Print Prices

I'm guessing that you are probably like me and don't purchase multi thousand dollar photographs and are not a 'collector'. Still, it's interesting to look at the prices of photographs. We read in the papers that such and such a print sold for $500,000 or more yet I'm just back from visiting a gallery site which posts it's prices and Arnold Newman's Igor Stravinsksy portrait (the one with the grand piano silhouette to the right) is only $3000. Many of you will have spent that on a new TV in the last year so purchasing such a print is not completely impossible.

Other prints were in the same ballpark - all of them famous images that most photographers and even the general public would recognize.

I think this puts in perspective how much we might consider charging for our work and it raises questions about the whole gallery process.

My recent show in Toronto was I think fairly typical of gallery experiences. They charged me for the framing of the prints (it wasn't practical for me to ship framed work, and besides I couldn't have done it cheaper here). They also took half of all money taken for the prints, but if a frame was sold, I got back the full value of the frame.

Now, my normal prices for bagged prints is $69 for a 13X19, $149 for a 17X22 (both with generous white borders), and $300 for 24X24 inch prints and the like. To be able to get this much money (and to have any hope of breaking even if I did have a successful show), I had to double these figures for the show, then add on top the cost of the frame. This meant that a 24X24 image which cost $200 to frame was being sold unframed for $600. These are inkjet prints which it is fairly easy for me to make more and almost no one knows these images at all, yet I'm selling for one fifth of the price of an icon of photography, someone who has in fact passed away and more prints won't be forthcoming.

It raises issues about the process of selling through galleries (yet they had to pay rent on the place and pay for staffing it 8 hours a day seven days a week as well as pay for the framing guy and his supplies so it's not that I begrudge them their fee, I think it is quite fair and simply the cost of doing business with a gallery and the cost of having a place like a gallery to see the work for the purchaser.

The other issue it raises is that of unrealistic pricing by 'unknown' photographers. They may well have sweated in the darkroom or even made platinum prints but the buyer doesn't care, he just sees an unknown trying to charge the same per print as the recently deceased Arnold Newman for a famous image. Kind of puts things in perspective.

Bottom line is that it suggests the need for marketing that is inexpensive and for prices that are realistic. The internet is an ideal way to keep prices down - people can see the work far better than in any printed catalogue while incurring little cost for the photographer. So how well does the internet work for selling photographs? IT STINKS!.

I don't know anyone who makes a significant amount of money off of selling their work primarily by the internet. For myself I have sold less than half a dozen prints via web contact. My wesite made an excellent catalogue for when I was at the Farmers Market - people could go home and look up images before selecting an image, they could show them to their significant others and they could see my full range of work even if I didn't at the time have on display every single image I ever sell.

The only possible exception to poor internet sales that I know of is Alain Briot but he got started with and I believe continues with art shows and markets aggressively with mailouts and coverage on Luminous-Landscape and The Online Photographer. People who simply put up a site and wait for the money to roll in are usually disappointed.

So if the best way to sell prints is on the internet and the worst way to make money is on the internet, what does that suggest? I think it suggests that we should be making inkjet prints so we can make lots of them. I think it means we need to keep prices very reasonable. I note that Mike Johnston over on The Online Photographer is now selling prints (and I just ordered one of his prints of 'migrant mother' and he's selling prints for between $40 and $90, shipping included. Brooks Jenson is selling his for a flat $20 plus shipping so not so very different. Even people like Alain who is very financially aware have monthly specials they sell for $100.

Seems to me that what we need people in the know and with the ear of the buying public to review images and make recommendations. Can you imagine if we had the equivalent of Roger Ebert making recommendations on the purchase of hot $40 prints?

In theory you could have people like Michael Reichmann (Luminous Landscape), Uwe Steinmuller (Outback Photo), Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer, and Phil Askey (DPreview) making recommendations. The only catch is that their audience is us, the photographers, not necessarily people with interest in and money to spend on art.

I wonder what it would take to get the local newspaper to review available images each week just like they review books or movies. I wonder if anyone has even suggested they try. Reviewers of books get sent free copies - maybe we need to be thinking about sending free prints to reviewers. I would be concerned that they would be absolutely flooded with everything from snapshots to fine art. At least with books and movies, someone has invested considerable time, energy and money to make the book or movie. That's not necessarily the case with pictures.

There has to be a way though. Can you imagine if your local paper reproduced four good fine art photographs every week with the web address supplied, a review of the image and information about purchase?

I guess I'm dreaming here but there isn't really any reason why it couldn't work. The flaws should have solutions. Oh well, we can only hope.