Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

esanford · Jan 15, 2006

blansky said:
Ed, I agree.
Also your citing sitting fees, minimum orders etc, really has very little bearing on what portrait photographers make for a living. Except for product photographers, portrait/wedding and every other photographer make almost all their income from print sales.
Michael

Agreed!

Claire Senft · Jan 15, 2006

I think another factor is mental. If you have a client with a lot of money will he (she) be able to judge a print on its intrinsic merits? How many would buy a $20.00 print and proudly display it because it is so pleasing to them next to the $3,000.00 print that they like equally well? How many are likely to find themselves in a place where $20.00 8x10's are being offered for sale?
Would some customers buy a Chevrolet if it were much more expensive than a Mercedes?

The price of the print and it worthiness, how ever you define it, are not
necessarily the same thing.

I would not fault anyone for selling $20.00 8x10 prints as long as they deliver whatever they promised.

Ray Bidegain · Jan 15, 2006

blansky said:
Ed, I agree.

Although the initial statements made on this thread were about "art", the thread also headed into the area of "print prices". And in that area all photographers really share the same circumstances. What we charge determines our own lifestyle. Charging low rates carries it's own set of challenges for both. Flogging out 1000 prints for $20 carries with it certain problems not associated with charging $1000 for 20 prints.

Also your citing sitting fees, minimum orders etc, really has very little bearing on what portrait photographers make for a living. Except for product photographers, portrait/wedding and every other photographer make almost all their income from print sales.

Michael

The thing to keep in mind about retail portrait and wedding photographers is they are selling prints to clients of themselves. Not only are they inherently more valuable to the people involved, the print value does not transcend to any disinterested parties. Selling prints to disinterested strangers is a completely different thing

Ray Bidegain

Drew B. · Jan 15, 2006

Ray, your last statement is perfect and to the point. We also shouldn't forget the liability (I think we could call it that) placed on you... the wedding photographer. Everyone there is putting full faith in your ability to deliver the goods as promised. That demands additional cost in my mind. I did one wedding a few years ago and the fear/pressure of getting it right was more than I wanted. Selecting a great print out of your portfolio to sell on the open market requires nothing. You place a value on it and hope for a sale.

blansky · Jan 15, 2006

Ray Bidegain said:
The thing to keep in mind about retail portrait and wedding photographers is they are selling prints to clients of themselves. Not only are they inherently more valuable to the people involved, the print value does not transcend to any disinterested parties. Selling prints to disinterested strangers is a completely different thing

Ray Bidegain

Hi Ray, haven't heard from you in a while.

While I agree that portrait types have a built in emotional factor to their prints, there are still portrait types who sell prints for very little money and ones that sell prints for a substantial amount.

I think all the arguments here work for both landscape and portrait photographers equally. The photographer has to decide if he is doing this to earn money or if he thinks he is here as a altruistic facilitator for people to get photographs on their walls as cheaply as possible.

But I agree that outsiders rarely would by a print from a portrait sitting. (of course someone did make a few bucks off the Mona Lisa)

Michael

Claire Senft · Jan 15, 2006

Mr Blansky, are you saying that Mona Lisa was a comissioned portrait? Are you saying that Mona Lisa was a real person? Are you say the Leo from Vinci made big bucks on this painting?

Early Riser · Jan 15, 2006

I'm coming to this discussion a little late, however as someone who sells work that might be considered an "elitest" price ( prints start @ $600 for 11x14, $1000 for 16x20 and $2000 for a 20x24, galleries usually get a 50% commission) I'd like to give people some understanding of why prints are priced the way they are, at least by me. I can not speak for others but I can assume that my circumstances are not unusual for those who make their sole living selling their prints. The simple fact is that it is a very expensive, time intensive and risky business to be in.

I travel alone 3-4 months a year, that's a lot of motel stays. I drive 30,000 miles a year in an SUV that is much larger and more gas hungry ( usually I average 750 gallons of gas, 12,500 miles on a trip) then I would ordinarily choose, if not for the fact that I need to carry enough gear and supplies to last me nearly 2 months at a time on the road. When you do this for a living you don't sleep in or go out and shoot when you feel rested or in the mood, you shoot 7 days a week. In my case for usually 6 straight weeks at a time. I've stayed at so many different motels on a trip, 28 motels in 42 days, that when I got home I handed my wife a credit card and requested a non smoking room with a queen size bed. If I'm lucky i'll get 8 usable images a year.

The remaining 8 months a year are spent processing film, printing, spotting , matting, mounting and packing mounted prints for shipment. All of which loses it's luster a bit when you have to produce large volumes of finished, mounted prints.

The costs of travel, equipment, facilities, supplies, insurance, travel, packing materials, etc really add up. And for all you invest in time, money and effort, there is no guarantee that you'll sell a single image. Even if someone is charging an elitest price for a print doesn't mean they're actually making much money from it, especially for the investment of time.

If your goal is to disseminate your work to the masses at an affordable cost, the alternative is posters, something which I have chosen to do also. Some artists choose not to license posters of their work because they believe that it will lessen the value of their prints. Personally I don't think that is the case. I think there is a different market for prints and posters. While it is true that hundreds or thousands of dollars for a print is a lot of money, and is very much a luxury, it is pretty much the cost required to produce the work.

roteague · Jan 16, 2006

Early Riser said:
The simple fact is that it is a very expensive, time intensive and risky business to be in.

Brian, you are absolutely correct. A lot of people either forget or don't know what it takes to make a living at fine art. I don't, but I still spend a lot pursuing the dream; my recent trip to NZ/Australia cost me $5400 and I have 3 images which I consider worthy of being in a gallery, but probably no gallery in Hawaii will want them.

esanford · Jan 16, 2006

Early Riser said:
I travel alone 3-4 months a year, that's a lot of motel stays. I drive 30,000 miles a year in an SUV that is much larger and more gas hungry ( usually I average 750 gallons of gas, 12,500 miles on a trip) then I would ordinarily choose, if not for the fact that I need to carry enough gear and supplies to last me nearly 2 months at a time on the road. When you do this for a living you don't sleep in or go out and shoot when you feel rested or in the mood, you shoot 7 days a week. In my case for usually 6 straight weeks at a time. I've stayed at so many different motels on a trip, 28 motels in 42 days, that when I got home I handed my wife a credit card and requested a non smoking room with a queen size bed. If I'm lucky i'll get 8 usable images a year.

The remaining 8 months a year are spent processing film, printing, spotting , matting, mounting and packing mounted prints for shipment. All of which loses it's luster a bit when you have to produce large volumes of finished, mounted prints.

The costs of travel, equipment, facilities, supplies, insurance, travel, packing materials, etc really add up. And for all you invest in time, money and effort, there is no guarantee that you'll sell a single image. Even if someone is charging an elitest price for a print doesn't mean they're actually making much money from it, especially for the investment of time.

Thanks for your post... it really put things into perspective for me... You really injected a dose of reality of what it means to be a fulltime dedicated artist committed to quality. The other bit of reality is how low the yield is despite all of the hours you work. I think I read that Ansel Adams claimed to only capture about 12 prints per year. Your experience appears to be consistent.

bill schwab · Jan 16, 2006

lenswork said:
I don't personally know a single person who has paid more than about $2,500 for a photograph from a contemporary photographer, at least not that I can recall.

I know A LOT of them Brooks. Get attached to a gallery and you will be VERY surprised at the money people spend on contemporary AND dead photographers.

lenswork said:
There are lots of photographers who are frustrated with the gallery paradigm,

We certainly understand that YOU are one who has a problem with galleries and their elitist pricing, but there are many who are quite happy with it as well. Most of the photographers I have met that have problems with the gallery paradigm are those that do not have representation. It is easy to have some contempt for a club you so desperately want to have membership in, but wont have you. I know as I have been there. Most photographers who feel this way quickly change their tune once they have representation. Say Howard Greenberg called you today and said, I am willing to represent you Brooks, but you will have to stop selling your own work for 20 bucks a print. I realize that the precedent you have set through your very public disregard for the gallery system has made this impossible, but really, what would you do?

As I have said before Brooks, I admire your socialist approach to pricing photography, but it is no way to make a living. You have stated somewhere before the amount of money you have made over the years selling your prints. Reading that alone may cause photographers hoping to make their livelihood from their work to run and hide!

Bill

blansky · Jan 16, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Mr Blansky, are you saying that Mona Lisa was a comissioned portrait? Are you saying that Mona Lisa was a real person? Are you say the Leo from Vinci made big bucks on this painting?

Not sure. But the point was made that people usually aren't interested in portraits commissioned by other people. Which is true.

But the old masters painted a lot of commissioned portraits and today they are in the collections of a lot of interested parties.

That was my point.

As for Leo, I hope he charged a lot. I'd feel pretty sad if he gave his stuff away for the equivalence of $20 today.

Van Goch (sp?) selling only one picture is rather heartbreaking.

Michael

Jim Chinn · Jan 16, 2006

blansky said:
Van Goch (sp?) selling only one picture is rather heartbreaking.

Michael

Especially when you consider that "Starry Night" is considered one of the two or 3 most valuable pintings in history. I think I have read that if offered for auction it would fetch upwards of $200 million dollars.

Helen B · Jan 16, 2006

Early Riser said:
...Even if someone is charging an elitest price for a print doesn't mean they're actually making much money from it, especially for the investment of time.
...

Just out of interest, could you afford one of your own prints? Have you ever bought a print at the price that your prints are sold at?

Thanks,
Helen

David H. Bebbington · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
Just out of interest, could you afford one of your own prints? Have you ever bought a print at the price that your prints are sold at?

Thanks,
Helen

The answer may well be no, Helen. By the same token, have you ever hired anyone to make a personal movie for you for what you charge (I understand this is your profession)? I have never hired anyone to write for me for what I charge corporate clients - it is entirely possible that Michelangelo would not have been able to afford to hire someone to paint his own ceiling the way that he painted the Sistine Chapel!

bill schwab · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
Just out of interest, could you afford one of your own prints? Have you ever bought a print at the price that your prints are sold at?

Thanks,
Helen

Yes... several. I love them all.

Bill

Foto Ludens · Jan 16, 2006

Helen,

Many people who build cars can't afford one. Selling your labor does not mean that you can afford to purchase a similar labor from someone else. Whether you should or shouldn't be able, you most likely aren't.

I used to frame artwork for a living, but I could never pay what I charged for it. And I was never paid what I charged for it either, but that's what the job was like (and that's what gallery representation turns out to be like as well). I've only framed 2 of my photographs, and both were done at large discounts at the shop I worked at.

Unfortunately, this is not like agriculture, where you can grow some corn and eat it too. I hang some of my own photographs in my house, and have managed to trade photographs with others whose work I admire. But I cannot afford to purchase a print (and later frame it).

Just my 2c.

André

blansky · Jan 16, 2006

Not to put words in Helen's mouth but I think she like the accessibility of having prints available to everyone. Not just the elite or rich.

In my business and for personal work, I don't discount what I do for friends or anyone. My price is my price. But what I may do for friends is give them prints as gifts. The thinking being, a $1000 prints is never discounted to say $300, it is instead a $1000 gift.

Michael

Claire Senft · Jan 16, 2006

Well, Michael, if I were able to afford it I would love a print of W. Churchill made by Karsh...not to mention many others that he photographed. I would love to own prints of portraits made by A. Adam's..altough not much, if any was done on commision. Seems to me a fellow that lived around Carmel Ca. was a portrait photographer and I would not much mind some of his work either. A guy by the name of Smith and another by the name of Parks, and others, once did some work for hire by a magazine by the name of Life, some of which meets my definitions of portraits..I would love to be able to afford those also.

blansky · Jan 16, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Well, Michael, if I were able to afford it I would love a print of W. Churchill made by Karsh...not to mention many others that he photographed. I would love to own prints of portraits made by A. Adam's..altough not much, if any was done on commision. Seems to me a fellow that lived around Carmel Ca. was a portrait photographer and I would not much mind some of his work either. A guy by the name of Smith and another by the name of Parks, and others, once did some work for hire by a magazine by the name of Life, some of which meets my definitions of portraits..I would love to be able to afford those also.

I think I'm missing your point.

But I think a portrait done by commission by a photographer for the personal use of the subject, as is what most portrait photographers do, is not the same as what you have described.

Karsh's Churchill was done at the request of Karsh. He snagged dignitaries passing through the capital of Canada probably as a great way to promote himself and his work. He had access to these people and worked much the same way as celebrity photographers would work today. They call on celebrities and try to get them to sit for them so that they can show a body of work of celebrities.

I'm not sure about the others you mentioned. People who shot for LIFE and other publications were not shooting at the request of the subject but instead for the publication in LIFE.

In my response I was answering someone who pointed out that most people would not be interested in buying the work of portrait photographers because it was not necessarily relavent to them having pictures of someone elses family on their wall. I agreed to that but added that later on those pictures do become part of the collections of unrelated parties. His point was that TODAYS portrait types almost exclusively do work of and for the person that hired them.

Michael

Early Riser · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
Just out of interest, could you afford one of your own prints? Have you ever bought a print at the price that your prints are sold at?

Thanks,
Helen

Helen, I have bought work of other artists that are in the same price range of my work.

Helen B · Jan 16, 2006

Thanks for the reply.

I think that Michael made the correct interpretation of my question probably better than I did when I asked it. I had read Early Riser's sad tale of what a hard life he led and that was the question that popped into my head, out of plain curiosity as far as I could tell. If I had had a hidden agenda, it was hidden to me as well.

As far as being able to buy my own labour, Im in exactly the same position as anyone else who sells her or his labour, except that Id try to find someone less ditzy and with more drive.

This all reminds me of when I lived in the Chelsea Hotel. I wonder if the most some people ever got for their paintings was when they gave them to Stanley (the owner) in lieu of back rent. Some people get approved by the Art Mafia so the clueless know what to buy, some people produce work that is easy to digest as art and some people pursue their offbeat vision and survive however they can. Good luck to them all.

Best,
Helen

photomc · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
.... Some people get approved by the Art Mafia so the clueless know what to buy, some people produce work that is easy to digest as art and some people pursue their offbeat vision and survive however they can. Good luck to them all.

Thanks for that Helen, do not recall hearing the term Art Mafia, since my college days (mid 70's)....brought a smile to my face. Shame is the statement is as true today as it was then....guess it will always be that way.

esanford · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
Just out of interest, could you afford one of your own prints? Have you ever bought a print at the price that your prints are sold at?

Thanks,
Helen

I think an even more important question that we need to ask ourselves is "do we buy the work of other photographers?" The prominent photographic teacher, Fred Picker, said the following in one of his news letters:
"There is no such thing as a good photographer who doesn't collect photographs and see exhibits any more than there exists a good musician who never buys a recording or goes to a concert or a writer who doesn't read."

We shouldn't expect others to value analog photography if we only adorn our walls with our own personal analog work. Every good musician worth his salt has a vast music collection. Most starving writers have a decent library or a well used library card. I regularly buy photography (especially color because I don't think I do it that well and I enjoy the work of others). I think you can only lead by example and that is periodically buying the work of other photograpers whose works contribute to your enjoyment and support of the craft. APUG creates a very special opportunity because you can trade with others thereby keeping costs competitive. I have 3 fine pieces that I obtained from APUG members.

bill schwab · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
I had read Early Riser's sad tale of what a hard life he led...

I thought it sounded easy... I sleep in my car a lot of the time!

In all fairness, he does travel like a madman from what he has told me. But you did make it sound a bit drab Brian! I love being on the road working and am thankful for every minute I get out there. It does get old, but I am sure you will agree it beats what usually passes as a day-job.

Bill

Early Riser · Jan 16, 2006

Helen B said:
Thanks for the reply.

......I had read Early Riser's sad tale of what a hard life he led .......

Helen

Helen, I've never claimed that I have a hard life, in fact I feel blessed to have the life i do. However as fortunate as i am, does not mean that I do not work extremely long and hard at what I do and face a certain of risk both financial and physical in pursuing it.

It is downright expensive to travel as much as I do to shoot landscape photography. I am not shooting flowers in my backyard. And the amount that I have invested in equipment and facilities exceeds the cost of a good house. The costs of producing my images and prints are reflected in the price of those prints.

The galleries on their part have financial risk as well and that is why they have to believe that they can sell the work. There is no "art mafia", if a gallery owner likes your work and thinks they can sell it they'll represent you.

As for having my work available to the masses, they can go to IKEA or buy one from thousands of poster shops around the world. The price for the posters start at under $5.00 for the smallest sizes. How much more accessible can I make it?

Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

esanford

Claire Senft

Ray Bidegain

Drew B.

blansky

Claire Senft

Early Riser

roteague

esanford

bill schwab

Advertiser

blansky

Jim Chinn

Helen B

David H. Bebbington

bill schwab

Advertiser

Foto Ludens

blansky

Claire Senft

blansky

Early Riser

Helen B

photomc

esanford

bill schwab

Advertiser

Early Riser

Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency