how much to offer photographers

Hi, I have a corporate art business, which is about to start offering photograph prints, as well as painting. We only

exhbit the work online, not through a gallery. But i'm wondering how much to offer the photographers we work with

as a percentage. I think it's a different scenario from a conventional art gallery relationship, as we're not

dealing with original works, nor even asking them to make their own prints. All they have to do is supply a JPEG,

and we'll market and print the work, and pay them a proportion of each one sold. But obviously I want to be fair,

and to get the amount right? All ideas would be much appreciated....

at least 50% is fair.

Much will depend on how my exclusivity you want in your contract. If you want complete exclusivity, then you need to consider that your price is all the photographer will ever get from the photo. If you want no exclusivity, then you can reasonably pay considerably less.

 

Also, is your business model aiming at the low-end (ex. "Starving Artists - Sofa Sized Paintings from $20") or more high-end? If you're looking for "crowdsourced" images you can expect to pay less than if you're planning to work with established professional photographers.

 

I agree with Ellis that 50% (of the gross, not net) is a good starting point for moderate exclusivity (say 1 year) and experienced photographers.

95% seems fair to me. . . .

You can start calculating the price by considering that a brick and mortar gallery takes 50%, and doesn't have to produce the print. I

don't think it's unusual for artists to double the price that the lab charges when charging customers for prints. So I'd say start with

keeping 75% for yourself since you're the lab and the gallery in this case.

 

Peter

Maybe it depends on the area you're in, but 70/30 is what I see when the artist provides the material, so I think Ellis is about right at 50% if you do the printing. That said, I wouldn't be comfortable letting my work be printed and handled by someone else.

First of all the prices you charge should be set by the artists. That is, if the photographer would normally charge $600 for a 16x20 through

their own business, you ought not (nor should they permit you to) charge $60 for one simply because it costs you $15 to print. I

recommend at least a 50% split to the artist even if you are covering the costs of printing, which, let's be honest, is a relatively minor

expense in modern digital printing. That said, here are a few questions from the artists' point of view:

 

– Why do you think you are doing the artist a favor by not asking them to do the printing (and thereby giving up control of quality)?

– Why in the world would you consider printing "art" from JPEGs?

What type of corporate art do you offer? Is it unique high-end fine art or more generic art that one sees in hotel rooms and

such.

 

If it's more of the generic kind, I would say just skip finding individual photographers and just go to a stock or microstock

photo agency and just select some royalty-free images that you would be happy to print and sell. That would be a whole lot

cheaper and more profitable to you than having to deal with individual photographers.

For me it all depends on what your target market is and how high end of a market you are shooting for. If you are talking

High end then 65/35 if you are talking the lower end high volume 85/15.

Thanks to all. As ever on Photo.net - thoughtful answers....

In response to some of the questions... ie. why would we consider printing from Jpegs?.. well, we're providing, essentially, artistic decoration and not gallery prints. If I tell you that we recently refused a job for one of the better known London hotels because their budget was £30 a print, then you begin to catch my drift. People simply don't prioritise serious art in a business setting, unless it's for investment purposes...

However, there's a balance to be struck, and I hope we can find it. Appreciate the help.