Numbering and pricing prints -

[zinnanti]

I'm looking for some advice on pricing prints and numbering the series that I am producing. I am producing gelatin silver and digital.

Are there any recognized practices in terms of numbering a print series? I am running a series number on the basis of the print and the size of the print. Specifically, I produce digital prints in 6x9 (on 8.5"x11") and 10x15 (on 13x19). So, the 6x9s carry a series number and the 10x15s carry their own series number, despite being the same image.

Also, I know this might be low end, but I'm staring out. I'm going to the swap meet and a few art walks. I don't I can ask for crazy money for my gelatin silver prints. But the profit in the digital prints makes up for it.

This is my proposed pricing:

13x19 Full Bleed Digital $42
10x15 (on 13x19) Digital 36
8 1/2 x 11 Full Bleed Digital 16
6x9 (on 8.5"x11") Digital 12
5x7 Full Bleed Digital 4


11x14 Gelatin Silver 42
11x11 Gelatin Silver 36
8x8 Gelatin Silver 22

My costs for a 13x19 full bleed digital are about $5 with consideration for all factors including ink, paper, equipment, insurance, booth rental, etc.

This is swap meet pricing. I just feel this is about as much as people will spring for at a swap meet.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks a bunch.

Tony

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Try this:

Dead Link Removed

 

[archphoto]

For numbering a series it is commoun to write: number of print within the series/total prints.
So the number for the 5th print made in a series of 100 would be: 5/100
In that way everybody can see how many prints you made.

This type of numbering can been seen on litho's and serica's in glass.

Peter

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

To me it seems that this type of numbering does not make sense on a photograph. With a litho, the quality of a print is degrading with every succeeding print made from the same stone. This is not the case with photographs. Moreover, every single print we make from the same frame is unique. So the number will be meaningless.

Ulrich

 

[zinnanti]

The numbering of the print is sometimes required for art walk presentations. I've run into a few where there's this weird rule about having to number your prints, though you don't have to present them as numbered within a series.

Since I don't know what the future of the print is, then I am just numbering them sequentially and putting in a little card explaining that it was printed by me, personally, and this is it's place in the evolution of the print.

I'll check out that essay. Thanks for the feedback.

Tony

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Try this:

Dead Link Removed

Apparently, I need to repeat my suggestion!

 

[Dave Pritchard]

Try this:

Dead Link Removed

Definitely worth reading. I agree with this approach. The litho reproduction limits are well known in advance. This is not applicable to photo prints. I like the concept of printing in series, so a set of prints can be identified by era, phase, or experience of the artist.


My first post here.

 

[thebanana]

Definitely worth reading. I agree with this approach. The litho reproduction limits are well known in advance. This is not applicable to photo prints. I like the concept of printing in series, so a set of prints can be identified by era, phase, or experience of the artist.


My first post here.

Welcome to APUG!

JS