I work with a historical photography process called Gum Bichromate. If you are not familiar, it involves mixing your own emulsion using pigment, coating it on paper, and exposing it to UV light with a development in water. Several layers can be over printed for rich tones and/or color. It is a manually intensive process somewhere between the realms of printmaking, painting, and photography. You can see my prints and learn more about the process at my website here: www.billymabrey.com I have shown my prints at a few shows in the past 2 years and sold a few prints through a non-profit gallery and other sources. Often, I feel as if the people purchasing my prints would have spent far more to own one. However, I get the overall impression from most including myself that my prints are priced too high. This week I received word that a photography history class at the university of Virgina was discussing my work. One of the students contacted me to ask why my prints were priced so low. Recently several people (painters and other photographers) ask the same question? Some sell their paintings for a few grand, and some charge $700 for an inkjet photograph. I would think photographs priced so high would never leave the walls? Currently I price my prints in a range from $50 - $200 with most falling between $100 - $150, depending on my personal perceived quality of the print. I understand that often a photographers style and uniqueness, and his name recognition are more then enough reason to raise prices, but to what extent? I began with prints priced between 200-400 and nothing sold. What then is a suitable price range for my work? of course this is a difficult question with no certain answer, but your thoughts are much appreciated.