Are High Prices Killing Off the Silver Gelatin Market?

[dancqu]

Among other high prices some post for their portfolio
prints one participant mentioned $200 for his 7x7
unmounted. Are such prices not creating an
elitist attitude toward such work?

Are silver gelatinists pricing themselves out of the
market? Perhaps fewer trips to the darkroom are
more universally welcomed now days? Dan

 

[Ian Grant]

Prices are relative to the time, effort & cost of producing an image. $200 is not necessarily elitist or over priced/

If you under price often people are less likely to buy, one photographer I knew was selling his images for £20 ($30) in a gallery (his own) and getting no sales. When he raised the prices to £80 ($120) they mysteriously began to sell, that was 15 years ago.

Ian

 

[Removed Account]

I don't think $200 is at all unreasonable for a quality work. The size is irrelevant if it suits the image on the paper, and $200 can be out outright bargain! Especially if the print is handmade under an enlarger (contact prints excepted) I wouldn't have a problem paying much more than that for a print I like. Alas, my student's income severely hinders my print purchasing ability!

 

[JBrunner]

The price is what the market will bear. Always. The equity of the artist sets what the market will bear, not the substrate.

Also, it is important to attach some value to your work. If you don't, neither will anyone else.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

$200 for a quality, handmade print sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[jovo]

Keep in mind that if the print is $200 in a gallery, the photographer is only getting 50% of that in most cases. If the gallery in question is successful and well regarded, its' implicit imprimatur underwrites the "value" of the work as well which makes $200 seem quite modest. And, of course, if the artist has a growing reputation, and if the work is editioned, those factors also inform the price of the work.

However, as a measure of how difficult it is to determine a reasonable price that will not impede a sale, nor devalue the work I got two totally different opinions from two prominent regional gallerists on the price I should set for my work. (They both saw the same prints on the same day in the same place.) One suggested that I could/should charge 3 to 4 times as much as I am choosing to charge for my 'graphs, while the other said the price I had settled on was probably very fair and "right" for my work at this time. So....go figure...eh?

 

[mikebarger]

Seems like I've seen fish eggs priced by the ounce somewhere

Surely a nice print is worth more than smelly fish eggs.

Mike

 

[david b]

I have you seen the prices of some digital prints?

A hand made print for $200 is very reasonable.

 

[nickandre]

Digital work is by no means cheap, but I do think "handmade" justifies a higher price. Waiting for an inkjet to barf up ink is not the same as swishing pieces of fiber paper in trays. The time and skill needed to make a print should be just as, if not more important than the cost of the materials themselves.

When he raised the prices to £80 ($120) they mysteriously began to sell...

I will stick that in the memory bin for when I find a way to sell my stuff.

 

[dancqu]

I will stick that in the memory bin for when I find
a way to sell my stuff.

I've just checked near three score of APUG's Portfolios.
Perhaps a half dozen or so offer prints For Sale via Paypal.
More and more shopping and more and more purchases are
being made via the Internet. It is a method of distribution
on which one and APUG itself should capitalize.

As it stands purchasing needs a 'blister paking'. That is,
rather than trips to galleries or sorting, as at present,
through endless numbers of portfolios, the purchase
of prints should be made convenient and quick.

I'll leave it to APUG's management to deal, as it has
time, to such goals. Some modest portion of income
could very well support APUG's continuation. Dan

 

[Curt]

This is still relevant.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Mick Fagan]

Curt, yes it is still relevant, however one should always have consistency when marketing.

Starting with the 5 P's, perhaps someone can explain the last mention of this heading when mysteriously, reference is made to the 4 P's, especially when there are 5 columns underneath.

We used to charge $80.00 for an 8x10 work print 25 years ago, then the going rate which was dependent upon the paper chosen for the final print or prints, usually around $150.00 for a single 8x10 print, reducing down to $130.00 each, for a set of 10 prints. This is what we charged the photographer, heavens knows what they charged their clients.

Mick.

Mick.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Well timed, folks! My first show (joint, with a digital joker) in 2 weeks. Mine wet on FB paper, his on watercolour paper. I had a couple of prints in a 5 person show in the same venue previously and the low priced etcher sold several, while the ambitious photographers sold nil at their hoped for high prices.

Moral: don't exhibit with anybody who may be perceived as an artist in the traditional sense??

Don't price high unless you are a name (and I ain't).

Reflect on current economic circumstances.

Try to recover some part of your costs. Our local "community gallery" charges $200 for 9 days showing, you pay for framing, opening, invites, tiny advertisement in the limited circulation local rag and commission of 25% if you do sell anything. Talk about vanity publishing!

My prices: AUD 75 for 5x7 FB prints and AUD 100 for a larger RC print, and size is a whole other ballgame.

Wish me luck - Ross

 

[telkwa]

I am currently charging $200 for a framed 11x14 (the matting/framing costs me about $40). Is this too low? Perhaps, but since I'm a hobbyist with zero competition in the market, I'm not too concerned. If you include the expenses of film, paper, and chemicals, my net is probably about $125 per sale of this size.

I am not at all a known photographer, but I am the only photographer with a good selection of local images. People are quite happy to pay this and I've had a few people tell me I'm undercharging. I don't advertise (in any way) my images, but people tend to buy my images when they see them and I inform them that they can purchase one. I might raise my prices.

 

[clayne]

I am currently charging $200 for a framed 11x14 (the matting/framing costs me about $40). Is this too low? Perhaps, but since I'm a hobbyist with zero competition in the market, I'm not too concerned. If you include the expenses of film, paper, and chemicals, my net is probably about $125 per sale of this size.

I am not at all a known photographer, but I am the only photographer with a good selection of local images. People are quite happy to pay this and I've had a few people tell me I'm undercharging. I don't advertise (in any way) my images, but people tend to buy my images when they see them and I inform them that they can purchase one. I might raise my prices.

200$ for a framed 11x14? If the images are strong then yes that is too low.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Prices are relative to the time, effort & cost of producing an image. $200 is not necessarily elitist or over priced/

If you under price often people are less likely to buy, one photographer I knew was selling his images for £20 ($30) in a gallery (his own) and getting no sales. When he raised the prices to £80 ($120) they mysteriously began to sell, that was 15 years ago.

Ian

I think prices must in fact relfect how desirable the work is. $200 is far too much for poor quality technically perfect craft, but far too little the finest work available.

Top quality art of any form is expensive and it has nothing to do with time and money invested.

 

[EASmithV]

I'd like to take this opportunity to put in a plug for one of my Jason Brunner invisible prints. The concept is astounding, but it just dosen't match with my decor. I'll re-sell it to you for 200 bucks.

 

[jeffreyg]

We once tried to give away an AKC registered puppy and there were no takers. After two weeks we placed the same ad but asked top price for the same dog and sold it immediately.(coincidence??) If you believe your work is good, don't sell yourself short. Anyways if price is holding back a sale you can consider a discount --- easier to reduce than increase.
Jeffreyg

 

[PhotoBob]

Is it not also important to consider the costs of production when defining an algorithm to price photography?

 

[jd callow]

Is it not also important to consider the costs of production when defining an algorithm to price photography?

It may be that if you are selling on craft the production costs may have more weight, but if you are selling it as a unique expression than the price should or could be based upon that uniqueness.

FWIW Editions are, to me, a joke. Editions in some printmaking, castings and the like makes sense as the process can destroy the thing that makes the object. This is not the case with photography and in most instances one printing session will be as good or equivalent to the next. In most instances, to me, there is an implicit lie to selling from an edition.

 

[c6h6o3]

$200 for a quality, handmade print sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

It sounds under priced to me. The operative word here, however, is "quality".

 

[Martin Reed]

....Are such prices not creating an
elitist attitude toward such work?
Are silver gelatinists pricing themselves out of the
market?....

Do you want to turn a coin, or contribute to the artistry of the traditional medium? If you're producing excellent work using these materials of course it justifies the price. As an example I work alongside Mike Spry, who now prints exclusively hand printing FB to big enlargements >20x24". He has, I think it is safe to say, got a significant demand for his work by virtue of his personal control over the hand finished print, vs. the big format d*gital FB solution, using a 'Lightjet' printer.

 

[JBrunner]

It may be that if you are selling on craft the production costs may have more weight, but if you are selling it as a unique expression than the price should or could be based upon that uniqueness.

FWIW Editions are, to me, a joke. Editions in some printmaking, castings and the like makes sense as the process can destroy the thing that makes the object. This is not the case with photography and in most instances one printing session will be as good or equivalent to the next. In most instances, to me, there is an implicit lie to selling from an edition.

I prefer to think of it as a gimmick. only a rube would think that editioned photography was anything but artificial. I learned I could sell 10/10 but only 2 of infinity. I'd rather sell ten. Stupid? Yes. But the older I get the more i realize swimming with the current has it's advantages. I take my advantages where I can.

 

[redrockcoulee]

There is also the question of the community. In some places people are just not used to or willing to pay the some as in other places. I am not talking about ability to pay but community mind set. $200 in one place may be way too low but the same print in another place considered high.

Editions do present a sense of limiting the number of prints from one image. The limited edition prints of reproductions with numbers in the thousands destroyed that notion in a way. If you set a number of prints you will produce the potential buyer may decide to buy it now as it may not be availabe 2, 5 or 10 years from now. Even in traditional printmaking most editions end long before the plate deteriorates. The printmaker runs out of money for paper and ink or just does not want to continue with the same image for too long

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think you should charge what the work is worth to you and the time and effort you put into it. To me, $200 is actually quite low - and no, I couldn't afford to buy $200 prints either. But if I'm to sell a print, it should be worth my while.
If I figure much of the time spent developing portfolios, the endless hours, the amount of paper, film, chemistry, water, electricity, the cost of the space you're in, gasoline, wear and tear on your vehicle, your camera equipment, wear and tear on your freakin' socks, it adds up to quite a bit. Even if you just want to break even you'd have to do the math first and make sure you're handsomely compensated. Once I figured out that for every print I've sold to date I've used up about 50 sheets of premium paper (out of which perhaps 15 good prints emerge). And figuring that I, on average, spend between 45 and 90 minutes per print (with toning, bleaching, spotting, mounting, etc) then if I have spent 50 hours and I charge $200 for a print, then I'm working for $3 per hour if I don't count anything but my time and the paper I burned through. Not even half of minimum wage. Hopefully the math will start speaking better in my favor soon, so that my hit rate is better.

- Thomas