Promo page for selling prints

[root]

On the one hand, we have gallerys telling us that art should never be

sold below $200. On the other, we see prints of competent photographs

being sold on the internet for far less. Can anyone direct me to a

link - PN or elsewhere - that makes a distinction for the benefit of

would be buyers between fine art prints and similarly sized commercial

enlargements. I'm interested in factoring in the capture and edit

process, equipment investment, and processing time, as well as the

time and costs of actual physical output.

 

(Please don't argue the premise. I know it's possible to take a cheap

camera, click the chutter once, and output directly to the printer,

but that doesn't describe the process behind most three-figure prints.)

 

Short and sweet is the goal, so people will actually read it. . . . a

challenge for many of us. :-)

[benjamindbloom]

I've only sold a couple of prints, but it's my understanding that # of reproductions plays a rather large role in the price.

 

Other than that, I'll defer to the experts.

[root]

I'm not asking for advice on price. I'm looking for promotional material - something that explains why a buyer should expect to pay more for a fine art print than for an enlargement at Costco.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Apples and oranges. Where the print itself is manufactured does not necessarily have any bearing on the sale price. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for output from a CostCo to be the same as from a pro lab. Lots of variables there that can be controlled that result in the print itself. It's more a "is this picture worth to me what I'm paying for it" concept you're asking about.

 

Take two technically equal pictures - say they're EXACTLY the same, Except one was taken by Ansel Adams, the other by Nancy Newhall. Which one do you think will command the big bucks by the general public? Then again, what if the subject is so rare that it doesn't matter who took the picture - like some doofus getting a pic of a Tasmanian Wolf? It would sell quite well, believe me.

 

As far as an equation like you want, that would seem to be unique to a given photographer and their situation. Yes, one person using a K1000 might be able to duplicate what someone else uses a 1DSmII for. Obviously the former has lower overhead but why should they charge less? Then again, you could buy a "cheap" print and find, in a year or so, you have a blank piece of paper on your wall since someone printed it using a cheap desktop inkjet.

 

you're not paying for the photographer's equipment or their time and what they did to make the print. You're paying for ability to own something (we'll call it art) which they were able to create. It's value is whatever you as the buyer assign to it.

[root]

But I'm still looking for a web page that attempts to address these variables for the benefit of the consumer, not debate which ones should or shouldn't be factored in. (You're suggesting equipment should be a non-issue, but I'll bet seeing a Nikon F5 with a telephoto lens on a Gitzo tripod, not to mention an LF setup, would impress some buyers. Or maybe it's just my business head that thinks overhead should be covered, whether it's commercial work or fine art.)

 

The issue is sticker shock for a buyer who sees it as a photograph, but not necessarily "fine art". He may or may not consider that the dollar value should reflect primarily something as abstract as "how badly do I want it". He may not assume that the talent, skill, and effort that obviously goes into a painting should be reflected in the price of a photographic print, but part of the problem we face as photographers is that all three of those variables aren't nearly as easy for him to measure when considering what he thinks it should be worth.

 

I've seen framed photographs on thousands of living room walls. Only a few would be considered "fine art" by their owners, so we're starting at square one with most of them.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"I'm not asking for advice on price. I'm looking for promotional material - something that explains why a buyer should expect to pay more for a fine art print than for an enlargement at Costco"</i><p>Sorry Carl, but no amount of spiel about overheads, man hours, equipment and fine art will persuade people to buy your images. As far as the Internet is concerned people buy images they love and can't live without. If your images speak to them they'll buy, if they don't they won't. The decision to buy is based on an emotional response, not a business proposition.

[root]

Keith, your website presents your images along with art school and commercial use credentials, the equipment you use, a description of the paper and inks, etc. It's all part of a package that supports the jpeg. The only thing missing is the pre and post processing information which I've seen described on some other similar sites.

 

I guess there's really no shortcut. We each get to pick whatever info we think will support the price structure.

[eric_fredine]

I think any sort of 'cost plus' rationale is doomed. People are either willing to pay your price for a photograph or not. You just have to live with it or pursue a different path (such as selling direct at much lower prices which might just end up being a lot more work for a comparable return).

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"Keith, your website presents your images along with art school and commercial use credentials, the equipment you use, a description of the paper and inks....."</i><p>Agreed, but my point is that all this info is pretty much irrelevant for the buyer. The feedback I get from people is that they buy purely because they love the image. All the rest is largely self aggrandisement.

[root]

Well I wouldn't expect a buyer to tell you how impressed they were with your Hasselblad as a reason for buying a print, but it's all part of a package, right down to your black turtleneck. :-) I speak from the perspective of having been a sole proprietor for the last 33 years.

 

The largest photographic print (and no doubt most expensive) I've ever seen in a client's living room depicts aspens in Colorado. When I complimented him on it, his first response was to tell me all about how the photographer had used a 4X5 camera, so it's clearly not irrelevant to some buyers.

[root]

I should also mention that I've had email discussions with a PN member who's had many requests for prints from his website and most decline when they hear the price. The point being that they expected it to be much lower, and we have no way of knowing how many people turn away when they see the whole package at once - image, price, bonafides - compared to those who were surprised at the price, but first saw what went into making of the print and developed a greater appreciation of its value.

[vincetylor]

The most effective way to differentiate yours prints from the generic, commercial print is to personalize them as much as possible. Having your prints signed as well as (if possible) offering limited editions will make a tremendous difference to the educated "art" buyer. These alone are usually more than enough to justify the higher prices. Adding specifics about what equipment the prints were captured with, information "about the photo" itself etc. also help. Basically you are personalizing the art this way. It helps justify the higher price tag in the eyes of many.

 

If your printing equipment is more expensive this too can help. Here is a page my web developer designed which shows the processes we use and puts emphasis on the degree of quality, of each step.

 

http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/Artwork.htm

 

Still, I would be careful not too charge TOO much more for these personalized prints. Many artists come along thinking a bit too much of their work and even of themselves, only to sell a print or two per year... if that. Balance, and a measure of humility is needed too...

[Sandeha Lynch]

One interesting example (with prices) might be <a href=http://www.garyauerbach.com/main.html>Gary Auerbach</a> who includes his own hardship as well as his tools, materials, and time in his promo blurb. It would also appear that his off-the-shelf print prices reflects the public profile of the subject.

<p>

I'd suggest that the blurb is not there to support the price structure, but merely to nudge the buyer into feeling secure about the investment. The bottom line is that a print (like anything else) is only worth what a buyer will pay.

<p>

He makes damn good prints, IMO. I don't know if he makes a profit, though I guess he does very well most of the time.

[root]

It's interesting that the images offered for sale in the three links included in this discussion all reflect very different styles, sales philosophies, and most importantly, price points. I have these and several dozen others bookmarked, yet it's hard to tell which if any of these approachs would work best for my situation. Ultimately, I have to make up my own page, but I'm still finding it hard to get comfortable with a price structure. Part of the problem is that photographs printed on mat paper are very different from glossy. Most people like them, but you have to see one to appreciate it.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Carl, keep in mind that short run limited editions prices tend to be higher than open ended runs. Also keep in mind that most buyers won't be photographers or people with knowledge of photography and that they tend to buy by subject and won't necessarily be attracted by expensive limited editions. Some subjects and markets lend themselves to edition prints, others don't.<p>I've pitched my own prices for open edition prints probably a little higher than some largely because the prints are produced to the same standard as many limited edition prints. My limited edition prints will be pitched at a much higher price (not the same images).<p>When I started I had a few concerns that the matte pigmented prints (which I love) might not appeal to Joe Public but I'm pleased to say that I've never had a complaint, in fact just the opposite, lots of positive feedback.<p>I guess we've all seen those websites, usually of complete unknowns, with sky high prices. Have a guess how many they sell. My advice is to be realistic.

[dens]

keith

 

You shots are great, I have jounrney to take to get there, I hope I can reach that place one day.

 

I had a look at your site and its great but expensive, do you sell many prints?

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Denis, many thanks for your kind comments.<p>The answer to your question is yes, but not as many as in my dreams ;-)

[nitaf]

Try the following websites: www.danheller.com/biz-sales.html and www.danheller.com/

biz-prints.html. I just found them today. They are very informative. Should be easy to pull

info for what you need.

[artedetimo]

<p>I have grown up around artists and have seen the dilemma of pricing/buying from a

few different angles (buyer, observer, seller.) And I have come to a couple of conclusions.

One; people love to think of themselves as Art lovers AND supporters because they have

artist friends and go to their shows (and maybe get a piece cheaper then normal early on),

but in reality they are not, they just want cheap art from friends to help that notion along.

These are the same people who want "some art" to hang on their walls cause it looks nice

etc. If you ask for gallery price they won't pay it, because they are more interested int eh

idea of having "art" then in the value of the piece. And in fact if they really wanted to

support the artist they would want to more since they should know all that goes into

making the piece. I take this sort of "art buyer" with a grain of salt. Its talk, and rather

annoying at that. Its the Walmart crowd. Not even worth having around, cause they will

never truly support you in your work.

</p><p>

Next time you come across one of these "buyers" and want to learn something, ask them

how much they spend a year on cable TV (for most this is around $800-$1000) and then

how much on art ($0-$400). You may piss them off for pointing this out, but you also may

make a sale... ;-)

</p>

<p>

Anyway, I have always valued art and shell out the money when I can. Even when I was in

college I would buy pieces at $200-$300 even though I was living on a college student's

budget, and shouldn't have. People who buy art actually like higher prices to some extent

because it makes them feel like the piece is valued by everyone, and the fact they have one

makes it that much more special. It also means that they could resell if need be.

</P><p>

The second comes from an experience I had recently. The cover of American Photo had a

BW photo of Julia Roberts on it that I absolutely love. I did some poking around and found

the photogs website. It said that any print started at $3000. And to be honest it was a

reasonable price for a large archival print that I love, but I don't have $3000 to spend, so I

can't get one. I think my budget allowed for $400. As an art buyer I know how much I can

spend. Same sort of thing happened in Mexico with some paintings over the summer. You

have to respect the buyerﾒs budget, and not worry about it if they think itﾒs too much. If

they are really interested (not the pseudo-buyer type) yet don't buy, it probably has to do

with their budget, not your (artist's) price.

</p>