Print Pricing

[Chuck_P]

I'm intereseted in knowing all the many criteria that go into the price that you arrive at for a print you are trying to sell. I have an opportunity in a couple of months to present some photographs for sale (once I get past my learning curve with FB paper and my new enlarger, if the dam thing will ever arrive!:rolleyes.

I'm new to trying to sell my photography but I anticipate prints from post card size all the way to 11x14 with the markets being a gift shop at a state park with park specific photographs and also at a shop in our local mall that sells artwork and crafts produced by local artists.

I am essentially clueless in trying to figure out I think my photography is worth and I just need some creteria to think about to remain reasonable.

Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks

 

[David H. Bebbington]

This kind of question always proves controversial on APUG, with responses ranging from genuine pros down to people selling prints for $25 at craft fairs. Suffice it to say that IMHO any sale in which you receive less than $100 is unlikely to be profitable if costed in a realistic way. On the other hand, it is essential for you to do some market research, mainly by talking to the people who run the shops you plan to sell to and getting an idea of what kind of customers come in and what they are prepared to spend (and of course what commission the shops will want to take - 50% would not be unusual). If the answer is. say, "About $75", the $37.50 you would receive would cover your materials costs but not your time, and you would then need to consider whether sales are worthwhile - which only you can decide!

Regards,

David

 

[BobNewYork]

David is absolutely right. Rarely do artists receive what their work is truly worth.
Unfortunately the artists time and skill are of little value to the average buyer - unless he or she is a "name" or a current fad.

At the outset you should view any sales as a means of subsidizing your art; giving you the ability, perhaps, to buy more film or paper or gasoline. That is not to say that you should give it away - do some research in your area and base your own pricing on this. You may want to try to get local exhibits of your work in say cafes or libraries and the like. Check with your local Art League and see if there's any shot at a joint exhibit - or at least find out what it would take to get one. Take any opportunity you can to get your name and your work "out there."

Always remember though that it's a long term journey and the real reason you're taking photographs is because it is your passion.

Good luck my friend.

Bob

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Rarely do artists receive what their work is truly worth. . . .

Artists do receive what their work is truly worth to a buyer, less commissions, and sometimes more. A few artists receive their prices by conning critics and patrons. That's a rocky and repugnant path to pursue. Others develop enough humility to consider what buyers might want, and work at keeping costs down to meet buyers' budgets and beat the competition. That's a surer path to financial success, whether one is selling photographs or pots and pans.

 

[BobNewYork]

That's a good point Jim. Guess I'd thought of it from the perspective that the true worth was the effectively inflated prices that some get versus the rest of us.

Not sure if I feel better now or not.

Bob

 

[Early Riser]

Artists do receive what their work is truly worth to a buyer, less commissions, and sometimes more. A few artists receive their prices by conning critics and patrons. That's a rocky and repugnant path to pursue. Others develop enough humility to consider what buyers might want, and work at keeping costs down to meet buyers' budgets and beat the competition. That's a surer path to financial success, whether one is selling photographs or pots and pans.

Doing photography properly, that is producing hand made prints of high quality, spotting, mounting and matting, buying equipment capable of producing high quality imagery ( I'm talking technically here, not content) is not cheap. The pursuit of high quality prints can be expensive. If you start to view the production of your prints the same as you would the production of pots and pans, which are a mass produced product, and start producing work specifically with what the buyer wants and keeping costs down so that you can undercut your competitor, you are not likely to produce good creative work. You are more likely to produce lower quality, predictable, mass market work. Why bother pursuing photography if selling work like that is your goal? Instead do the work you love to do, do it to the best of your ability, do not cut corners on quality and price it appropriately and then maybe will you not only sell work, but sell work you are proud of.

Saying that some artists receive their prices by conning critics and patrons is ignorant of the process and just plain wrong. The price is determined by 2 forces, what the market is willing to pay and what the artist requires to make it profitable

The artist needs to determine what is the cost of producing the art. The cost of equipment, film, enlarging paper, chemicals, mounting materials, travel expenses, studio costs, shipping and packing costs and last but not least the cost and value of the artist's time. It is more often the case that an artist undervalues their work.

The buyer has to determine where the art in question relates cost wise to similar art done by artists of similar stature and if the quality of the art reflects a given value.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I have an opportunity in a couple of months to present some photographs for sale (once I get past my learning curve with FB paper and my new enlarger, if the dam thing will ever arrive!:rolleyes.

I'm new to trying to sell my photography...

Hi there,

It sounds like you're pretty new to all of this. Have you checked out what other people are doing in your area, and what prices they're asking? What is the quality of their printing, spotting, matting and framing? How does your work compare technically? Do you think it's as good as, better, or not quite up to snuff? Answer those questions and it should help you get a sense of where your work sits in the local scheme of things.

Don't sweat it too much - just get your stuff out there and it'll all make sense in time

Murray (Who's not in the Big Leagues like Early Riser)

 

[Early Riser]

Murray I'm not so sure how big the league is that I play in. Doing the work you love and doing it the best you can, and pricing it to accurately to reflect what it costs you in time and money is not something that only makes sense for someone in the big leagues.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

...do the work you love to do, do it to the best of your ability, do not cut corners on quality and price it appropriately and then maybe will you not only sell work, but sell work you are proud of.

Well said, Brian. Something I aspire to...

 

[jovo]

Back in November of last year I went to a friend's opening at a co-op gallery not too far away. He had mounted a beautiful show of about 25 or so black and white LF contact prints and enlargements. They were priced at about $325 for an 8x10 and more for a larger print. We talked for a while, and I then asked him quietly for any suggestion he might have about pricing as I am about to put up my very first show. As he'd had some work on the walls for several months prior, I asked him how it was doing at the listed prices. He said, "John, I haven't sold a single piece." I was startled as the prints were very, very good and the gallery was in an upscale tourist town. He said, as a co-op gallery sitter one weekend a month, he'd often seen people walk in and drop a couple of thousand dollars on art without blinking an eye, and many, many others browse, thank him, and leave. So I'm going to start with prices a good deal lower than his, and see how they do albeit in a somewhat different setting. I'd rather not lower the price once it's been set if it doesn't sell and just wait for exposure in another gallery later on. I can always go higher should there be enough interest. For me, the point is that I have to attempt to guess what people might be willing to pay rather than base the price on what my work would be worth if it were an auto repair or plumbing job and sensible cost recovery and time were the determining factors. Maybe someday they will be, but certainly not yet.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I haven't sold many prints in my days, I think maybe twenty at most. I started out much like you, about three years ago, hanging prints in local venues, but more like coffee shops. I haven't sold a single print like that. All of the sales I've had have been from referrals. Word of mouth, basically. I do donate some work to charities, silent auctions at my son's school, the Minnesota Food Share campaign, etc. People paid good money for my prints there, and I continue to donate prints every year. It's a good way of getting your name out there, in addition to helping a good cause. Nothing wrong with a bit of synergy.
The largest print I've sold was 15" in square and that I got almost $500 for. The smallest print I've sold was an 8x10 and that went for about $250 if I remember correctly.
Once I tried selling prints on eBay for $40 a piece, and that just didn't pan out. I just wanted to try it. With enough volume, it might be worth it, if I produce twenty prints each time I'm in the darkroom. But that resulted in nothing too.
So, get your work out there, donate a lot to it to charities, present your work to friends and acquaintances (I sometimes carry a small portfolio with me and show to people on a whim, and it sold me a couple). Be bold, be daring, ask people to buy a print from you.
I agree to only sell work you're proud to leave your hands, though. Don't sell out and produce what others want to see, let it come from the heart.
I wish you the best of luck.
- Thomas

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Murray I'm not so sure how big the league is that I play in.

Bigger than 99.9% of us.

What I was trying to get across to Chuck1 is that he/she should just go for it and see what's out there locally, then price his/her work compared to what's available.

I'm a nobody, but I think it's more important for Chuck1 (as a newcomer to photography who's willing this early in the game to put something on a wall for sale) to go ahead and just do it. I remember the first prints I sold and wish I could have them back for many reasons; weak corners, bad spotting, over cut corners in the mats window, etc...yet...would you have gotten to where you are today if you hadn't summoned the guts to put that first print up for sale?

Maybe we should find out where Chuck1 lives, because if the answer is Carmel, California, our response will be different than if the answer is Stewart, Alaska.

Murray

 

[Early Riser]

..... So I'm going to start with prices a good deal lower than his, and see how they do albeit in a somewhat different setting. I'd rather not lower the price once it's been set if it doesn't sell and just wait for exposure in another gallery later on. I can always go higher should there be enough interest. For me, the point is that I have to attempt to guess what people might be willing to pay rather than base the price on what my work would be worth if it were an auto repair or plumbing job and sensible cost recovery and time were the determining factors. Maybe someday they will be, but certainly not yet.

John I can't tell you how to price your work, and you are right in starting at a lower price given the current state of the economy, and I'm not saying lower in comparison to your friend, but lower in your own price range. A price range that realistically reflects your expense of time and money producing your work. After all, who goes into any sort of commercial enterprise with the intention of selling their work at a loss.

It is embarrassing to lower your prices from a previously higher one. What you might consider is a steeper price increase as the edition sells. So if you have some pieces that prove popular the price increases more rapidly from a lower starting point to where you'd like it to be priced. As for your friend's difficulties, while you may like and respect his work, apparently the public is less a fan.

My first show, since starting to do my personal work, was in 2001 at a co-op gallery in the little Hudson River town I live in. John was gracious to attend it and might remember the work. I priced my 16x20" prints at $500, $550 framed. In three weekends I sold about 20 prints. The very same prints were selling a few weeks later at Edward Carter Gallery for $1000 and did well there. In both situations I was a total unknown. Some of the very same images that appeared in that first show now sell in that same size for nearly $2000. And I'm still not a "known" photographer.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not so much the price, which does have some significance, but it appears that the quality or desirability of the work plays an even greater role. You have to remember that when people buy your work they are going to be living with it for a very long time. It will become part of their homes, they may see it prominently everyday of their lives. So it's not just a commitment of money that they are making, they are adding to their family.

One thing to be aware of is the economic climate. Art is a very luxurious purchase and when people are fearful about their jobs or the economy, one of the easiest things to cut are art purchases. However in normal economic climates, people who can afford to pay $250 for a good sized print, will most likely be able to afford $350 or $450. Just as people who can afford to pay $4000 for art will not be turned off by $5000. Bottom line, is that the true and perceived value of your art is not what the price is, but what you put into the print.

 

[Early Riser]

Bigger than 99.9% of us.

What I was trying to get across to Chuck1 is that he/she should just go for it and see what's out there locally, then price his/her work compared to what's available.

Maybe we should find out where Chuck1 lives, because if the answer is Carmel, California, our response will be different than if the answer is Stewart, Alaska.

Murray

Murray, while you need to know what the local pricing is, that pricing may not accurately reflect the value or cost of producing the work. If the local work is lousy and is sold at a near loss, it doesn't make sense to price your work based on that. The one constant factor is simply what did it cost YOU to make that print. And then have the work reflect those costs.

 

[Chuck_P]

Murray, while you need to know what the local pricing is, that pricing may not accurately reflect the value or cost of producing the work. If the local work is lousy and is sold at a near loss, it doesn't make sense to price your work based on that. The one constant factor is simply what did it cost YOU to make that print. And then have the work reflect those costs.

I live in western Kentucky on the Ohio River in Owensboro.

ER,

I can agree with much of your sentiments on this issue and I will give them much thought. Time will tell. If I'm not successful at it, I'm still loving what I do and will continue to do it.

I appreciate all the insights given so far.

 

[c6h6o3]

Rarely do artists receive what their work is truly worth.

Artists always receive what their work is truly worth whenever they sell it.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Murray, while you need to know what the local pricing is, that pricing may not accurately reflect the value or cost of producing the work. If the local work is lousy and is sold at a near loss, it doesn't make sense to price your work based on that. The one constant factor is simply what did it cost YOU to make that print. And then have the work reflect those costs.

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

 

[Early Riser]

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

Murray my having had a photo studio in Manhattan had very little to do with my attempts at fine art or the art market. The only thing it may have impacted upon me is professionalism in how I work (and a ton of gear).

I don't know Chuck's work, he could an astonishing artist or a mediocre one. If his work is great people will buy it. Price is not the only determining factor. Would you accept a lousy piece of art for free? Would you buy a terrible print for a dollar? Of course not.

The one constant that exists regardless whether his work is brilliant or lackluster, is what it costs him to produce that final print.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Murray my having had a photo studio in Manhattan had very little to do with my attempts at fine art or the art market.

Sorry, but I think it has a lot to do with it as you probably had all the technical aspects of the medium honed to near perfection, which is a far cry from Chuck1 who admits being early on the learning curve using fibre based paper.

Crap...gotta go to work

Murray

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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 call them idiots, but that's another discussion for another day). With that in mind, John, I'd price you work at what you think is fair for it, and maybe even tack on a premium above that, to see what it does for sales. Since art has no utilitarian value (you can't chop carrots with a photograph, at least not any that you'd actually want to eat), 100% of the determination of value is in the marketing. Price yourself properly, you're a value amongst giants; price yourself wrong, and you're competing in a race for the bottom.

 

[BobNewYork]

I'm still not sure that artists always receive the true value of their work. A few years ago, not long after the furore at the Brooklyn Museum over "Christ, Piss" I chanced on a relatively well-known photographer whose work, at least IMHO is exquisite and had been featured in B&W. He'd just been on his annual round of the NYC galleries and had had no takers. His comment to me was: "Unless it's been pissed on, none of them have any interest today."

In the pure market sense, whenever a deal is transacted THAT is the true value of the product, whether it be art or a piano hinge. This doesn't however, take into account the "hype" which is often a marketing ploy on the part of the "cognescenti". In a purely business sense I can understand that creating a market will enhance profitability however, does the fact that a photographer placed a crucifix in a bucket of urine inherently reduce the artistic value of the work of another artist?

The heavy marketing of digital cameras made sense for the equipment manufacturers as the cameras command a substantial price premium and are cheaper to produce given the absence of moving parts, (I know I'm ignoring R&D costs here) but would anyone on this forum then accept that the digital tsunami has lessened the value of film imaging? On another thread concerning the intro of a Fuji MF camera, a link quoted a Fuji statement where they "...acknowledged superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film products."

I guess what I'm saying is that in many instances, marketing hype for the sake of marketing hype should not change inherent artistic value. Is there perhaps a difference between artistic value and market value which changes, not as a result of changing tastes but because of a carefully conceived marketing effort. The market value is easy to ascertain - it's the price; artistic value, perhaps trades in another currency.

Regards.

Bob

 

[Early Riser]

Bob you're right that hype does not change the inherent artistic value of a piece. However once someone's work has notoriety, good or bad, what you call "hype" is really cachet, and cachet clearly has financial value.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Hi Chuck1. Think about your market and location. Your photographs will obviously need to be top quality, but as you will be selling in a gift shop and not in a high end gallery, you will probably have to sell them at a lower price. You could be competing with mass produced posters of the same scenes...again research your market and price it higher than the posters.

Who are the customers? Tourists, locals? Tourists will not want a frame to carry home and it should be something small enough to go in a suitcase. So if that is the market, small prints in a presentation print box.

As for the craft shop, you could sell these at a higher price, as the customers expect a hand made product. Look at the price points of all the artworks and see where you fit in.

As someone mentioned above, ask the assistant and find out the average amount people are willing to pay. My own example recently was when I stumbled upon a craft shop, walked around and made an impulse purchase. As it was on impulse, I wouldn't have paid over £200 for a piece of art. On that day I was willing to pay about £50 for something which caught my eye.

I plan to sell some personal work in the same manner..through craft shops. I will keep the prints small and put them into cheap frames. Unframed prints tend to be thrown into a pile at the back where people have to leaf through other photos to see yours. I plan to frame them so they at least make it onto the wall where they have a chance to be seen. Keep your presentation costs down as it's money down the drain (or 50% to the shop owner).

Presentation and marketing is everything, make sure the print is top notch, mat and frame your print for maximum wow factor and try and choose subjects with commercial appeal.

Good luck!

 

[BobNewYork]

ER - Yes, I see that. 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. People such as Adams, Weston, Mapplethorpe and yourself earned reputations by years of honing their craft and skills. It seems that too often, subject matter that is shocking only for the sake of being shocking wins out over true artistry and craftsmanship.

I guess as I said there are two currencies. We know one is dollars - perhaps the other is personal satisfaction. Getting them both to meld - now there's the Holy Grail!!

Very interesting thread - it's certainly given me food for thought. Thanks

 

[Early Riser]

.... It seems that too often, subject matter that is shocking only for the sake of being shocking wins out over true artistry and craftsmanship.

I guess as I said there are two currencies. We know one is dollars - perhaps the other is personal satisfaction. Getting them both to meld - now there's the Holy Grail!!

Very interesting thread - it's certainly given me food for thought. Thanks

Bob I agree with you about the shocking part, but don't also forget to include celebrity as hype or cachet with art. Lousy art done by people famous or infamous for other things also has cachet. I can guarantee that a photo done by Britney, or Anna Nicole or now sadly, Heath, would sell for far more than anything I produce.