, this is all I have time to write on the subject. Please tell us what you are actually

getting for your prints. I am now going out and photograph something - anything.

 

Troup Nightingale<div></div>

<p>how about digital one of a kind 8x10 print? I printed mine and im afraid the shop i printed it on already erased the original file. I printed it right after shooting and didnt have a back up. I couldnt even recover it using softwares i have tried. sad, its actually a photo im proud about... thats why i printed it immediately. </p>