*envy* wouldn't you like to have done that!Bob Carnie said:... he just got back Jan 27,06 with 300 sheets of exposed 8x10 and 250 sheets of 4x5.
while I agree with your reasoning, it still comes back to what the market will pay... and if people buy crud for lots, more curd will be priced accordingly I guess!The thought of pricing this work is mind boggling and one can only imagine the $$ spent to make this project.(16 years of repeat visits)
Bob Carnie said:Not to beat up on anyone hear, but one of my Clients from Denmark has spent a month and half in Tibet each and every year, returning to the same monastarys and tribal camps. The trips that I have seen , he has carried 4x5 linhoff and hundreds to now thousands of sheets of film. The last two trips he has taken a phillips 8x10 with him. he just got back Jan 27,06 with 300 sheets of exposed 8x10 and 250 sheets of 4x5.
He will be flying to Toronto with the film *hand delivered* for processing and contact prints. We always finish off the trip by making 4-6 fibre prints so that he can give one to his Mom and the others hang on his wall.
The thought of pricing this work is mind boggling and one can only imagine the $$ spent to make this project.(16 years of repeat visits)
This kind of dedication is somewhat rare but I do know of others as commited to our craft.
The value of these photographs when finally produced for a traveling exhibit, I hope will exeed $1,000 per image. He has paid his dues and did the work.
I do understand , that if it is simply made , the costs can be low, but for serious workers it is never simple or easy.
kjsphoto said:...Brooks who has a magazine that brings in a ton of cash and ....
scootermm said:I dont think, nor have I ever heard of a single magazine that brings in a ton of cash
MattKing said:The National Enquirer? People?
I dont think, nor have I ever heard of a single magazine that brings in a ton of cash
Not at all, as stated above, I am not selling unlimited number of images at $70 but rather only a few then move into my standard pricing model. That is a huge difference between making unlimited copies and creating value, which I am doing for the buyer.In my mind, you are selling prints at an even more agressive value pricing point than is Brooks
Paul Sorensen said:I really wonder why Brooks making the decision to sell his 8X10s at $20 and criticizing a print that sold for $3700 threatens people so much. I don't suspect very many of the people here are making their living selling $3700 prints. I don't think that Brooks is threatening anyone's income here. Perhaps he is threatening the out of focus leaf photographer, if anyone reads Brooks' piece and decides not to go out and buy it, but otherwise, I guess I fail to see the harm here.
Of course, all of this doesn't negate anyone's right to have a different opinion. I just really wonder what people are so afraid of. QUOTE]
Without repeating what was said on an earlier thread ... "afraid" is the wrong word. What alarms some photographers who do have an understanding of marketing and business is that, when other photographers sell at unrealistically low prices which are in fact well into the loss-making zone if accurate costing were done, this establishes the idea in potential customers' minds that the "right" price for a print (of whatever kind) is $20, $30, $40 and that anyone asking more (the other thread concluded in general that a direct-to-customer price of around $175 to 200 was about the lowest you could turn a profit on, double this for gallery sales) is a thief, a cheat, a liar and a fantasist. In a free society, no one can of course control anyone's else business policy, but it would be highly desirable if everyone involved in art photography behaved in a sensible way which would help gain acceptance of this genre. The same applies to people who are simply too lazy to acquaint themselves with inkjet technology and baldly state that all inkjet prints are junk, with no differentiation between prints done with cheap copier paper and no-name cartridges and ones produced on the highest-quality materials and equipment with warranted permanency. Inaccurate statements here too can destroy purchasers' confidence.
kjsphoto said:I was planning on starting a magazine a few years back and I call tell you with advertisements you can make a ton of money. It is all about the marketing big or small magazines can make you a fortune.
Readers Digest
National Geographic
Sports Illustrated
Etc...
They all started small and they bring in a lot of money... Takes a few years to get established but once you do and you have marketed properly it is a goldmine.
Bob Carnie said:....This argument about $25.00 per print somehow jogs my memory, ....
OTOH hand Matt, one cold argue that if he can afford the luxury of not accepting advertisements, then the magazine must be doing pretty well.scootermm said:okay... I think you missed my point. I am talking about LENSWORK. its not an adHORSE it isnt a 80/30 mag by any stretch, just open a copy... its not an ad driven magazine. so yeah I understand and know that magazines like people or nat. geo. make money.
but a small magazine like lenswork I wouldnt imagine being a cash cow. that was the only point I was trying to make.
In all honesty it can be done, but it is not easy. I used to supplement my commercial photography income with fine art print sales. Over a 25 year span, it has slowly shifted to the point where I now do a couple of good commercial jobs a year to supplement the income from my "fine" photographic work. It is not all from print sales however. Licensing and royalties from posters, note cards, books, etc. is a big part.Paul Sorensen said:I am curious how many people here on APUG make their living selling fine art photographs.
To me this is not threatening, simply annoying. I have no true knowledge of this, but I would expect that Brooks Jensen has never truly attempted to make a living from his work as a photographer. His writings also exhibit little knowledge of the true workings and transactions of the business of fine photography. Believe me, I am no master or expert in the field, but being a lay person who criticizes and speaks flippantly about the way others grind out their living is no way to gain respect among your peers. The more I become familiar with Brooks and his writings, the more I suspect his positions come from a tiny bit of bitterness among the more noble causes. Something tells me that if his prints were represented by high profile galleries and selling for $3700.00, there would be a lot less criticism and a whole lot more photographing. We will never know.Paul Sorensen said:I really wonder why Brooks making the decision to sell his 8X10s at $20 and criticizing a print that sold for $3700 threatens people so much.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?