Do photographers charge way to much for their photos?

[c6h6o3]

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.

TO PAUL STRAND
​

​

Yosemite National Park
​

March 29th, 1949
​

​

Dear Paul,



You are an honest man! I appreciate your letter very much indeed for various reasons. I know that what you say comes from the heart and from basic convictions. I don’t agree with you about price, but that is a minor matter.

I have, as you know, the greatest respect and affection for you and you work. It is the only truly poetic photography in the world today. And I admire your devotion to the cause of adequate value of photographs.

I cannot agree with your logic in this respect: 1 print only from a negative may very well be worth $500.00—the photograph in itself is worth that. But, where we have one oil painting, one watercolor, one piece of sculpture—we also have many prints of etchings, many prints of lithographs, many prints of photographic negatives. To me the essence of the photographic process is its reproducibility. With adequate technique we can print a million duplicate prints of the same negative and each print can be as beautiful and perfect as the “master” print which, we suppose, is the expressed concept of the picture. To me, the photograph stands as an expression independent of the number of prints made from it.

In my Portfolio One every print is as good as if it were the final fine print I would make from the negative. The “fine” print was made; sometimes it took may hours to determine the desired perfection and feeling. Once that was done, it was a simple matter to simply repeat the exposure and development procedures. I kept accurate detailed notes and used a metronome in timing. Every 13 or 15 prints were developed at one time in 3 liters of fresh Metol-Glycin developer (6 minutes developing time). What differences there are can be traced to paper differences, and to occasional failures of control. These differences are very slight. One picture—the Saguaro cactus—was intentionally printed in two ways—one slightly darker than the other. I am equally pleased with both expressions. And so on!

The price of the portfolio is fixed as a unit. The separate prints will always be priced at at least $25.00. No separate prints will be available until long after the portfolio is completely sold out—if then. If the portfolio were done in an edition of 500 copies, I would have priced it at $50.

If I could make a fine print for $1000—and distribute them to a great audience, I would be greatly pleased.

I am touched by the fact that several students have bought the Portfolio and are pay a few dollars a month. It is all they could possibly afford. $100.00 is far too much for the average person for anything. It is much more important that the people who appreciate and truly desire to have the Portfolio be given a chance to own it, than to have it placed only in the hands of the rich—who are often very unappreciative of anything but hard cash.

I can’t reconcile you definitely social attitudes with your equally definite exalted financial value applied to art. Explain sometime, please!

But I DO appreciate the letter. Very much indeed!

Must see you soon.

​

To you and V. and the cat
​

Affectionate greetings for us all,

Ansel

​

Ansel Adams Letters and Images 1916-1984


BTW, Strand may have done commercial work, but he didn't rely on it for his living. Like Stieglitz, he was of independent means. I think that this fact and the fact that Adams made his living as a commercial photographer are very telling here.

 

[esanford]

C6....

Very enlightening... Thanks for posting those... By the way I went to an inflation calculator: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ And, 25.00 is worth 191.86 in 2005 dollars. That is still pretty cheap for an Ansel Adams Portfolio. Does anyone no how Ansel reacted when individual prints were selling for $50K before he died???

 

[blansky]

Any photograph is worth exactly what you can sell it for.

If you sell prints for $20, $50, $100, $10,000 then that is exactly what it is worth.


Michael

 

[removed account4]

i still don't see what the problem is -

he is selling photography at a price that people can afford.

-john

 

[Dave Parker]

i still don't see what the problem is -

he is selling photography at a price that people can afford.

-john

John,

Its not that he is selling a picture for what people can afford, it, in my opinion was the attitude and idea of his article that made others upset, when you make broad statements about what others should do, then your going to have controversay, fi Brooks wants to sell his lowline prints off the injet for $20 bucks, that is fine with me, but please don't lead to the fact that I am selling mine for to much, as Blansky said, it is worth what you can get for it..and I know as many others do, I can get more than $20 bucks for mine.

Dave

 

[Drew B.]

I've read parts of many of these posts and, correct me if I'm wrong, the main theme of that article wasn't about selling a print for $20...and maybe making the rest of us look bad...but that sometimes the fine art world thinks everything that is produced by any artist should be valued beyond the means of the majority of this earth's residents. We've all seen absolute crap selling for thousands of dollars that most people wouldn't pay $5 for! Unfortunately thats what is wrong with this "market economy" we have to live under. ("..what the market will bear" god I hate that saying) Why not make a print, thinking about what it took for us to buy the film, to go out and take the image, process it, study the neg, print it and then think about what we need to make a living and be comfortable and then sell it for the figure that we settled on. Just because it was created by me (or you) doesn't mean we should be asking $5000 because we happen to think it is worth it.

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't see a way to get away from "what the market will bear" thats why we have cars that sell for 50K when it takes less than a 1/3 of that to produce them, it is because that is what the market will pay for it..

We really as artists, photographers or what ever you call us, have no bearing on what we can sell our product for, because once someone pays the price it becomes what the market will bear, the person purchasing the item for some reason or another decided that piece was worth the price....we all do it, if we fell a product is not worth the price, we won't buy it, plain and simple, that is what the market will bear.

I have been told thousands of times in the last year, I should sell my glass product for more, but can guarantee you, the market would not bear it, so hence I sell it for what provides a living for my family and still allows the consumer to purchase it..I just happen to feel and with many sales behind me, know that for my photography, the market will bear the price.


When it comes down to it, I don't care what someone else sells their product for, as long as they don't tell me I am wrong for what I sell my product for.

I have every right as an independant marketer to ask what I want for my product, if the public buys it, then it is worth is, if they don't, then it is not worth it, I just don't have the right to make statements about what others sell theirs for.

Dave

 

[removed account4]

John,

Its not that he is selling a picture for what people can afford, it, in my opinion was the attitude and idea of his article that made others upset, when you make broad statements about what others should do, then your going to have controversay, fi Brooks wants to sell his lowline prints off the injet for $20 bucks, that is fine with me, but please don't lead to the fact that I am selling mine for to much, as Blansky said, it is worth what you can get for it..and I know as many others do, I can get more than $20 bucks for mine.

Dave

sorry dave -

i didn't read the article at the bookstore or on his website. i also didn't realize that he was suggesting to people how much to sell their prints for.
i was under the impression from what i have read in the 8+ pages this thread has generated that people were upset because he was selling low-cost prints, and suggesting that while some photographers/artists are able to sell their work for $28,000 each, the regular unwashed, unshaven, poor credit-score public can't afford stuff like that, and he was just filling a niche that he saw could be filled.

i know i can't afford a 28K or even a 3K or 300$ print for an investment or just for eye-candy, 20 bucks is about what my budget allows these days - and i spend *less* than that at stores like target for a framed matted print by someone like rosanne olson ( really nice polaroid florals - btw ).

i am sure what he says sparks some controversay, but aren't folks who are selling their work on ebay suggesting something similar by selling hand crafted b&w prints for less than 50-100$ ?

 

[blansky]

Why do people think that what we produce SHOULD be available to everybody. Are we some sort of charity that studies and trains to make great images then blows them out so that everyone can buy them with pocket change. I can't fill my car up for less than $35.00, why should something that took me years to be able to achieve be available to anyone for the price of a tank of gas.

When we sell our products for the cost of film and paper and a bit of time we are demeaning ourselves and the products that we produce.

It is sad to see that "artists" rarely have the business sense and self esteem to charge enough for their work to own great homes, cars, toys, vacations and education for their kids.

Most people would love to be able to own a Mercedes, or a Rolex and fantasize about the day that they can. Maybe they should feel the same way about your photography.


Michael

 

[David H. Bebbington]

At this point, I would invite comments on the following:

In the UK, it is (just) possible to get somebody to photograph a wedding for £150 (cash!!!!!!!!!). Notwithstanding this, the average spend, so I am told, is £500 to £1000. It is not unheard of for not particularly rich people to spend up to £6000, at the high end of the market the total bill for wedding photography can be £12,000 or more.

My question: How many screams of pain do we hear from APUGers and others about this? How many protests about the immorality of charging these amounts? The answer as far as I am concerned, amazingly enough, is - none at all!

When it comes to gallery prints priced at a fraction of the cost of a wedding album, however, people are apparently outraged. What is the explanation? I am sadly forced to the conclusion that in almost every case the person doing the protesting is also a producer of art prints who wishes secretly that he/she could also sell at the "outrageous" prices in question and is miffed that he/she can't!

I would really be interested to hear people's views on this, including those of the good Mr. Brooks Jensen, if he is still following this debate!

Regards,

David

 

[Dave Parker]

David,

Back in the day when I did wedding photography, My average on a wedding was $2500.00 US per wedding, my highest ever was a big shin dig that I got about $5500 bucks for, man I really enjoyed that one, we ate out for a week and went on a 3 day holiday..

I still feel, get what you can get, cause there is someone out that will if you don't..

LOL

Dave

 

[Helen B]

I've never been able to see any obvious general connection between the price of a photograph and the value of it.

I agree that we should sell our work for what we can charge. It doesn't make any sense to sell it any other way. I can sell my work for a few hundred dollars (= what someone is willing to pay). I can also sell my work for forty dollars (= about the minimum I can charge, taking into account materials and labour at a reasonable rate, and without compromising on quality). I prefer to sell my work at the lower figure. That way I can sell to the kind of people who are my friends, which makes me feel better than selling only to people who appear to have too much money. But I am a scruffy proletarian at heart and always will be.

I have some of Brooks Jensen's $20 prints. They are fine photographs, and I greatly admire his stance. As far as technical quality goes, I'm afraid that it's better than some Azo and Pt/Pd prints I've seen at five times the price. Their value to me has nothing to do with how many dollars I paid for them.

Best,
Helen

 

[James Bleifus]

sorry dave -

i didn't read the article at the bookstore or on his website. i also didn't realize that he was suggesting to people how much to sell their prints for.
i was under the impression from what i have read in the 8+ pages this thread has generated that people were upset because he was selling low-cost prints, and suggesting that while some photographers/artists are able to sell their work for $28,000 each, the regular unwashed, unshaven, poor credit-score public can't afford stuff like that, and he was just filling a niche that he saw could be filled.

John, I agree. The problem is that there are two different arguments going and once and people aren't separating them. The first argument infers that Brooks is advocating that people sell prints for $20. Nowhere does he say that and people are using that as a red herring. He does say $3700 is too much for the print that he uses as an example. Some people feel that because Brooks sells his prints for $20 disproves his thesis that some people ask too much for their work and I don't see it. Although I believe $20 is way too low for my prints, and the market supports my belief, I do believe that some folks come to photography, see what prints sell for in NY auctions, and believe they should charge the same prices. And then they wonder why their work doesn't sell. Go to some local art shows and you'll see photos by new photographers being offered for $1000. But those prints don't sell and I know that because I talk to those people about their prints at openings. I've seen some folks pricing their work for more than Michael and Paula do and wondering why they aren't selling work.

The second argument that's being weaved into the first is a philosophy of print pricing and charging what the market will bear and I think there are some good tips on pricing in this thread. However, these claims are in agreement with Brooks' essay even as they claim to disagree. I'm starting to wonder how many people have actually read the essay.

Cheers, James

 

[lenswork]

Why do people think that what we produce SHOULD be available to everybody. Are we some sort of charity that studies and trains to make great images then blows them out so that everyone can buy them with pocket change. I can't fill my car up for less than $35.00, why should something that took me years to be able to achieve be available to anyone for the price of a tank of gas.
When we sell our products for the cost of film and paper and a bit of time we are demeaning ourselves and the products that we produce.
It is sad to see that "artists" rarely have the business sense and self esteem to charge enough for their work to own great homes, cars, toys, vacations and education for their kids.
Most people would love to be able to own a Mercedes, or a Rolex and fantasize about the day that they can. Maybe they should feel the same way about your photography.
Michael


I've never been able to see any obvious general connection between the price of a photograph and the value of it.
I agree that we should sell our work for what we can charge. It doesn't make any sense to sell it any other way. I can sell my work for a few hundred dollars (= what someone is willing to pay). I can also sell my work for forty dollars (= about the minimum I can charge, taking into account materials and labour at a reasonable rate, and without compromising on quality). I prefer to sell my work at the lower figure. That way I can sell to the kind of people who are my friends, which makes me feel better than selling only to people who appear to have too much money. But I am a scruffy proletarian at heart and always will be.
I have some of Brooks Jensen's $20 prints. They are fine photographs, and I greatly admire his stance. As far as technical quality goes, I'm afraid that it's better than some Azo and Pt/Pd prints I've seen at five times the price. Their value to me has nothing to do with how many dollars I paid for them.
Best,
Helen


Well, here we have the two poles of the discussion -- one advocating art for the elite in society who can pay for it, one who advocates art for everyone, even those with limited means. I think this is one of the great things about marketing artwork -- it has no intrinsic monetary value other than the value we and the buyer place on it. It's a wide open field and each of us can choose the play the "marketing game" any way we want. Each of us can develop our own rationale for our marketing strategies. Each of us can target any set of buyers we want. Each of us can produce and promote what we want. As they say, it's a free country.

Obviously, I favor the availability of art for the proletariate -- maybe because I am one! I've always admired Japanese ukiyo-e -- woodblock prints made for the masses, sold for fraction of a penny, that are now worth of a factor of thousands what the Japanese peasants and working class originally paid for them.

I am also a pragmatist. As a student of history, I can't help but see that in most cases it's the secondary-market sellers who make the big bucks. The artist never gets very much for their work. It's been this way throughout all art history, in all media. For example, Adams' and Weston's (and others') prints now sell for tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars, but why? (Notice that they do not personally benefit from this price escalation, only the secondary market does.) As a pragmatist, I can't help but note that one reason their work is now worth so much is simply because it is: 1.) So damned good, 2.) So ubiquitously published, 3.) So voluminous -- the result of a lifetime of producing and distributing hundreds if not thousands of original prints. That is to say, their work is worth a lot because there are a lot of people who want it -- far more than there is work available, in spite of all those original prints. As far as I can see, there is no virtue (to us as photographers) in limiting our audience: Keep your light buried too far under the bushel and no one knows who you are and no one wants your work. Seems to me getting published and getting a lot of work out there is the best way to develop a market for your images, even if it only financially benefits those in the secondary market long after you've gone into the final wash, as Ansel used to say. If Ansel Adams taught us anything about marketing, it's that image familiarity drives the prices up. I call this the "big pyramid" theory -- the larger the base, the taller the peak. The problem I see most often is that we are so focused on the peak (high price) that we forget to build the big base (large audience). (Now if we could just all get on the cover of Time magazine!)

If the great masters' artwork now sells for so much, what did they personally, as photographers, do to contribute to this increasing value? There might be good lesson here to learn and follow.

My observation is that they worked hard, worked a long time, worked diligently and consistently, made lots and lots of prints, developed their talents to the best of their abilities and beyond, showed and talked about their prints to anyone and everyone who would look and listen, shared work with as many people as they could, tried their best to develop a following for their work, published as often as they could, kept making new work as long as their bodies held out -- and (here is the point of this whole discussion) didn't overprice their work so only a few elite collectors could buy it. For example, I personally know over 100 people who own Ansel Adams original prints they purchased for about $400 or less -- from Ansel or one of his galleries, while he was still alive and making prints. 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. As a friend of mine said in response to my article, "The problem with most photographers today is that they price their work as though they were already dead."

Look, if you want to price your work for lots and lots, go ahead! I wish you the best of luck, really I do. If you can sell lots of it, good for you. One of my main purposes in writing the article was simply to get folks to thinking about this issue and to offer a way of thinking that you don't hear much of these days. There are lots of photographers who are frustrated with the gallery paradigm, the high prices they see in most galleries and even auction catalogs, and are easily intimidated into thinking this is the way it has to be done. I disagree and thought it would be useful for them (and everyone) to think about this issue from all sides so we can each make our own decisions about how we choose to market our photographs. Based on the discussion in this one APUG thread alone, I think I accomplished my goal.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Saturday January 14, 2006

 

[James Bleifus]

I just don't have the right to make statements about what others sell theirs for.

Dave

Dave, I'm confused by this statement. Can you show an example from the essay where he tells others what they should sell their work for (beyond saying that one piece isn't worth $3700)?

Cheers, James

 

[Alex Hawley]

As a student of history, I can't help but see that in most cases it's the secondary-market sellers who make the big bucks. The artist never gets very much for their work. It's been this way throughout all art history, in all media.

-- As a friend of mine said in response to my article, "The problem with most photographers today is that they price their work as though they were already dead."

Excellent points Brooks.

 

[Dave Parker]

Dave, I'm confused by this statement. Can you show an example from the essay where he tells others what they should sell their work for (beyond saying that one piece isn't worth $3700)?

Cheers, James

James,

My whole understanding of the article hinged on the fact that Brooks feels others are asking to much for their work, which in my opinion he does not have the right to do, just as he has no right to say that someone elses work is not worth a particular figure..

Plain and simple, yes we have the right to critique, but we don't have the right to say, your asking to much or your asking to little, I feel this is beyond the bounds due to the fact, I can look at many of the gallery pieces and feel they are pure and simple crap, but that has no determining factor of what they are worth..

And yes I did read the article and understand it. Editors in this country take far to many liberties, I have also published magazines and feel the same way to this day, I feel the editorial venue allow those who feel they can get away with it, to much press time. What works for him is great, and I say more power to him, I am glad he is successful with it...

This is my opinion and as with others, I am every bit entitled to it as the next guy. As I am entitled to ask what I want for my work, I have no frustration with the gallery system, I understand it fully and understand why they do what they do.

As far as photography, I never started it as a hobby, it has been at least a part time income maker for me, since I was 14 years old, I am now turning 44 next week, so 30 years of my life has been involved in producing photographs for money, I think at times I have missed out on the hobby aspect, but am not sorry about it really at this point, being sorry is not an option, it has never been oh perhaps I could sell a few pictures, but a full 100% job must sell the pictures, so I have a different perspective, I guess.

Dave

 

[James Bleifus]

James,


This is my opinion and as with others, I am every bit entitled to it as the next guy. As I am entitled to ask what I want for my work, I have no frustration with the gallery system, I understand it fully and understand why they do what they do.



Dave

Dave, I think you've misunderstood my question. Having read your other posts I'm familiar with your history in photography and I'm not questioning your entitlement to your opinion (and frankly, I don't disagree with a number of the things you've said in this thread. I disagree with some opinions you've said the essay contains. Big difference). However, your read of the article is different than mine and I'm trying to see why. Where our interpretation diverges is that I don't see Brooks telling people what to charge, I do see him saying that some people have no clue and are trying to charge too much. Now that I understand the issue I can understand your interpretation better. Although I don't know this, I'd bet money that photographers contact him all the time asking why their work doesn't sell or asking him what to charge. So his essay makes sense to me even as I'm more aligned with some of your marketing comments over his.

One area we certainly disagree on is the opinions of editors'. There have been a number of interesting threads on APUG as a result of Brooks' essays and blogs. I don't see these conversations stimulated by other magazines. It's good to have an editor who's willing to take chances and stimulate conversation, and, in the age of the internet, I don't see editors getting away with much of anything. We're here to keep them honest with threads like this.

Cheers, James

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'm starting to wonder how many people have actually read the essay.

I have made a sincere effort to read various articles on the Lenswork website, including the sample material from the latest edition of the magazine, and Brooks' postings.

You are entirely correct that there are several intertwined arguments here (I think actually 3). I see these as follows:
1) $20 prints. Brooks as I understand it emphasizes that he sells other work for more money and does not explicitly advise anyone else to sell for this price. However, I do feel that for ANYONE to offer prints at this price plants a seed of doubt in the public's mind that sellers asking more are cheats - I feel this is dangerous.
2) The $3700 print. The actual example quoted (a defocused snapshot of a suburban house) does not appeal to me, I wouldn't buy it for $3700 or even $3.70, but I would defend to the death the right of the author of this work to price it in this way (wildly unrealistic as it may be). The general concept of photographs priced at this level I find good, photographers should recognize that they will need to take the time to build a reputation before they will achieve this kind of money. My own experience, and statements by other contributors to this thread, indicate that a reasonable selling price for a framed matted print by a lesser-known photographer may be around $150 to 200 for direct sales or double this through a gallery (simply to factor in the usual 50% commission).
3) A point of agreement, I think among everyone participating in this debate - pricing is largely if not exclusively a matter of what the market will bear, and efficient marketing work is essential to win market acceptance of higher prices. The only point I would disagree on is the feasibility of beginning to sell very low, even below cost price, to gain a foothold in the market and then raising prices once you have done this. All the marketing gurus I have read (and my own experience) indicate that this is almost impossible to achieve - start cheap and you'll stay cheap!

Regards to all,

David

 

[Lee Shively]

There were 10 pages of replies here before me and I admit that I did not read them. It looks like most posters here disagree with Mr Jensen's premise--that photographers over price their work.

I mostly agree with him.

Not on his $20 prints--he can sell whatever is his for whatever he wants but it's not worth mixing the Dektol for me to print a photograph for $20. But Mr Jensen probably makes inkjet prints and $20 ain't bad for pushing a button a few times.

But, let's get real. His argument for the value of a photograph compared to the value of other items involved in the activities of daily living makes a helluva lot of sense. Especially when you consider the $3700 photograph he was using as an example.

While I agree with Mr Jensen (I think that might be a first!), I would note one point. Overall, digital has devalued real photography while, at the same time, making it more expensive. I really hate that.

 

[doughowk]

Just want to add/emphasize a couple of points to this very interesting discussion. The concept of an efficient free market pricing system for art work presumes both sides of the transaction have equal knowledge. Part of this knowledge includes, as mentioned earlier, that the artist convey his story to the prospective buyer. Informed transaction includes info about the materials used, ie. expected longevity before noticeable entropy. And ease of reproduction: if the buyer thinks he is getting a unique work of art, the price should reflect that uniqueness. A gum bichromate print should, if well done, have a greater value than a contact print, which in turn be of more value than an inkjet print. In sum, an informed buyer should result in a reasonable price for your artwork.

 

[blansky]

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is what type of photography the person does. For instance if he is a landscape photographer and produces prints, his only contact with the buyer ( if at all) is at the time of sale. So he sets his price and the transaction is completed or not.

Other types of photography, are far more personal, and include a relationship with the client. Wedding, portrait, commercial etc all have interactive relationships with the final buyer of the prints. When determining ones clientele, a photographer also has to take into account what type of client he wants.

Not to sound too elitist here, but having a Walmart client compared to having a Neiman Marcus is a difference between night and day. Here the pricing will involve the fact that with the Walmart client you will have to do a large numbers of them to equal the income you make from the Neiman Marcus client. This in turn will equate to higher overhead costs of time and materials to produce the pictures.

The other consideration is, in my experience, that Neiman Marcus clients don't have the financial constraints so I never had to run into the problems of them keeping my proofs ( in the days we let then out of the studio) , as a rule their children were better behaved and didn't wreck the place and since money is no problem for them the orders were far greater.

I'm not saying that people with less income are less honest or worse parents but when your product is inexpensive, it seems to create a whole set of problems that a more expensive product does not have.

In my 30 years of doing this and having both the Walmart and Neiman Marcus crowd as clients, I'd take the latter any day.


Michael

 

[esanford]

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is what type of photography the person does. For instance if he is a landscape photographer and produces prints, his only contact with the buyer ( if at all) is at the time of sale. So he sets his price and the transaction is completed or not.

Other types of photography, are far more personal, and include a relationship with the client. Wedding, portrait, commercial etc all have interactive relationships with the final buyer of the prints. When determining ones clientele, a photographer also has to take into account what type of client he wants.

Not to sound too elitist here, but having a Walmart client compared to having a Neiman Marcus is a difference between night and day. Here the pricing will involve the fact that with the Walmart client you will have to do a large numbers of them to equal the income you make from the Neiman Marcus client. This in turn will equate to higher overhead costs of time and materials to produce the pictures.

The other consideration is, in my experience, that Neiman Marcus clients don't have the financial constraints so I never had to run into the problems of them keeping my proofs ( in the days we let then out of the studio) , as a rule their children were better behaved and didn't wreck the place and since money is no problem for them the orders were far greater.

I'm not saying that people with less income are less honest or worse parents but when your product is inexpensive, it seems to create a whole set of problems that a more expensive product does not have.

In my 30 years of doing this and having both the Walmart and Neiman Marcus crowd as clients, I'd take the latter any day.
Michael

Michael,

I think you are making this a little too complicated.... The subject is really "art pieces". Such things as wedding portraiture, executive portraits, and "coverage work" et. al. are really photographic services. In that case, the photographer is performing a service in which the photographic products are but one part. In the case of photographic art, the image stands on its own. It is up to the photographer to price it in a way that makes sense. With respect to services, there are things such as sitting fees and minimum order guarantees that are more directly related to incremental costs....

Ed

 

[Jorge]

IMO the problem with Jensen's article is more basic than all that was mentioned here. He starts by mentioning a print of an out of focus leaf on a tree as an example of "questionable" photography. First, none of us has seen the photograph, for all we know it is a wonderful print. Second, he has become judge, jury and executioner, and has labeled the work of other photographer as questionable....who is he to do this? I am sure each and everyone of us here who has read Lenswork have found some of his choices for the magazine "questionable" yet, we do not say the magazine is bad or too expensive, and at the price it is not exactly a cheap magazine.

If we are to follow Jensen's reasoning, then Lenswork should cost about 3 dollars, so the proletariat can buy a magazine that showcases photographic art instead of Guns & Ammo....no?

Jensen has lost sight of a very important point. He has an outlet for his $20 prints. I tried his way, I tried to sell cheap pt/pd prints on e bay and after all was said and done I lost money on the deal. If I was a famous photographer selling prints for $1500 in a gallery, I sure as hell would try to market cheap ink jet prints for those who cannot afford the gallery prices, I would rather sell 1000 prints at $20 every month than 3 or 4 prints at $1500....but this is a catch 22, to do this you have to be well known, and to be well known you have to be published and have played the gallery game. It is for this reason I find Jensen's argument intrinsically weak.

 

[blansky]

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