[Leica] Re: an appeal to photographer (was re: tina's print pricing)

[Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>]

As a fine art photographic print producer, I don't agree with you.

I don't make digital ink prints and if I did, it still would not change my
(and everyone else I know in the business') beliefs. The amount of work
that went into making the first print is, in most cases, substantial. It
may require extensive travel, extensive manipulation, and archival
processes, etc. And I know from experience that if you have a print, say
11x14, matted, framed, and a price of $95 hanging next to an 11x14 print,
matted, framed, and priced at $495, the $495 print will sell ten times
faster than the $95 print. Perceived value plays an important role and the
price often establishes the worth of the artist for a very long time. It
hangs on. It is a mistake for someone who produces good work to begin by
pricing it as if it were a dime store commodity. The stigma will be hard to
shake. And the artist will go broke.

The art buying public is not used to paying a pittance for "good" art.
Whether photo, paint, or other medium. Art priced cheap will be thought of
as a cheap attempt at art. If your work is good, that is if people spend
time looking at it, talking about it, asking questions about it, and buying
it, then it is obviously good art and worth the price.

I charge $2500 for a 48x60 Ciba or LightJet print mounted on 1/2"
Gatorboard, 1.5 mil UV laminate (gloss or matt), and a thin black aluminum
frame. $2000 for a 48x48, $1500 for a 30x40, $1200 for a 24x36, $900 for a
20x24, $700 for a 16x20, $500 for an 11x14, $300 for an 8x10.

And don't forget that unless you sell your art directly, which is not easy
to do, you will be giving up 50% of the sale to the intermediary. It costs
me $700 in raw material costs to produce a 48x60 mounted and framed print.
Add to that the cost in taking the photograph in the first place, the labor
involved in making the ready to sell print, then give up 50% to an
intermediary, doesn't leave much room for profit.

So far, I have only sold my prints direct. But starting later this year, I
will be selling through a Gallery and will raise the prices for gallery sales.

The difficulty in reproducing the prints for sale has nothing to do with
what it is worth. If I have a local lab make my 24x24 Ciba's, they are $75
each. Or I can make them myself for $10 each. In one case I drive 100 miles
round trip, twice. The other case I spend time in my darkroom mixing
chemicals, printing, and drying prints.

Once you actually stop, think, and ferret out the actual cost of material
and labor involved in the original photography, processing, choosing,
manipulating, reproducing, presenting, and selling, you won't be so eager
to sell prints cheap. Cheap art costs the artist money and is a recipe for
the artist to find another line of work.

Jim


At 11:08 AM 1/3/01 -0500, Kyle Cassidy wrote:
>there's a great editorial in camera arts this quarter about print pricing,
>something that i feel strongly about as an art buyer and art producer.
>prints, photographic prints, _should_ be priced inexpensively. as the t.v.
>commercial says, "crunch all you want, we'll make more" -- it's rediculous
>to pay $1,200 for an 11x14 print, even if it is by sally mann. especially
>now with the advent of digital printing where prints can be reliably
>reproduced in quantity without the aid of an expensive darkroom
>technician. i'd much rather have one of my prints in someone's house.
>pricing high is simply creating false rarity. print pricing should be
>based on the difficulty in making the print, and recouping some of your
>photographic investment. 
>
>join me in the fight against limited editions. well, me and HCB.
>
>kc
>
>(the editorial makes the point that photographic prints today are based
>on the painting model "this is my work, you're taking it away forever"
>when they should be based on the music model "your buying this CD doesn't
>change my master recording so i can sell it to you cheap" -- it's a good
>article and a good point)