What should an exhibition print cost?
W. Warner
What should an exhibition print cost?
OK, now that we have the can of worms open, let's continue.
The subject of pricing a B&W print for sale as an object of art or decor,
not for its copyright value but as a possession, is always difficult to
articulate and to get good answers to. Nevertheless, it's interesting to
know the threshold beyond which the "average" person -- not the fine and
extraordinary people who read this group -- will balk and declare "it's
nice, but too much for me..."
Let's set a few boundaries:
a. Although some people are willing to pay $5,000.00 for a 4x5" platinum
contact print of a Paul Strand or Weston image, we are not talking about
those people, those images or those artists. We are talking about work
that is considered by the viewer to be aesthetically exemplary, but which
otherwise has nothing else going for it in the viewers mind -- no status,
no cachet, no fame, nothing other than "I like it, I want it."
b. Although the concept of the "limited edition" print has been stretched
to include more prints than most photographers would ever normally make of
an image, we are not talking about limited editions. We are talking just a
print, of high quality that the viewer wants to take home and put on the
wall because they like it.
So, what in the experience of those reading the group here is the price
you think someone would be willing to pay for a 16x20" mounted and signed,
silver-gelatin, archivally processed and toned print?
Not well if it was this it would be that, or if what was that it would be
this. Just what would you, or the "average" person as understood by you,
pay for that type of "object" based on nothing more than "I like it, I
want it"?
It will be interesting to average out the answers, and see if we all
should be pricing work based on the comparables of a new microwave or
camcorder, on sale of course... :)
======================================================================
William Warner Photography: http://www.wmwarner.com
Photography Workshop Guide: http://www.wmwarner.com/workshop.html
Photographer Print Clubs: http://www.wmwarner.com/printclub.html
======================================================================
dsf
W. Warner wrote:
>
> What should an exhibition print cost?
>
> you think someone would be willing to pay for a 16x20" mounted and
> signed, silver-gelatin, archivally processed and toned print?
dave
Jean-David Beyer
W. Warner wrote:
>
> What should an exhibition print cost?
>
> OK, now that we have the can of worms open, let's continue.
>
> The subject of pricing a B&W print for sale as an object of art or decor,
> not for its copyright value but as a possession, is always difficult to
> articulate and to get good answers to. Nevertheless, it's interesting to
> know the threshold beyond which the "average" person -- not the fine and
> extraordinary people who read this group -- will balk and declare "it's
> nice, but too much for me..."
>
> Let's set a few boundaries:
>
> a. Although some people are willing to pay $5,000.00 for a 4x5" platinum
> contact print of a Paul Strand or Weston image, we are not talking about
> those people, those images or those artists. We are talking about work
> that is considered by the viewer to be aesthetically exemplary, but which
> otherwise has nothing else going for it in the viewers mind -- no status,
> no cachet, no fame, nothing other than "I like it, I want it."
>
> b. Although the concept of the "limited edition" print has been stretched
> to include more prints than most photographers would ever normally make of
> an image, we are not talking about limited editions. We are talking just a
> print, of high quality that the viewer wants to take home and put on the
> wall because they like it.
>
> So, what in the experience of those reading the group here is the price
> you think someone would be willing to pay for a 16x20" mounted and signed,
> silver-gelatin, archivally processed and toned print?
>
> Not well if it was this it would be that, or if what was that it would be
> this. Just what would you, or the "average" person as understood by you,
> pay for that type of "object" based on nothing more than "I like it, I
> want it"?
>
> It will be interesting to average out the answers, and see if we all
> should be pricing work based on the comparables of a new microwave or
> camcorder, on sale of course... :)
>
In the words of (I believe) Colis Huntington, one of the founders of the
Central Pacific Railroad, "All the traffic will bear." And around here, the
traffic will bear fairly little. I try to sell prints through a local
gallery where mine are displayed. While many of the people in the area are
fairly affluent, those who buy "fine-art" would never think of purchasing
art work locally, but deal almost exclusively with more prestigeous galleries
in New York City (about 50 miles from here).
Also, no one ever heard of me. My gallery, that shows mostly oil and acrylic
paintings, water colors, pastels, and a little sculpture, charges 33%
commission (which is actually a bit low for a commercial gallery). With
that in mind, I ask $200 for an 11x14 mounted on a 16x20 mat, overmatted,
framed with glass. They get $67, and I get $133. (They deal with the sales
tax, but I have to pay income tax to IRS and the state.) I have arbitrarily
decided I want $100 after expenses, and when you include the paper, dry-mount
tissue, 2 mat boards, a frame, and the glass and picture wire, some chemistry
and hot and cold water, you are pretty close to $25. $13 is not really enough
allowance for the taxes. I never recover anything for the cost of the
equipment and nothing for the speculative investment in the negatives.
Note that I think this is relatively cheap as professional "fine-art" people
I know are getting around $1000/print. But they are well-known and have
monographs of their work already published. OTOH, at this price, I have never
succeeded in selling a photograph although people tell me they are "very
nice" and "wish I could have one like that." Outside the gallery, I have sold
similar prints for $135, but probably average around one a year. (I do not
market them aggressively, but doubt it would help much.)
If by 16x20 print you mean one on that size paper, I guess I would mount it
on 22x28 and charge $280 (i.e., $10/inch on the longest side, an arbitrary
formula that comes out with numbers about what I want).
A friend who I consider about as good a photographer as I consider myself,
and who has worked at it longer and spends more time at it, charges about
half what I do. As far as I know, he sells very little as well. People around
here seem to think if they can make pictures with their point-and-shoots for
around $0.50 a print, that they should not have to pay more for those taken
by someone else.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Nicholas O. Lindan
W. Warner wrote:
>
> What should an exhibition print cost?
>
I charge $165 to the customer for an 11x14, FB, ragboard, aluminum frame
and glass.
At this price I sell maybe 2-3 a year, and usually at Christmas.
I have found exhibiting in community theatres to be profitable - usually
if you decorate their lobby for them with your photos you can sell w/o
commision.
Also good luck at church art shows and a co-op gallery located on the
local campus, though I think you have to be an alumn for that.
I think demand is pretty inelastic. I do not think my sales would
increase if I dropped the price to $60. I have never tried this
exercise, though I would like to. If prices are elastic then it would
make sense to take a high-school student as an apprentice for the
summer, have them do the post-enalrger steps of the work, building up
one year's inventory for sale.
Nick Lindan
Lloyd Erlick
sep19/97 from Lloyd Erlick,
We must be neighbours! People around here are the same!!
--le
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>People around
>here seem to think if they can make pictures with their point-and-shoots for
>around $0.50 a print, that they should not have to pay more for those taken
>by someone else.
>--
>Jean-David Beyer
>Shrewsbury, New Jersey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lloyd Erlick, 357 Richmond Street West, Toronto m5v1x3 Canada, voice416-596-8751, ll...@the-wire.com, http://www.heylloyd.com
Jean-David Beyer
silver wrote:
>
> Jean-David Beyer wrote in article <342263E7...@exit109.com>...
>
> >W. Warner wrote:
> >>
> >> What should an exhibition print cost?
> >>
> >framed with glass. They get $67, and I get $133.
>
> >on 22x28 and charge $280 (i.e., $10/inch on the longest side, an arbitrary
> >formula that comes out with numbers about what I want).
> >
> about $2,500:00 to $3,600.00.
>
> What did surprise me was the general just so so quality of the prints.
That is why Stieglitz would not give H.C.-B. a one-man show at An American
Place, or whatever gallery he was running at the time. He insisted C-B
make better prints, but C-B thought that was silly, since they were made
for printing in books, not on photopaper for hanging on walls... .
> The
> reproductions at about $50:00 were spot on when compared to the originals.
>
> If you are not going to sell many anyway, why not vary the prices.
>
> Try selling a couple at $1,200:00 and generally up all prices. What do you
> have to lose?
I think my prints are worth $200, even though the buying public does not.
If I asked for $1,200 I would surely not sell any, but at $200, I might.
>
> JS
Patrick Bartek
>What should an exhibition print cost?
>[lots snip]
>So, what in the experience of those reading the group here is the price
>you think someone would be willing to pay for a 16x20" mounted and signed,
>silver-gelatin, archivally processed and toned print?
>Not well if it was this it would be that, or if what was that it would be
>this. Just what would you, or the "average" person as understood by you,
>pay for that type of "object" based on nothing more than "I like it, I
>want it"?
You asked for the price the "average" person would pay? The "average" person
does not buy fine art photography. At any price. The "average" person
doesn't even consider photography art or photographers artists. Only
collectors, the educated affluent, and other photographers buy fine art
photography. Mr Joe Average thinks, naively and arrogantly, that he can do
as well just because he has an expensive camera; so why BUY a picture? Now,
painting is a totally different thing! It takes talent and years of practice
to become a painter. All photography is is just point and shoot, and you
have a picture. Anybody can do that. And that's just what Kodak has been
telling people for years. If you buy this camera and film, you too can take
beautiful pictures. It's so easy anybody can do it! You don't even have to
know anything! Got the idea? You're fighting brainwashing. And you'll loose
every time.
The only exception is if you are a person of some renown (at least to Joe
Average, anyway) like an athlete or actor or some celebrity. You don't even
have to be a good shooter, just well known, to sell you pictures.
I was at a photo-trade show in Los Angeles in June, and Leonard Nimoy (the
actor from Star Trek) was promoting his fine art b&w nudes. They were nicely
presented: framed and matted, full frame 35mm; however, they were overly
grainy and soft without meaning to be. Some suffered from camera movement
during exposure; and all had very shallow depth of field. The lighting was
marginal, and they lacked impact. They looked like first year student work.
But his studio is in Beverly Hills, and I'm sure he'll sell a lot. Not
because of the quality or originality, but for who is. I didn't bother to
ask for prices.
Of course, just because someone is in show business, doesn't mean he (or
she) is a lousy photographer. Kenny Rogers, the singer, is a photographer of
professional caliber. I met him some years ago. He has gone to great lengths
over the years to educate himself in photo-technique. His portraits on a 8 x
10 camera are top rate.
But to your question. Price? A long time friend of mine Gary Adams was a
very, very talented large format, landscape photographer. (He died a few
years ago of cancer.) Early in his career, he wanted to attend Ansel Adams'
Yosemite Workshop, an invitation only seminar limited to 12 persons. Ansel
Adams, after seeing his portfolio, not only sent him the cherished
invitation, but when he found out that Gary, a poor college student,
couldn't even afforded the room and board, let alone the seminar fee, paid
for everything, just so a talent wouldn't go to waste. Gary, even at his
peak, never charged more than about $75.00 for an 8 x10 b&w contact print,
mounted and matted. Others of the same caliber, charged $125. For a 16 x 20,
I think he charged $225. But he was not selling to the average Joe. So,
don't think you can make a living off of fine art photography alone. Gary
didn't. He had his doctorate in physiology and sports medicine, specializing
in cardiac rehabilitation. He use to say he was a photographer in his heart,
but medicine paid the bills.
So, consider it an avocation, that in good times breaks even. If fine art
photography were all that lucrative, the landscape would be lousy with
tripods and 8 x 10 cameras. The masses aren't that interested in
photography, except on birthdays, holidays and vacations. Stick with
marketing to the collectors. At least, you'll get what your work is worth;
and maybe a little more.
Good luck.
---
Patrick Bartek
bar...@skylink.net
http://www.skylink.net/~bartek
Ray N. Young
Lee Carmichael wrote:
>
> Jay Wenner wrote:
> >
> > : W. Warner wrote:
> > : > What should an exhibition print cost?
> >
> > A lot of photographers will piss and moan about noone buying prints.
> > Let me ask, as someone who appreciates fine art, how many prints have
> > you bought in the last 2 years? How many cost over $100. I'll bet
> > 99.9% of you say 0. How many of you have purchased photo greating
> > cards, post cards, or calanders? I'll bet 99% of you have purchased the
> > later.
> >
> > If you go to art fairs, what I've found is that loads of people will
> > drop $5 and $10, and quite a few will drop $25-35. Very few will spend
> > $300. So the trick is to come up with a photo product that's easy
> > to make and that you can sell in the $5-35 range.
> >
> > I have a buddy who's doing very well selling photographs since he's
> > been able to hit this market. Every once in is while he'll have a
> > someone (often a business) who'll buy some large printes, but the
> > bread and butter is made by selling a little bit to many people
> > rather than a lot to a few people.
> >
> > Jay Wenner
> This is always a "sticky wicket", this pricing issue. I think the
> problem is getting the photos into the right audiences. I ahve
> certainly had better "luck" asking large sums of money in shows where I
> was not the only artist and it was not a "craft-type" shop, but a well
> known local gallery. I see some of the better known local photographers
> sold at higher prices because the gallery and the photographer split the
> money. I cannot imagine a photograph of mine selling for less than
> $200.00. However, having said that, I recently donated a 16x20 matted
> and framed (my usual size) print to a artist relief fund group (called
> ESAL). It sold in the silent auction for $150.00. Now, is that the
> price I should ask or are there other conciderations at work here?
>
> My buddy Ken says the hell with the selling and get on with the
> shooting. Let God sort out all the rest of it. Maybe we should just not
> worry about the price and work our butts off trying to create images
> that are worthy of selling. I, for one, am starting to move in that
> direction. Less shows and more shooting. Less safe images. It has
> only taken 32 years to come to that opinion.
>
> As usual,
> Lee Carmichael
I started selling my work at street fairs and photo shows in San
Francisco in the late 70's. The only way I was able to keep the costs
down was to do the Ciba prints myself, cut my own mats and got the
Neilson frames wholesale. At that time I charged $35 for 8x10 matted
and framed to 11x14, $50 for 11x14 (framed to 16x20) and $75 for 16x20.
These were archival quality Ciba prints, but try to explain that to
someone at a street fair that sees 8x10 prints at Fishermans wharf for 5
bucks.
I stopped doing street fairs when it stopped being fun (after about 4
years) and there were 4 or 5 photographers every block. I was glad I
didn't have to make a living that way. At every show or fair other
photographers asked me who did my printing and a lightbulb went off in
my head - "Why should I be competing with these other photographers when
I could be selling to them." and started making my living printing
commercially.
I still sell prints - I have a small gallery in my lab, and of course
the prices have inflated since then. I charge $85-$100 for 11x14 matted
and framed and $125-$150 for 16x20 - still very affordable by most
standards, but I'm still able to keep my expenses down by doing it all
myself. Of course galleries double that price.
Ray
http://www.photogenesis.com
"Custom ptints from slides since 1978"
silver
Jean-David Beyer wrote in article <342263E7...@exit109.com>...
>W. Warner wrote:
>>
>> What should an exhibition print cost?
>>
>that in mind, I ask $200 for an 11x14 mounted on a 16x20 mat, overmatted,
>framed with glass. They get $67, and I get $133.
>If by 16x20 print you mean one on that size paper, I guess I would mount it
>on 22x28 and charge $280 (i.e., $10/inch on the longest side, an arbitrary
>formula that comes out with numbers about what I want).
>
I recently attended an exhibition of Cartier Bresson's. Prices ranged from
about $2,500:00 to $3,600.00.
What did surprise me was the general just so so quality of the prints. The
reproductions at about $50:00 were spot on when compared to the originals.
If you are not going to sell many anyway, why not vary the prices.
Try selling a couple at $1,200:00 and generally up all prices. What do you
have to lose?
JS
Jay Wenner
: W. Warner wrote:
: > What should an exhibition print cost?
A lot of photographers will piss and moan about noone buying prints.
Jean-David Beyer
silver wrote:
>
> >I think my prints are worth $200, even though the buying public does not.
> >If I asked for $1,200 I would surely not sell any, but at $200, I might.
> >Shrewsbury, New Jersey
>
> the best intentions in the world, suggest you do a part time marketing and
> business course. people just don't have those sorts of buying habits.
>
I do not believe you mean disrespect. I doubt a marketing and business course
would do me any good, since I do not choose to make the effort to sell my
work any further than to exhibit at a local gallery (where I have sold nothing)
and to my acquaintances, where I sell about one print a year. It may be that I
overrate the quality and value of my work, and a business course will not
improve the quality of my work. But I know photographers with what the art
world considers to have more talent than I have, and they seem to sell their
personal work for around $1000/print. But one teaches photography at a well-
known college, and the other does commercial advertizing, to pay the bills.
They have both published at least one photographic monograph, which, at least
as far as publicity is concerned, is one step in marketing that I have not
taken. I doubt the people around here will buy more of my work no matter how
many courses I take. They do not seem to buy work around here: they seem to
prefer to buy it in New York City.
silver
>I think my prints are worth $200, even though the buying public does not.
>If I asked for $1,200 I would surely not sell any, but at $200, I might.
>Jean-David Beyer
>Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Absolutely no disrespect JB but if you have some spare time, might I, with
the best intentions in the world, suggest you do a part time marketing and
business course. people just don't have those sorts of buying habits.
JS
Lee Carmichael
Roy Harrington
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> Lee Carmichael wrote (in part):
> >
> > My buddy Ken says the hell with the selling and get on with the
> > shooting. Let God sort out all the rest of it. Maybe we should just not
> > worry about the price and work our butts off trying to create images
> > that are worthy of selling. I, for one, am starting to move in that
> > direction. Less shows and more shooting. Less safe images. It has
> > only taken 32 years to come to that opinion.
> >
>
> more per square inch than I do, my work is considered poor in quality
> by the public (if he charges so little, it cannot be any good). But if I
> charge more, no-one buys. There is no happy medium. I must either become
> a much more pro-active aggressive marketer of my work, or reconcile myself
> to not selling. I have so far chosen the latter.
> --
> Jean-David Beyer
> Shrewsbury, New Jersey
This has been a very interesting thread. I too have been doing a
very small amount of selling. I basically make two sizes of prints
11x14 print on 16x20 board, over-mat, and aluminum frame and
16x20 print on 22x28 board, over-mat, and aluminum frame.
My first gallery displays were (and still are) in a gallery in
the mountains at a summer camping and boating vacation area.
This is very unsophisticated area although people come from all
over. I priced at $95 and $145 based on other stuff there.
BTW, the gallery takes 40% but that really is irrelevant to the
buyers. I really can't begrudge them for that since they provide
the place and the people and the exposure I couldn't get otherwise.
Of course at this price it basically just pays for materials
and IRS.
Anyway the first summer I sold quite a few -- 12 or so with
about half one particular image which has a particular
relevance to the area. I also had the advantage that I was the
only B&W photographer at the time. Subsequent years have
actually tapered down, I think the area is mainly people
to come back every year since they were kids. Also, the pictures
that have sold there are mainly simply "vacation memories" type
images, the more art-like images don't sell much. The
tapering off is probably also due to my reluctance to shoot
the "vacation memory" shots. BTW, when picking up my pictures
on labor day I spoke for a while with one of the ladies who
works there trying to get a feel for what sold. There's another
photographer who does color work which I think he prints himself.
I get the impression he's been doing it for years and every
year its the same images. The pictures range from random
point-n-shoot stuff to mediocre and some of the colors are
way off, but they are dirt cheap and show the lake and boats etc.
Apparently, they sell a fair amount of the $35 5x7's and 8x10's.
I'll probably keep displaying my stuff there but I'm sure
not betting on sales.
At the other end of my spectrum for now, I'm a member of a
local (San Francisco Bay Area) cooperative gallery with all
kinds of art. I'd guess this is something Jean-David's. Here,
I've priced at $95 to $150 for the 11x14 and $165 to $250 for
the 16x20. I've had the same dilemma as JDB -- you feel like
if you charge less you're not as good. Bottom line -- no
sales in the last year and a half. However I have sold
several to friends and acquaintances directly and I give them
two for the price of one (the top price). I get my first
one-man show there in Jan 1998 with all the marketing I
want to do. This will be the big test for me. We'll see.
BTW, this scenario seems pretty typical for the gallery.
One lady painter there had a show early this year and it was
just about a sell out -- just amazing. I was talking with her
and found out that in the 20 years at the gallery she has
only sold work there at her one-woman shows, never when there's
just one image on the wall. Its also interesting that the
pottery/sculpture art sells much more regularly than any wall
art. Cheaper may be part of it, but I think there's more to it.
I guess I've rambled on enough.
Thanks.
Roy
--
Roy Harrington
r...@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
Arved Grass
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>...when you include the paper, dry-mount
> tissue, 2 mat boards, a frame, and the glass and picture wire, some chemistry
> and hot and cold water, you are pretty close to $25.
How do you keep your costs so low? I went into a framing shop to have
an 8x10 framed, and the price quoted was $53. This was for a single mat
(over the print) - double mat would have been more expensive yet! I did
splurge for a real wood frame and non-glare glass (the wood frame itself
was about $20). FWIW, just the dry-mounting of the print was $7.
I guess I have to learn how to do mounting and framing myself.
- Arved
--
Electronic mail sent to this account are automatically retreived by a
FAX machine, under the definition of Title 47 USC Sec.227 (a)(2)(B).
Therefore, unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address
is in violation of Title 47 USC Sec. 227.
Arved can be reached at "ar...@Fair.Net" and Anna can be reached at
"Yoda...@Juno.Com"
Jean-David Beyer
Lee Carmichael wrote (in part):
>
> My buddy Ken says the hell with the selling and get on with the
> shooting. Let God sort out all the rest of it. Maybe we should just not
> worry about the price and work our butts off trying to create images
> that are worthy of selling. I, for one, am starting to move in that
> direction. Less shows and more shooting. Less safe images. It has
> only taken 32 years to come to that opinion.
>
I used to do this. Too many people ask for them and at first I was too
busy printing. I raised my prices form $0.00 to $25.00 when I noticed that
the people with my prints would spill coffee on them, let them get torn,
put thumb tacks through the mats, etc. Charging $25 cut down on the printing
time (less people wanted to pay for them), and those that I did sell got
treated with some respect.
Jean-David Beyer
Arved Grass wrote:
>
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> >...when you include the paper, dry-mount
> > tissue, 2 mat boards, a frame, and the glass and picture wire, some chemistry
> > and hot and cold water, you are pretty close to $25.
>
> How do you keep your costs so low?
I used to even sell them dry mounted, but not over matted or framed for that
in 1974, I would not want to do it these days as it would amount to giving
the things away free.
I do it all myself. I buy the frames and mat board and tissue from Light
Impressions (not the cheapest, but extremely high quality). I buy the glass
from a local glass shop (run by a friend of mine, but he does not give it to
me). I do not use no-glare (slightly frosted) glass because it degrades the
appearance of the image, and the optically coated stuff is too expensive.
Frame 16" $4.00
Frame 20" $5.00
Hanger kit $1.00
Mat board 16x20 $2.67
Over mat16x20 $2.67
Tissue 11x14 $0.40
Photo Paper 11x14$1.74
Glass 16x20 $5.00 (If I remember right)
Wire $0.10 (approximately)
--------------------------------------------
Total $22.58 (if I added rightly)
Perhaps I used 2.42 of electricity and chemicals and hot and cold water, right?
So I would have to charge $37.60 in my local gallery just to break even.
> I went into a framing shop to have
> an 8x10 framed, and the price quoted was $53.
Sounds reasonable to me. They are entitled to recover time, materials, and
overhead, as well as a return on their investment.
> This was for a single mat
> (over the print) - double mat would have been more expensive yet! I did
> splurge for a real wood frame and non-glare glass (the wood frame itself
> was about $20). FWIW, just the dry-mounting of the print was $7.
I mat an 8x10 on 14x17 or 14x18, depending on the image. Then one over mat.
I do not like double over mats myself: I wish to show my images, not my skill
as a framer*. (Though I try to be neat.) I dry mount and frame my stuff myself
partly to save money (after the initial cost of the press is recovered, if
it ever is), and partly so as to get it as I want. I find it easier to do it
myself than to tell someone else how I want it done. Same as having custom
prints made. I would consider custom prints only for sizes too large to do
myself, or if I wanted only one and did not want to take the trouble to
mix up chemistry, etc., for just one print.
>
> I guess I have to learn how to do mounting and framing myself.
>
Good idea. Buy some cheap mat board to practice on. It has two advantages to the
good stuff. 1.) It is cheaper. 2.) It is crummier and harder to cut straight.
Once you can do the cheap stuff, it will be easier with the good stuff. BTY,
cheap mat board may not be archival, so do not put anything good on it. It would
be unfair to a customer to sell any of it either.
___
* I have never seen photographs with double mats in galleries such as the
Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the Art Institute of
Chicago. At sidewalk craft fairs, I do. Where I do see a lot of multiple
(not always only double) matting is with pastels and water colors, or some
oil paintings.
W. Warner
In article <3425E0...@fair.net>, Arved Grass
<arved-sp...@fair.net> wrote:
>How do you keep your costs so low? I went into a framing shop to have
>an 8x10 framed, and the price quoted was $53. This was for a single mat
>(over the print) - double mat would have been more expensive yet! I did
>splurge for a real wood frame and non-glare glass (the wood frame itself
>was about $20). FWIW, just the dry-mounting of the print was $7.
>
>I guess I have to learn how to do mounting and framing myself.
I would complain about the outrageous prices charged by farming shops, but
then framing shops would complain about the outrageous prices charged by,
well, you know... :)
A 16x20 rag-cotton mat board costs about $2.00 per sheet in 25 sheet
packs, a cheap mat cutter about $50.00, and the big item is of course the
dry mount press. But after that, and if you use corners instead of dry
mounting, there's nothing to it. There are several mailorder sources for
metal frames at about $10 per 16x20 set.
w.
Richard Knoppow
Roy Harrington <r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>
>> Lee Carmichael wrote (in part):
Long thread snipped....
>
>I guess I've rambled on enough.
>Thanks.
>Roy
>
>--
>Roy Harrington
>r...@harrington.com
>Black & White Photography Gallery
>http://www.harrington.com
>
You have some really interesting stuff on your site!
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Arved Grass
Jay Wenner wrote in article <601j8a$q...@epx.cis.umn.edu>...
>: W. Warner wrote:
>: > What should an exhibition print cost?
>
>A lot of photographers will piss and moan about noone buying prints.
>Let me ask, as someone who appreciates fine art, how many prints have
>you bought in the last 2 years? How many cost over $100. I'll bet
>99.9% of you say 0. How many of you have purchased photo greating
>cards, post cards, or calanders? I'll bet 99% of you have purchased the
>later.
Hmmm. You have a point there. The advantage of those mediums is that they
"expire." Very few people hold onto old calanders because they like the
prints (and I've been guilty of this, too, although I've held onto a few),
and a new year is a need for a new calendar.
Trouble is, I don't see how an individual can print up 12 8x10 images on at
least 11x14 paper (to have room for a minimalist calendar), sell it for $6
(so the store can make it's 40% profit when they sell it at $10), and still
think the effort is worth it.
I don't think I'll give up my day job...
- Arved
John Youngblood
Roy & JDB,
I've sold prints in most of the ways mentioned and have observed that
without outside corroboration in the form of publications or write-ups
in journals prices don't often get much beyond the cost of production.
One suggestion I would make, however, is to get work in auctions. You
can get a very solid indication of purchasing inclinations, at least
from the market represented at that event. I've participated in a few
and it can be sobering as well as informative, and sometimes
encouraging.
John Youngblood
Roger Cole
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:58:29 -0400, "Arved Grass" <Arved.~SpamMeNot~@fair.net>
wrote:
You couldn't, if you printed every calender on photo paper. But if you printed
only one edition on photo paper, and had the calender run off on a press by the
gross, then the economics become a different matter. So does the printing, as
you would need to print that edition for best results when reproduced on an ink
press.
I'm not saying this is what one should do, but it does have its merits.
Roger Cole
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------31E2C0B5ED1307C1EFE82074
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Arved Grass wrote:
>
> Jay Wenner wrote in article <601j8a$q...@epx.cis.umn.edu>...
>
> >: W. Warner wrote:
> >: > What should an exhibition print cost?
> >
> >A lot of photographers will piss and moan about noone buying prints.
> >Let me ask, as someone who appreciates fine art, how many prints have
> >you bought in the last 2 years? How many cost over $100. I'll bet
> >99.9% of you say 0. How many of you have purchased photo greating
> >cards, post cards, or calanders? I'll bet 99% of you have purchased the
> >later.
>
> Hmmm. You have a point there. The advantage of those mediums is that they
> "expire." Very few people hold onto old calanders because they like the
> prints (and I've been guilty of this, too, although I've held onto a few),
> and a new year is a need for a new calendar.
>
Well, I have bought a couple of dozen prints, from $40 up to $300. Yet I still
moan about no one buying my prints. I do not piss about it, though. ;-)
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------31E2C0B5ED1307C1EFE82074
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------31E2C0B5ED1307C1EFE82074--
John Youngblood
Lee,
If one is enjoying a fairly steady run of purchases through some
outlet, then one can experiment with pricing and observe what effects
can be achieved. Its not necessarily true that more sales are produced
by lower prices, for instance, as some credibility can be lost in this
most subjective of exercises. I tend to think some humility is
appropriate (in many things) and only if the demand is really strong
should the stiff pricing be considered.
I attended an auction last weekend of many types of art and noted that
none of the photographs went for much over $200, except one platinum
that was expensively framed and was of the Golden Gate Bridge, a very
popular subject. I tend to think that, without a strong reputation, not
to mention a very strong level of craft, your not going to find many
photographs exceeding the $200 range, regardless of size.
I guess it was Arved Grass who raised the very good question concerning
what amount of art purchases have we made, those of us who would express
disappointment in the weakness of the photo art market. The simple fact
is that to break away from the pack and to start to have some career
movement, you have to have some very good work that is recognized as
being so by some important figures in the art world. There may have been
a time when marginally committed practitioners could easily gather some
income with some esoteric kind of photography, but those days are long
gone.
John Youngblood
Lee Carmichael
converstation. This guy was (I guess he is) a painter. It was this
fellow's contention was that one needs to establish a base price for the
art work. If one has, oh say, five sales that were an average of
$500.00, then the price is $500.00. The problem is getting five sales
of $500.00.
As I recently posted, in this same thread, I gave a print (16x20 b/w
matted and framed) to an artist support group for a charity auction. I
have always had a high opinion of my artistic ablility and have, for the
last year or so, asked $250.00, for my prints (matted 16x20 but
unframed). This particular print sold for $150.00. Did she get a good
deal? Or, do I have an unreal grasp of what my prints are worth? I am
rethinking my position on how much to ask for my prints.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
Richard J. Fateman
In article <34312e00...@news.usit.net>, Roger Cole <rc...@usit.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:02:37 -0700, Lee Carmichael <cl...@flash.net> wrote:
> Why, then, should the
>larger print sell for any more than $10 over the cost of the smaller one,
>assuming an unframed print?
In my experience a 16x20 print takes more than 4 times as
much time to handle than 4 (identical) 8x10s.
There is a larger chance of spoilage, and the increased enlargement
may make it necessary to do more spotting. Defects are more apparent.
You also need more space and larger sizes of everything (trays,
washers, enlarger columns etc).
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/
Roger Cole
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:02:37 -0700, Lee Carmichael <cl...@flash.net> wrote:
[snip]
>As I recently posted, in this same thread, I gave a print (16x20 b/w
>matted and framed) to an artist support group for a charity auction. I
>have always had a high opinion of my artistic ablility and have, for the
>last year or so, asked $250.00, for my prints (matted 16x20 but
>unframed). This particular print sold for $150.00. Did she get a good
>deal? Or, do I have an unreal grasp of what my prints are worth? I am
>rethinking my position on how much to ask for my prints.
>As usual,
>Lee Carmichael
To take a slightly tangential direction, why should a large print cost much more
than a small one? A 16x20 piece of paper costs perhaps four times the cost of
an 8x10 - assuming very expensive paper, say Elite, B&H sell 100 sheets of 8x10
for $80.95 or $0.81/sheet. 16x20 they sell for $149.95/50 sheets or roughly
three dollars each, not quite a four-fold increase, and a difference of $2.19.
More chemistry is used, and it costs more to mount, but it still should cost
more than maybe $10 more to produce a 16x20 than an 8x10. Why, then, should the
larger print sell for any more than $10 over the cost of the smaller one,
assuming an unframed print?
I first saw this point brought up by David Vestal in his (then) D&CCT column,
and the idea felt like someone twisted my head around backwards and said, "look
at the world like this for a while." The art world often demands large works,
even when a given image would be better served in a smaller size. But there is
really no reason for it to be so. Maybe it originated with painting, where I
imagine producing a large painting takes a lot more time and trouble than a
small one. In photography, however, it takes exactly the same amount of time if
you have the equipment, and just a small amount more money. It might be harder
to handle the larger paper, but it is also often easier to dodge/burn etc. on a
large print.
Just some food for thought.
Roger Cole
Nicholas O. Lindan
Roger Cole wrote:
>
> To take a slightly tangential direction, why should a large print cost much more
> you have the equipment, and just a small amount more money. It might be harder
> to handle the larger paper, but it is also often easier to dodge/burn etc. on a
> large print.
Gaaaag.
Now, I don't make 16x20. I make 8x10, 11x14 and 20x24 for sale. There
is, to me, a hell of a difference in the amount of effort required
between these sizes.
8x10's I can make in my sleep. Easy to dodge. Easy to wash. Easy to
mount. Easy to spot. Not too heavy when mounted, mated and framed. I
almost never drop them. If I do, new glass is usually all I need to get
them back into shape again.
When I get to 20x24 I figure there is 8 to 12 man-hours in each ready to
hang print. I don't know about your darkroom, but 6 20x24 trays take up
a lot of room in mine: half the trays have to be on the floor, set down
on visqueen sheeting. Handling the wet paper is a trip. Spotting
requires a stereoscopic traveling micrscope and the patience of Job.
Takes 6 passes through my press to get them mounted. Wreck the mat
board, and I'm out a whole sheet of 100% rag. The glass weighs a ton.
Getting it all put together without a dust ball/hair/insect/thumbprint
trapped under the glass takes two or three tries. The whole thing needs
to backed with plywood or heavy foam core to keep it from warping. The
hanging wire is suitable for 1000ft. span suspension bridges. Take
photo to enough exhibits and I am bound to drop the damn thing in the
parking lot -- bang -- crash -- tinkle -- cut -- and I start all over
again.
I think that like sail boats, buildings and all things of true value and
substance the cost of production, and hence the selling price, goes by
the cube of the largest dimension - for photos that's the diagonal.
Things are priced by mass, not length or area.
Are large prints worth making, I don't know. I have never sold one.
But I have them hanging around my house. They make much better wall
decoration, easily worth the cost involved, than they would as 8x10's or
11x14's. And I agree with Vestal, images work best in the best size for
them. Heck, I got lots and lots and lots of shots that are best as
contact proofs: any enlargement and they'd only look much worse!
I bought a bunch of 8x10 and 11x14 Ansel Adams prints about 20 years
ago. Visitors to my house, however, go to the large prints first. They
go last to the wall with the collection of small Adam's prints.
I don't look at my work as art. I look at it as wall decoration.
Modern kitsch, if you will. I wish I could convince my prospective
customers of this viewpoint. I go to a frame shop and there is lots of
stuff selling in the $300-400 range. I think it looks awfull -- droll
prints of tigers peering out of bamboo. People buy it because they know
it is not art. If its art and its $300 then people feel antsy because
they 'don't know art.' If it's decoration then any purchase is
defensible with the justification that it's 'what I like.'
Well, my photos are 'what I like' and I make them in the 'size I like.'
Its all I can do. If I did what I didn't like, I wouldn't like doing it
and I wouldn't do it well.
The madman hangs in fancy homes
They wouldn't let him near!
He'd piss in their fireplace!
He'd drag them through Turbulent Indigo. -- Joni Mitchell
The rest of the drivel -- Nick Lindan
Lee Carmichael
My fingers were crossed when I made the remark about having a high
opinion of my photography. Humility is something that I am very
familuar with. I have been doing this for a long time and in large
format for about twenty years. I have sold prints for as much as
$500.00 and as little as the cost of the paper and film. I think WE
should buy photographs. I have about 10. Two are Edward Westons and
One Ansel Adams and the rest are local's I collect and like. You are
right that the times are much harder for sales as the gene pool becomes
poluted. Just too many fish out there. Just the way it goes. I will
continue to put my photo's in places where they can be seen and
purchased.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
Roger Cole
>Roger Cole wrote:
>>
>> To take a slightly tangential direction, why should a large print cost much more
>> than a small one? In photography ... it takes exactly the same amount of time if
>> you have the equipment, and just a small amount more money. It might be harder
>> to handle the larger paper, but it is also often easier to dodge/burn etc. on a
>> large print.
>
>
>Gaaaag.
>
>Now, I don't make 16x20. I make 8x10, 11x14 and 20x24 for sale. There
>is, to me, a hell of a difference in the amount of effort required
>between these sizes.
>
>8x10's I can make in my sleep. Easy to dodge. Easy to wash. Easy to
>mount. Easy to spot. Not too heavy when mounted, mated and framed. I
>almost never drop them. If I do, new glass is usually all I need to get
>them back into shape again.
I did specify umframed prints. The cost of frames and glass undeniably go up
very fast with size. I don't do my own mounting - no press as yet, as I feel
the money is better spent elsewhere until I get the other stuff I want. It
costs a few dollars more to have larger prints mounted, but not in proportion to
the usual selling price.
>When I get to 20x24 I figure there is 8 to 12 man-hours in each ready to
>hang print. I don't know about your darkroom, but 6 20x24 trays take up
>a lot of room in mine: half the trays have to be on the floor, set down
>on visqueen sheeting. Handling the wet paper is a trip. Spotting
>requires a stereoscopic traveling micrscope and the patience of Job.
Mine was a hypothetical question. I don't as yet print larger than 11x14. I
just got into 4x5 in the past two months, and I had no need of anything larger.
Only a few of my 35mm negatives survive that well at 11x14, much less larger
than that. I do plan to equip myself to print 16x20 now. I can fit three 16x20
trays on the table I use on the wet side (laundry sink at the end) easily, and
maybe four. I don't need six trays set up at once. Developer, stop, fix, and a
water holding bath (for FB) which is usually a lage enough tub of water sitting
under the table at the end. If working with graded paper, add a fourth tray for
Selectol-Soft for between-grade contrast control. Later steps, hypo-clear,
toning, etc. can be done after the first trays are cleared away. Handling wet
11x14 is a bit harder than 8x10, so I imagine 16x20 is tougher still. Why
should spotting require a microscope though? Since there is more enlargement,
the spot is bigger. I think there is less need to find the very tiniest
imperfections, since the larger print will be viewed from farther away. I don't
find spotting 11x14s any harder than 8x10s. I've been waging such a war on dust
that I can now often turn out prints that don't need spotting. Not always, of
course.
>Takes 6 passes through my press to get them mounted. Wreck the mat
>board, and I'm out a whole sheet of 100% rag. The glass weighs a ton.
>Getting it all put together without a dust ball/hair/insect/thumbprint
>trapped under the glass takes two or three tries. The whole thing needs
>to backed with plywood or heavy foam core to keep it from warping. The
>hanging wire is suitable for 1000ft. span suspension bridges. Take
>photo to enough exhibits and I am bound to drop the damn thing in the
>parking lot -- bang -- crash -- tinkle -- cut -- and I start all over
>again.
Again, I don't mount my own, but I believe you. However, if I was always
dropping prints going to exhibits, I might well decide I was just printing too
darned big. But if you like them that size I guess you are stuck with it. How
about plexiglass for covering? Not as easy to break, though it does scratch
easily and is ruined by ammonia cleaners.
>I think that like sail boats, buildings and all things of true value and
>substance the cost of production, and hence the selling price, goes by
>the cube of the largest dimension - for photos that's the diagonal.
>Things are priced by mass, not length or area.
I always felt like "art" photographs were priced by image, rather than
production cost. Even with the trouble, I can't see $200 production cost in a
16x20. I'm not saying a print can't be worth that or more, but if it is it
would be by virtue of the image, not the production cost.
>Are large prints worth making, I don't know. I have never sold one.
>But I have them hanging around my house. They make much better wall
>decoration, easily worth the cost involved, than they would as 8x10's or
>11x14's. And I agree with Vestal, images work best in the best size for
>them. Heck, I got lots and lots and lots of shots that are best as
>contact proofs: any enlargement and they'd only look much worse!
Yep, me too.
>I bought a bunch of 8x10 and 11x14 Ansel Adams prints about 20 years
>ago. Visitors to my house, however, go to the large prints first. They
>go last to the wall with the collection of small Adam's prints.
Well, the large prints catch the attention. He who yells loudest gets heard
first, regardless of the value of what is being said.
>I don't look at my work as art. I look at it as wall decoration.
>Modern kitsch, if you will. I wish I could convince my prospective
>customers of this viewpoint. I go to a frame shop and there is lots of
>stuff selling in the $300-400 range. I think it looks awfull -- droll
>prints of tigers peering out of bamboo. People buy it because they know
>it is not art. If its art and its $300 then people feel antsy because
>they 'don't know art.' If it's decoration then any purchase is
>defensible with the justification that it's 'what I like.'
>
>Well, my photos are 'what I like' and I make them in the 'size I like.'
>Its all I can do. If I did what I didn't like, I wouldn't like doing it
>and I wouldn't do it well.
I agree completely, though I don't see much priced for $300-$400 around here.
Proabably depends on the area where you live. But I think "doing it because I
like it" is the only real justification for "art" photography. The number of
people who make a living at it can proabably be counted on the fingers of one
hand, and they also publish books and teach workshops, as a rule. So that
leaves it as a labor of love.
I don't dislike large prints. As Vestal wrote, some of Adams' work is best at
four by five feet. Nor do I necessarily feel that lager prints are not worth
more money than smaller ones. I was just interested in others' thoughts on the
matter. In printing 8x10 and 11x14, I don't feel like 11x14s are worth 1.75
times what 8x10s are (the difference in area) on the basis of time, trouble, and
expense in producing them. Maybe when I get set up for 16x20 I will feel like
they are worth four times as much as an 8x10.
> The madman hangs in fancy homes
> They wouldn't let him near!
> He'd piss in their fireplace!
> He'd drag them through Turbulent Indigo. -- Joni Mitchell
>
Yeah, how many fans of Van Gough would have let an obsessed syphylitic madman
inside their door, even if he still had both ears? 8)
> The rest of the drivel -- Nick Lindan
It wasn't drivel, interesting comments!
Roger Cole
Ben Weiner
fat...@peoplesparc.cs.berkeley.edu (Richard J. Fateman) writes:
>In article <34312e00...@news.usit.net>, Roger Cole <rc...@usit.net> wrote:
>> Why, then, should the
>>larger print sell for any more than $10 over the cost of the smaller one,
>>assuming an unframed print?
>In my experience a 16x20 print takes more than 4 times as
>much time to handle than 4 (identical) 8x10s.
[other good reasons snipped]
Another factor is market- or psychology-related, if you like;
it's the concept of having "price points." The 8x10s are less
expensive so that people with a smaller budget can still buy one;
the 16x20s are considerably more expensive because (hopefully)
there are people out there to whom money is less of a concern
who are willing to pay the price for the bigger print.
Look at the computer industry. A Foobar PC with a 200MHz Zaptium
processor (and 32 MB of RAM and a 2 gig disk) costs X dollars more
than the Foobar Jr. PC with a 133 MHz Zaptium, 16 MB of RAM, and a
1 gig disk. The difference isn't caused by increases in the per-unit
manufacturing costs of the better processor, RAM, and disk. Some of
it may be amortizing the R&D costs to improve processors, disks, etc.
But a lot of it is just that the manufacturers of the processor, RAM,
disk, and Foobar Incorporated are selling at different price points.
They have lower capability stuff to sell at the entry level, and
better stuff to sell at the high end, where the users are willing to
pay extra to get the fastest/newest/shiniest.
This is a longstanding practice. Back in the old days when computers
were industrial-strength room-filling machines that you rented from
IBM, there was an urban legend about the company that decided to
spring for the hefty monthly increase for a double-speed upgrade. So
the Field Engineer comes out, opens up the machine, removes a jumper,
and presto! the machine is twice as fast.
This story makes a lot of people indignant (understandably). But it
was actually perfectly rational. It wouldn't make economic sense for
IBM to design two completely different computers, so they
[hypothetically] designed one computer, and then, to get a wider
customer base, rented it at different price points. If you had to
have the fastest speed, you paid more for the privilege -- even though
it didn't actually physically cost IBM more to provide it. If you
didn't want to pay, you didn't get the faster speed, even though
all the hardware was there.
[Note: I am not sure that this anecdote is true, although I dimly
remember someone attesting to an actual example on alt.folklore.computers
possibly involving an IBM printer. Readers of a.f.c or
comp.society.folklore might provide more info; this stuff is a bit
before my time. (I was a baby DEC hacker.)]
Nicholas O. Lindan
> >Roger Cole wrote:
> >>
> >> To take a slightly tangential direction, why should a large print cost much more
> >> than a small one?
> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:00:06 -0700, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
> <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gaaaag. [many reasons and much experience deleted]
> >Roger Cole replies:
> Mine was a hypothetical question. I don't as yet print larger than 11x14...
> [Much Grade A Sophmoric comment deleted]
Nicholas O. Lindan reaches for his rolaids and types madly:
The ususal advice in such situation is:
"Then you should keep your ears open and your mouth shut"
For the modern age, that translates as:
"Eyes open and hands off the keyboard"
Roger Cole
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 14:44:21 -0700, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
<noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Roger Cole wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To take a slightly tangential direction, why should a large print cost much more
>> >> than a small one?
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:00:06 -0700, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
>> <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Gaaaag. [many reasons and much experience deleted]
>
>> >Roger Cole replies:
>> Mine was a hypothetical question. I don't as yet print larger than 11x14...
>> [Much Grade A Sophmoric comment deleted]
>
>Nicholas O. Lindan reaches for his rolaids and types madly:
>
>The ususal advice in such situation is:
>
> "Then you should keep your ears open and your mouth shut"
>
>For the modern age, that translates as:
>
> "Eyes open and hands off the keyboard"
I'm glad this was also posted publicly so I can respond to it here. I first got
it email and fired off what I hope was an at least-equally smart a$$ed and rude
response.
Folks, I wasn't the one who started talking about monstrous print sizes larger
than 16x20. Nicholas said he didn't print 16x20 but did print larger. I did
use the example of cost of 16x20 paper just because it was easy to calculate.
But my original question was much more general - "Why should larger prints cost
much more than smaller ones?" As I said, I do print 11x14 and 8x10 (as well as
an occasional 5x7 for that matter) and I don't think the 11x14 should be worth
1.75 times what the 8x10 is. So I do have some experience to speak from.
"Should larger prints cost more?" The only one who doesn't have experience in
this area would be someone who only prints ONE size, whatever it may be.
Moreover, it is not necessary to do something in order to have worthwhile
thoughts about it. All kinds of people offer thoughts about such every day.
How many people who oppose a war have ever been in one? A lot, but not all.
Does this mean you have to be a war veteran to oppose or favor a war?
I particularly take umbrage to the crack about "Grade A sophmoric" comments. I
took a good deal of time and care to thoughtfully respond, and I THOUGHT I was
being very nice. I was even pointedly complimentary.
I'm going to stop now and let other people chime in. I am still furious, and
likely to write something I'll regret if I continue.
(Further emails from Nicholas will be deleted unread.)
Roger Cole
David Garth
Roger,
Quite simply, larger prints cost more because people are willing to pay
more for them. A larger print looks like its worth more, will cost more
to mount and frame, and will make a more powerfull statement (usually)
in the decor of a room.
Fine art photographers are not ripping people off. I am a part time fine
art photographer who sells about 80 prints a year for $300 to $400 each.
I split 60/40 with the galleries who sell my work. So I get $180 for the
$300 print. I use only 100 rag boards which cost several dollars each.
It sometimes takes me months of tweaking and hundreds of sheets of paper
to get to the point where I can sell one. (Sometimes I give up and never
get there.) I have over $25,000 in camera equipment and $5,000 in
mounting, trimming, matcutting equipment, and a $15,000 darkroom. It
takes me over an hour to spot, mount and cut a matt for a print. Then I
have to package them in plastic, tissue and masonite to ship to the
customer or gallery. Lots of more time and materials. And that doesn't
count the expenses of getting the photo in the first place: film,
travel, camera repair, etc, etc.
I could sell more, but I don't have the time to make more.
All this for $180 bucks!
Because I lost money three years in a row, the IRS says it isn't a
business, it's a hobby, even though I grossed over $25,000 and devoted
over 20 hours per week to it. (I beat them on this, but, they're right,
no rational person would do this for the money!)
Dave Garth
Lloyd Erlick
>My fingers were crossed when I made the remark about having a high
>opinion of my photography. Humility is something that I am very
>familuar with. I have been doing this for a long time and in large
>format for about twenty years. I have sold prints for as much as
>$500.00 and as little as the cost of the paper and film. I think WE
>should buy photographs. I have about 10. Two are Edward Westons and
>One Ansel Adams and the rest are local's I collect and like. You are
>right that the times are much harder for sales as the gene pool becomes
>poluted. Just too many fish out there. Just the way it goes. I will
>continue to put my photo's in places where they can be seen and
>purchased.
>As usual,
>Lee Carmichael
oct397 from Lloyd Erlick,
Lee,
I agree that we should buy photographs. I have, too, although I feel
very irresponsible financially for spending the money. Just a function
of how much I've got and where I can put it.
Should members of this NG trade their work with one antother?? If I
sell one of mine to you and you sell me one of yours, we could just
delete the money [and the potential for taxation] and exchange.
I've been working on a particular negative lately, and I'd be happy to
send you a copy of one of the finished ones. I'd love this one to be
in peoples' collections; my humility permits me to believe it belongs
in legitimate museum collections too.
You can send me one of yours you really like.
We could all be spreading our work around like this. Can't call it an
income or a living, but I think it qualifies as putting our work out
in places it belongs.
Recently I sent some prints to Colorado in a Light Impressions box
covered in cardboard. I took a chance on the Post Office, which did
actually deliver unscathed, for under ten Canadian dollars. So I think
this can be a low dollar investment endeavour.
I think the only criterion should be that we do this only with work we
feel has merit.
What do you think?
--le
Lloyd Erlick, 357 Richmond Street West, Toronto m5v1x3 Canada, voice416-596-8751, ll...@the-wire.com, http://www.heylloyd.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger Cole
I think it is a good idea. Of the pictures of mine I'd be willing to include as
"having merit" I don't presently have any surplus. The only prints I possess
are hanging on my wall. But as I get a chance to make more, I think I'd be
willing. One problem might be that what one person thinks has merit another
very well might not. Anyone who has access to a scanner could scan prints and
email as attachments before sending one to someone who might hate it.
I'd suggest dealing in unframed prints - since we'd be giving them away, let the
receiver decide whether and how to frame and save the time and trouble. I would
suggest unmounted prints, but I think that idea here would go over like the
proverbial lead ballon.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 05:49:19 -0700, David Garth <dga...@slochamber.org> wrote:
>Roger,
>
>Quite simply, larger prints cost more because people are willing to pay
>more for them. A larger print looks like its worth more, will cost more
>to mount and frame, and will make a more powerfull statement (usually)
>in the decor of a room.
Well, sure, the supply and demand argument. But it seems from what I read here
that most people are not selling prints, and are wondering why. In part the
question depends on whether the worth of something is defined by the demand and
what the market will bear (the capitalist theory) or by the time, trouble,
effort, etc. involved in producing it. The latter is loosely similar to a
Marxist definition of "worth." I think there are usually elements of both.
>Fine art photographers are not ripping people off. I am a part time fine
>art photographer who sells about 80 prints a year for $300 to $400 each.
Whoa! I never implied you or anyone else was ripping anyone off. If you can
get it, go for it! If I could, I would. The question was why a larger print
was "worth" a whole lot more than a smaller one, not whether any given print of
whatever size was worth a certain amount.
>I split 60/40 with the galleries who sell my work. So I get $180 for the
>$300 print. I use only 100 rag boards which cost several dollars each.
>It sometimes takes me months of tweaking and hundreds of sheets of paper
>to get to the point where I can sell one. (Sometimes I give up and never
>get there.) I have over $25,000 in camera equipment and $5,000 in
>mounting, trimming, matcutting equipment, and a $15,000 darkroom. It
>takes me over an hour to spot, mount and cut a matt for a print. Then I
>have to package them in plastic, tissue and masonite to ship to the
>customer or gallery. Lots of more time and materials. And that doesn't
>count the expenses of getting the photo in the first place: film,
>travel, camera repair, etc, etc.
>
>I could sell more, but I don't have the time to make more.
>
>All this for $180 bucks!
>
>Because I lost money three years in a row, the IRS says it isn't a
>business, it's a hobby, even though I grossed over $25,000 and devoted
>over 20 hours per week to it. (I beat them on this, but, they're right,
>no rational person would do this for the money!)
>
>Dave Garth
If I were actually losing money at it, I wouldn't do it. That is, I wouldn't
try too hard to sell prints. If you lose money on every print, the more you
sell the deeper you get. There's no way I could make much less sell that many
prints. I'd still make them for myself because I enjoy it. If done for that
reason, selling a print when possible would be a fine way to reduce the cost of
what is actually a hobby.
Roger Cole
Paul Butzi
>very irresponsible financially for spending the money. Just a function
>of how much I've got and where I can put it.
>
>Should members of this NG trade their work with one antother?? If I
>sell one of mine to you and you sell me one of yours, we could just
>delete the money [and the potential for taxation] and exchange.
I have, on the wall right next to me, a beautiful print done by
a person who was a regular contributor to r.p.l-f and r.p.d. I got
it in exchange for a print of mine, which he had hanging near his
computer last time I saw it.
I think this is an excellent way to acquire prints. In fact, I just
got done printing up a pile of prints for a print exchange done by
a local group I'm a member of. We got together, each brought in
a selection of prints they would be willing to exchange, and
we all made choices from the offered selections. I'm pretty
excited by some of the prints I'm getting (and sick to death
of the one I just made eight print for the exchange). I understand
that some print exchanges have been done on the AOL photo
bulletin boards with resounding success (and some big name
participants, as well).
I highly recommend it.
-Paul
Tom Reed
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Roger Cole wrote:
> But my original question was much more general - "Why should larger prints cost
> much more than smaller ones?"
Have you been in a photo lab recently? Next time you are, check the
prices of poster size prints. Much more expensive than time or materials
would dictate. It might be that people are so used to paying more for
larger prints of their own, that this simply naturally translates to art
purchases. Additionally, there may be some people selling prints who
don't do their own work, and are dependent on labs (and their pricing).
So, why do labs charge so much more for poster prints? I don't know.
However, it's not uncommon for only one lab in a given area to produce
prints of this size, so monopolistic pricing strategies may come into
play.
>
> I particularly take umbrage to the crack about "Grade A sophmoric" comments.
> I took a good deal of time and care to thoughtfully respond, and I
> THOUGHT I was being very nice. I was even pointedly complimentary.
I thought you were too, Roger.
>
> (Further emails from Nicholas will be deleted unread.)
>
Not a bad idea, that.
Tom R. tr...@omicron.csustan.edu
It isn't true that there's a community of light, a bonfire of the world.
Everyone carries his own, his lonely own. -- John Steinbeck
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom Reed wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Roger Cole wrote:
>
> > But my original question was much more general - "Why should larger prints cost
> > much more than smaller ones?"
>
> Have you been in a photo lab recently? Next time you are, check the
> prices of poster size prints. Much more expensive than time or materials
> would dictate. It might be that people are so used to paying more for
> larger prints of their own, that this simply naturally translates to art
> purchases. Additionally, there may be some people selling prints who
> don't do their own work, and are dependent on labs (and their pricing).
>
> So, why do labs charge so much more for poster prints? I don't know.
> However, it's not uncommon for only one lab in a given area to produce
> prints of this size, so monopolistic pricing strategies may come into
> play.
>
I have never run a commercial photo lab, but I do know people who do.
If you look inside, you will notice that the smaller size prints are
usually made on nearly automatic machines whose labor costs are low.
When you want a much larger print, they must actually clean the negative,
put it into a negative carrier, insert that into an enlarger, make the
print, etc. Part of enlarging the print must be done with the lights off
(no surprise to us, but unusual for the mass-production printing which
is done with the lights on (dark inside the machine, of course). Thus,
instead of making, say, 20 prints a minute in a mini-lab 1-hour machine,
it probably takes 10 minutes per print. Someone has to pay for this and
it should not be the lab owner, so guess who?
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------7AB7F2001D32661BF87B949C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------7AB7F2001D32661BF87B949C--
Tom Reed
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> I have never run a commercial photo lab, but I do know people who do.
> If you look inside, you will notice that the smaller size prints are
> usually made on nearly automatic machines whose labor costs are low.
> When you want a much larger print, they must actually clean the negative,
> put it into a negative carrier, insert that into an enlarger, make the
> print, etc. Part of enlarging the print must be done with the lights off
> (no surprise to us, but unusual for the mass-production printing which
> is done with the lights on (dark inside the machine, of course). Thus,
> instead of making, say, 20 prints a minute in a mini-lab 1-hour machine,
> it probably takes 10 minutes per print. Someone has to pay for this and
> it should not be the lab owner, so guess who?
>
I've worked in labs before, and for the most part, you are correct.
However, there are some machines that are perfectly capable of making
20x30 (or 30x40) prints which are completely daylight operated. Most of
them allow previewing of the image with color correction on video
monitors, thus, if the machine is in balance, the time to produce any
enlargement is about the same as the smaller prints from typical minilab
printers. Labs which use such machines, though, still price larger prints
much higher than smaller ones.
By the way, even when printing with a minilab, you still need to dust the
negatives (unless you want the dust spots of course).
Jean-David Beyer
Tom Reed wrote (in part):
> By the way, even when printing with a minilab, you still need to dust the
> negatives (unless you want the dust spots of course).
>
The local 1-hour lab here does not seem to know this. 8-(
That is why I used them only once. They have their machine in
plain view of the customers: I guess so they can see how technical
and impressive it is (not very: does ONLY 4x6" prints, only one paper
surface: they send everything else out).
But it does allow the customers to drag in all manner of dust and dirt.
My local pro-lab does everything out of sight of the customers
(not that it is a secret: if you ask, the owner will show you the stuff
if they are not too busy), expecially out of their dust. They also have
electronic gizmo that you slide the negatives through to get the dust off
before printing: much quicker than spotting later, especially as their
work is mostly in color.
Roger Cole
On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:28:52 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com>
wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------7AB7F2001D32661BF87B949C
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Tom Reed wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Roger Cole wrote:
>>
>> > But my original question was much more general - "Why should larger prints cost
>> > much more than smaller ones?"
>>
>> Have you been in a photo lab recently? Next time you are, check the
>> prices of poster size prints. Much more expensive than time or materials
>> would dictate. It might be that people are so used to paying more for
>> larger prints of their own, that this simply naturally translates to art
>> purchases. Additionally, there may be some people selling prints who
>> don't do their own work, and are dependent on labs (and their pricing).
>>
>> So, why do labs charge so much more for poster prints? I don't know.
>> However, it's not uncommon for only one lab in a given area to produce
>> prints of this size, so monopolistic pricing strategies may come into
>> play.
>>
>I have never run a commercial photo lab, but I do know people who do.
>If you look inside, you will notice that the smaller size prints are
>usually made on nearly automatic machines whose labor costs are low.
>When you want a much larger print, they must actually clean the negative,
>put it into a negative carrier, insert that into an enlarger, make the
>print, etc. Part of enlarging the print must be done with the lights off
>(no surprise to us, but unusual for the mass-production printing which
>is done with the lights on (dark inside the machine, of course). Thus,
>instead of making, say, 20 prints a minute in a mini-lab 1-hour machine,
>it probably takes 10 minutes per print. Someone has to pay for this and
>it should not be the lab owner, so guess who?
>
>--
>Jean-David Beyer
>Shrewsbury, New Jersey
A friend and former college roomate runs a photo lab. He does indeed have an
automatic machine printer for 8x10s, as well as the little ones on 5" roll
paper. Anything larger is done by hand.
However, if you want a custom 8x10, with some dodging and burning or whatever,
then that has to be done by hand too. The machine printer can do custom
cropping and different overall color balance, but that's about it. The price
doesn't escalate all that much from a custom hand-made 8x10 up to 11x14, and
best I recall to 16x20 either, and I don't know about anything larger than that.
Since I do my own printing, I don't pay much attention to his prices.
Roger Cole
Mark Friedman
It seems to me that whether a large print should cost more than a
smaller print depends somewhat on when it is being sold.
The photographer/printer who sells prints to generate income must
recover his out of pocket cost, and also be compensated for his time.
Larger prints have at least some higher material cost and take
somewhat longer to make. So, isn't it reasonable that on an initial
sale the print should cost more than the same picture in a smaller
print?
On a resale though, the situation changes. It now becomes a question
of what the market is willing to pay, and who knows what goes into
that decision? What prints are available at the time, the condition
they're in, etc. I've been told that same size prints of AA's "Moon
Over Hernandez" will sell for different prices depending on when AA
printed them.
Even on an initial sale, some pictures are simply in greater demand,
and its quite possible that the photographer will be able to charge
more for a smaller print of a popular picture than for a larger print
of a different picture.
None of this has anythng to do with "worth", of course. My pictures
are worth a great deal to me, but probably not much on the open
market.
Mark Friedman
Realist946
Also you must take into consideration the mathod used to make the print. I use
Dye Transfer and it is a killer. Of cource, I do not do this that often.
RM
Stephen Shapiro
Steve Shapiro (Carmel, CA 1997) Prints sell for whatever the market will
bear.
The collector's value for a print depends on what and whose sold before.
If Minor White's 11X14s sell for $7,500.00 and Will Giles, his protogee who
helped Minor start Aperture sells for $750.00 because he's still alove,
then mine sell for closer to Giles than Whites.
Since, holwever I was a protogee of AA, and his 11X14s sell for $12,500.00
mine don't nceessarily have to sell for less than $750. or 10% of my
mentors like Giles to White; but mine don't sell for $1,250.00 either.
So, whileI get $450.00 for my 8X10's like Giles, I don't sellmany 11X14s
and I get the same for my 16X20s thatI get for my 11X14s; only I get some
real money based on the material's value and trade.
Go figure.
Steve Shapiro; Hiy...@worldnet.att.com
Mark Friedman <frie...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<61s2l6$c...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...