Re: [Leica] Re: price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art)

[Steven Alexander <alexpix@worldnet.att.net>]

I've been reading this thread and holding my hands tightly clasped and away
from the keyboard...but now here is my two cents, would you buy advice at
that low a price?:-)

As a pro, one who has for the past 40 years made a very comfortable living
creating images that someone buys, yesterday sold a software cover for
$xxx.00 from stock...met the needs and funding of the client, I find that we
all sell too low and buy too high.

As artists we want to have our work seen and appreiciated by a wide range of
people so we do not always make business decisions in pricing.  As business
people we seldom correctly figure costs of doing business and do not always
collect fees that support and grow the enterprise.  Those not dependent on
photography as a means of income still fail to cost out their hobby in terms
of occasional sales.

Most professional I've known are poor business people and frankly I've
always worried about their low prices more than I have ever been concerned
about the unrealistic price the nonprofessional shoooter may collect from a
random sale.  The brother-in-law who can do this job has in the past mostly
turn into a panic request for my services two days before deadline.

I have been at events with 2-3 times as many nonprofessional shooters as
those on assignment and know by pure statistical reasoning some of the
amateurs will have better images and offer them at lower prices and win.
Is that fair...I don't know but I don't lose sleep over it.  But some
fulltime professional who works for a day rate that dosen't cover the cost
of their doing business has given me a few grey hairs.

Do not get me started on the cost of our necessary equipment and supplies,
insurance and other operating costs.

OT, Leicas cost too much.

Keep shooting and enjoying creating images and when you can get rewarded
with an occasional sale, step back and say WOW and if you make a sale
everyday, step back and understand how damned much that one cost and how
much the next one will cost you to create no matter how loud your stomach is
growling.


Happy snaps,
Steven Alexander




> I think there are several things being missed in all of this:
> 
> 1. The vast majority of people have no real conception of good, bad, or ugly
> when it comes to any form of art - just look at the mind-boggling popularity
> of the guy whose factory churns out that execrable lighthouse and cottage
> drech for 10s of thousands of dollars each. So what that means is that most
> people, faced with a choice between paying $10K for a truly fine wedding
> shoot, and $1500 for drech, will go for drech and save the money, saying
> 'this is really great, why should I spend more?'
> 
> 2. Most - NOT ALL - of what is given away, or sold at really low prices, is
> crap, be it art or software. Sure, there are some really wonderful freeware
> programs out there. But freeware is not what runs most computers, most
> business, etc., nor is it what most artists who are using computers use. And
> most art that is given away could not be sold, and most art that is sold at
> low prices could not be sold for higher prices - BUT it does draw work away
> from people who do produce quality (see above.)
> 
> 3. I suspect that much of the hue and cry about the need to have free and
> cheap art comes from those who desperately wish they could produce high
> quality, high priced, art, but can't - for one reason or another. (and it
> may be that they can't because they chose to put most of their effort into a
> high paying, and/or steady job rather than take the enormous risks involved
> in earning a living in any artistic field. But of course having the ability
> to take those risks is one of the things necessary to succeed commercially
> in an artistic field of endeavor.
> 
> Anyway, the issue here isn't Kyle's prints sold on the LUG. First, as I
> argued earlier, Kyle could certainly be selling his work for much higher
> prices - whether you happen to like GothGurls or not, he's damn good.
> And,more to the point, what we are really talking about is the person who
> says, 'oh, hell, Sam and Jessica, I'll shoot your wedding if you just buy my
> film. You don't need to waste all that money on some fancy dancy
> photographer."
> 
> And the "fancy dancy photographer" is out a job.
> 
> BUT - that's the way the world works.
> 
> B. D.
> 
> 
> B.D.:
> 
>> when folks who don't depend upon their
>> photography/painting/sculpture/writing/computer programing to make a living
>> price it well below the market when compared to those who do those things
> to
>> make a living, it makes earning a living pretty difficult for the
>> full-timers: particularly when the seller is someone like Kyle, whose
>> photographic work is better than that of a goodly percentage of the
>> full-time "pros" out there.

> Switching back to photographer, stock images are also abundantly available
> for a fraction of the cost of hiring somebody to go out and take a new
> image.
> 
> Your clients, B.D., in your "day in the life" hire you rather than sift
> through cheaper-priced stock images.
> 
> Ted touched on this a little while ago when he related the tale of a client
> that decided he could do the job himself.  And then came crawling back to
> Ted, needing Ted's expertise.
>
> 
> Doesn't matter how many stock images you could buy for the same price as
> your clients pay, B.D.  None of those stock images will solve their
> problems.  Doesn't matter how much free software my employer downloads.  By
> themselves, none solve problems.
>> 
> Eric
 
> --


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html