how to price prints

For those of you who sell fine art print, how to you price them? I

realize it would be dependent on the medium (oil pigment, Ilfochrome

Classic, Lightjet 5000) and, obviously, the print size. Do you charge

a certain price per square inch for that certain medium? Reason I ask

is, I have someone who wants to purchase a print from me, but since I

don't do this as a normal business, I don't know what the market

rates are.

Try around one dollar per square inch, for a fine quality Ilfochrome or Lightjet print.

Prices are generally a function of your reputation in the field in

reference to the broader market for photographs. If you are totally

unknown, you might start at around $200/$250 for a great 8x10 print.

But the right price for you might be anywhere from $100 to $400. There

is no right answer that can be given to you. I am talking here about

fine gelatin silver prints. If you are doing digital prints, start at

around $29 if you are totally unknown. Digital prints do not yet have

the high quality of fine silver prints, and are not as collectible.

They are more like very fine reproduction prints.

High quality LightJet prints are just as collectible as them precious silver prints. It only depends who is the photographer and how exceptional the image is, and not that what kind of rag it is on. Boring, uninspiring images printed on �Gelatin Silver� paper are still boring and uninspiring. Just get used to digital!

Hmmmmm. I guess the elevation of one's horse is relative to the zeal one has for a particular medium. While your enthusiasm for digital is noteworthy, Geoffrey, your comments seem to run counter to the attitudes of most galleries that cater to collectors. Perhaps that has something to do with the idea of a one-of-a-kind print compared to a digital that can be reproduced any number of times with no human-based variations.

Mr. Smith is correct. I prowl the fine art shows in my area, listen to the viewers and talk with some vendors about their preferences and experiences. Generally speaking prospective customers expect to pay less for prints that are more "easily" reproduced, such as inkjet, Iris and giclee prints, or even the more traditional reproductions using lithography. Knowing the work that goes into making an original watercolor, oil painting or gelatin silver print (or other light sensitive print) I would expect to pay more.

 

Yes, the image would have to appeal to me first. That's a given. "Getting used" to digital won't cut it with many buyers who regard art as both investment and aesthetic addition to their lives. I've never cared for acrylics as a painting medium and wouldn't invest in one. I feel the same about digital output. I have great respect for watercolor and oil painting. Ditto prints on light sensitive materials produced by traditional means. And in the end all that matters is the buyer's preference, not what the artist believes is an equal or superior medium.

Most people cannot tell if an image is a digital print or a silver based print - but then again most people do not understand classic art, modern art, go to art museums, read about masters of painting, or read Shakespeare for that matter.

 

Digital imaging has come along way for sure and there is no doubt that a new medium will mature using digital technology. At the moment digital prints try to "catch up" or be like traditional silver based prints - which in my opinion is a mistake.

 

It is also true that the best made silver print does not guarantee it being a work of art. After all it is the content - the vision that is important.

 

Like Michael mentions above your print prices may be anywhere from $100 - to $400 for starters. Or from $50 to $1000 - it all depends on you, your images, and how well you represent yourself - and how bad the buyer wants to get your print! :)

Michael, just so you know, Digital color photographic prints made by Andreas Gursky are selling in the range of a quarter-million dollars, and recently have been featured in solo exhibitions at MoMA in New York, San Francisco, and at several similar venues in Europe. By most standards, this kind of reception in the art world would be sufficient evidence that digital prints can be accepted as fine art. The more important question is the value of the images they contain; THAT is what determines if a print is a piece of art, regardless of whether the medium is gelatin silver or digital inkjet or any other medium for that matter. David Hockney's "Pearblossom Highway" was constructed from several rolls of 4x6 prints he had made at a drugstore, and that piece is valued at something like $25 million. Subhankar Banerjee's digital photographic prints have been shown in a solo exhibit at the Smithsonian, and shortly will open at the New York Natural History Museum and other museums all over the country in a travelling exhibit. His prints aren't available for purchase yet, but when they are, it is expected they will fetch $20,000 or more. Ed Burtinsky's digital prints start at $7500. Do I need to keep going here?

This is a frustrating subject. I see many , too many photographers pricing by size of the print. That ignores the creative ability. I have seen the same image done 8x10 for $40 and then enlarged to 30x40 fo $1,500. Ridiculous. The same creative ability went into both. The artist creates and that is what the Value is. The size is just a matter of how the purchasing client wants to display it.

 

Next, The Uniqueness of the image. If you do it digitally there is a preception that you will turn out thousands by letting the machinery run. You the Creative Artist must commit to only "x" many of that image. So a one off is worth more than one of 1000. Polariods are the most unique.

 

Do not under price your prints please.

As to Ed B. His work is great but I tried his lab and they blew my pics. They didn't dust the negs and the colour and focus were off. He said the same printer that did his work did mine. So I abandoned his lab and found one that did it perfect.

 

Maybe he just wanted his 8x10 art to be the best and I was competetion? I don't know. Just guessing.

 

(Message edited by mod to remove shouting and excessive exclamation marks..)

Alright, alright, settle down...

 

Didn't Jim have a question that needed answering, not a bunch of pontificating about so-and so who gets some museum with deep pockets to cough up some dough for their work?

 

I think we all wrestle with what price to sell work for initially. It is a very subjective point. I would say that looking at your true costs of producing the piece (materials, time, effort etc...) as well as whatever markup you think is appropriate, is a good starting point.

 

Initially I feel most people would rather sell more piece affordably than to price themselves out of any market when they're starting.

 

Galleries aside, I think that most people feel a hand-made product is more valueable than a machine made product. People also feel that a big print is worth more than a small print, but is it really? I'm not saying that it's correct, just that it does happen. For the most part digital does not have the REPUTATION of lasting quality and therefore doesn't have a perceived value YET.

While some digital prints are selling for high prices that is not the norm, and I suspect it has to do with more with hype than substance. Having seen Gurky's work I would not pay $100 for one of those prints, let alone the thousands of dollars, but that is me.

 

To answer your question, I recently purchased a print by Les Mclean, a british photographer. I paid $175 and choose to have it done in 5x7 size. When I inquired about the print, Les told me I could have it in any size up to 16x20 since in his experience it took him the same amount of time to do a 5x7 or a 16x20 and as a matter of fact the print was made on a 11x14 piece of paper. At least in this case size should not matter. Now, the first print I sold I charged $125 and it was an 11x14 silver print. Dont worry about size, at least in silver printing the price difference between an 8x10 or a 16x20 piece of paper is not that great. I would say a fair price for an archival processed silver print directly marketed would be in the range of $125 to $175. Congratulations on your first sale and I wish you many more...

>>Galleries aside, I think that most people feel a hand-made product is more valueable than a machine made product.<<

 

A Light Jet digital print *is* a hand made print. All the 'hand made' adjustments (dodging, burning, unsharp mask, etc.) are still performed by the artist/photographer. The only difference is that they are made in Photoshop and not in the darkroom. Frankly, it's almost a bit Orwellian that one would think detrimental variations in production quality from print to print could be thought of as valuable. That's one of the bigger slices of DoubleThink I've come across.

<i>A Light Jet digital print *is* a hand made print. All the 'hand made' adjustments (dodging, burning, unsharp mask, etc.) are still performed by the artist/photographer. The only difference is that they are made in Photoshop and not in the darkroom.</i><p>

 

By this definition then all lithographs, posters and book reproductions are "hand made"...no?

I�ll go with Joe and try and answer the original question. The variables are;

 

The medium (apart from those in the art market stratosphere who could probably sell toilet paper for $0.5M) � all aesthetic things being equal, a platinum print will sell for more than a silver print, will sell for more than an inkjet. If you print the work yourself that is a bonus, some (myself included) might say a given.

 

The photographer, or at least the name, the reputation the photographer has (even if it�s only locally), the better known you are the more you can charge. A great deal of that is track record, how many exhibitions have you had, etc.

 

Then there is the market and that�s just simple supply and demand. If you don�t sell anything your priced too high, if you can�t get out of the darkroom (or in Geoffrey�s case the light jet printer is running hot) then you�ve priced too low.

 

The content, the vision, the style and technical quality, you would like to think, makes a difference, unfortunately it doesn�t necessarily work that way.

 

I do totally agree with Edward, don�t under price yourself. I would say look at the actual cost of a print for you � materials and chemicals, think of the time you take to produce the image and that is a good starting point for pricing, maybe $100 or $200 depending on how precious your own time might be. Below that value you know it�s not worth your while printing the image and be content not selling at this stage.

 

Good luck with the print sales!

Do you really believe people buy a print based on how exactly their print matches the next one? Maybe that's the allure of computers... That they can all be perfect because they are the same. That seems to me to be a more backward way of looking at it than my comment on hand-made!

 

How's this for an example...

 

If I was to build a piece of furniture that I built myself with hand cut dovetails and a hand rubbed finish...

 

or

 

I built a piece a furniture that I plugged a bunch of CAD drawings into a computer and it spat out all the parts on a CNC machine...

 

If I was a great woodworker and If people wanted my work, which do you feel would be worth more? The Computer guided one? It's certainly the same as the last piece... And it's probably built a little better because it's exact, but somehow I don't think it's WORTH more... The really VALUEable one is the one that's built BY the artist.

 

What I'm saying is that people FEEL there is an intrisic value to a piece knowing that the artist did it themselves, using their hands. Sure, people will pay big bucks for a digital print, but the mastery of hand techniques (no that doesn't mean the index finger on the mouse, or CTRL+Z) still holds value with people. That includes me! Having something that someone made from the start vs. some sort of print that they only signed at the end still holds value these days.

 

I have photoshop skills and can work on a print till the cows come home, but nothing makes me prouder than the photos I make by hand.

To answer the original question, I agree with starting at $125-175. I under-priced some of the first stuff I sold (which was very recently) and soon realized the demand would have been willing to support such a price (maybe a bit lower). It's then tough to explain to people why the price for something doubled over night (unless you die, of course).

 

As to the question of the "individuality" and "hand-made" attributes of "traditional" silver-gelatin prints versus the "identicality" (making up a word here) of digital prints, I look at it in the same way as wood working. Although plywood is in many ways a superior product to solid wood, and certainly has its place even amongst fine furniture, there is a premium to be paid for solid wood that is above and beyond just the difference in material price and any associated extra labor. It's the individuality and uniqueness of the final product that attracts the "true believers". Sure, the digital print has had the same manipulations done, but it was done once, not for every individual print. Factory-made furniture was designed once as well, but, with a few exceptions, the premium is for hand-made, unique pieces. Just my 2 cents.

Bravo E.M.! Digital (LightJets, etc.) prints require just as much artistic vision and work from the photographer as in the B&W medium. Only the tools are different!

As for mass producing prints, B&W can be just as easily made in quantities from enlarged negatives that had all the dodging burning etc. done to. This by itself is not justifying much higher prices, besides even the LightJet exposed paper is developed in chemicals just as all those �traditional� prints. So what is the difference? Snobbish attitudes perhaps?

<i>B&W can be just as easily made in quantities from enlarged negatives that had all the dodging burning etc.</i><p>

 

Very true, lens work magazine does that on their special edition prints, but then they are priced significantly lower than the same prints done <b>by hand</b> by the artist. Wonder why that is?.....must be snobishness..

Handmade? One did not make the camera, the lens, the film, the enlarger , the paper, and the chemicals. It is true that one does load film manually, hauls all that heavy gear to the top of the mountain or wherever. It is also true that one sets up the camera, composes and then trips the shutter, manually mind you!

 

Then again, most take their film to be developed by a lab. Now for the real handwork! One puts the film into the enlarger (if he is a saintly traditional) and dodging and burning until blue in the face, followed by some work with chemicals! Whoop-ti-doo!

 

Even most of the subjects are stumbled upon and not created/assembled by anyone. So why are we so proud of our photographs? Because we were the ones who saw the image in something most people would just walk by. We had the vision! All the rest is just hocus-pocus!

<i>One puts the film into the enlarger (if he is a saintly traditional) and dodging and burning until blue in the face, followed by some work with chemicals! Whoop-ti-doo!</i><p>

 

yep..<b>on each and every print, thus the term hand made.</b>...now depending on how many beers I have had I might turn red in the face...but never blue...I think the ones from royal blood do turn blue in the face, but they are snobish so they dont count...

>>yep..on each and every print, thus the term hand made<<

 

No, no. Hand made is when you use glass plates and coat each plate with the emulsion by hand, like a real artist! Don't you guys know anything? :)

I'm more than well aware that digital prints by Gursky and others sell

for big bucks. I thought one sold for $650,000 plus.

 

I also know well that digital prints are here to stay and that over

time they will get better and better. But as others have pointed out

far better than I could have, there is something that people do value

about hand-made objects--each one hand-made one at a time. Of course

the eye, heart, brain, and hand go into the making of a digital

print--but essentially, only once. That is not the case when making a

print from an original negative, not from a copy negative nor from an

enlarged negative. When making a print from an original negative, each

one is done one at a time and the thought processes must be repeated

each time.

 

That people value these one-at-a-time objects more than multiple

copies of the same object is the way it is. This discussion is not

about what should be or how anyone would like things to be, it is

about the way people respond. Sure, there are some who do not care and

will pay much money for a Gursky, but that is not true of the general

population.

 

To Jim Chow. The real final answer is that you should charge what you

think it is worth to you to do the work to make the print--however you

are going to make it. The numbers I and others gave you are only

suggestions, but none of us can know what your work is worth to you.

Is the labor required to produce a product an intrinsic part of its value?

 

If it is, why don't we charge more for a print where we had to travel farther, and carry the camera a greater distance?

 

The rise of digital techniques in photography is generating a great amount of debate, and will continue to do so into the future.

 

We are at a point where you can add digital components into your print production and achieve results that are (debateably) equal to (or superior to) traditional methods when evaluated on "technical" merits, such as archival life, color range, tonality, resolution, sharpness, etc.

 

At this point, the debate really boils down to marketing: what does the art buyer perceive as "better" or "more valuable"?

 

Both sides will start their propaganda machines: traditional printers will rave on about "hand-crafted"; digital printers will befuddle the listener with talk of how digital allows them to better "achieve a vision", and "have greater control". While there are massive similarities between the two processes, each side will focus on the little details that differ, and blow them up to huge proportions.

 

In the end, you have a bunch of colors or tones on the surface of a flat piece of paper, that will last for a certain number of years. Maybe there is a limited number of pieces of paper produced.

 

The final product has its own value. Everything upstream, such as how big your camera is, how much work went into capturing the image, the method and labor that went into its production, and who produced it, is not significant. If the print cannot stand on its own without all of this context, then what you are selling is not the print, but the context of the print.

 

How to price it depends on one thing: how much is someone willing to pay for it?

 

No matter what medium you use, the goal of marketing is to convince the customer that your product is worth the price. Talking about "the craft" or "the process" or "the technology" is marketing. Explaining "the labor involved" is marketing. Making your name "famous" is marketing. The comments in this thread that have been characterized as "snobbish" are yet another form of marketing.

 

You can believe that your marketing slogans are truth, but, at the end of the day, they are just marketing. The only truth is the product. But, these days, in many ways, marketing is more important than the product.

$100 per " was the advice given to me...

As for digital prints being worth more or less than silver or platinum prints - if the photograph is good and you market yourself well and make your own name (as you must) no one cares what it's printed on.