Pricing
ROBINSON4
My problem is that I don't know what to charge. I live in a semi rural area.
I was thinking of $100 sitting fee, including film processing and proofs for
about 48 photos. Up to 4 changes done in my studio or my outdoors. Prints
would be 12 wallets or 4-4x5s or 2- 5x7s or 1 8x10 for $30. An 11x14 is $48
and a 16x20 is $96. I would have a minimum order of $200 in prints, and
framing.
How do I deliever the prints? In folders or loose? I was thinking of shooting
chromes so that I could scan and retouch myself. Bad Idea?
www.georgerobinson.com
zeitgeist
first off, wallets out of package printers come in sets of 8 a lot of
photogs used to build the packages around units of 6 wallets so they would
get two free ones with each unit to use for promotional usage.
used to be kids wanted lots of wallets so you'd price them so that it made
the middle and larger packages more attractive. now they just scan the
proofs or printsand make their own.
consider the usage of folios, sets of images in a padded folder. They cost
about ten bucks or so but you sell three enlargements or 8 proofs (and
usually you had to buy a minimum order to buy the folio set.) it was a good
way to make the proofs (which in far to many volume type studios were
included with the minimum order) have more value, its not just a stack of
paper, buts a put together item with some weight.
I think your prices are too low. though there are a lot of 35mm shooters
out there now getting into the senior market with dirt cheap prices now.
but how long will it take to retouch and print?
even back in the 80's my 'basic' prints were $50 a unit, 125 for retouched.
a 16x20 was 250 mounted, 350 on canvass, and I didn't offer 11x14s for a
reason that's too long to get into here.
mount your prints, it helps with the frame sales, and gives your images
added value, just the heavier product doubles the perceived value in a
study. I slide my gift sized images into a black envelope I buy at the
paper zone (dealers of paper stock, and some artsy craftsy supplies etc) and
close with a large gold foil sticker with a celtic knot design. If they
want a folder I show the folios, oh but they have openings for three images,
( I particularly like the wing folio with an 8x10 middle and two 5x7's on
either side) or five, an 8x10 and four proof size, or the frames.
the portrait industry has been based on neg stock, the professional films
are designed for capturing skin tones, slide films are not. neg stock gives
you a couple stops of exposure leeway that you can take advantage of while
scanning or photoshopping, slide stock is unforgiving.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Lewis Lang
>From: "zeitgeist" blkhat...@yahoo.com
>Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 7:57 AM
>Message-id: <iz7Ra.75730$ye4.52208@sccrnsc01>
SNIP
Zeitgeist:
Could I coax you into a condensed version of why no 11x14" prints to sell? -
too hard for the customer to choose between the 11x14" prints and something
larger/smaller?, nobody preferred and/or wanted to pay for that price/size?,
harder to crop in camera and/or frame for that ratio/size?, some other
reason(s)?
Sorry if this may be a sore point with you but I am very curious as to why you
don't offer this size. My apologies if I'm pressing too hard here on this
topic, it just seems like a hard to fathom mystery to me ;-).
TIA
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
zeitgeist
> Could I coax you into a condensed version of why no 11x14" prints to
sell? -
> too hard for the customer to choose between the 11x14" prints and
something
> larger/smaller?, nobody preferred and/or wanted to pay for that
price/size?,
> harder to crop in camera and/or frame for that ratio/size?, some other
> reason(s)?
>
> Sorry if this may be a sore point with you but I am very curious as to why
you
> don't offer this size. My apologies if I'm pressing too hard here on this
> topic, it just seems like a hard to fathom mystery to me ;-).
>
I had several reasons to distain 11x14's.
first of all, I was used to doing weddings with square format, and used a
4x5 in the studio quite a bit for business portraits etc (and a lot of
passports too)
A. 11x14 is narrower than 8x10, and that always bugged me. I didn't care
for 5x7's either but since I priced them the same as 8x10s I didn't have to
worry about to many of them anyway. but I just got annoyed at the way it
cropped, I sold 20x24, 16x20 8x10 and 4x5, wallets, (which is also a
narrow crop but who cares, its a tiny giveaway.) but the 20x24 was fat and
squat.
B. at the time I was selling fully retouched 8x10's or smaller for $80.
16x20 was 350 and 20x24 was 450, and despite all the discussion about
figuring on expense and overhead and and and... I figured these prices first
by going one buck per square inch....(and rounding) and of course much more
for the much bigger sizes, 20x24 750. now 80 for the 8x10 was a bit high
at the time. notice the big gap between that and the 16x20, where does
the 11x14 fit in? how does an 11x14 fit in to people's lives?
and that's C. an 11x14 is too big to fit on a bookshelf, desk and album (at
least at the time.) and it is much too small to go on a wall. sure if
you took a 50's style highschool headshot, just a head a bit of shoulders,
you would have an appropriate sized face to view at a normal distance. it
was about the size of an old 19 inch tv tube, and in those days most shots
of people were full frame head and shoulders, (tv was called the close up
medium)
D. So when selling the concept of wall decor to my clients, many of whom
were there for an 8x10, either cause 8x10 was the sum total concept of
photographic imagery in the consumer market, or cause they 'won' the prize
in the drawing, but let me offer a few suggestions for how this wonderful
image of your lovely family can fill your home with it's expression.
So I would go into my rap about appropriate headsizes from typical viewing
distances, and don't forget, I'm using transproofs so they are looking at a
30x40 image on the bright screen in the darkened studio. and I would twist
the zoom to reduce the size to something that would give the image either a
face size of about 4 to 6 inches or a body size of 12 or so. (make a fist,
that's about right for a face size in an older home living room/family room)
That's the minimum size you would need to see the expression from where you
would sit or walk by.
So now we are looking at, either a 20x24 or 24x30. (amazing how that would
work out huh)
Now at this point a good 25-30 percent were sold on the concept, no 'money
talks' or other typical objections. before we go on, just think, if you
were doing some family portraits of folks with some means (I mean you could
shoot some clients living in a trailer or housing project but believe me
folks with a credit card are a lot easier to educate on the benefits of wall
decor.) just think if a quarter of your clients started buying a wall print
on top of the 8x10's and package prints you sell now?
and with a few objection toppers like the various money talks, size
objections, social objections, you can double that, though I was too laid
back, didn't like hard ball sales, though quite often just knowing the pitch
was useful for a gentle nudge when you knew the client really wanted it, and
its great to know when you go buy a car or health club membership and can
see the curveball coming at you before it leaves the pitcher's hand. (gee
Mr zeitgeist, you want to be successful, right? like what are you going to
say, uh no, I want to become a drunken failure? this is a leading question
to lead you to a series of yes answers, it makes it easier to get the main
yes, but I knew to answer, 'I am successful.' You want to make more money,
right Mr Lewis? "I already have money, Mr Salesman." man it really throws
them off.
where were we, OH yeah, freakn 11x14's. with those damn things in the
price list, it gave those sitting on the bubble the out. They just
couldn't get the 20 something print that I in my professional counsel advise
them to have, but for whatever reason didn't want to go ahead with, and not
all objections were about money, its just nobody they know has one, and they
probably didn't plan on spending more than a hundred, and their husband
would probably beat the %$#@^ out of them (remember this was in the 80's
when it wasn't illegal) but they would decide that 11x14 is the biggest
one usually offered, and that was a fail safe out, figuring that I would be
satisfied with a slightly larger order and they might be better off with a
slightly larger print.
so I removed the 11x14 from the price list, it was such a bastard size. And
I'd hold to my recommendation, Mam, if you don't feel that the image
recommended is right for you, if you can't afford it, then get the small one
and place it were you can see it, I don't believe that you will satisfied
with an intermediate size, you won't be able to see the expression, it will
just become a spot of color on the wall that you will forget about until you
are cleaning the dust off the shelves and see it again for the first time in
a long time. by holding to my belief, my professional opinion of what is
best, I split 50-50. (well I didn't really keep track that much) but I
felt better selling something I believed in. and remember I guaranteed
satisfaction, just like something you buy from a department store, if you
realize it ain't right for your home, there really isn't room on that wall
for it, the color clashes, your husband really tries to kill you, if you are
not satisfied return it. (of several hundred sold I only had two prints
made not deliver, never ever had on returned for refund after being taken
home, I did have a couple that were adjusted to their better satisfaction.)
btw wall prints I would deliver, even hang, 8x10s are a lot easier to mail
than 11x14.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com were
you can find some old posts about transproofs and sales and marketing of
wall decor.
z (not capitalized)
Lewis Lang
>From: "zeitgeist" blkhat...@yahoo.com
>Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2003 6:52 AM
>Message-id: <cB1Ya.77211$YN5.58331@sccrnsc01>
z:
Thanks for going into your pricing schedul/sizes/reasons in intricate detail.
For my fine art I am thinking of dropping the 5x7" size all together (and I'm
not really too fond of 8x10" either) but that is for surreal work, another
realm for portraiture. When I did "normal" family portraiture (sparsely/quite
awhile ago) an 11x14" print was included into the session price as they wanted
something larger than an 8x10" (and were probably unwilling to pay for anything
more). 11x14" size seems more suited to the narrower 35mm dimensions/ratio,
plus 11x14" off of 35mm still looks good (albeit not as good as MF) to most
people if care in the right lenses/film/lighting/technique is taken care of. I
like it for PJ work but my guess is that people would tend to view a PJ photo a
lot closer (maybe a meter or so away) vs. a family photo/other portraiture
which might have to be "read" from across the room and therefore must be
larger. I think 16x20" (for my surrealistic work to PJ/etc.) is an optimum size
for me - it just feels right. 11x14" is doable and anything smaller starts to
feel cramped to me (w/ an 8x12" print the borderline of being cramped. But from
the distance I view 16x20" prints (anywhere from a meter to about 10" or less
it seems more like a 30x40" in its effect ;-). What some of these ramblings of
mine have to do with the subject at hand or the price of grilled cheese
sandwhiches in Denmark is anybody's guess, though ;-)
Anyway, thanks again for your detailed analysis. I can certainly understand how
all the factors above you mentioned would play into your decision to drop from
the 11x14" size and I thank you for explaining it to me/us.
zeitgeist
> Thanks for going into your pricing schedul/sizes/reasons in intricate
detail.
> For my fine art I am thinking of dropping the 5x7" size all together (and
I'm
> not really too fond of 8x10" either) but that is for surreal work, another
> realm for portraiture. When I did "normal" family portraiture
(sparsely/quite
> awhile ago) an 11x14" print was included into the session price as they
wanted
> something larger than an 8x10" (and were probably unwilling to pay for
anything
> more).
Most people are "unwilling" to pay for anything larger, especially if the
request seems unusual, IE: few/nobody else has one, you the photog don't
have them, or just one but lots of the small gift size around.
11x14" size seems more suited to the narrower 35mm dimensions/ratio,
> plus 11x14" off of 35mm still looks good (albeit not as good as MF) to
most
> people if care in the right lenses/film/lighting/technique is taken care
of. I
> like it for PJ work but my guess is that people would tend to view a PJ
photo a
> lot closer (maybe a meter or so away) vs. a family photo/other portraiture
> which might have to be "read" from across the room and therefore must be
> larger. I think 16x20" (for my surrealistic work to PJ/etc.) is an optimum
size
> for me - it just feels right. 11x14" is doable and anything smaller starts
to
> feel cramped to me (w/ an 8x12" print the borderline of being cramped. But
from
> the distance I view 16x20" prints (anywhere from a meter to about 10" or
less
> it seems more like a 30x40" in its effect ;-).
Have you ever printed your work in a more demanding artistic size? Your
images are very different in a MTV/hip fashion/art school kind of way, I can
see, well could have seen, all these dot.com neo-corporations using this
kind of stuff in their annual reports, even the most staid company uses a
lot of off the wall artistic imagery in their most boring corporate files.
Here's a challenge to you. pick a dozen images and have 24x30's made,
mounted and framed. People will start to respect it more, take you and your
art more seriously, cause it won't just be pictures anymore, it will be art.
YOU will take yourself more seriously. It'll cost what? two grand? that's
the cost of a good lens, a prosumer digicam, a new laptop.
I don't know what you are charging now, a couple hundred for portraiture?
put a $2K price on one of these art pieces. You can always give a
'consideration' to a subject, to make it easier for them, cause they are
interesting, cause you like them, whatever. now all you need is one out of
ten...
Lewis Lang
>images are very different in a MTV/hip fashion/art school kind of way, I
>can
>see, well could have seen, all these dot.com neo-corporations using this
>kind of stuff in their annual reports, even the most staid company uses
>a
>lot of off the wall artistic imagery in their most boring corporate files.
>
>Here's a challenge to you. pick a dozen images and have 24x30's made,
>mounted and framed. People will start to respect it more, take you and
>your
>art more seriously, cause it won't just be pictures anymore, it will be
>art.
>YOU will take yourself more seriously. It'll cost what? two grand? that's
>the cost of a good lens, a prosumer digicam, a new laptop.
>
>I don't know what you are charging now, a couple hundred for portraiture?
>put a $2K price on one of these art pieces. You can always give a
>'consideration' to a subject, to make it easier for them, cause they are
>interesting, cause you like them, whatever. now all you need is one out
>of
>ten...
SNIPS
Hi zeitgeist:
Thanks for the positive somments about my work. As for the challenge... been
there and done that - through much of the 90's. It was the biggest mistake
(waste of time/money I ever made). I've printed my work up to 30x40", including
20x30". Largest photograph I've sold is 16x20" size. Spent about $1,500? in the
early '90's (that's got to be worth more than 2K in 2003 dollars!!) and have
yet to sell (/recoup the expense of) most of those (16x20" and 11x14" sizes). I
charge $250 for family portraiture (which I believe is rather cheap) but people
I've dealt with (are also cheap/thrifty/however you want to put it and) aren't
into the big wall hangings nor do they spend alot of money (they may have
money, but they don't want to spend much of it ;-)), plus I do this kind of
work rarely since it is not my first (or second love), and though I do it the
best I know how it is done for occaisional money not love whereas my fine
art/surrealism is done for love and very little money ;-). My first name might
be Lewis, but I am not a Charles Lewis-type of portrait photographer nor do I
want to persue that "creativity" (blechhh!!!) direction. After exhibiting my
work (the 16x20" and 11x14" framed prints mentioned above) across the country
in Art festivals as well as galleries (and some museums) I have come to the
conclusion (and the experience) that people want cheap decor to match the couch
and 5 reddish orange Hitlers marching with Viva paper towels and other clowns
clash not only with the couch but with the concept of blending in/cheap visual
anaesthetic. I am looking into doing more photojournalistic work (with
magazines/etc.). Can you reccommend any corporations that specifically would
want to pay 2K for a 20x30" framed photograph of 5 marching reddish-orange
Hitlers? ;-)
Randall Ainsworth
by him and has been quite successful dollarwise but I wouldn't give ol'
Charlie a dime.
Lewis Lang
>From: Randall Ainsworth r...@nospam.techline.com
>Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2003 1:29 PM
>Message-id: <100820030629185990%r...@nospam.techline.com>
>
> I think Charles Lewis is a scam artist. Have a good friend who swear
>by him and has been quite successful dollarwise but I wouldn't give ol'
>Charlie a dime.
Its more the style of "updated" yet still very conventional photography that
reams me - I really don't find it creative at all, just well done technically
and he certainly seems to have his business stuff down (or did when I saw him).
Randall Ainsworth
> >by him and has been quite successful dollarwise but I wouldn't give ol'
> >Charlie a dime.
>
> Its more the style of "updated" yet still very conventional photography that
> reams me - I really don't find it creative at all, just well done technically
> and he certainly seems to have his business stuff down (or did when I saw
> him).
You know as well as I do that Charlie is in the tape-selling business
more than anything. His images are OK but I have to laugh at the cue
cards he sells. You know...the ones with lighting and posing setups on
them. I shudder to think of going into somebody's studio to have a
portrait done and see them trying to copy something on card.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <100820031455367970%r...@nospam.techline.com>
>
>> > I think Charles Lewis is a scam artist. Have a good friend who swear
>> >by him and has been quite successful dollarwise but I wouldn't give ol'
>> >Charlie a dime.
>>
>> Its more the style of "updated" yet still very conventional photography
>that
>> reams me - I really don't find it creative at all, just well done
technically
>> and he certainly seems to have his business stuff down (or did when I
>saw
>> him).
>
> You know as well as I do that Charlie is in the tape-selling business
>more than anything.
I said virtually as much above, but in case I didn't make myself clear his
"creativity" is not in photography but in the selling of/business of portrait
photography.
His images are OK but I have to laugh at the cue
>cards he sells. You know...the ones with lighting and posing setups on
>them. I shudder to think of going into somebody's studio to have a
>portrait done and see them trying to copy something on card.
Hopefully the cards would be a starting point for practice, real photography
begins with awareness of your subject, photography by cards is the rote
euivalent of "painting by numbers" - its vision/insight and not blind imitation
that photographers need lest they make their subjects no more than a living
xerox of what's on the card. True creativity and photography begins where blind
imitation leaves off. Photographers should learn to _see first_, first learn
principles, not rules of posing, then improvise according to the way you
see/observe/have insights about expressing posing (or any other ideas, such as
action/situation/etc.) the subject at hand - imagine what would happen if the
cards got mixed up (posing an executive like a female senior portrait) -
blecch!
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and model posing cards) Reserved (...very reserved...)
Lisa Horton
Lewis Lang wrote:
>
> Photographers should learn to _see first_, first learn
> principles, not rules of posing, then improvise according to the way you
> see/observe/have insights about expressing posing (or any other ideas, such as
> action/situation/etc.) the subject at hand - imagine what would happen if the
> cards got mixed up (posing an executive like a female senior portrait) -
> blecch!
>
I couldn't agree more. It's the emotional connection with the subject
that makes a compelling portrait, not fretting over classical posing
rules. Not that a flattering pose doesn't help, of course :)
Lisa