how to price prints

[d._kevin_gibson]

I don't tell people if my prints are Lightjets printed for me by a technician from a digital file or enlarger prints printed for me be a technician in the lab. They are just dye coupler/chromogenic prints - they don't need to know anything else. The printing is just a technical process I pay someone else to do to relieve the tedium of it.

 

People pay for the image, not the paper.

[lex_jenkins]

"People pay for the image, not the paper."

 

Actually, many collectors do value the paper, or whatever substrate is used. That's why Daguerrotypes bring a premium. And certain processes such as albumen, platinum/palladium and others will as well from knowledgable collectors. The image itself doesn't have to be outstanding for the entire piece to have considerable value to at least a niche market. And the entire market for fine art photography *is* a niche market.

[geoffrey_swenson]

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

 

YES!

[michael_chmilar]

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

 

You have to admit it is a good marketing strategy: Introduce a lower-priced version of your product; market it as somehow inferior to your high-priced, high-profit product; use that to justify the higher price on the high-margin product.

 

Lots of customers will want the high-priced product because they are sold on the concept that it has more value, or is more "collectible", and so on. You might also make some money on the low-priced product, but, even if you sell zero units, it has served its purpose.

 

Am I cynical or what? :-)

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>Lots of customers will want the high-priced product because they are sold on the concept that it has more value, or is more "collectible", and so on. You might also make some money on the low-priced product, but, even if you sell zero units, it has served its purpose.</i><p>

 

I think they make more money on the low priced product, when you consider the gallery take, the time spent doing the print etc, I am sure they will tell you it is more profitable to make the serial prints from a "perfect" neg a la Lens Work.<p>

 

Geoffrey, I am sure you are not a snob, so next time you submit your work to a gallery tell them you are doing ink jet prints and that you can make thousands the same....I am sure they will jump at the opportunity to show your work...:-))

[igor_johanson]

Photographs of living artists for 250.000, 650.000$ ?

Today I visited Sotheby's and saw Lichtensteins lithographs between 40.000 and 60.000 a piece and a pastel by Degas estimated at 8.000.000-12.000.000$.

 

I N S A N E!

(Remember the Crazy Eddy?)

[sjmurray]

I'm going to agree with Michael: Its all marketing. That said, if you want to make money with your photographs, learn to market yourself whatever medium you choose. If you make platinum prints, market that aspect, if you make large inkjet prints, market those. All these mediums have ways they can be effectively marketed. The debate between which is better, traditional prints or digital, is irrelevant. Its how well you market. I'm not even sure it has so much to do with how "good" your prints are. That's such a subjective area, and there are so many different genres you can target.

[mike_castles]

Just my 2 cents, some of you like digital - fine go for it and enjoy, others of us enjoy the traditional darkroom - we like it. Why does it always have to end in a debate - they are both art to someone, but I think the question got lost a little. I have the greatest respect for Michael and would listen to what advice he has to offer, and even if I disagree there is no reason to be hatefull. I think that the current wisdom of gallery owners, collectors, etc is that over all digital is not where traditional is - but then neither is color vs B&W. That is not an opinion, just where things stand today. Next week, next year this could all change - BUT aren't we all glad that at least photography is given more attention by the gallery owners, museums,etc than it used to be? Price your work based on given market for your work. Look at other work like your own, see what people are paying (not asking) for like work. Ask for and listen to the advice of people that have gone through the process...

 

But then that is still my 2 cents (or was that more like a dimes worth)

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>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><p>

 

That is a hand made <b>negative</b> not a hand made print....jeez, dont you know anything?...:-)

[kevin_kolosky]

Most of the answers here have been given by photographers who themselves either sell prints or wish they could sell prints. Although I am a photographer myself, I don't sell any prints, but have been known to buy one know and then, so I will speak from the perspective of a buyer.

 

First and foremost, I buy the image. Second, I buy the person who made the image, and third, I buy the material that the image was made on.

 

As someone else once said, they would buy a great image made by edward weston even if it was printed on a floor mat, and to tell you the truth, If I could buy Pepper #30 as printed by Mr. Weston on a floor mat I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

As for the price I would pay, money is no object in the valuation of the piece. I could certainly agree that an image was worth $100 or $1000 or $100,000. But my financial circumstances might limit me to only being able to afford $50.

 

Therefore, in direct answer to your question Jim, as you start out selling your prints, why not take a rather novel approach by attempting to see what people can afford to pay you for the print, and then charging them that much. Maybe not for a long period of time, but just to start. People may desire one of your prints very much, but may just not have the amount of money that you are asking for the print, and therefore may not buy it. Personally, if I were starting out I would much much much rather have people own my prints at a price they could afford rather than have nobody own my prints because I thought they were worth more than people could afford to pay. I am probably safe in stating that there can be absolutely no doubt that the monetary aspect of your photography is important to you but do not forget that there are other things that are very important as well, such as the internal pride that you might feel in knowing that others value your vision enough to want to trade their time (in the form of money) for your vision, and the internal pride in having communicated with another human being through a visual language.

 

Bottom line. Ask the person how much they value the print and sell it to them for that, and then see how you feel after awhile. If you feel you got the short end of the stick, raise your prices. If you feel good in what you did, or if you feel you want to reach a wider audience with your message, then keep your prices low for awhile until your name is better known, and then raise your prices.

 

Kevin

[jan_vandenbosh]

I agree that content is the key (Volquatz, Swenson)... the subject of content merits itself another long threat... but...

 

...but Mr Swenson, Sir, where I came from they don't teach Art based on "snobism"...they still teach hand drawing, watercolor, oil painting. woodcraft, music etc... they don't teach the students how to take a picture and redraw it, they don't teach scanning a photo a click on a photoshop watercolor filter, improvising a melody based on a few notes on computer and so on...

 

Mr Swenson, they don't teach Art based on ignorance of people. Too bad if people don't see the difference between a fiber based print and a machine print. There's no substitute for a real fiber base silver print or platinum print. If price is a concern for hanging something on a wall, then a poster will fit the bill... why bother..? it's big and cheap...

 

Mr Swenson, you may owned and tried a darkroom and disgusted by it or you may never own one... but calling the prints from darkroom "snobism" is too far...You are now satisfied what you do in photography, good for you...

 

Evolution, technology are good... they all serve their purposes... but pasting name on Art to people that doing it by their choice is not good. Back then in photography, what is "snobism" beside recording a scene on film and print it on paper...?

 

Mr Swenson, they teach me (and later I teach others) Art... now.. what will you call oil painting, water color, music composition ?

[martin_reekie]

WOW! Jim what a thread to start! It�s made some fantastic reading.

 

We are not really comparing apples with apples here. Indeed Andreas Gursky sells for huge amounts, as do Damian Hurst, Tracy Emin, et al. This is an all-together different market; it�s driven by hype fuelled by money, the desire to be famous and probably a few other things. The concept is the �thing� not the content or technique � it�s the packaging not the present.

 

What the majority of us here work to is the opposite, if nobody took an interest or purchased anything we would still work away and produce images. Many artists have worked this way and only become famous (and expensive) long after death. We don�t do it for the money, if someone likes what we do and wants to purchase, great.

 

The other side of this equation is the collector; again you can choose to compare apples with oranges. There are collectors like Charles Saatchi, lots of money and keen to promote whose �in�, to be �in� themselves. I�m not sure they purchase entirely out of love for the item. Art as an investment is possibly a higher motivation for some.

 

There are the institutional (like the Getty) and wealthy (like Elton John) collectors that just distort the market, they pay as much as it takes to get their Pepper #30.

 

There are also those who buy what they like and what they can afford. If it is �worthless� on the art market then that�s not a problem because the individual is happy and content living with the image on their wall. If it makes money, great but they probably wouldn�t sell anyway.

 

I�ll avoid the inkjet vs fine art print argument, the market will decide - no matter what we do!

[e_m3]

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? :)

That is a hand made negative not a hand made print....jeez, dont you know anything?...:-)

 

Jorge,

 

LOL My point was that at some point in the process you're going to be using mass produced materials. Insterting a 'hand made' process at the print stage instead of say the negative stage or some other stage is arbitrary at best. Why not value a print more if it was made from one of Ron Wisner's hand made view cameras and not a mass produced Toyo?

 

By the way, I"m still waiting for the name of photographer who makes a fine art print via digital methods, offers it to a gallery or perhaps has the work hanging in a gallery and then goes off and secrectly runs off 'thousands' of identical copies to flood the market! This is a straw man argument.

[geoffrey_swenson]

To put it simply, in a photograph only two things matter the content and the quality of the print, materials notwithstanding. To print via the traditional darkroom is very commendable. I did not say that was snobbish, for it is not by itself but to put down other processes because they are new and unfamiliar (or threatening) to you is. What is also snobbish is to base a pick between two photographs indistinguishable in materials and appearance and from the same photographer because one was printed by �easier� means. I am not talking posters here! The photograph is what you see, no more no less.

 

I agree that a rare print let�s say hand printed by Weston might worth millions, but that is not the photograph but the hype only. In the same vain, some people would pay hard cash for discarded underwear if it was worn by somebody famous.

 

 

Dedicated digital printing using the same exacting methods as the traditional methods are equally worthy of buying/collecting, not to mention that we like it or not digital will take over and then your now despised �Digital print� will have made a good investment. See some renowned practitioners carrier paths. Don�t you whish you could have bought an original AA for $15.00 and own it today?

You shouldn�t hang on too much on the paper and on other unimportant facets of photography, be interested mainly in the content. In my opinion, even the fame of the photographer is unimportant, content is!

 

Also don�t make a mistake to compare a photograph to a Rembrandt painting as high Art, because it is not. Photography is a time honored Craft with an artistic bend only.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>By the way, I"m still waiting for the name of photographer who makes a fine art print via digital methods, offers it to a gallery or perhaps has the work hanging in a gallery and then goes off and secrectly runs off 'thousands' of identical copies to flood the market! This is a straw man argument.</i><p>

 

I agree with you that at some time you will use mass produced items, painters use paint made by the cubic meter, watecolor paper is made in meter long pieces etc, the point is the individual attention that is paid to each an every print and it inherent subtle variations. <p>

 

I dont think anybody is saying as per your example that the artist will flood the market right away, only that any other prints made will be exactly the same and will require no additional effort other than to press the button. Right or wrong people are placing a premium on prints made one by one and are rewarding them with higher prices and greater demand. As Michael said, perhaps this is not the way it should be, or the way you would not wish it to be, but it is the reality and the way it is. <p>

 

After all, a hand made Ferrari still costs more than your mass produced Cadillac...even though both are nice cars and do exactly the same thing..no?

[joe_symchyshyn]

It's funny you know...

 

The digital guys get all bent out of shape because THEY think the traditional guys think what they do is cheating.

 

The traditional guys get all bent out of shape because they think the digital guys claim that the old ways don't matter anymore.

 

Get over yourselves! Yes it's the image that's important blah blah blah... We know that but we're talking about what the PUBLIC INTERPRETS as valueable work. I think the point that many people (including myself) are trying to make, but the digital guys aren't hearing is this...

 

Given the choice, the mass public (no not all the photographers that you hang around with) will buy something that they think was made by hand over something that was done digitally. That's it, end of story, sorry but it's true. It is also easily understood why hand made objects are priced at a premium.

 

In an age where people are doing more and more with computers and craftsmen in all fields are fading away, all objects made by hand (including photographs) will CONTINUE to have an intrisic value over objects of mass production. It doesn't matter if only one copy is made or thousands, the PERCEPTION is that it's a copy and not an original. And yes, we know that the negs is the original and any print is a copy BUT, that the artist hand pulled it does matter TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

[e_m3]

>>Given the choice, the mass public (no not all the photographers that you hang around with) will buy something that they think was made by hand over something that was done digitally. That's it, end of story, sorry but it's true. It is also easily understood why hand made objects are priced at a premium<<

 

I don't know what market you're thinking of when you make this statement, but it certainly isn't the case when it comes to color landscape photography that is sold in commercial galleries and by individuals in the Southwest.

[e_m3]

Joe,

 

I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that the public is wrong, if they are as dogmatic as you claim. The public used to think nothing of throwing everything away. Now we recycle. The public used to think going to college was a rare event. Now most people would like their children to attend school. The public used to think stocks would let them retire at 45. Now they realize they might have to actually work until 65. The public thinks a hand made optical color print is somehow worth more than a Light Jet print from a hand made file. ;) Fine. It's my right to attempt to change the ideas they hold in their head regarding this topic. What's wrong with that? As someone said, it comes down to marketing, a war of ideas, so to speak. This whole topic also depends on the market you're in. Chris Burkett prints optically. Alain Briot shoots 4x5 and prints digitally. Alain makes a living off of his prints. So, I presume, does Chris Burkett. What does that tell me about the general public? It tells me that if your good there's enough out there for both types of printing.

[michael_chmilar]

<I>We know that but we're talking about what the PUBLIC INTERPRETS as valuable work.</I>

 

<P>

This interpretation has been created by marketing. It can be changed by marketing forces in other directions.

[clayh]

Allow me to throw some more gasoline on this particular fire. Another reason that a

vintage 'hand-made' silver gelatin print may end up being more valuble than an inkjet

print is that it is printed by the artist a certain way at a certain point in time. Have you

seen the recent Ansel Adams show where they show the evolution of his printing style

over time on a few of his iconic images? For example, his "Wonder Lake, Mt. McKinley"

shot began life as a light, somewhat soft 'sea of grays' and later ended up being

printed as a much darker, much contrastier image. A collector may prefer one over

the other, but will know that the particular version he has represents a unique

interpretation at a specific point in time. Now, this could be done with an inkjet print,

to be sure, but will it? Collectors will pay more for perceived rarity, and face it, there

is no perceived rarity inherent in an inkjet print. Gursky and others get this

perceived rarity through limiting the number of prints they will produce. But they still

do not have that 'temporal fingerprint' that a hand produced print will exhibit.

 

In the print world, a hand colored Havell edition Audubon print from his (250 units

printed, I think) original portfolio is worth FAR MORE than a seemingly identical print

in the 1970's Abbeville edition. The content is indistinguishable without a 10x loupe.

But one is worth $10,000 and the other worth about $500. So you can say all you

want about content being the sole criterion, but it just ain't the case in the world of

collecting. What matters is rarity and provenance. Why do you think that photographic

print prices can jump when the artist dies: Ain't no more prints on their way that have

the artist's own vision incorporated in the printing.

 

Food for thought.

Clay

[joe_symchyshyn]

But rarity really isn't what drives price is it??

 

If it were, then the Ansel Adams print that he made the least of would be worth the most wouldn't it? Along this same line, wouldn't a neg that he never printed, but now there was 1 print skyrocket above all others because it is a one of a kind. I don't think so...

 

It's all marketing and the perceived value an object has. Limited editions are just that a set of prints in a limited quantity. Then after you buy the last print of the set, the photographer reprints an entire new set 1" larger and on a different paper and calls it new! Some limited edition...

 

Personally, I have a few limited edition prints out there, but I have far far more images that will never see the light of day. When all is said and done, those bad negs become the truly rare ones...

 

In the end I think we can all agree that for collecting images for pleasure, it really SHOULD be about something you love to look at!

[d._kevin_gibson]

"I agree that a rare print let�s say hand printed by Weston might worth

millions, but that is not the photograph but the hype only. In the same vain,

some people would pay hard cash for discarded underwear if it was worn by

somebody famous."

 

errr - I believe there are people who do... :-0

[e_m3]

Clay,

 

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.

 

Equipment also affects how your color Light Jet or Inkjet print will look based on time. A print from a particular brand of drum scan will be different than that from a Minolta or Nikon or Imacon scanner, or even a different drum scanner, say an earlier model from the late 80s and not the state of the art Heidelberg Tango. A scan from color negative will be different than from a chrome; and Kodak films have different color pallets than Fuji films. The gamut of Fuji Crystal Archive paper is different than the myriad types of Inkjet papers available. Epson's various sets of ink all have different gamuts and characteristics, much as a particular paper and developer from the 50s or 60s or 70s might have. And there is a wide variety of Ink Jet paper, not that any 3rd party papers are archival. So you do have a great deal of variation in contemporary color digital processes. If you didn't there would be no need for ICC profiles and the science of color management, not to mention the whole cottage industry of custom ICC profiles and 3rd party ink sets for custom prints.

 

Frankly, the emotional prejudice against digital color printing comes from the public's ignorance at the incredible amount of expertise needed to make beautiful prints. If everyone here were to write down all their knowledge, or teach a class and develop lesson plans, I think we would all be astonished at the amount of knowledge we have and would be required to teach. Because we tend to acquire digital knowledge little bits at at time we tend to believe that there's 'nothing' to a creamy, dreamy print, when in fact there is.

[clayh]

Of course, if the image isn't any good, it doesn't matter how rare it is. My point was

that, all other things being equal, a limited quantity, handmade contemporaneous

print will have a higher perceived value than an unlimited inkjet edition where every

print is identical. And the arists who increase the size 1" and declare a new edition

don't get away with that very long before people catch on and discount his

'cleverness'.

 

Clay

[d._kevin_gibson]

"Allow me to throw some more gasoline on this particular fire. Another reason

that a

vintage 'hand-made' silver gelatin print may end up being more valuble than an

inkjet

print is that it is printed by the artist a certain way at a certain point in

time. Have you

seen the recent Ansel Adams show where they show the evolution of his printing

style

over time on a few of his iconic images? For example, his "Wonder Lake, Mt.

McKinley"

shot began life as a light, somewhat soft 'sea of grays' and later ended up

being

printed as a much darker, much contrastier image. A collector may prefer one

over

the other, but will know that the particular version he has represents a unique

 

interpretation at a specific point in time. Now, this could be done with an

inkjet print,

to be sure, but will it? Collectors will pay more for perceived rarity, and

face it, there

is no perceived rarity inherent in an inkjet print. Gursky and others get this

perceived rarity through limiting the number of prints they will produce. But

they still

do not have that 'temporal fingerprint' that a hand produced print will

exhibit."

 

Not really correct - I know that when I go back to reprint a digital file I often decide to change it, along exactly the same lines as above. I know plenty of other photogrpahers who do the same. Sometimes the changes are subtle, sometimes substantial. And they most often ahve to do with a differing perception over time etc. I also print on different materials at different times. The point above is really more of a red herring.

 

So unless you are talking of a batch of prints all made at the same time, it's moot.