Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

[David Brown]

Which magazine?

Lenswork

 

[esanford]

There are a lot of good comments here. I've only read the beginning of the thread and not the entire article. But, to leave some of the emotion out of this, I think the first question should be considered: Do Photographers charge too "way" too much for their work. I think the obvious answer is that if someone is willing to pay the price, then it's not too much.

What bothers me is that a lot of "no name" photographers will do a print and then stick a $350 price tag on it and expect people to buy it. Also, I just received my electronic version of "Photo Eye" Newsletter and there are Photographers pricing Giclee' prints for $750. Giclee' is just a fancy word for "another kind of ink jet print".

I believe that photographers need to understand their market and where they fit; then they should price their work taking into consideration of all their costs, time and what their goals are. Anyone who is just getting out of the gate and believes that they are going to make a living in photography is probably deluding themselves. Another photographer who does high quality work and has exhibitions can charge more base upon the audience that follows him or her.

Having said all of that, I am having my first exhibition beginning this Friday evening at a very small art gallery in this little country town where I live. I am showing 25 B&W gelatin silver prints (fiber based). These prints took many hours in the darkroom to print and they have all been fixed twiced and archivally washed for 1 1/2 hours. The mounting cost me $20.00 print (they are double matted). I bought black frames @ 10.00 each at the dreaded Walmart and framed them (they actually look nice). I am pricing each framed print at the gallery for $75.00. 33% of the sales go to the gallery as a part of a fund raiser. If any person orders prints beyond which I have at the gallery, the price will be $45.00 each for a mounted (unmatted) print on acid free museum board.

Because I am a "no-name", I think this is fair.... Then again, I don't depend on photography for a living, and my main goal is to get some reaction to my work. What have others done in these circumstances????

 

[David H. Bebbington]

What bothers me is that a lot of "no name" photographers will do a print and then stick a $350 price tag on it and expect people to buy it. ...

Having said all of that, I am having my first exhibition beginning this Friday evening at a very small art gallery in this little country town where I live. I am showing 25 B&W gelatin silver prints (fiber based). These prints took many hours in the darkroom to print and they have all been fixed twice and archivally washed for 1 1/2 hours. The mounting cost me $20.00 print (they are double matted). I bought black frames @ 10.00 each at the dreaded Walmart and framed them (they actually look nice). I am pricing each framed print at the gallery for $75.00. 33% of the sales go to the gallery as a part of a fund raiser. QUOTE]

As long as the principle of personal liberty applies, you can sell pictures for what you like. You probably do not need me to tell you that out of your $75 (no sales tax?), after the 33% has gone to a good cause, you have $50 left, minus the cost of mounting and framing this is $20, which most likely does not even cover the cost of your printing paper and chemicals (presumably in your hours in the darkroom, you got through quite a bit of paper). There is no allowance for your time, heat, power and water costs, the time it took you to frame the pix, and the time, gas, and parking charges it took you to get the pix to the gallery. Profit is not zero - it is heavily negative (aka a howling loss).
On the other hand, taking the "shameful" sticker price of $350, half will probably go in gallery commission, leaving $175. If sales tax is payable (British VAT is 17.5%), this would take it down to $148. Allowing the same as you for matting and framing brings it to $118, translating to a profit of $85 if the seller were lucky. This is surely not an excessive amount to hope to earn for a couple of hours work (minimum) per print, even without allowance for the time required to take the picture in the first place, cost of film and processing, depreciation of equipment, automobile, etc?

 

[colrehogan]

This is a timely thread. I am going to be putting up several prints (mounted, matted and framed) in a local show along with five other photographers during Feb/Mar and am wrestling with prices to put on the prints. At our meeting it was discussed that we charge the same amount per print, but this idea doesn't fly with me and I said so. I'm putting in mostly 8x10 pt/pd prints, while most of the others are doing digital prints made at a local pro lab. To me, there's quite a difference, even matted and framed.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I think Brooks Jensen has a very good point, but I think his price point is just too low. His main issue seems to be one oversized, but otherwise mundane, print that the photographer is asking $3500 for. As others have saind I can't sell my prints for $20 and even pay for expenses, unless I sell a ton of the same image. But I could be happy to sell them at $50 just for the print. At this point I tend to give away more than I sell so that wouldn't be too bad.

 

[jovo]

I never got the impression that Brooks was recommending that other photographers price their 8x10 'graphs at $20. He does because he can. He reaches a large audience through Lenswork and people have been buying his inkjet prints. He wrote (or stated in a podcast) that, in fact, he'd sold 1000 of them and taken in $20,000. That much money will pay for a lot of time, and material and allow a profit. But most of us can't even consider such a scheme because we are unknown, and a $20 price makes uninformed people wary that if something is that cheap it can't be any good.

I think his message is that photographs...inkjets at that....by unknown photographers that are priced at $3700 (the example cited) are ridiculous, and I agree. The trick is to find a price that is affordable and attractive enough for people to make the decision to forego what else they could buy for whatever amount is involved and spend it on your photograph. That just seems like common sense to me.

 

[esanford]

As long as the principle of personal liberty applies, you can sell pictures for what you like. You probably do not need me to tell you that out of your $75 (no sales tax?), after the 33% has gone to a good cause, you have $50 left, minus the cost of mounting and framing this is $20, which most likely does not even cover the cost of your printing paper and chemicals (presumably in your hours in the darkroom, you got through quite a bit of paper). There is no allowance for your time, heat, power and water costs, the time it took you to frame the pix, and the time, gas, and parking charges it took you to get the pix to the gallery. Profit is not zero - it is heavily negative (aka a howling loss).
On the other hand, taking the "shameful" sticker price of $350, half will probably go in gallery commission, leaving $175. If sales tax is payable (British VAT is 17.5%), this would take it down to $148. Allowing the same as you for matting and framing brings it to $118, translating to a profit of $85 if the seller were lucky. This is surely not an excessive amount to hope to earn for a couple of hours work (minimum) per print, even without allowance for the time required to take the picture in the first place, cost of film and processing, depreciation of equipment, automobile, etc?

David

Thanks.... your analysis is absolutely real. However, notwithstanding the cost, for this initial showing the lost leader is my cost for "getting into the game". Goodness I am glad that in the U.S. our taxes have gotten that outrageous yet (we are clearly headed in that direction). Also, I looked at what I thought the bottom line worth of my prints would be in this market. Once I factored that in, I believe my prints are priced correctly for this show. I am quite aware that I couldn't make a living doing this at this price. Ultimately, the photographer has to increase the market value for his work in order to demand a higher price. Otherwise, it should not be his primary means of income.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Jensen sells 1000 pixelgraphs for $20 each.

It is sad that we have come to this. the Wallmartization of photography. Where cheap mediocrity rules the day.

 

[Dave Parker]

Jensen sells 1000 pixelgraphs for $20 each.

It is sad that we have come to this. the Wallmartization of photography. Where cheap mediocrity rules the day.

Jim,

I don't feel "We" have come to this, there are certain elements of any industry that will prostitute themselves when they think they can get away with it.

Dave

 

[c6h6o3]

I recently had occasion to see one of the 'giclee' prints in question. The fellow who showed it to me also had some of Paula's Chamlee's work, which sells for $1,500.00 or so.

After comparing them side by side, I'd have to say that $20.00 is an excellent price point for the inkjet work. I wouldn't pay that for it, but I'm excessively fussy about print quality. The Litton inkjet print that I paid $17.00 for is a much better print. (Which reminds me - I promised to send that POS to Jorge but never got around to it - maybe we should start passing this thing around in a round robin "Inkjet Laugh Exchange". I'll go to the vaults tonight and ship it off to Mexico to get the ball rolling.)

 

[lenswork]

Uh-oh. My point was lost. Most of this thread is focusing on my $20 price when the article is not really about that. It is about the out-of-reach prices that some photographers ask for their prints that make them only available to the elite in society. I have always thought that art should be for everyone, not just the well-healed. I was hoping this was the point folks would get.

Here is the main point I was trying (but evidently failed) to make. It is best illustrated by the person who earlier in this thread posted: "you can sell pictures for what you like" which is patently untrue. You can offer pictures for what you like, but ultimitately it is the buyer who determines what is paid. You all know this -- see the thread about Michael and Paula's Azo portfolio and the reactions you had to their $10,750 price. I'm an not arguing whether or not their portfolio is worth that much, but I am certain that "regular folks" won't be able to buy it because it is simply out of their league.

As to my $20 price, okay,I'll take the criticism. May I ask - what should I price my photographs? They are 8x10 images on 11x14 paper. No mats. No frames. Pigment on paper (inkjet, if you insist). They are not "collectible". They are offered because you just might like the image. They are simply meant to be fun, and meant to be enjoyed -- like a CD, etc that I tried to compare in the article. I see them as a form of "entertainment" that folks should be able to purchase with their discretionary income. So what should I charge? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

One other thing. Not all of my work is $20. Some I offer for free (as, say, PDF files.) Some, like my folios, go for hundreds. Larger, framed prints are obviously more. One key to my thinking about this is the idea of trying to have a marketing strategy for all levels of the market. Of particular importance to me is the "entry-level" buyer who can only afford very little. I know that if we, as photographers, can develop a larger entry-level market, that the market for larger, more collectable, expensive work will grow as these buyers migrate through life and the interests and means to acquire work grows. Am I making sense?

BTW, I do note that there is a long tradition of this kind of thinking about the "entry-level" market. I'll bet a lot of you own Ansel Adams Special Editions images - the silver prints made by Alan Ross. Photogravures were long made as an alternative to expensive originals. My friend Morrie Camhi offered what he called a "Popluar Edition" that was smaller than his real artwork. Even the print-with-membership offers that come from various organizations like the defunct Friends of Photography can be loosely lumped in with this.

Lots for each of us to think about as we try to find a way to share our work and at the same time build a larger audience for photography in general.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Thursday January 12, 2006

 

[waynecrider]

Ask the publisher of the said magazine if you might purchase a minimum of an half-page for advertising sales of your art work for the same $20.00

Ken

Ken, thats funny.

I've actually decided to beat his price and all my photo's are now $19.95;

Available by download only.

Maybe he was just bored and needed some controversy?

 

[scootermm]

I think I can see selling a "simple inexpensively mass produced" type image for $20. Im a nobody in the broad galaxy of fine art photography perhaps a 1/4 of a speck of sand in the broad beach of it all. if I were to make say a 7x17 platinum/palladium print and then scan it and reproduce it many times over and sell those inexpensive reproductions for $20.... easy and a given. a $20 price point makes perfect sense. But like people have said before I couldnt charge that for the original 7x17 pt/pd it just wouldnt cover costs. I dont think this was adequately explained in the article and has been more adequately explained from his reply above.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Hi Brooks,

I have no problem with you charging $20 for your work. As I said you have found a business model that works and you have the resources to make it work.

Here is where the confusion lies. You say you do not consider your $20 inkjets collectible but something fun like a CD or a good meal. Ok I see where you are comming from with that idea of a commodity, especially when you can load the paper hit the print button and crank them out to order. The problem I have is that you feel that anyone who believes that their skill, experience and craftsmanship should be considered in the pricing of the work is an elitist and delusional. Does that mean charging $1000 for an 8x10 from an unkown artist is OK. If it sells fine. But on the other hand why should someone with 20 years of experience and skill charge the same as a kid in college. And yes I know it is not about what your asking price is but wwhat someone will pay. But there is a point where intangibles play a part in the percieved value of a print.

I have a question that I mean in all sincerity. What do you consider a collectible print and at what point do you (or anyone intersted in buying photographs) consider the work of a person collectible?

 

[Dave Parker]

Hi Brooks,


Here is where the confusion lies. You say you do not consider your $20 inkjets collectible but something fun like a CD or a good meal. Ok I see where you are comming from with that idea of a commodity, especially when you can load the paper hit the print button and crank them out to order.

I have a question that I mean in all sincerity. What do you consider a collectible print and at what point do you (or anyone intersted in buying photographs) consider the work of a person collectible?

To me, therein lyes the problem, if we can't answer the question of what is collectable, how in the world is the buying public to differenciate in what they are purchasing is for fun, or for collecting?

I myself don't produce ink jet prints of my work, just for the fact I believe it cheapens the value of my traditionally produced prints and creates confusion to the customer I am trying to appeal to as to why they should pay the higher price for the tradionally produced print, especially when the terms of archivial and such get thrown around, I myself will not sell $20 prints, if you have a business model and the resource to do it at this type of price point, then more power to you, but I feel when a photographer does not make it clear then we cheapen the whole process to the end user/purchaser.

Dave

 

[roteague]

Having said all of that, I am having my first exhibition beginning this Friday evening at a very small art gallery in this little country town where I live. I am showing 25 B&W gelatin silver prints (fiber based). These prints took many hours in the darkroom to print and they have all been fixed twiced and archivally washed for 1 1/2 hours. The mounting cost me $20.00 print (they are double matted). I bought black frames @ 10.00 each at the dreaded Walmart and framed them (they actually look nice). I am pricing each framed print at the gallery for $75.00. 33% of the sales go to the gallery as a part of a fund raiser. If any person orders prints beyond which I have at the gallery, the price will be $45.00 each for a mounted (unmatted) print on acid free museum board.

Because I am a "no-name", I think this is fair.... Then again, I don't depend on photography for a living, and my main goal is to get some reaction to my work. What have others done in these circumstances????

I understand your point, however, I come from quite a different perspective. My cheapest print, a framed 11x14 sells for $350, a price that is driven by the cost of materials and gallery markups - even at this price, I'm not totally recouping my costs. My prints are all Fuji Crystal Archive, triple mounted on archival mounting board using tapes and hinges, wood frames and UV quality glass. Each of my 11x14 prints has about $150 just in materials. I don't skimp on materials, and I'm not going to compromise on quality, just because I am a "no-name" photographer.

 

[lenswork]

Boy, I think you guys have hit one of the nails on the head. "When a photographer does not make it clear then we cheapen the whole process." This is very true. If someone is selling Mercedes-Benz cars, but doesn't tell the customer the difference between a Mercedes and a Chevrolet, then the seller has only himself to blame if the car doesn't sell.

Let me come clean a bit here. Before LensWork, for fifteen years I had a management consulting company specializing in retail sales and management. I wrote a couple of books on the topic and lectured all over the world on business skills. Got tired of traveling 45 weeks of the year and decided to start LensWork so I could travel less. This may be a bit of a stretch when talking about art, but stick with me here. In my books on merchandising, I emphasize that the word "store" and the word "story" come from the same Latin root. To be a "store-keeper" is to be a "story-teller." That is what merchandising is all about -- telling the story of the product in a way that presents information to the buyer can they make an informed decision.

This is my real beef with the current state of affairs in marketing photography. There is now so much to talk about with buyers when it comes to fine art black and white photography! There are issues of the medium, the artist's story, the collectible nature of the work, the archival properties, the place of the image or the artist in photography's history and traditions, the edition size, the publication history, the photographer's curriculum vitae . . . it goes on and on. And so little of this is ever communicated in most marketing.

My contention is that all of these components are so very important. They each contribute to the story of a photograph. And in doing so, they all contribute to the buyers perception of value. Our job -- as marketers, not as photographers -- is to tell the story of our work so buyers have a complete, open, and honest understanding of what we are offering for sale. And, in doing so, they might conclude that our perception of value agrees with theirs and the price is just right. Then a sale might occur. Clearly, if they don't agree, they won't buy!

The $3,700 print I talk about in my article might be underpriced! What is its story? Is the story both believable and persuasive? If it is, then $3,700 is reasonable. If it is not, then $3,700 might not be the right price. Each of us a photographers who choose to sell our work need to think deeply about this. What is our story?

Michael and Paula, for example, have a story to tell about their cameras, about their process, about their way of seeing, about Azo, about the market and investment potential for their photographs. They do a fine job of "merchandising" their story and they are to be congratulated for it. This may be one of the best lessons to learn from them.

Those of you who choose to sell large, unique, beautifully crafted, gelatin silver, matted and/or framed prints have a lot to say about your work. Beyond that, what is the story of the individual image? How was it made? Why is it important? Why do you believe it is worth what you want to offer it for? If all this remains uncommunicated, how do you expect the buyer to write the check?

This requires a great deal of creative thinking skilled communication. It is a skill that many image-makers are uncomfortable with, so they "hire" galleries to do it for them. But are the galleries doing an adaquate job? Not by a long shot, in my experience. For example, I stopped by a gallery that was offering some of those great Christopher Burkett images. Wow. Stunning. There was a sign next to each that explained they were "NOT DIGITAL." I couldn't resist. I asked her why this made a difference. Her explanation -- her "story" that was intended to convince me to buy -- was "they're real photographs." That's all she said. Period. I wonder how many non-photographers are going to be persuaded by this reasoning? There is so much that she could have said but didn't! She was not representing Chris very well and actually doing him and his work a great disservice, in my estimation.

So, my advice (not that anyone was asking!) is to get talented at telling your story. The more an audience appreciates your story, the more engaged they are, the more interested in your work they will become. They may not buy it, but at least they'll understand it more.

Back to my prints. I have a story -- one of "art for everyday life." I tell my story plainly and up front -- what materials I use, why I print and price the way I do, etc. For some people, this story makes sense. For some it does not. Some people buy, some do not. That's okay. We can't be all things to all people. For those of you who think my ideas are silly, it may be that they are -- at least silly when applied to your work. Your story is diffent than mine. Apples and oranges. So take a look at your "stories" and how you present your work to the public and see if it makes sense to the audience at which you target your marketing.

Make sense?
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Thursday January 12, 2006

 

[Nick Zentena]

To me, therein lyes the problem, if we can't answer the question of what is collectable,

Do you mean collectable or investable? People collect matchbooks. Some invest in baseball cards. Collectable is anything a large enough group of people want to collect. Could be paper napkins.

 

[Dave Parker]

Nick,

Do you consider your work an investment or a collectable? and I have to agree with Brooks, how do you market it? the inherent nature of the human being is if I am collecting something I hope it will raise in value, if I am investing in it I believe it will raise in value, kind of like buying stock market certificates, we purchase them with the belief they will rise in value, we purchase an amouir because we like it and collect it with the hope it goes up in value, but even if it does not, I am still enjoying the beauty of the item..When I purchase a print, I do so for myself, in the back of my mind I hope it will go up in value, if I purchase a print for investment I expect it to go up in value..

It is our responsibility to market our product correctly if there is to be any value in it..On the other hand if we market it irresponsibly, we not only do ourselves a disservice, we also do disservice to our fellow photographer..

Dave

 

[roteague]

Make sense?

Brooks, I can understand the point you are trying to make, and for you personally, how you run your business is none of our concern. However, in some ways you are a "public" figure, in that your magazine and editorials are read by many, and probably influence more people than you realize. In other words, your words and actions have more impact than you realize. That is what people are reacting to, more than anything else I think.

For example, yesterday I picked up a copy of the Jan-Feb Lenswork in the bookstore; in the past I automatically purchased the issue without any thought, but now I look at each issue individually, because of your stance on "digital". While I don't care that you highlight some photographers working with digital technologies, I expect you to still highlight those using traditional technologies as well. I realize that you do, but when I see an entire issue devoted to people using digital technologies, it leaves a lasting impression that your magazine doesn't care about the traditional photographer. Remember, marketing is based upon perceptions, and that is my perception based upon your last issue. Why does it matter? Because, because we live in a world that is very pro-digital and those of us who want to continue using traditional materials see our access to the world through the print media rapidly disappearing. I realize that I and my work will never be part of Lenswork, but I am saddened to see such a fine quality publication moving away from those whose only focus is quality - that is what drives those of us using traditional materals. It is sad, because there are so many excellent B&W photographers here that you could have in your magazine.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with your reasoning about print pricing and marketing here, Brooks, but the etymological analogy seems a bit dubious to me. I double checked the OED, and found that "story" is related in Latin to historia which comes from Greek--a narrative of past events. "Store" is related to instaurare in Latin, which means "to stock, fortify," etc.

There are analogies to be made, however, between a store and a story. In Beowulf, for example, there is a reference to a story as a "word hoard." In Latin, the term copia may refer both to the rhetorical device of expatiation as well, say, to an "abundance" of soldiers or some other thing.

 

[roteague]

I stopped by a gallery that was offering some of those great Christopher Burkett images. Wow. Stunning. There was a sign next to each that explained they were "NOT DIGITAL." I couldn't resist. I asked her why this made a difference. Her explanation -- her "story" that was intended to convince me to buy -- was "they're real photographs." That's all she said. Period. I wonder how many non-photographers are going to be persuaded by this reasoning?

Probably more than you realize. Most people don't see the quality of something they can produce on a home ink jet print to be the equal of a real photo print, and the non-photographers among them don't know really know anything about the high-end ink jet printers.

FWIW, I had the opportunity to tour Christopher Burkett's darkroom last May; one visit will show anyone how committed Christopher is to quality.

 

[NikoSperi]

I emphasize that the word "store" and the word "story" come from the same Latin root.

No they don't... mi dispiace.
But your version is certainly much cuter for the marketing workshops - and the point you make is nonetheless valid.

 

[photomc]

Hmmm Sounds to me like Brooks is really talking to the gallery owners, more than photographers....more to "collectors" , than the person making the image (ie photographer). Now could be wrong, and probably am, but the whole idea of worth of a photograph (or any art) seems to what someone is willing to pay....I mean, we would all love to find an original dag or tin type from some famous photog in some little mom and pop and pay a fraction of it's so called worth in order to sell it for $$$$$ at one of the auction houses because someone estimated it was worth $$$ but the auction bidders wanted to push the price up. It is my opinion that the prints in the APUG gallery are priced quite well (some are under valued IMO) and some may be over valued (though I can't think of any right now).

What I hope Brooks meant was that there are many photographs out there, not available to John Q Public, because they are priced out of his reach. In the Chris Burkett example the 'person' in the gallery could not explain why it was important that the print was a real photograph...big failing there IMO. If someone works in a gallery they had darn well know what makes a print 'worth' the price on it, otherwise you should run, not walk, to another gallery.

 

[Struan Gray]

I find it quite funny that APUGers can simultaneously denigrate inkjet prints as worthless and castigate Brooks for selling them too cheaply.

"The food here is terrible!"

"Yes, and such small portions!"

In Europe it is quite common among photographers to aspire to publish a book, but not care in the slightest about print sales. Partly this reflects the poor European market for photographic prints, but it also reflects a different approach to photography as an act of communication or expression. In this tradition $20 inkjet prints make perfect sense: they are a way of disseminating your personal vision, not individual objects of intrinsic value.