how to price prints

[Troll]

Like it or not, the big bucks will always go to buy images which are most likely to appreciate in value. Subject matter and print quality is (relatively) immaterial compared to the rareness factor. That's why Picaso lithographs and Rembrandt etchings produced in volume are so much less expensive than individually created works. The development of an initial digital print may take as much or even more work and time than the production of an original photographic print, and soon (if not now) may look just as good, or even better. However, after the initial production they can be produced in any required number just by pressing a button (so to speak), while each new photographic print must be produced individually and is virtually a unique object. With few exceptions, it would appear that a "limited edition" does little to actually increase the artist's income, but only to make his work less available. The concept of "Limited Editions" from a digital printer is so contrived and unrealistic as to be laughable. The real secret to high print prices: either die young or live forever!

[nick_morris]

Jim, I'm assuming that your buyer is only interested for asthetic reasons, and the print will not be used for commercial purposes. If it is to be used for commercial purposes, other issues need to be considered.

I live in Richmond, VA. I say that because I believe that location can be a factor with respect to market value. From what I've learned, ours is not a big market for fine art photography. Sally Mann, who lives in Lexington VA, has exhibited in Richmond, and I understand has sold, achieving $10,000 for one of her works. But other well known photographers have had difficulty at $1,000-$2,000 level.

I'm not aware of any galleries in Richmond that specialize in fine art photgraphy. Most "fine art" photographers are local amatures who exhibit in coffee shops, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Prices tend to be in the $75 to $300 range for a matted and framed print, 8x10 to 16x20. I have sold unmatted/unframed B&W 11x14s for $65 to $150; matted and framed for $150. I tend to give away more prints than I sell. Exhibitors tell me that generally B&W is viewed more as "art", but that color also sells. The market tends to be image driven, with local interest and nature scenes favored.

I might suggest that if this is a one time thing, you give the fellow a print as a reward for his good taste. If you are thinking of selling prints on a more regular basis, then I would suggest researching your local market. Talk to exhibitors, find out the pricing, what sells, and why.

Good luck.

[michael_a._smith1]

But, Mr. Swenson, why exclude reproductions in books? We're now

printing books in 600-line screen quadtone and if the reproductions

are printed in the same size as the originals they are virtually

indistinguishable from the originals, even if viewed with a loupe. The

"content" in your terms is exactly the same. And the original prints

were scanned and the separations were digitally rendered. By your

logic these offset reproductions should be as valuable as the original

silver prints. I surely wish they were--let's see--3,000 books of

Edward Weston's photographs--110 reproductions per book--330,000

reproductions at an average price of say, $10,000 to be

conservative--I'd be a rich man indeed.

[geoffrey_swenson]

Boring, uninspiring images printed on any paper are still boring and uninspiring images, even in a book form.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>Boring, uninspiring images printed on any paper are still boring and uninspiring images, even in a book form.</i><p>

Are you saying that Edward Weston's photographs are boring and uninspiring?<p>

If no, then why dont you answer Michael's question? If yes...well then we might as well stop right here.

[lex_jenkins]

"Boring, uninspiring images..."

 

Geoffrey seems to have developed this nervous tic of repeating a phrase as mantra in lieu of defending his position. Of course when an agenda is shaky sloganeering usually is substituted for logic.

 

Anyway, yeh, we got it: Boring = Boring; Boring gelatin silver = Boring photo; Boring lithography still = boring photo; Boring digital photo = boring. We got it.

 

However, tho' a buck is a buck, for the time being an inkjet print = a greenback and a gelatin silver print = a silver dollar. Big difference to collectors.

[e_m3]

>>By your logic these offset reproductions should be as valuable as the original

silver prints.<<

 

Michael,

 

No one on the 'other' side is making the empirical claim that more money is *not*

paid for traditional silver prints in the market. (I'll leave color out of this.) The

argument, rather, is that there really is no rational reason why this should be so,

provided there's an alternate method that yields the same result. (Let's stipulate this

for right now.) Would you personally really claim that the 'first' print of a

photographer is somehow more valuable than the 10th print? In literature the last

revision is considered the final one. No one looks at an author's first draft and

declares it more valuable than the finished work. That would be absurd. Yet in

photography there is the cult of the 'first' print, which is more valuable than a lifetime

print, which is then even more valuable than subsequent prints made from the

original negative after the photographer's death, etc., etc. No of this makes sense

upon rational inspection. It's an aritificial distinction designed to impute 'value' to

something that's limited in quantity (by the distinction) for the sole purpose not of

providing additional income to the photographer or his or her heirs but to provide (if

you're lucky) appreciation rights for future sellers. It's little more than an economic

scheme.

 

If collectors would like unique objects, why not just buy a painting or purchase

sculpture? Or better yet, why not purchase rare books? At least there the philistines

are not burdened by the quality of a book's intellectual and artistic content and can

instead focus on the really important issues such as who bound the book and what

technique was used to soften the leather, which we all know are all the really, really,

really important determinants of what makes good literature. :)

[joe_photo]

I think the elevation of one's horse is more relative to the position of one's ass..... "digital is for those who have no skill in the darkroom". I think you should be able to judge your customer and come up with a price. Is it someone you know who admires your work? I would give them a lower price.

[michael_a._smith1]

From E. M. "The argument, rather, is that there really is no rational

reason why this should be so, provided there's an alternate method

that yields the same result."

 

I agree with that. Completely. Only silver prints and digital prints

do not yield the same results. Silver prints, digital prints, platinum

prints, book reproductions do not yield the same results. I cannot

understand why you introduce a statement like that into this

discussion unless, honestly, you do not see the differences and really

do think all these things are the same. In which case, it really is

impossible to discuss anything with you.

 

Same with first print (in theory). I happen to agree that a lot of

that is just hype. Over the years a photographer may learn to print a

given picture better--and the best print should be the most valued

one. However, for photographers who have been at it for a number of

years and who have their act together, the prints from a new negative

from the first printing session are going to be as good as it gets.

This is because there is more excitement on the part of the

photographer when printing a new negative. For some photographers,

later reprintings are just a job and less care may be taken. I have

seen this often when comparing early and late prints by many

photographers.

[tim_atherton2]

True - Fine Art Photography is much more along the continuum of Pottery, Quilting, Hand-made woodworking and stained glass work etc.

 

Actually pottery is a good example in some ways - there is a real difference between the worlds of pottery and "studio ceramics/pottery" - the latter, while still rooted in the same craft, has the works of artists like Takeshi Yasuda or Felicity Aylieff whose work is of a different sort altogether and demands accordingly much higher prices (and is shown in galleries and collected by Museums etc).

 

"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."

 

I think that makes the point (and I'm not saying one is better or worse - just quite different). There is, I think, a difference between a sculptor and a "fine metal sculptor". Serra is a sculptor who works in metal, not a Fine Metal Sculptor. The sort of photography you are talking about (along with limited edition runs, strong values placed on craft and hand made work - platinum etc - fits well with this ethos. But it is a completely different world and environment from that of Gursky, Struth, Cohen, Richter, Yasuda, Serra, Hockney and so on. And, while I'm not saying either one is "better" (whatever that means) than the other, I would have to agree with the earlier comment - the world of Fine Art Photography is somewhat self limiting.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i> Would you personally really claim that the 'first' print of a photographer is somehow more valuable than the 10th print?</i><p>

 

No, what we are saying is that the 10th print has the same value as the first since it is given the same personal attention. The perception that once you have done all the adjustements in photoshop and saved your file for which following prints become merely a mechanical exercise of putting paper in the printer and pressing the button is exactly why, to some people, the 10th digital print <b>does not have the same value as the first print</b>.<p>

 

Wether you like it or not, that is the way it is.....

[skip_a]

One thing that's clear in reading through all the posts in this thread is that "content" means different things to different people.

 

Content has been equated to vision, it has been likened to subject matter, and it has been contrasted with method and print quality and technique, just to mention a few of the usages that have turned up here.

 

A number of people affirm that content is what really counts, not the method or the media. So is content nothing more than a subject, or perhaps a subject expressed through the photographer's vision (whatever that may mean)? If that is true, then anyone who so affirms should be willing to pay the same amount for that content whether produced as a gelatin silver fibre print, a platinum print, an ink jet print, or a 600-line screen quadtone reproduction print on book stock paper, assuming they are all of similar technical quality. Or silkscreened and glazed onto a coffee cup, assuming comparable print quality could be obtained.

 

 

Michael Smith has suggested that the physical print itself comprises a part of the content of the work. How can it not? A print is a tangible object, and its appearance affects its appeal and the appreciation it engenders in the viewer. When you consider the work as a whole, you really can't speak of its content as something entirely separate from its form. Not unless you simplistically equate content to subject matter or subject+vision. But I think that the same subject rendered as a gelatin silver print, a platinum print, an ink jet print, is an entirely different thing, and thus conveys different content, in each of those forms.

 

If I were going to buy a handmade silver or platinum print from a photographer whose work I really liked, and he invited me to examine and pick my favorite one from among the 50 he had made, I'd be delighted to do so. I'd jump at the chance. Though the photographer would have tried his best to make all 50 prints identical, I'd know that they could not be, and I'd be thrilled to have the chance to pick the one that most appealed to me. But if it were a digital print, I'd know that they were all indistinguishably identical, and there'd be no reason for me to look at each of the 50, or 5000, identical examples.

 

Content is what counts, alright, but it is not simply subject+vision. It's the whole ball of wax.

[saulius_eidukas]

Quoted from A World History of Photography by Naomi Rosenblum. In chapater 5 Titled Photography and Art: The First Phase 1839-1890

 

"From the maze of conflicting statements and heated articles on the subject, three main positions about the potential of camera art emerged. The simplest, entertained by many painters and a section of the public, was that photographs should not be considered "art" because they were made with a mechanical device and by physical and chemical phenomena instead of by human hand and spirit; to some, camera images seemed to have more in common with fabric produced by machinery in a mill than with handmade creations fired by inspiration....photographs would be useful to art but should not be considered equal in creativeness to drawing and painting."

 

Sounds a lot like the debate going on here. Of course photography now has a valid place in the art world and the fact that chemical and mechanical processes involved in the process does not necessarily make it non-art. So I believe one day digital photographs will find it's place and exceptance as an artform. History will some day give the final answer.

[e_m3]

>>Completely. Only silver prints and digital prints do not yield the same results. Silver prints, digital prints, platinum prints, book reproductions do not yield the same results. I cannot understand why you introduce a statement like that into this discussion unless, honestly, you do not see the differences and really do think all these things are the same. In which case, it really is impossible to discuss anything with you.<<<

 

Michael,

 

I agree with you. There is a difference between a real silver print and something digital. The problem is that Mr. Chow, in his original post, never said if he was making color or silver prints. When some mentions Ilfochrome and Light Jet, as he did, I assume they are working in color, and the world of color, in relation to digital, is a completely different game than B&W. There is a real color market in the US for those subjects that lend themselves well to color treatment. (Some things are much better in B&W.) To say, as one earlier posted said, that a Light Jet print is worth a bout 29 dollars is absurd. That's what really started this whole ball of wax. I would never want to impose the market rules for color on the B&W world. By the same token, B&W artists shouldn't assume that the standards of the collectors for their art are the same standards as collectors of other types of art.

[lex_jenkins]

E M wrote: "Yet in photography there is the cult of the 'first' print, which is more valuable than a lifetime print..."

 

I'll confess I'm not sure what this "lifetime" print is so I'll leave that one alone. But most photographers who make limited editions of their work charge *less* for the first printings. The prices go *up* as the edition sells out.

 

Presumably the reason for this is that as an edition sells out a buyer can have some assurance of having purchased an item that will appreciate in value. They're speculating that an item is no longer just a work of art but an investment as well.

 

Photographers who opt for this pricing strategy are taking a risk as well. On the one hand they're getting paid up front, and more as an edition sells out.

 

On the other hand, if they stick to their ethics and forego ever reprinting (or recreating) an image, no matter how financially enticing, they may be passing up the opportunity to continue to profit from that one special image that has captured the imagination of collectors and viewers by licensing the photo to be reproduced on posters, tee-shirts and coffee mugs.

 

BTW, anybody wanna see my limited edition tattoo of Lange's "Migrant Mother" on my left butt cheek? It's really boffo. Apparently the executor's of her estate were hard up for cash. If I ever need to recoup my investment I can just sell my ass on e*bay, right between the Iris and giclee reproductions.

[tim_atherton2]

"I agree with that. Completely. Only silver prints and digital prints do not yield the same results. Silver prints, digital prints, platinum prints, book reproductions do not yield the same results. I cannot understand why you introduce a statement like that into this discussion unless, honestly, you do not see the differences and really do think all these things are the same. In which case, it really is impossible to discuss anything with you."

 

So what about B&W digital lightjet/laser prints on silver gelatin paper (Baryt paper) ? I haven't seen one yet first hand yet, but I'm waiting to hear from a good photographer who is getting some test prints done. Hopefully this will be a very interesting new way to go.

 

Personally I wouldn't even see the need to say it is a "digital" print - it's photographic print on gelatin silver paper

[david_goldfarb]

I think the idea of Lightjet output to traditional B&W materials is interesting and could produce some great looking prints, but I suspect collectors will regard them as they do repros, and not as collectible fine prints. Ansel Adams used to offer high quality large format repros as a lower cost alternative to original fine prints. These were large format copies of original fine prints that could be easily reprinted by an assistant without any manipulation. Prints like _LensWork_ Special Editions are in this tradition--not really intended to be collectibles of high monetary value, but an accessible way of owning a very nice print.

[tim_atherton2]

I very much think you are wrong David - in the colour wolrd this is already so. There is no real reason it shouldn't be so for B&W (and I'm not talkign the "Fine Art Photogrpahy" world here, with it's funny little sets of rules)

 

tim

[david_goldfarb]

Indeed it is so in the color world, but B&W is a different world with its funny sets of rules and fetishes that determine how much people will pay for a print. I never said it was rational.

[tim_atherton2]

"Indeed it is so in the color world, but B&W is a different world with its funny sets of rules and fetishes that determine how much people will pay for a print. I never said it was rational."

 

LOL - true :-)

 

But that is only a certain sector. I have a feeling it's going to change.

 

BTW - just saw a Gursky went for $600,00.00 - who needs that funny old B&W anyway... ;-)

[david_goldfarb]

Gursky's work is impressive in person, but that's yet another set of rules and fetishes driving the price. It will be interesting to see how much they are worth when the frenzy settles down, irrespective of materials or process.

 

A little more seriously, I suspect that eventually there will be someone doing really interesting work with digital output to conventional B&W that couldn't be done in any other way, and there being no alternative form of the work, it will fetch a price that compares with traditional fine prints.

 

But for now, I think the repro comparison is true. I started a thread about the _LensWork_ special editions (these are silver prints from digital copy negs) over in the _LensWork_ forum, and according to Brooks Jensen, one of the reasons that those prints are made from a digital negative is so that the archival prints on conventional B&W paper can be easily identified as repros, of lesser value than original prints. Ansel's repros were made with conventional film, of course, and one of the problems this created was that they have sometimes been passed off as originals, because it is much harder to tell a good conventional repro from the original than it is a digital repro, which can be easily identified with a loupe.

[audidudi]

Re: the above comments, David Fokos sells B&W Lightjet prints for a decent sum -- the last time I checked, his 16"x16" prints started around $600 and his 36"x36" prints were something like $3600 -- but he prints them using a color process instead of B&W.

[sk_arts]

... just do what i do, price thing out rediculsly(sp) high, people will assume you are more valuable than you are...

 

I've sold plenty of pictures, you just need to b a good lyer!

 

(did you beleive me? I havn't sold anything yet)

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>Re: the above comments, David Fokos sells B&W Lightjet prints for a decent sum -- the last time I checked, his 16"x16" prints started around $600 and his 36"x36" prints were something like $3600 -- but he prints them using a color process instead of B&W.</i><p>

 

And they are beautiful, the one I saw was going for $1500 at the John Cleary Gallery. A beautiful work but then nobody would confuse it with a silver print. If you like this kind of work, you should also check David J Osborn, beautiful prints on Fuji crystal. I think the afterimage gallery still has some posted on their web site.

[geoffrey_swenson]

Luckily, this last part of the discussion turned into a more benign and intelligent exchange. I�ve never agreed with the �Funny set of rules of B&W� mentality, but it will remain just that�a funny set of rules!

 

The Image IS paramount even if some would like to turn �Content� into �Container� similarly to the reasoning behind �What the meaning of is�is�.

 

Nothing wrong with B&W, by the way, the trouble is with the zealots only, however, nothing wrong with progress either.