Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

If a person made, for instance, still life photos that were easy to print snd could be printed at 50 at a time with a good chance of selling them all then perhaps one could make money selling 8x10 prints ar $20.00. I find that more refreshing than photographers offering an 8x10 at $250.00 that is mundane and poorly crafted.

jdef said:

Is there any substantial difference in the quality of reproduction of the images in Lenswork compared to the images you offer for $20 ea.?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the ones in the magazine are better quality. Lenswork has consistently the highest quality reproductions of any photographic periodical out there.

I'd be happy with $20 for an image that originated digitally and was output by pushing a button on a computer. Hell I can get posters in the poster shop for $17 that are 17X24, so $20 is probably high.

OTOH my pictures may only be worth $20 but I'll be damned if I'll sell them for that! I'll give them away until they're "worth" what my time and talent is really worth.

Claire Senft said:

I find that more refreshing than photographers offering an 8x10 at $250.00 that is mundane and poorly crafted.

Click to expand...

You mean like Joel Meyerowitz and his images of Tuscany?

This will be a gross over simplification

It's all Ansel's fault. Edward was happy enough working to clarify his vision, and only needed enough money for food, a roof over his head, materials, and to keep the vehicle going. Ansel hired a publicist and made himself famous. Ansel also announced that he would stop making prints from old negatives when he turned 70, and sold (I think) $1,000,000.00 worth in the 2 years before he retired.

Collectors who had picked up prints for next to nothing began to sell them off. Edward was gone and Ansel wasn't going to make anymore, so the prices started to climb. Galleries started popping up everywhere as the greedy bellied up to the trough. Buyers were equally greedy and snapped up overpriced work by new artists because they appeared to be good investments, and the inflated price was quite a bit less than what Edward's and Ansel's stuff was now going for. This has continued unchecked. This is what happens when people buy art not because they love it, but for its investment potential.

There are honourable photographers and reputable gallery owners out there, but when there's so much money to be had, it's like emptying a chum bucket off the back of the boat.

Murray

roteague said:

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.

Click to expand...

Which issue are you referring to? The current issue, LensWork #62, features photographs from four photographers:

• Richard Snodgrass (4x5 film camera)
• Fritz Liedtke (4x5 Polaroid Pos/Neg film)
• Huntington Witherill (Med format film and digital cameras)
• Stewart Harvey (Widelux printed on gelatin silver)

Yes, even though Richard used a 4x5 film camera, he did digital prints as does Huntington, but the other two used film cameras and gelatin silver for their prints. Must we only publish photographers who've sworn off all forms of digital technology to gain your approval? Is it possible that your observation is a bit of a reflection of what you choose to see?

I've recapped our statistics in other threads and over the last 5 years we've published an overwhelming majority of silver work -- in fact, almost to the exclusion of digital. I'm almost surprised I don't get more complaints from the digital folks because we publish so little that is digital!

I've stated this before, but it's worth saying again. We never look at the equipment that is being used when we select content for any of our publications. We only look at the work and try to choose what we think is the best imagery. Quite honestly, most of the best work is still on film because (IMHO, but I have no facts to back this up) large and medium format photographers tend to be the ones most concerned with image quality and the fine print. (I know this is a generalization, but it's my observation.) They are the ones most dedicated to making fine art photographs. (I guess I've just laid myself open to criticism from a whole bunch of 35mm users!) I have no crystal ball, so I have no idea what the future holds, but today this is still true and is reflected in what we choose to publish.

So, please feel free to disagree with me about my philosophies and opinions -- lots to discuss! -- but let's do so with the facts when it concerns what we do and do not publish in LensWork. Is this a fair request?

Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Thursday January 12, 2006

lenswork said:

I've stated this before, but it's worth saying again. We never look at the equipment that is being used when we select content for any of our publications. We only look at the work and try to choose what we think is the best imagery.

Click to expand...

I confess that I always look at the equipment used for the portfolios and I actually, viscerally feel better when it's not digital. However, much like the way photographs are seen on the web, it makes no difference in the magazine. The reproductions always bear the Lenswork style of clarity and quality with a narrow variety of 'toning' as well. I would never be able to tell, if there were no equipment attributions, whether they were ULF, Minox, film or digital.

lenswork said:

Yes, even though Richard used a 4x5 film camera, he did digital prints as does Huntington, but the other two used film cameras and gelatin silver for their prints. Must we only publish photographers who've sworn off all forms of digital technology to gain your approval? Is it possible that your observation is a bit of a reflection of what you choose to see?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with you publishing digital photographers (guess what, I print on a Chromira - a digital printer for all my work), the point I was making is that the perception that comes across. Your words and your actions in Lenswork mean a lot more than simple words on the Internet. You see how much your comment about $20 prints has caused in APUG alone? If you were a "pure" traditional photographer you would see how much of photographic publishing is being taken over by digital technologies.

I'm not a B&W photographer, and that is the very reason I read Lenswork. I realize you don't have time to read all of APUG, but if you did you would realize that I am one of the few arguing for the use of digital printers (like the Lightjet and Chromira) in color photography.

The whole point of my message is that your words and actions, as the publisher of an influential magazine in the world of B&W photography, have a lot more impact than you realize.

MurrayMinchin said:

This will be a gross over simplification

It's all Ansel's fault. Edward was happy enough working to clarify his vision, and only needed enough money for food, a roof over his head, materials, and to keep the vehicle going. Ansel hired a publicist and made himself famous. Ansel also announced that he would stop making prints from old negatives when he turned 70, and sold (I think) $1,000,000.00 worth in the 2 years before he retired. ...


Murray

Click to expand...

Harrumph.

Ansel worked his butt off to support his family and leave something to his kids. Like a farmer. Too bad he couldn't sell his dairy quota so he didn't have to drive himself into the ground grinding out prints as his body was shutting down.

The tough thing about being a photographer, of any kind, is to afford to live next door to a client.

Adams and Strand talked about the whole issue of price, and how to reach a marketplace. Since both were also commercial shooters ( Strand, a film maker ) the burden of making ends meet was alleviated, a little. Adams believed in the 'democracy' of photography; a negative can make unlimited prints, so he didn't charge a lot for his work.

Strand saw ( more clearly, I think, than Adams ) that the limit of a photographer to make prints came from exhaustion, that each print was a piece of his 'soul' ( OK, Strand didn't use the word, but I'm too lazy to look up his letter ) and that was part of the process, and it justified a higher price.

They both agreed the 'high end' market was limited, and incapable of meeting even simple needs. Both turned to gravure and lithography to market fine quality reproductions to the mass market, at an affordable price. As did PH Emerson in the 19th c. when he turned to gravure as an alternative to hand tipped platinotypes in his books.

Strand paved the way for giclee portfolios at reasonable prices. He was passionate about getting good images into the hands of normal, not rich, people. Adams helped pioneer the current fine lithography and digital scanning to make the images as good as possible.

So, on one hand they paved the way for affordable portfolios. And on the other, pushed the quality of fine photographic printmaking to new heights.

They didn't see a devil's choice, and made the best images they could for the different marketplace.

For what it's worth, Edw worked his tail off keeping body and soul together. The sentimental image of a pure photographer living a noble life is fine, but it misses the cost he paid.

Christian- your work is lovely, and I wish you every good success. The way you ( and others ) are using eBay is very good. You can sell as many prints as you can, you are free of galleries ( and their 50% take ) and reach far more people. You are truly helping to develop a market for us all.
.

I read the article before I read this thread (other than the initial post), which I gathered was about Lenswork. I did so on purpose so I would not be prejudiced.

The article was well written, made excellent points and in no way did Brooks advocate we should all sell our prints for $20.00.

The article, as I perceived, was for us to formulate our personal market evaluation, and structure our price point to that. Be realistic. If you have the name, credits, proven sales record and have been getting a certain price point-great. Otherwise, formulate a reasonable price structure that perhaps cuts through the "fine art" dogma and allow ourselves a realistic expectation of revenue based on possible sales (qty) and production cost factor.

That could be $50.00 for one person and $300 for someone else. Only you/I can determine that.

I always admired Brooks work, and wished I had bought some of the previous LW editions. I do however think regardless of output methods, $20.00 is just too low..it could possibly prejudice a percentage of the market due to his visibility, inkjet or not. Then again, if I could sell 1000 for $20 I honestly wouldn't care what others thought. Then they'd be $30 the next year...then $40..then...

It's all about marketing.

df cardwell said:

Harrumph.

Click to expand...

Good point

Remember, I did say it was going to be a gross over simplification. I was trying to explain my take on how prices shot up so fast, so that in todays gallery scene a newcomer can charge over $3,000.00 for a print.

I was just starting out in photography when Ansel retired, but if my memory is correct (good thing my Wife isn't here to read that and laugh her head off!), it was after Ansel retired that the prices of photographs started to escalate. When people saw the profit potential in fine art photographs, some got into the game for the money, not because they love photographs. Unfortunately, many buyers need their hand held through the process and require the Stamp of Approval a gallery provides. Sitting ducks for the unscrupulous.

Murray

Hi all

I also sell my work at low price. because I feel closer to this philosophy than selling at higher price. This allow me to keep my own business and to met people who are interesting in fine art but don't have the money for buying big names.

But my own reflexion about pricing is that all of us known that the price of an art peice as nothing todo with quality and so on. A poor thing can be sold thousands , I remember a man who sold 5x7 inch inkjet print made on an epson 800 @ 150DPi @ 700$ each. he don't sell any as the rint was so poor but the gallery who show the work was proud to hang it on the wall at this price.

I think that art market is like any market and limiting the edition to raise the price as nothing to deal with art

blaze-on said:

Then again, if I could sell 1000 for $20 I honestly wouldn't care what others thought. Then they'd be $30 the next year...then $40..then...

It's all about marketing.

Click to expand...

Not me, a 1000 prints, no matter how you do them at $20 each is just to damn much work, whew, I do like to eat with my family and have time to take pictures and if I had to worry about the quality control on 1000 prints that I am only getting $20 each for, then......no thank you! Yikes

Dave

I hope Kenna gets with the program. He could obviously sell a boat load of 8x10 gelatin sliver prints at $20 a pop. I'll take a couple of $20 Kenna's, a Sexton and I could even go for a couple of Barnbaum's at that price. Paula Chamlee might even let go of a few of those 8x10 contact prints for $20.

I suggest everyone look at the current PDN which profiles the $1 stock industry.

$1 x 3000 uses > $200 * 10 prints

still, one is hard pressed to pay $40,000 for a small almost anonymous Irving Penn print. Pretty, but

Satinsnow said:

Not me, a 1000 prints, no matter how you do them at $20 each is just to damn much work, whew, I do like to eat with my family and have time to take pictures and if I had to worry about the quality control on 1000 prints that I am only getting $20 each for, then......no thank you! Yikes

Dave

Click to expand...

Come on Dave you know better then that. All you have to do is push the button and let Mr. Epson do the rest.

If Jensen wants to sell his prints for $20, that's his business, for whatever purpose he has. Trying to say all others are overpricing their work is absurd. He just happens to have a pulpit to speak from that the rest of us don't have. I can get $50 for mine and I'm unknown. Christian and Jorge can get double that and more. And there are Westons bringing over $800,000 at auction. EW probably got $10 for it in 1930. That's still more than Jensen's $20 today. You get whatever the market will bring. Simple, basic economics.

And "NO" I won't sell any of mine below $50 for my own good reasons.

I don't think we should forget that often the gallery system keeps the prices of prints higher than they could be. I believe that Brooks has also written extensively about this, some fairly insightful remarks if I remember.

At the risk of provoking more expressions of horror ( ), I think you will find that Brooks is selling unmatted prints. Adding a decent mount and mat adds considerably to the materials cost and time, even if you do it yourself. A lot of people will not do their own framing, even if you mat the work. That's why framers do a good business.

Now, if one goes to the trouble of producing a print with the _intention_ that it out-lasts the life of the photographer or purchaser, then perhaps it is unwise to rely on the purchaser having a good framing job done. But an inexpensive print is going to wind up in an inexpensive (though tasteful, one hopes!) frame from a chain store.

So tailoring the materials and production to the price you charge *and* the probable use by the class of buyer makes sense. I'd like to be selling to the carriage trade (or at least the Mercedes end of the market rather than the Hyundai), but if someone will give me money for my art, I'll let them.

lenswork said:

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.".

Click to expand...

I feel virtually everyone but you will have understood this statement correctly as meaning "you can sell pictures for as little as you like".

This nitpicking pales into insignificance beside the yawning logical inconsistency of your overall position, which is that on the one hand you make a standard plea of the case for marketing to boost perceived value in the eyes of customers and thus make it possible to achieve high prices, while on the other hand using (or rather abusing) whatever position you have to take a ball and chain to the efforts of others to build a worthwhile market in art prints.

All your apparent marketing experience has failed to teach you one very simple fact - if you offer prints for $20 (yes, I have understood that you offer others at higher prices), this has a powerful effect in making people think that $20 is the "right" price for a print and that anyone who charges more is a thief and a shyster.

I find it very sad in general whenever anyone in photography decries high prices being achieved by some photographic artist or other - is it just petty jealousy? Rest assured, if any client pays tens of thousands of dollars for a photograph, then
a) they can afford it without going hungry or forcing their children into prostitution and
b) this will only have been achieved through hard work by the photographer concerned, most likely together with a dedicated marketing effort by a gallery with which they are associated.

FWIW, my wife and I have structured our own print sales to match what I was taught in my college marketing course years ago. It is nothing new and works for most any product.

That is, have a mix of products at different price levels to appeal to different sized pocket-books. Not everyone can afford a Cadillac. That's why Honda made millions selling their economically priced vehicles. That doesn't mean that the buyers don't aspire to own a Cadillac. They just might not be able to afford it at the moment. So, should we disapprove of Honda's strategy? I don't think so. It doesn't diminish the value of the Cadillac unless the quality of their product is similar. And if the quality of the product is the same, should we be critical of Honda for achieving a lower selling price? Perhaps here we get at the root of the issue. How is that they can afford the lower production cost. Labor? Materials? Both? Do we then fall back to a nationalistic stance and defend our own process? IMO, it is best to recognize the value of each approach and let the buyer decide what has the most appeal to them. In the end, it seems that the decision boils down to taste, and it seems to me someone said, "There's no accounting for taste."

We sell 5x7 prints that we have branded JewelPrints(TM) (originally Ilfochrome, then Lightjet, and most recently Inkjet prints) single matted in 11x14 mats for $29.50 retail. Those prints are intended to be the "quick nickel" in our revenue stream. High volume, low cost. But, we have always provided a high quality product at that price. From the image, to the materials, to the presentation, it has always been classy. Through the change in process, the one constant has been the image itself. At that price point, process doesn't seem to be as big an issue with the buyer, but it makes a significant difference in the dollars transferred to our own bottom line.

But, we have had to make some tradeoffs in which images are selected for the product line. One needs to know what the market wants to take home with them. And while I would love to sell the images that mean the most to me personally, that isn't always what the public would choose.

So what about the more personal images? Those go to the smaller segment of the public who are looking for something on a different level. Something beyond what is considered a souvenir (from the French "souvienne," to remember). Perhaps a collection of images that represent a more introspective, revelatory peek at the artist's psyche.

Two different markets. Two different purposes. Sometimes as artists we can get lucky and the two markets converge to where the images not only are representative of a place or a moment, but are representative of our emotional state of being.

Mind you, my motivation is to make beautiful images and share them with the world. Not being a trust fund child, I have to obtain a return on my investment in time and energy to facilitate my passion for creating images. As one who obtained an economics degree, it would be foolish to ignore the lessons of supply and demand, unit cost, etc. Unless one is making a donation for the greater good, who pays for the cost of materials, the time spent hiking to a location to make the image, the time spent to make the print and to draft the promotional materials? Theoretically, we all get compensated for our "jobs" at some hourly rate. Do we compensate ourselves similarly for the time that goes into preparing prints for sale?

With traditional processes, it is much more difficult to remove the component that is typically the most expensive from the equation. Labor cost. But, what if one can reduce the cost of labor? Does it diminish the value of the image if either the artist no longer prints their own work, or if the process is automated somehow?

For a known photographer like Ansel, the best analogy seems to be "all boats float in a high tide" because his SEPs still command a goodly price even though they are printed by Alan Ross. Is the current price of those images related to process? To some degree for sure. Galen Rowell is another whose work held its value regardless of process (he didn't print his work ever to my knowledge, but supervised the printing). That would seem to point to other artists of high stature obtaining similar results. But a shrewder approach seems to be that of artists that use the reproduction process as a component of their marketing mix by selling non-archival prints for less than their archival equivalents, or traditional process at a higher price than non-traditional.

Regardless, Brooks' "story" analogy works in every instance and I believe that the concept is part of our own success. We are fortunate to have very reputable people selling our work who care about us as people and share an enthusiasm for our work. We help them to sell our work by giving them the tools to do a better job. The story helps them and the general public to understand why our work is important. On the reverse of each print, we share the how and why of the creation of each image, from what is special about the moment the image was made to how the print was prepared, so that the public is confident in their purchase and our committment to a quality product for a fair price.

Ansel Adams' approach was no different. His SEP's were created to put his work in the hands of those people who couldn't afford the larger prints. Interestingly, the less expensive work will help sell the more expensive work. By having more work on display than there is wall space. By having the work in more households where other potential buyers will see it. Likewise, the more expensive work helps sell the less expensive work by increasing its percieved value. "There was this huge print for $X,000 there of this same image, but all I could afford was this little one."

The next size up in our portfolio (8x10), there is a significant jump in price to $150. Again the processes that were used to create the prints evolved over the years, and our prices reflect a variety of factors. More time put into preparing the print (full gallery presentation, most of early work was printed for us by professional labs and therefore boosted the labor and materials cost, uniqueness of the images, the price of comparable work by our contemporaries, and a more challenging issue: collectors). The collector issue presents a whole different wrinkle to the equation, for essentially, once and artist has established a selling price for an image, it is frowned upon to decrease the price at a late date lest they simultaneously devalue all previous work sold to a public, who oftentimes are making a purchase as an investment, or at least with the notion that the print will increase in value over time, especially upon the death of the artist.

However, a collector I once met shared this insight about collecting photography. They said, "I don't buy an image as an investment. I buy it because it moves me." Their collection was the finest I have ever seen anywhere, in or out of museums, for it was not only an awesome assembly of imagery, but it clearly depicted the nature of the collector. While I was moved by the images individually, I was really moved by the vision of the individual who brought them together. To me, the value of the whole collection was far greater than the sum of the parts. So, it might be a real steal someday to have one each of Brooks' $20 prints, especially if you are the only one who does.

kswatapug said:

FWIW, my wife and I have structured our own print sales to match what I was taught in my college marketing course years ago. It is nothing new and works for most any product.

That is, have a mix of products at different price levels to appeal to different sized pocket-books. Not everyone can afford a Cadillac. That's why Honda made millions selling their economically priced vehicles. That doesn't mean that the buyers don't aspire to own a Cadillac. They just might not be able to afford it at the moment. So, should we disapprove of Honda's strategy? I don't think so. It doesn't diminish the value of the Cadillac unless the quality of their product is similar. And if the quality of the product is the same, should we be critical of Honda for achieving a lower selling price? Perhaps here we get at the root of the issue. How is that they can afford the lower production cost. Labor? Materials? Both? Do we then fall back to a nationalistic stance and defend our own process? IMO, it is best to recognize the value of each approach and let the buyer decide what has the most appeal to them.

Click to expand...

The principle of a mix of differently-priced products is sound, but the Honda/Cadillac analogy is flawed. Japanese automakers are famous for lean production, paring costs to the bone, and above all excellent production engineering (designing things to be easy to mass-produce) and a pioneering commitment to quality control (which the West struggled for a long time to catch up with).

The only aspect of Honda auto-making which you can realistically carry over to photography is the economy of scale offered by inkjet printing - labor-intensive adjustment of a master file can be amortised over an infinite production run with almost zero labor content (the printer runs by itself and just needs refilling with ink and paper every few hours).

One thing you can be sure of, Honda has never sold an automobile without a good prospect of achieving a 100% markup on the recommended selling price (i.e. twice what it costs to make, distribute, advertise and sell its vehicles). I simply cannot believe that you are selling matted prints for $29.50 through a third party and achieving any worthwhile profit.

jovo said:

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. ...

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.

Click to expand...

I realized as I was reading everyone's posts that I was going to have to say something. Fortunately you said it for me.

The point of a photograph, from a buyer's perspective, is not how much blood, sweat, tears and money went into producing it, but whether they like it enough to pay their own money for it, and the less it costs, the more likely they will like it enough to buy it. $20 has worked out well for him on certain pictures, produced a certain way, and sold as he has marketed them. He's not saying everyone should do it exactly as he has - I think he was just trying to get people to contemplate the issue of pricing a little.

df cardwell said:

Adams and Strand talked about the whole issue of price, and how to reach a marketplace. Since both were also commercial shooters ( Strand, a film maker ) the burden of making ends meet was alleviated, a little. Adams believed in the 'democracy' of photography; a negative can make unlimited prints, so he didn't charge a lot for his work.

Click to expand...

Dear Ansel:



…Rather than your getting it second hand, I want you to know that I was very disturbed by your portfolio—I do not refer to the content, (about which I would rather speak than write you) but the effect the price of it will have on the whole problem of establishing a proper value for a photograph. This arose, as you may remember, when the original suggestion of a similar folio of work of 10 photographers was raised. Either a photograph as an art work is worth something or it is worth nothing. I well remember the time when people said no water color was worth more than $100 and Stieglitz made them pay as high as $6,000 for a Marin. They did not like it but the concept that a watercolor is inferior and of less value than an oil was broken down to a great extent. I also remember when advertisers and agencies paid $5 for a photograph and $1,000 for a painting. The commercial photographers have changed that situation, and have given photography its rightful place within the hierarchy of commercial art values—Stieglitz tried and to some extent succeeded in giving a photograph its rightful value as an art commodity. I have adhered to that principle and will continue to do so.

It seems to me that your portfolio undermines the basic concept of the value of a fine photographic print. First it says: a little over $8 apiece is a reasonable price and secondly it says that the photograph as an art work can be made in any quantity or at least quality. I don’t think either is true and in the long run my feeling is that you will not increase either respect for, nor understanding of, photography as a medium of expression—I think it only fair to tell you what I think.

Our greetings to your Virginia and the very much growing up young Adamses—and to Edward if you see him—my class at the Photo League is an interesting experiment—hope for all concerned—