Pricing Prints

[Jake Mongey]

Hey guys,

In my recent venture into owning a Hassy I have decided to sell some of my work on the classifieds to fund a lens. However I have never sold a print before. I did attempt to do so a couple of months ago but a member actually suggested that I refined my process before selling - it was good advice!

I am now at a point where I have a print that is completely dust free and full of detail but I would like to get some suggestions on price and if someone would even buy it.

Here is a scan that I have adjusted to look similar to the print in tones, the only difference I am about to make is another run tomorrow which prints down the highlights on the objects and table but leaves the woman clothing blown out:


This is printed on a satin finish 16x20 RC paper and has a 1cm white border around it. It is printed in relation to the Archival processing recommendations set out in The Negative and toned in selenium for permanance (not affecting print tones)

Would anyone pay for this sort of print of have I just been blinded by the fact I like this shot. If you would, would the paper size and type be good and how much would be a good price?

Thanks,
Jake

 

[CameraQuest]

Ask a hundred different photogs and you are likely to get 100 different answers, all sure they are RIGHT.

IMO a photog printing their own analog images and signing them is a big deal that makes the prints worth more and more easily saleable.

Of course photogs who print digitally and use commercial printers disagree.

duh...who could have seen that coming?

personally I don't much like the particular pic above, but that does not mean someone would not buy it.

For size, I am a big fan of 5x7 images printed on 8x10 and 8x10 printed on 11x14.

Unless its a truly outstanding image, there is not much of a market for 16x20 wall images.

bottom line experiment and find out what works for YOUR marketplace.

Stephen

 

[Jake Mongey]

Ask a hundred different photogs and you are likely to get 100 different answers, all sure they are RIGHT.

IMO a photog printing their own analog images and signing them is a big deal that makes the prints worth more and more easily saleable.

Of course photogs who print digitally and use commercial printers disagree.

duh...who could have seen that coming?

personally I don't much like the particular pic above, but that does not mean someone would not buy it.

For size, I am a big fan of 5x7 images printed on 8x10 and 8x10 printed on 11x14.

Unless its a truly outstanding image, there is not much of a market for 16x20 wall images.

bottom line experiment and find out what works for YOUR marketplace.

Stephen

I see where youre coming from, I think you're right about the subject matter and now the hype from creating the print has died down I see that. I also see about the image size, back to the drawing board but I think I know what I am going to do here: Make smaller prints from my project on trees as I think those images are probably the most commercially viable.

Out of interest what is the most effective way to sign a print?

 

[jsrockit]

It's sellable if you can find someone to buy it. Basic, but true.

 

[Jake Mongey]

It's sellable if you can find someone to buy it. Basic, but true.

That is very true, but thats IF i can find someone

 

[CameraQuest]

I see where youre coming from, I think you're right about the subject matter and now the hype from creating the print has died down I see that. I also see about the image size, back to the drawing board but I think I know what I am going to do here: Make smaller prints from my project on trees as I think those images are probably the most commercially viable.

Out of interest what is the most effective way to sign a print?

I bought a couple of Jim Marshall prints - I liked the way he signed them.

right hand side below the print on the white border
name and date

left hand side below the print on the white border
subject matter and print number / edition
as in "Red Rock 9/100"

 

[Jake Mongey]

I bought a couple of Jim Marshall prints - I liked the way he signed them.

right hand side below the print on the white border
name and date

left hand side below the print on the white border
subject matter and print number / edition
as in "Red Rock 9/100"

What writing material would be best for writing on RC paper? Theres also the fact that my handwriting is damn awful and my signature leaves a lot to be desired - thats always stopped me from signing my work

 

[CameraQuest]

What writing material would be best for writing on RC paper? Theres also the fact that my handwriting is damn awful and my signature leaves a lot to be desired - thats always stopped me from signing my work

just test practice
probably fine sharpies - but there may be something better
also try soft lead pencil

 

[jsrockit]

That is very true, but thats IF i can find someone

Yes, that's the harder part. 🙂

 

[PKR]

You can sign the back of the print too. I often do this with the addition of a print number, date, any location info if significant. A print number is not an edition number. It might correspond to a series that began in silver and is now pigment printed. The information is in my notes. If you ever edition, take it seriously.

I use a 2B to 6B pencil depending on the paper tooth.

When your artist/photographer friends offer to trade one of their prints or drawings/paintings for one of yours, it's a good indication that you might have something the pubic might pay for.

It's also important to keep a record of the people or institutions (if it comes to that) who own your prints. It doesn't matter if these were sold, donated or were gifts to friends. Keep a good record. Print numbers help greatly. People sell things. I had stuff show up at auction and I had no idea if a gift to a friend was sold or if it was a gallery print. I wanted to know and couldn't find out. It was a print from a small edition and I didn't keep good records. Auction dealers are often silent about these things.


http://www.artbusiness.com/signart.html

Good luck, pkr

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jake,

Put it this way: I wouldn't buy it. No matter how good the composition (and it's good), the blown foreground and the murky face reduce it to snapshot level for me. Any saleable pic is a contest between composition (or "eye") and quality, and this just falls too far down on the latter for me, no matter how good the eye.

Sorry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jake Mongey]

Dear Jake,

Put it this way: I wouldn't buy it. No matter how good the composition (and it's good), the blown foreground and the murky face reduce it to snapshot level for me. Any saleable pic is a contest between composition (or "eye") and quality, and this just falls too far down on the latter for me, no matter how good the eye.

Sorry.

Cheers,

R.

By any chance would this be more pleasing to you?


I see where you're coming from, I did boost the highlights as I liked the 'High key' effect in this shot which was what made me print it in the first place. You have a very good point though, what I personally like may not be a technically good print and I probably should have considered that

 

[Roger Hicks]

By any chance would this be more pleasing to you?
View attachment 106144

I see where you're coming from, I did boost the highlights as I liked the 'High key' effect in this shot which was what made me print it in the first place. You have a very good point though, what I personally like may not be a technically good print and I probably should have considered that

Dear Jake,

Yes, that's much better in my book. On the other hand Frances and I are so much more interested in trying to sell our own prints that we're not buying much...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jake Mongey]

Dear Jake,

Yes, that's much better in my book. On the other hand Frances and I are so much more interested in trying to sell our own prints that we're not buying much...

Cheers,

R.

Dont worry, im not expecting anything - Im just putting out a couple of feelers to what people like and dont like. Theres also the fact i do admire your work which makes your opinion valuable to me 😀

 

[Jake Mongey]

Looking at some of my work ive found these images from the photo book I am writing in my spare time which are probably more commercially viable and maybe should appeal to more people?

Do these sorts of images appeal more - both aesthetically and technically?

 

[PRJ]

To put this simply, you are trying to sell melted ice to eskimos.

If you priced them low enough a few people might pity buy. I see that from time to time here.

 

[CameraQuest]

Looking at some of my work ive found these images from the photo book I am writing in my spare time which are probably more commercially viable and maybe should appeal to more people?

Do these sorts of images appeal more - both aesthetically and technically?

Personally this is my favorite of your pics in the thread so far

 

[Jake Mongey]

Personally this is my favorite of your pics in the thread so far

Thank you!

 

[jszokoli]

just test practice
probably fine sharpies - but there may be something better
also try soft lead pencil

I once purchased a signed print (actually offset or some other process) that appeared to be signed in sharpie it hangs on my wall but over the years the signature has faded to the point that you need to look for it. The print without Eddy Merckx's signature is basically worthless.

So I'm skeptical about sharpie, unless someone can speak up an say yes it's archival. Maybe the signature was just some worthless off brand marker...

Joe

 

[Jake Mongey]

I once purchased a signed print (actually offset or some other process) that appeared to be signed in sharpie it hangs on my wall but over the years the signature has faded to the point that you need to look for it. The print without Eddy Merckx's signature is basically worthless.

So I'm skeptical about sharpie, unless someone can speak up an say yes it's archival. Maybe the signature was just some worthless off brand marker...

Joe

Looking into this, I cant find any information about sharpies fading themselves but because they are solvent based they are very likely awful for print permanence - looks like those are ruled out