how to price prints

[joe_symchyshyn]

And to think, all this started because Michael said...

 

"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."

 

I've got to watch what I say from now on... hehehe :)

[clayh]

EM,

 

Don't get the wrong idea. I am not a process snob. Heck, I've done a print trade where

I received a peizography inkjet print in return for one of my platinum prints. And I am

satisfied with the trade. And I'd be willing to bet that the women who made the print

put more time in her photoshop efforts than I did in making my print.

 

I am just explaining what I believe the economic drivers can be behind print prices.

Like a lot of things, it may not be fair, or make sense, but it is what it is. It makes

about the same amount of sense as the starting salary discrepancy between a

mediocre Harvard graduate and a stellar state school graduate- non-sensical, but

certainly a fact of life. Perception is everything.

 

Clay

[brian_ellis3]

O.K., I think I've got it. If I place a negative in the enlarger, a sheet of paper in the easel, turn on the enlarger light for a while, dodge, burn, unsharp mask, maybe flash a little, then run the paper through three trays of chemicals that's a hand made print. But if I place a negative in the scanner, a sheet of paper in the printer, turn on the computer, select, dodge, burn, adjust levels, curves, brightness, contrast, add layers, merge layers, make new adjustment layers, and unsharp mask, then run the paper through the printer, that's not a hand made print. Right.

[michael_chmilar]

Turning up the cynicism dial:

 

You could register the trademark "Hand-made". Then you can stamp all of your digital prints as: Hand-made photographic print.

 

Perhaps you could write a "randomizer" Photoshop plugin that would automatically tweak a few adjustments on the image, before making a print, to guarantee "uniqueness". The plugin could also increase the contrast, based on the age of the file or number of previous prints. The plugin can be sold as "The Auto Ansel".

[clayh]

Look, you guys are preaching to the choir here. I KNOW it takes talent and expertise

to make fine digital prints. But my point is that this talent and expertise is not yet

VALUED for the most part in the marketplace. There are exceptions, of course, but in

general that is the case. Maybe that will change as buyers become more

sophisticated. I don't know.

 

One comment:

" You make good points but the variance in prints you mention are as much the

result of using different papers and chemicals (at a point in time) and old technology

as it is the artist's vision. AA always complained about whites being chalky and not

white and blacks not being black. With advances in chemistry in later years his prints

(some) were more to his liking. "

 

I must disagree. The materials available in the thirties were plenty good to make fine

prints, as anyone who has seen a vintage Weston or Adams print can attest. The show

I alluded to showcased what is most certainly an artist's evolving esthetic, not the

change in materials.

 

CH

[jan_vandenbosh]

Brian,

 

Nothing wrong with what you do...it's the proof that you're living in 21st century...

 

one word of caution though... in the process of doing what you described and then start calling "snobism", to other darkroom printers or may be thinking that they are "inferior"... then it's wrong....

 

tools are tools and they are right... labeling is wrong...

[geoffrey_swenson]

This discussion is a most enjoyable hoot!

 

�Frankly, the emotional prejudice against��in fact there is�- E.M.

 

�O.K., I think I've got it. If I place��.that's not a hand made print. Right.� - Brian Ellis

 

Well said, but I don�t think it is the public, it is us as we are just misleading them. All this animosity �traditional� vs. �digital� is tantamount to the old adage �Divide and Conquer�. Instead try to look at the Content not the Method. That would make every one feel better!

[david_senesac]

I'm wrestling with the same questions now. Am in the process of building up several dozen unusually framed master prints for exhibition from which I will eventually make unframed copies available for sale. Mid 90's when Evercolor then Lightjet and Durst printers first appeared, a 16x24 was about $150 raw cost which included drum scanning. Today my printing service provider's Lightjet prices for a 24x30 is just $38 and less than half that for a 14x20. Drum scanning costs for 100meg is under $40 and under $50 for 200mb. The cost of archival under glass matted framing for 16x20 sized prints has always been around $80 minimum as the material cost and it is a tedious labor intensively activity. Of course framing cost can really climb with better quality.

 

The cost of framing issues have long been an unwanted anchor for unknown photographers trying to get their work out to the public. So I say we are breaking into a new age of new opportunity. We don't need to print 100 or so images like before just to get a pile of consistent images because with digital the quality can be adequately consistent every time one inputs a CMS profiled file for reprints. Thus one orders prints for customers as needed without having to front costs for an expensive pile of to be sold material. (much of which might never sell) So if I want, I can probably sell unframed 24x30 or even 29x36 inch prints from my 6x7 and 4x5 work for under $100. And prints from old 35mm work at 16x24 for maybe $60 and still make (a little) profit. Not saying I will but I could. Are we fine art photographers forever handcuffed to only those few rich folk who visit galleries? Is there another way to market our material to a broader public between the cheaper material one sees at art and craft shows and traditional fine art photography at galleries? Yes is what I am thinking.

[michael_a._smith1]

Two quick comments: As Clay stated, the materials available to Adams

in the 1930s and 1940s--when he made the soft print of Mt. McKinely,

were as good as later materials. But he did not go far enough--they

were not only as good, they were better than the newer materials. That

fact has nothing to do with this discussion, but is added here to set

the record straight.

 

Mr. Swenson said (I'm paraphrasing here, but I think I have it right)

that digital prints and and darkroom prints of the same image, made

from the same negative have the same content and should be valued the

same. I agree--if they have the same content. But what is content? Is

it only the image of what was photographed? I don't believe it is. The

content is the entire picture including exactly what it looks like.

 

If Mr. Swenson, and others, when looking at a digital print made from

a hi-res scan cannot distinguish its content from that of a darkroom

print on silver paper, then this discussion is hopeless. I have looked

closely and carefully at many prints from digital processes (by the

way, I am talking about black and white here, not color work) and have

yet to find a digital print that even vaguely resembled a silver print

from the same original negative. And if the prints are not exactly

like each other in every regard--tone, paper surface, etc., etc., then

they exhibit different content. I see these differences because I make

fine discriminations. Most people either cannot make that kind of fine

discrimination when looking at prints, or do not take the time to do

so. To say the content is the same in a photograph no matter how

something is printed is the same as saying a piece of music played

poorly has the same content as the same piece of music played well. No

composer would agree with that one. Another example: If two chefs

with identical ingredients, say a steak, cook it the same way, but one

comes out tasting awful while the other tastes excellently, the two

steaks could hardly be said to exhibit the same content. And it is the

same with photographs. Only the most inexperienced and uneducated

viewers confuse the subject matter with the picture, as Mr. Swenson

appears to be doing.

 

Someday, when and if digital prints are as well-made as fine

gelatin-silver prints, they should command the same price, although

they will not because of the many excellent comments already posted to

this forum. My photographer friends who make digital prints tell me

they believe their prints will never be as fine as silver prints. They

will just be different. But with the rapid advances in technology they

could be wrong.

 

The digital folks here should not be so damned defensive. Digital

prints have their place and they can be quite beautiful in their own

right. But they can never be the same thing as silver prints.

 

In everything, there are all degrees of quality. As I have written

before, quality is not only a matter of technical excellence; though

it includes that, it is also a matter of emotional depth and

expression. I mention that here because in the past when I have

mentioned "quality", people sem to think that I am stupid enough to

think that a well-printed boring picture is better than an exciting

picture poorly printed, and this discussion should not be sidetracked

by that kind of misreading and misunderstanding of what "quality" is.

 

Have at it.

[clayh]

Geez, I don't know how I got sucked into this, but, here is another thought

experiment that occurred to me after reading Michael's post.:

 

If content is the ONLY thing that matters, then are you telling me you would be

indifferent if I offered you a choice of the SAME fine image contact printed excellently

in palladium or a 'carbon-sepia quadtone' print printed mechanically on the same fine

art paper?

 

 

I use palladium as an example, because most monochrome fine-art digital prints are

made on fine watercolor papers, just as is palladium. And I have seen some carbon

sepia digital prints that are indistinguishable from palladium from 5 feet away. At 3

feet, most non-photographers couldn't tell. At one foot....., well, let's just say I am

still printing big negatives in palladium.

 

 

Clay

[cruiserparts]

I stopped reading the responses about half way down; I just couldn't take it anymore.

 

Anyway, Jim, why not pick a price and just revel in the fact that somebody bought an

image from you? Maybe they will get a great deal, maybe not. But it's a wonderful

feeling just to make the first sale. If you keep doing it, you'll have plenty of time to

lose sleep obsessing about pricing. Good luck!

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>If content is the ONLY thing that matters, then are you telling me you would be indifferent if I offered you a choice of the SAME fine image contact printed excellently in palladium or a 'carbon-sepia quadtone' print printed mechanically on the same fine art paper? <p>

 

 

I use palladium as an example, because most monochrome fine-art digital prints are made on fine watercolor papers, just as is palladium. And I have seen some carbon sepia digital prints that are indistinguishable from palladium from 5 feet away. At 3 feet, most non-photographers couldn't tell. At one foot....., well, let's just say I am still printing big negatives in palladium. </i><p>

 

I think you are answering your question in your second paragraph. I also think as Michael Smith stated that there is nothing wrong with a digital print, but it is just a <b>different</b> method.<p>

 

All this ties in best with what Michael Chimlar has said, marketing and the mistaken marketing that has been done with digital output. Take for example the vaunted "digital platinum glicèe". I had the opportunity to read the "marketing" done by Cone, and in it he made some of the most stupid innacurate statements I have ever read in favor of this new method.<p>

 

It is not surprising that if someone reads what Cone said, gets all excited about this new technique and then compares a print with a <b>true</b> platinum print that there will be some dissapointment and the process thus judged inferior when it actually might not be. Here, I think, is where digital manufacturers have set themselves for a fall and actually done a disservice to those who are using their products to make fine art prints. How many times have we heard "this new printer/ink/camera will make classic photography obsolete" only to find out later that the rumors of the classic method's death were somewhat premature, namely because the results never equaled the claims.<p>

 

IMO a well crafted print either silver, azo, platinum or digital invites you to get close and examine not only the overall print from 5 ft, but also from a foot and enjoy the minute detail contained in the print. I know some people make fun of this close examination, but it is a fact that most people will actually do this if they are captivated by the print. So as long as the digital marketing is geared towards a head to head confrontation with classical methods then this debate will continue. The moment the marketing gets away from this and it becomes a tool for educating the consumer that digital is not better nor worse than classical methods, only different I think it will benefit those using these techniques and will remove the apparent stigma associated with "ink jet" prints, which by the way was caused by the silly claims that now everybody with their little printer at home could make master pieces, from what I understand a top of the line Epson printer necessary to make a fine quality print is several thousand dollars more expensive than my Zone VI enlarger.

[lex_jenkins]

Digital printers have an agenda. And who can blame them? They're in the same position as Impressionist painters were more than a 100 years ago, fighting against centuries of tradition, deeply entrenched unimaginative critics and, well...talent.

 

Okay, I kid...a little. But get used to it. You're facing at least another decade before you'll see widespread acceptance of any print with "digital" in the process as being on par with the traditional process.

 

Even then you'll never be the cool guy at the parties. The folks doing it the old fashioned way on gelatin silver will always be cooler than you. Platinum/palladium printers will be cooler than gelatin silver printers. Carbon printers will be cooler still. Ctein will be cooler than any of us because, well...because he's Ctein. And hopefully the chicks will be leaving with me because even tho' I'm a mere gelatin silver printer I do look like Charles Manson only without the swastika and prison thing.

[martin_reekie]

Amazing how much discussion can be promoted from a single innocent question.

 

I�ll put in my thoughts on the wet versus dry into the debate. I print all my own work, both in silver and platinum. This is an extremely satisfying process.

 

I also produce digital prints, not for sale or show. The computer and printer are there for other things. Most of the time I download the contents of my wee digital camera or scan the negative or paper copy and without any manipulation print it off on my Epson 2100 (think it�s a 2200 in the US). The results are spectacular, I recently scanned in a platinum print and printed off a copy on watercolour paper � the end result was great. You can still tell the difference but the digital print is pretty good.

 

I could argue about longevity, archival permanence, etc., lets just say inkjet printing has come a long way and is improving all the time. I don�t think it�s there yet, may never be � especially compared to platinum. That aside the process is not very satisfying; I�m relying on the talents of some software programmer and some wonderful technology. There is little or no mental input from me, I dare say I could play with a few of the settings but what is the point when the default settings are so good. I�m pressing a couple of buttons and, hey presto, an acceptable result. A few minutes and it�s there.

 

For me the difference is mental, physical and aesthetic. OK, the negative is mass-produced; I rely on Ilford for that part. After that I�m mixing the raw chemicals, I�m coating the paper, I�m exposing and I�m processing, I�m the one having the fun! For me this long drawn out process is all.

[struan_gray]

I enjoyed reading this and can't resist casting my two öre into the

melting pot.

 

First, there is a surprisingly large seperation between the world

of Art Photography and the world of Fine Art Photography.

Personally, I find the gulf between Fine Art Photography and the

rest of the visual arts completely baffling - a self-imposed

limitation that only acts to restrict imagination. However, there is

no getting round the fact that the Fine Art Photography world

cares - and pays - greatly for the exercise of craft and traditional

choices of materials. If you want to sell to that market, you have

to work within its conventions.

 

Note that the conventions are themselves highly suspect. Many

Fine Art Photographers have their photographs printed by a

dedicated printer. In a fair world the printer would get a credit,

but buyers prefer to indulge a cosy sentimentality about how the

simple act of purchase gives them a real and personal link to the

artist's mind. Again, so be it.

 

In the Art World, ideas and concepts are more important than

their expression. Admittedly this leaves lots of room for imperial

tailors to rake in the dough through their ready-to-wear

collections, but it also creates a refreshing willingness to accept

new media. I have seen plenty of inkjet prints sold and

displayed, of varying levels of technical and archival quality, but

always in genres and venues where photography is just one of

many forms of expression.

 

Michael Smith brought up a musical analogy. For me, the

distinction is not between good and bad playing, but between

different styles. Do you prefer your Bach by Heifetz or Manze?

"The House of the Rising Sun" by Dylan, Simone or The

Animals? "Nellie the Elephant" in trad or punk style? There are

markets for all of these, but they don't necessarily overlap.

[michael_a._smith1]

If Mr. Swenson, or anyone else, believes content--as they define

it--is all that really counts, and if they are interested in my work,

I will be happy to cut out reproductions from my books, mount them,

overmat them, and even sign them (with distinguishing characteristics

of course, though why a signature at all should be necessary since the

"content" of these pictures would be the "same" is a mystery to me).

And I'll price these reproduction prints from books at only 5% of the

price of my original silver prints. A deal, yes or no? Personally, I

think not. But hopefully, the Mr. Swenson's of the world will think

otherwise.

 

Actually, this has already been done--with Camera Work gravures. The

prices of those, while sometimes high, are nothing when compared to

the price of original prints of the same images. Seems there must be

something about the way something is printed that is part of what

determines value.

 

Since Jim Chow is not part of that art world that gets high prices for

original digital prints, I'll go back to my original statement and

recommend one price for silver (or platinum) prints, another,

significantly lower price for digital prints.

[Troll]

Jim, if it's an ordinary, straight, "silver-gelatine" print, which can be reproduced easily if you want to print another one, charge somewhere between $100 and $400 (depending on your potential client's interest and his apparent financial status). If it's a bitch to print, you should double those figures, because it will increase the "rarity" factor. If that seems cheap, remember that if it was sold in a gallery, the price would be doubled but you'd still be only making the same amount. (I'm speaking here from the POV of someone who has in the past bought a lot of prints from both famous and unknown photographers.)

[bob.]

Even well established fine art photographers produce silver prints for under $500 (I'm thinking John Sexton here (www.johnsexton.com)).... All else being equal, you can't expect that kind of money for an "unknown" - even if the print is "better" than the established guy's work.

 

As always, the only answer is, how much are people willing to pay?

 

Good luck, cheers,

[d._kevin_gibson]

"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."

 

Bear in mind that there is a bout the same relationship between "Fine Art Shows/Fin Art Photography" and Art as there is between McDonalds and real food.

[robert_davis2]

"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 don't think that's really the issue. If you're spending 5k,10k or 20k for a coffee table then you really don't want to see it in every house you walk into. You want it rare. If the woodworker hand makes each one you know the tables are limited. Also it's likely each one will evolve to a certain extent so they'll be different. If on the other hand it's a factory producing 100s of tables a day it's Ikea. Both will hold the same two magazines and a coffee cup but there is a difference in value. Now for most people Ikea is just fine but they aren't paying hefty amounts for a coffee table.

 

If the digital person was to destroy everything after producing the first print. In the process making it impossible to produce more copies then it would have a higher collectable value. Rarity does matter. Well if the item is in demand. If on the other hand the person can produce new copies at will then the real value of the print is little more then the cost of the paper.

 

There is nothing new here. Hasn't the same sort of pricing existed forever when it comes to editions? Small runs are worth more then big ones.

[robert_davis2]

BTW death is the ultimate in rarity. Adams is never going to take anymore pictures. He is never going to print anything. No worry for the collector that the market will be flooded.

[lex_jenkins]

DKG, you couldn't be more wrong. I see better work from more "respectable" artists at, say, the Fort Worth Main Street Arts Festival than I do at many galleries.

 

The better arts shows, like the FWMSAF, have no particular agenda or axe to grind, other than to promote the city. Once selected by a jury the 200-250 artists, artisans and craftspersons pay for their display space. I've seen work ranging from the incredibly lush photography of Shelly Corbett (whose husband is a fine metal sculptor), to the delicious glasswork of Karen Naylor.

 

Meanwhile, much of what I see in galleries are hardly a step above that passe genre of framed wallpaper known as Southwestern "art" and so-called paintings by that huckster-of-lite whose product is the Beanie Baby of the art world.

 

If you don't get any decent outdoor shows in your area feel free to visit Fort Worth in April. We'll tip some coldbeers, eat some BBQ, burp real loud and go gawk at some dang fine art.

 

BTW, there are a few decent galleries in Fort Worth, but few of 'em are downtown. Don't wanna lump 'em all into the schlock category.

[geoffrey_swenson]

�To say the content is the same in a photograph no matter how something is printed is the same as saying a piece of music played poorly has the same content as the same piece of music played well. No composer would agree with that one.� - Michael A. Smith

 

With all due respect, a flawlessly executed print should be a given. As for comparing prints, in your case B&W, one should use the tool more suited (at the present time) to the task at hand. I do agree that LightJet B&W does not look the same as the traditional one, however, wait just a short time and it will not be the case. I�m confident that there will be a digital process superior to Azo or other fiber based papers techniques in a very short time. To think otherwise is equivalent in believing that the Earth is flat. Digital processes have already proved to be superior to Ilfochrome in many ways.

 

�The digital folks here should not be so damned defensive. Digital prints have their place and they can be quite beautiful in their own right. But they can never be the same thing as silver prints.� � Michael A. Smith

 

Wouldn�t be wonderful if the above statement were found to be true? Don�t fret it won�t be!

 

Aside from printing squabbles, what is in the photograph matters. �Boring, uninspiring images printed on �Gelatin Silver� paper are still boring and uninspiring.�

 

Unfortunately, this discussion again degenerated into traditional vs. digital. Prints made by traditional processes are/were beautiful, but life goes on and the way of doing things will change for better or for worse, and it is debatable if that is good. I can feel the pain of those who had lost the use of their beloved glass plates.

 

And I said I wasn�t talking about posters. I thought it included cut-out illustrations as well?

[e_m3]

To Quote Ansel Adams:

 

�I am frustrated by both exposure-scale limitations and rigid film-color. As �reality� is out of the question, I can indulge myself with explorations of the �unreal� color which may or may not have intriguing aesthetic effects. I would not want �post-card� realism, but I would enjoy �enhancements� of the colors which I fear is not possible with conventional material today�The scope of control with the electronic image has not been explored, but I feel confident astonishing developments await us in this area.�

[michael_chmilar]

I see a trend in this discussion.

 

<P>

An appropriate price list for a 16x20 b&w silver print, based on the level of hand-made-ness:

 

<UL>

<LI>Basic silver print: $200

<LI>+ made paper: $300

<LI>+ used metronome as timer: $350

<LI>+ built camera: $450

<LI>+ camera has exceptional woodworking: $500

<LI>+ built enlarger: $600

<LI>+ made film: $900

<LI>+ ground lenses for camera and enlarger: $1200

</UL>

 

<P>

How about if the digital people assembled their own computer and wrote their own software? That's the way to command the big bux!