Print Pricing

[jovo]

I just sometimes get a sense that much of the current cachet value is generated not out of true craftsmanship or artistic sensibilities but solely out of a clever marketing campaign.

One thing that I try to keep in mind is that the work and price of the work that is current in NYC galleries is unique, or if not unique, at least similar to what one would find only in another large, important city. Some of the prominent galleries I've been in here have among the most boring and very large color images I've ever seen at prices of multiple thousands of dollars.* I ask myself if I would buy some of these 'graphs if money were not a consideration, and. despite my developing sensibilities and willingness to accept work that's different, I can't imagine that I ever would. So the point is that second guessing the market and trying to deliberately make photographs that will sell is not likely to be a fruitful task. Getting your work on the walls here isn't going to happen unless you are already quite well known, or teach at Yale. Making photographs that you really believe in, making them as well as you are able, and offering them for sale wherever you can get an audience seems to be the most promising route to take.

* See if you agree. Try googling NYC photography galleries and see what they're offering. Here's a hotlink: http://art-support.com/galleries_ny.htm

 

[BobNewYork]

E.R.

That's true. Talent is probably worth less than celebrity. On this basis I suppose that the "shocking" photography could really be seen as a way of generating the celebrity which, in turn, creates the cachet.:rolleyes:

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Some of the prominent galleries I've been in here have among the most boring and very large color images I've ever seen at prices of multiple thousands of dollars.

When people start purchasing art as part of their investment portfolio rather than because they fell in love with a work, it attracts all kinds of weasels. My wife calls me her long term high risk investment, so maybe those high rollers will notice me one day

Murray

 

[jovo]

My wife calls me her long term high risk investment, so maybe those high rollers will notice me one day

 

[c6h6o3]

The market value is easy to ascertain - it's the price; artistic value, perhaps trades in another currency.

Well said. Market value = the value of the sale. Maybe we can define artistic value as what the value of the sale should have been had the artist a more enlightened buyer. And this differential between what was paid and what should have been paid can be either positive or negative.

 

[BobNewYork]

Murray:

My missus says the same thing. She adds "low return" however!

 

[Chuck_P]

I'll agree with that.

While it's important to always strive to do the best work possible, I think the bar in Chuck1's case is set considerably lower than when you decided to start selling your personal work, which came after years of running a successful photography studio in New York.

Murray

I gotta agree with you here, Murray, I believe the bar is lower. I have to admit that I, in my early thoughts on this, was thinking that it is important for me to sell some prints since it is my first attempt, suggesting that the prints should be priced to sell. But I'm listening to ER and what he is saying makes sense too. I believe there should be a happy medium I need to find.

 

[Chuck_P]

Making photographs that you really believe in, making them as well as you are able, and offering them for sale wherever you can get an audience seems to be the most promising route to take.

John,

This is exactly what I'm trying to do in my own way with what I have available to me in my neck of the woods. I'm just now beginning to accept what I am doing as artistic, although I have a hard time calling myself an artist--I still can't. I don't see anyone producing traditional black and white photography anywhere around me that has a price tag on it; there's plenty of art/painting/drawing, though. I feel like I'm getting better and learning more with each exposure and development---my 4x5 negatives look really good and really good when contact printed using a 60 watt Reveal bulb 5 feet from the paper (my only method at the moment, but it is quick and effective). My compositions and subject matter and "image managment" issues are more problematic for me now than anything. The negative may look really good but the photograph sometimes falls very short of what I thought I had on the GG. And I have a several photographs that hit the mark . Perhaps I'm getting a little too cocky, IDK.

I'm not going to put money into being able to post here on APUG for feedback, so I can't really prove my work to anyone. Perhaps, I'll make some prints and offer to send them to anyone who will take them and can provide constructive critique.

I really like the feedback being provided in this thread--I appreciate it.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Chuck1,

You'll be all right...it sounds like you've got your head screwed on right

Have fun with the new enlarger! I started out by doing 4x5 contact prints too, and there's nothing like seeing them BIG for the first time!!!!!!

Murray

 

[panastasia]

One mystifying factor about art pricing is its unpredictability - I found that I actually sold MORE when I raised my prices. There's this perception-of-value thing that goes along with pricing. Many people looking to buy art will not buy something they think of as "too cheap" even if they really like the image.....

I believe this also. The question is always: how to separate the customer from their money.

High price = high quality emphasis - attracts the affluent type w/money to burn - for those who only buy the best of everything, they believe that the highest priced items are always the "best".

Low price = fair deal emphasis - attracts customers with lower income levels - for those who only buy what they can afford.

Literature on starting a business present this marketing strategy in more detail. It's as if you need to have two price lists to cover both targets. The price that leads to actual sales is usually determined by customer response, obviously, similar to selling real estate.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I believe this also. The question is always: how to separate the customer from their money.

High price = high quality emphasis - attracts the affluent type w/money to burn - for those who only buy the best of everything, they believe that the highest priced items are always the "best".

Low price = fair deal emphasis - attracts customers with lower income levels - for those who only buy what they can afford.

Literature on starting a business present this marketing strategy in more detail. It's as if you need to have two price lists to cover both targets. The price that leads to actual sales is usually determined by customer response, obviously, similar to selling real estate.

I think there's some more complex market psychology going on here. If you price it for the "value" customer, you have to aim your entire body of work to them, until which time you become famous enough that you can have a dual-range collection of original prints and reproductions. If you try to split those two high and low markets, the high end will not buy your work because some portion of it is being sold for less than they paid, therefore cheapening the rest of your work. You may also not make sales with the low end, because part of what attracts them to buy is the perception of value, same as with the high end. There is a second market for low end pricing, which can be best described as the "Decor" market- as in, the customer is buying the photo because it matches their sofa/wallcovering/carpet/furniture. At this point, your work is disposable. If you think of your work that way, then the disposable crowd is a very large market and you may have some success with selling to them.

 

[panastasia]

I think there's some more complex market psychology going on here. If you price it for the "value" customer, you have to aim your entire body of work to them, until which time you become famous enough that you can have a dual-range collection of original prints and reproductions. If you try to split those two high and low markets, the high end will not buy your work because some portion of it is being sold for less than they paid, therefore cheapening the rest of your work. You may also not make sales with the low end, because part of what attracts them to buy is the perception of value, same as with the high end. There is a second market for low end pricing, which can be best described as the "Decor" market- as in, the customer is buying the photo because it matches their sofa/wallcovering/carpet/furniture. At this point, your work is disposable. If you think of your work that way, then the disposable crowd is a very large market and you may have some success with selling to them.

I tend to simplify things in order to understand them at a fundamental level before adding any complexity. It's like solving a difficult equation by breaking it down to separate components, solving each individual component, then adding them all together again to find the result. It's the way my analytical mind works. My background is in engineering. Your obviously in the business and have more first hand knowledge of the real world, based on your experience.

What your saying is that we must choose one way or the other in order to avoid a conflict in perception. Interesting! I agree with the psychological aspect and also believe that marketing strategy can vary widely, depending on the complexity of the business in relation to the market. Thanks for additional input.

Paul

 

[Chuck_P]

I'm listening to the conversation. I went to our local museum of art this weekend and talked to them about putting my prints in their gift shop for some exposure, they welcomed my prints but I have to get them mounted first, of course---I only took them some unmounted FB prints for them to view my work, but they liked them. They require 30% of the value of the sale. There's only one other photographer who has a couple of prints their for sale, and I believe they were digital prints. Price for a mounted and overmatted 12 x 17 image in a 16x20 mount was $295, so he was hoping to make about $200 after the 30%.

I don't really know what to think of that price except that price, it seems, needs to take into consideration many things and not just what I think it is worth. It's a muddy concept to me at the moment.

 

[jovo]

There's only one other photographer who has a couple of prints their for sale, and I believe they were digital prints. Price for a mounted and overmatted 12 x 17 image in a 16x20 mount was $295, so he was hoping to make about $200 after the 30%.
.

Ask the gift shop whether prints at that price have been selling. The value, as you know, is whatever people are willing to pay. BTW, 30% is very fair.

 

[mabman]

Interesting thread. Just curious, does anyone here actually sell very large prints successfully, say, bigger than 20"x24"?

I've read in a few places that one current gallery trend is very large "hold up the wall" colour prints, and they're actually selling in larger cities. I'm not in a larger city, so I can't confirm this myself (there are a number of small galleries here, but I haven't come across anything terribly large).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been in galleries in New York lately, and the buzz I've gotten from the gallery folks is that even though they are more than willing to show small work, it is the "hold up the wall" color murals that sell and pay their rent. They view showing small black-and-white work, silver or alt-process, as almost an act of charity to the artists. For every one "small" black-and-white they sell, they move a dozen or more color mural prints, at five times the price. That is with contemporary galleries. Folks who deal in vintage work can sell "small" black-and-white all day long, but it's the name on the lower right corner of the print that counts.