Price of prints? Seek your advise

Alex Krasotkin

Alex Krasotkin

Well-known
Local time
11:59 AM
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
294
Guys, what could be an average price of prints (hand made BW and colour) of non-famous photographer like myself?:bang: Some galleries are interested. What is normal price range?:confused:

many thanks,
 
Alex, are the galleries in Moscow, or New York, or somewhere else? If New York, Fred's advice is good..he's an artist in New York who knows the market there. Where I live in Indiana, prices are a lot less. In Moscow...we don't know! You should ask the gallery director what he or she thinks is right for the market there.
 
In NYC it is about $500~3500 for emerging artists. I have never seen anything below $500.
Click to expand...

Wow - gotta get me to New York with a suitcase full of prints!! It's hopeless trying to sell photographs in the UK - they're not regarded as art here :(

Simon
 
I have decided that I will price my prints at $50 million USD each. All I have to do is sell just one and I'll be set for life. :D
 
They aren't worth anything until they sell. The market dictates price. $500.00/print in New York might be $100.00/print in High Colonic, and might not sell at all in Melanoma. Your best resource is probably the local gallery owners and artists. Good luck!
 
Shouldn't the gallery be telling you what the price is? Isn't their job the know the market, what they can sell and for what price? Or are you just trying to confirm what they are offering with others' experience?
 
gns said:
Shouldn't the gallery be telling you what the price is? Isn't their job the know the market, what they can sell and for what price? Or are you just trying to confirm what they are offering with others' experience?
Click to expand...

My experience is that galleries generally ask the artist what he/she wants the work priced as. If you ask them for advice, they're usually happy to tell you what they think, but most do expect you to already know what you want. That does make it hard for someone just beginning who has not sold anything and has no idea then what the market will bear.
 
It will help you if you can find some photographers in the area to get a feel for pricing.
I would think it is very dependent on quality of the printing, content, general tastes. There is work out there that's marginal quality at best, but a gallery, promoter or self promoter has convinced someone with more money than sense that something is collectible.
Self promotion and thick skin, no problem with rejection. Emphasis on SELF PROMOTION. Ego as big as Cleveland is frequently more important than talent.
Hey, you don't even need to be a photographer.
If I see a picture I like enough to put it on the wall, my upper range might be $200.00
Find a famous name at an estate sale for $25.00 & I'm all over it but it's not likely for that to happen.
 
I'd expect prices to be higher in Moscow than NYC.

It really depends on the type of customer. Price too low and they won't be interested either. You have to understand the gallery's market and price in line with the rest of their offerings.
 
Alex Krasotkin said:
Guys, what could be an average price of prints (hand made BW and colour) of non-famous photographer like myself?:bang: Some galleries are interested. What is normal price range?:confused:

many thanks,
Click to expand...

Alex,
Your work is superb, so do not sell your prints at prices that are too low.

Good luck.
 
What is the general sentiment about 'limited editions'? From my personal perspective, it doesn't make sense in photography -- it seems to be adding value where it doesn't exist (maybe it's a gallery invention?). I mean, are you destroying the negative after you've made your 'limited edition'? If it's a digital file, are you trashing the file after you've made your prints for the series? Limited editions in other media might make sense -- if the litho stone has a certain 'lifespan' to it, or the etching plate etc is only good for a certain number of impressions, but a negative or digital file looks more or less the same whether it's the 5th or 500th print.

Any thoughts on this matter? Is it just a public perception that a supposed 'limited edition' /numbered photo has more value than one that isn't?
 
Vince Lupo said:
What is the general sentiment about 'limited editions'? From my personal perspective, it doesn't make sense in photography -- it seems to be adding value where it doesn't exist (maybe it's a gallery invention?). I mean, are you destroying the negative after you've made your 'limited edition'? If it's a digital file, are you trashing the file after you've made your prints for the series? Limited editions in other media might make sense -- if the litho stone has a certain 'lifespan' to it, or the etching plate etc is only good for a certain number of impressions, but a negative or digital file looks more or less the same whether it's the 5th or 500th print.

Any thoughts on this matter? Is it just a public perception that a supposed 'limited edition' /numbered photo has more value than one that isn't?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I was just recently involved in a discussion on another forum about this topic. Negatives can be cancelled - usually by punching a hole through it, or scratching the emulsion with a big, ugly X. Digital prints rely on the ethics of the photographer to "destroy" the file. Do they mean the specific file the prints were made from, but not the RAW file, which may then be reconverted for more prints? Or what?

What does a "limited edition" mean when it's digital?
 
I don't sell a lot of prints, but have sold a limited edition once. It was a picture that I only made two prints of. I gave one to the subject of the image, and put the other up in a gallery show and sold it as 2 of 2. I won't be making any more prints of that image, though I'm certainly not going to destroy my negative.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
I don't sell a lot of prints, but have sold a limited edition once. It was a picture that I only made two prints of. I gave one to the subject of the image, and put the other up in a gallery show and sold it as 2 of 2. I won't be making any more prints of that image, though I'm certainly not going to destroy my negative.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem (not pointing to you specifically Tim, but to the general concept) -- if the 'original' isn't destroyed, then is it really a 'limited edition'? If I do a limited edition of 10 prints, sell those 10 prints, and then my mother asks for a copy of that print, then what do I do? Say no? Make an 11th print? And if I make that 11th print, then what becomes of the 'value' of the limited 10? And what's to prevent your heirs from remaking that print somewhere down the line?

I've seen some photographers do a limited edition based upon size (like ten 11"x14" prints etc), so then it allows them to wiggle out of it and say "well now I'm going to do ten 12"x16" prints etc, or ten prints on Ilford paper, ten on Kodak paper" etc etc.

Years ago, I once had an area photo gallery look at my work and the noticed that none of my prints was 'numbered'. They asked me if I would consider doing it, I said no. They were truly puzzled and disappointed at my refusal. So I dunno -- guess different strokes for different folks. Or maybe I just don't see the value of my particular images rising to a level that 'requires' limiting the number of times I'd plan on printing them (not that it would be very many anyways, but why put myself in that position?).
 
Chris101 said:
Yeah. I was just recently involved in a discussion on another forum about this topic. Negatives can be cancelled - usually by punching a hole through it, or scratching the emulsion with a big, ugly X. Digital prints rely on the ethics of the photographer to "destroy" the file. Do they mean the specific file the prints were made from, but not the RAW file, which may then be reconverted for more prints? Or what?

What does a "limited edition" mean when it's digital?
Click to expand...

I will do this to throw away negs that are flawed, but I see absolutely no point in doing this to a perfectly good negative or chrome. What if Ansel Adams, Vivian Maier, Garry Winogrand or Henri Cartier-Bresson had destroyed their prime negatives in this manner? The world of photography would be much poorer as a result, that's what.

Oh, and a few fortunate collectors and museums would see the prices of their Adams, Winogrand, Maier or Cartier-Bresson prints skyrocket in value.

Maybe I'm just wierd, but driving up the value of my prints that are in the hands of rich collectors and museums is around number nine hundred trillion on my list of photographic hopes/dreams/goals.

IF I had any of my prints in the hands of rich collectors and museums to begin with, that is. :D

Today's so-called "useless" and "valueless" negatives will in a few decades be significant historical records, no matter who created them or how obscure and unknown the photographer was.
 
i sell 8x12s for 40 plus shipping because that's what other photographers I've seen on the net with a bigger following than my self have been selling them for. In the few gallery shows I've been in I've sold prints from 300-500.

To get real money it seems you gotta go through the proper channels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom