Comparing Photography With Other Art Forms

I was at the movies the other day and while the previews were running I was thinking how cheap it was to go to the movies. To me movies are a form of art just like photography. I would consider actors as artist, the writers as artist, the directors that films the movie, all the set directors, lighting people, everything that goes into that movie in my opinion is artistic. The movie makers spend millions upon million of dollars and the product they produce is created by some incredibly talented artist. So with hundreds of people and millions of dollars to produce this one piece of artwork why are they selling it for only $8.00 to view and when it comes out on DVD it may run $20.00. photographers go out and capture an image, do a little processing, let a printer do the work to make the finished product and then they want to charge $500 to $600 for a 30X40 gallery wrap. Photographers want more for an 11X14 print then the cost of buying the DVD of a movie. This doesn’t make any sense to me, this is way out of balance. Why don’t the movie companies do like the photographers and sell the DVD for $500 or $600 like the photographers are asking for when they sell that 30X40 gallery wrap. It seems much more logical since the movie cost millions of dollars and tons of people to make it happen. Why do photographers think their art has so much value for so little effort and a piece of photo paper. How many people would buy that movie if it was 500 to 600 dollars.

I also looked at the music business. The musicians which I also consider artist have to take the time to write all the songs for their album, rehearse all the songs, go into the studio and record. They need producers and techs to work the recording equipment to get that perfect sound. The record companies spend huge bucks to pay all these people and to produce the CD’s. What does it cost to you and me, about $16.00. They would have every right to charge hundreds of dollars for this artistic product , but they don’t. Would most pay hundreds of dollars for the latest CD, I doubt it.

If the movie people and the musicians charged what photographers charge for their art they would also become staving artist like most photographers. Are staving artist starving because they charge too much for their art?

For starters it doesn't cost $15 to make a 30X40 gallery wrap. Its more on the order of a couple hundred. If we sold gallery wraps for the same as a DVD, we wouldn't be in business long. It only costs a couple pennies to make a DVD. Then again, if we sold our photographs with that same retail mark up, a gallery wrap would cost $150,000.

Second, movies market to a different model, not even a typical supply/demand model. For a given movie, there is essentially an unlimited supply of views of the movie. A theater can show the movie as many times per day on as many screens as they see fit. If the audience shows up, then they keep showing it. There doesn't seem to be any supply side limits on the creation of DVDs, so again, they can make as many DVDs as people will buy. The goal of any movie is to create demand for an effectively unlimited supply.

Third, unlike live music or acting (both of which can be very expensive), the actors don't have to show up for each viewing and they don't have to act it out. Therefore there is no shortage of actors.

Forth, the cost of the production of a movie is distributed over a huge number of viewers. If I sold 1.5 million copies of my finest photograph, the production cost would become completely insignificant, but the manufacture of each copy of the photograph would represent real cost. For instance assuming a 30X40 gallery wrap cost $200 to make, that would be $300,000,000 in manufacturing costs. There might be economies of scale, but its still going to be more expensive than a $0.02 per copy DVD.

Apply the same logic to painters where the supply is truly a limit. I've never met a painter who can produce 60 paintings per minute, but there are DVD copy machines that can do this.

Or lets flip the photography example around and look at the ad business. In this model, the production cost does get distributed across a huge number of copies. The copies may be in magazines or on the web or in a newspaper. But if a photographer is paid $50,000 to shoot one image that will be distributed 1.5 million times, he earns only $0.03 per copy of his image. The distribution and manufacturing costs are passed on to the printer/publisher.

Hey Mel, the movie and music industry does sell millions, and the reason why they can sell millions is that they have made their art affordable to even the lowest wage earner. If you bought thousands of gallery wraps they wouldn't cost $200.00, and you could lower it to a more managable cost for people in the lower incomes and broaden your market. I understand the whole economics of the walmart mentality, just wondering why photographers haven't applied more of the modern day methods of doing business as the film and music industry has. I wouldn't suggest that you can sell a framed art work or the gallery wrap as cheap as a CD or DVD, but you could sell prints much cheaper then most photographers are selling them for. Thanks for comment By the way Walmart was sell a 24X36 gallery wrap for $29.00. It's being done.

Mike,

I respect your opinions on a lot of topics, and think you are a fantastic photographer - but I can't possibly believe you are serious with this post... you have owned your own business for how many years? More than I've been alive I'm sure and I would imagine that you have a pretty good handle on economics. . . The movie industry is a totally different monster that's woven into the fabric of all modern societies. Even movies that are terrible (and are pointed out as such in reviews) make gobs of money! Certainly people aren't going to be shelling out money for crappy pictures, even if they were cheap.

In addition, you are oversimplifying the entire process. Movies that cost millions to make are backed by major corporations and are bankrolled after the scripts have been vetted and market research has been done - the company making the movie already KNOWS it is going to make money and thus can budget how much to spend. But the same doesn't apply to indy flicks which are made by "true artists". Consider the Blair Witch Project for example. . . it certainly didn't cost millions to make, but they charged the same amount of $ as other films by big companies.

If you truly believe what you are saying, then why don't you setup a video recorder in the back of the room for your workshops and sell the DVD for $15? That way I don't have to spend the hundreds or thousands of dollars it would normally cost. . .

Additionally, consider the stock photography business. Those photos are sold for dirt cheap because they can be used over and over and over again. I don't know how you could compare a movie which a multi-billion dollar company spent a few million bucks on compares to a photograph I or you take at one moment in time and then offer as a 30X40 gallery wrap limited edition. . . I hate to say it, but this is just way off base. April Fool's day is still a long way off. . .

Hey Luke, The music and film industry has taken art and massed produced it. Like I said it's a standard business practice to sell in volume, and more and more art is starting to show up in Walmarts, Ikea, Kirland, Etc. They have taken artwork, massed produced it and are selling cheap, as does the music and film industry. I've been in many homes of young people that are buying their art from these stores. In one young couples home I saw 15X15 inch prints hanging on the wall of beach scenes that were good photography. They were proud to tell me they bought all eight prints for $40.00 at Ikea. Kirkland home decor store sell 24X36 framed artwork for $79.00. I'm just saying photographers need to worry about this because the younger people are going there for their artwork because it's more affordable. If you want to be in the bussiness of selling products you need to think like a business, you cut overhead to keep your price down. You could say, but this is art and you shouldn't sell it cheap, but all I can tell you is Walmarts, Ikea, etc are doing fine and all the galleries in my area I had my images hanging in are all out of business.

Wow, is this a strange post.

First, you are comparing different things: individual "hand crafted" photos that a person buys and owns vs, mass market movies that the person pays to see once. People who buy "Art" are looking at a unique object that is the product of the artist and they feel it is worth the price for the unique touch of the creator.

What you should be looking at instead of original photographs (or individual original paintings or sculptures etc.) is mass produced posters. In that case you'll see prices more in line with mass produced music CDs.

Why do we bother building museums to house the great works of art when all we really need is a bunch of $10 Mona Lisa posters?

Mike

I can only speak for myself, but one thing I do take serious exception to in what you wrote was this line:

Why do photographers think their art has so much value for so little effort and a piece of photo paper.

So little effort?

In FL I would get up long before dawn, get dressed, drive 45 minutes to be at location before the sun rise. I would crawl through mud, sit in slime, be up to my waist in water, slide on my belly through sand, walk upwards of 10 miles in 90 + degree weather and 90% + humidity. My feet would be cut and bleeding from the sand tearing open my skin. My knees would be rubbed raw. Drive home, upload images to my computer, spend hours culling, then editing then I'd charge those batteries, format my cards and be back out there the next day. Perhaps 5 times a week or more.

I study my subjects when I am in and out of the field, I get to know the multitude of species, their habits, their behaviors and learn to anticipate what they may do next.

My feet are no longer being sliced open by sand after moving here, but my hands get icey cold in Utah's winter temps. There is still a huge devotion of time and effort.

I'm not a starving artist, I don't try to market my images to be sold, however the effort I put into each and every photograph isn't fluff, it is hard work. The hours that I devote to photography are enormous.

I am sure the multitude of landscape photographers that hike miles to get to a location, sleep in a freezing tent, who wait patiently for the right light, hoping for beautiful clouds for hours, who do without basic necessities and communications from their loved ones don't think that requires little effort. It requires a great deal of it.

I do what I do for the love of photography and my subjects, I don't do it for a multi-million dollar home or contract like actors/producers/directors do.

If some one has my print hanging on their wall I hope they will enjoy it as a unique piece of art, what I don't want are my images becoming a $5.00 poster stuck in a flimsy frame.

I simply can not understand your comparison of movies and their cost to view or produce on DVD's to the work that photographers do. A very strange post indeed.

Hey Richard, Photos are only crafted at the time of shooting, after that I just press a button and it mass produce itself on my printer, I'm just a manufacturer at that point, no different then the posters, but with a little better quaity print and slower printer.

I still consider movies and music great art even though it sell for a cheap price. It's just package to the masses, but that doesn;t make it bad art, nor would it be bad art if photography was cheaper, it doesn't make it good art because it's more expensive.

Look at royalty free image business, they took the same road as the movie and music business, sell cheap at volune, and it's killed the stock photographers, and my point is with more and more art entering the big box store, you need to be more competative on your price. Not saying we will ever be as cheap as the big box stores but we have to be aware of this problem.

Hey Mia, sorry you were offended but that comment and I give you a lot of credit and commend you for the hard work you put into your photography, but I have to say that the pro photographers I personally know though the art show business and the nature photography business do not work that hard for their images. Most icon shots at national parks are within a short walk from thier cars. A few nature guys put the effort into backpacking into remote areas for images, but that's a minority. I do all my shooting in local parks and never walk more then a half of mile, and find nothing difficult about shooting any of the flowers or landscapes. Friends laugh at me and say what a life going out in the woods and having fun shooting nature, even they know I'm not going out and performing some tough manual labor job. But as I said I'm sorry if I offended anyone that feels they work hard for their images, just speaking from my expereinces and those I know..

IMO, there will always be a market for quality and original works of art whether it be photographs, paintings, or furniture. Certain people know quality and are willing to pay for it. You just need to seek out that market. You can sell one limited addition signed print for $500.00 printed with archival inks on fine paper under good glass and frame, or 100 cheap copies on crap paper with a poor frame for $5.00. It is your choice. I prefer to seek out the people who appreciate the image and the fine execution of it rather than trying to get my images mass produced and put in Walmart stores. Good luck with the second route. I tried it in another business and it is not all it is cracked up to be. In many cases, you do not make the money you think you will taking that route and quality goes to crap. You have no control. Many many pitfalls. Is a finely executed image printed, mounted, and framed to last several lifetimes worth $500 or more? Yes, to someone, actually to many, it is.

"Photos are only crafted at the time of shooting, after that I just press a button and it mass produce itself on my printer, I'm just a manufacturer at that point, no different then the posters ..."

Somewhere, a Walmart "art buyer" is salivating over your words.

Hey Ron, thanks for the comment, and you are right there will always be places to sell higher end art, and as you point out there are different thoughts on how to market art. I like to try and be aware of whats going on in this business, and I see what happened to the stock photographers since royalty free sites emerged. I have a kirkland store and Ikea by my home that sells artwork at cheap prices. The place is packed, while the art gallery down the street is out of business. When I look at the two business models I see the one selling cheap and the other selling at the higher prices going under.

I see the same thing in the art show business. One photographer that sells european photography images sells at very cheap prices. He has his people running back and forth all day long to the truck pulling replacemnet pieces. He kick everybodies butt and the people recognize he has good looking art at good prices, so why wouldn't they spend their money there. He does close to five figures a show while other european photographers are selling at the higher prices and doing a few thousand. I don't expect all of you to agree with this way of doing business, but you have to figure out how to deal with it, because it a free country and that guy can sell for whatever price he whats. so this method works whether we like it or not.

Hey Jesse, I don't have the attitude that my images should only hang in the homes of people that shop at Neiman Marcus. I'm happy to have people that will hang my images in any home reguardless of their income or if they shop at Walmart. I would hope others here don't feel that their images are only for people that have lots of money to pay high prices. Are people on limited income not good enough for our images to hang in their homes?

I like to get back on track about my original post and that the movie and music business is a really good deal when we buy their art. When I mention photographers should try to lower their prices to make the images more affordable, protographers will get defensive. Like your degrading the value of what you do. Do you think the artist that produce the the movies and music are degrading their art by selling it cheap. I don't think so, they just use a marketing system that puts their art in the hands of everybody. I just don't see this as a bad thing.

If they raised the price of their movies and music to cost hundreds of dollars as photogrpahers do, would you be able to buy their products. Yes some people could afford it just as some people can afford to spend hundreds of dollars for one of our prints, but how long could they last selling out these prices. My feeling is the market would be to small at those prices and they would become starving artists as well. So is it so wrong to try and make our art more affordable and market it to people that can't afford the high prices.

I'm curious Mike, why do the other european photographers stick to their higher prices knowing this other guy is making a lot sales and significantly more money? I would think just anecdotal evidence would be met with skepticism (as it has in this thread), but if they are watching this happen on a regular basis in front of their eyes, why aren't they making an adjustment? Of course the other factor in this equation is the beauty of the prints in the eye of the beholder (customer). Maybe people just like his images better and he happens to sell them at lower prices. How do your prices compare to his?

Mike, I ordinarily have a pretty good understanding of where you are coming from in your posts, but like some of the others here this one leaves me scratching my head a bit. Actually, I think your later posts are better worded, especially the last one.

Anyway, I think one thing that differentiates individual photographers from the two main industries you cite above is sheer volume. With DVDs, even at $20 and lots of markups between the creation of the cd and the final retail price, these are sold in the tens of millions of units. It doesn't take too much unit profit before the entire enterprise, even including poorer sellers, becomes a billion dollar profit industry.

Even in the recording industry, again volume makes up for a smaller individual unit profit than we get for our prints. And realistically, having known a lot of people at the local club and small festival circuit level, most of them are just glad to sell 30-50 cds at a gig so they have gas, food and motel money. Their profits for a given show can be a lot less than ours, even before dividing the money between 4-6 people.

I think one thing your posts dance around is that of trying to "correctly" price our work, which really is a whole different problem. Taking the entertainment industry model of cheap but in volume is a nice idea, but most of us are not in the position of having that work for us (if only my last name was Walton...). So instead we try to strike a good balance between what people will pay and what our financial needs are.

I suspect this year's festival circuit will be interesting. When I first set my prices 7 years ago, I was about midrange for the local market. I did reasonably well for the shows I was at. Since then, I haven't raised my prices, but a lot of that has to do with not being in a position to commit myself to shows for the last three seasons. I think I should be raising my prices by a small amount, but with the economy, having sat out last year and basically overhauling my show stock, I really don't know what I'll be doing with regards to my pricing model.

Hey Scott, I'm as clueless as you about this fact. I talk to these guys and they just feel their art is worth what they are asking for it even though they see this going on. This guy I'm talking about use to sell his art for big bucks back in the day(he's very good), but as the economy took a hit and his sales dropped due to his high prices, so he found ways to lower his price and it's working for him. That's all I'm saying is if photographers work at it, they are able to lower prices, most just think their art is all that and it needs to sell for a lot to stroke their egos. I have found ways to lower my prices and it has help my sales. Anyone interested in finding out how I did it, send me a message and I'll let you know.

You are right about one thing, it is all about perceived value. This issue is quite interesting to me as I have had experience with the exact opposite scenario. Years ago I worked for a professional trade organization and part of my job was to put on conferences. Before I started they would charge a minimal fee for the conferences, just enough to break even. We ended up charging 4 times as much for the same conferences and getting up to 10 times as many attendees. The reason? The perceived value of the conference was greater when we charged more money (the same amount as similar organizations charged for similar conferences), so more people would attend.

Hi Mike, there are some things that stick in my mind as I read this thread. First, call me crazy but I see your point, at least a point you are trying to bring out. Heck I can even agree with the basis of what you say. There is no way a single photographer can compete with the film or music industry when it comes to their products that's a given and a problem, or is it?

Here is how I have always considered the film and music industry. You can call it an art, but it truly is not. It's entertainment. Now the people who produce the entertainment may be considered artist, (heck every Tom, Dick and Harry is an "artist" anymore). This is where the path splits. Take the individual actor, director, producer or musician. Many make tens of hundreds of thousands even millions of dollars per job. That job may take a year to complete but so be it. Now take the individual photographer and give them a year to go shoot pictures. Will that produce tens of hundreds of thousands even millions of dollars in their pocket. Well, I suppose it could, but the odds are much more against it than for it. So the question is why? Why do actors, producers, directors, musicians make such money? And photographers as you described go shooting in local parks and never walk more then a half of mile, and find nothing difficult about shooting any of the flowers or landscapes make much less? Hmm could their be a clue there?

And to put the other shoe on, why also do dedicated photographers as Mia described put themselves through extreme work for the love of the opportunity to capture natures beauty still make much less?

Could this be due to the society we live in? The opportunity to grab a quick inexpensive escape from reality in the form of a movie or song. You can listen to a song over and over again, or watch a movie over and over again. Is that the same as looking at a picture over and over again? For some yes, same thing.

The issue of mass produced art in the superstores selling for $50 or less compared to a single photograph sold at an art show by the photographer is a problem. Or could it be an opportunity? An opportunity to show the public the difference between a Walmart piece of fine art photography (if there is such a thing) and an individual piece of fine art photography.

Photography has become so watered down with the mass influx of pictures from every other person you meet. I had a person tell me just recently after seeing I had a website with my photography on it, quote: "Hey I have some pictures you can use!" All I could think to say in reply was, use for what? He hadn't the slightest clue as to why I spend time out in nature taking pictures. To him a picture of a tree is a picture of a tree. "That is the problem". Not what we charge for our work but what others see in it as value.

We must maintain a level of honest, personal devotion to OUR art, and let Walmart maintain Their level of honest, personal devotion to their art and let the customer decide which has more value.

A slightly different way of looking at things...

Admission price to a movie, for 1-2 hrs: $6-12, depending on where you view
Admission price for a concert, for 1-3 hrs: $5-150, or more, depending on the band/venue
Admission price to a photographer's gallery, for as many hours until closing: $0

What's more expensive? You do the math....

Hi Mike,

I think you have a valid point. Your concern that photographers ask too much for their prints is very much in tune with the thoughts of Brooks Jensen (editor of Lenswork magazine), who has often written on this topic. I am currently reading his book, Single Exposures 2, in which there is an essay on the same subject. Check out his personal web-site for details on his pricing policy.

Earlier this year, I started offering print-collections from one of my photographic projects (less than $20 per-print) and the response has been very good. I have sold more work in the last 6 months than in the previous 2 years combined. I am now encouraged to extend this to other projects too.

I had brought up this subject on NPN before and was met with a response similar to what you are seeing here. I am okay with other photographers setting whatever price they wish for their art. When it comes to my own work, I'd much rather be selling as many prints as possible (with a profit margin of course) instead of asking a price that will keep folks from buying my work.

Best wishes.

"This doesn’t make any sense to me, this is way out of balance" ...
"you have to figure out how to deal with it"

Sums it all up nicely.

Is some photography priced way too high, or even a lot of it? Maybe. Does it really matter, if the market is buying? Aren't pricing trends usually based upon market activity, rather than the perceived efforts of the artist? Or better yet, isn't it better for you - overpriced photography - if you are trending towards a model that thrives on high volume, affordable prints? I'd call that simply taking advantage of the current balance of things ... fads, trends, capabilities of the targeted buyer, etc. Which in the end, is what many artists do.

Of course, you won't get a hundreds for an "open edition" CD or album, unless you're U2 and you've just made a limited edition. Or unless Bono sneezed on it and the Virgin Mary is appearing. Which just about sums up the arbitrary nature of art at times. This week, I'm reading about one gallery entity make a killing with $20 limited edition prints. And just the opposite elsewhere.

Run with it, when the success comes. You won't starve if you know how to play the game ... and if you GOT game.

I just want to thank you all for commenting and keeping it civil up to this point, good comments.

I want to address everyone but time is a factor.

Thank you Anil for the link. If I read it right he's selling a 11X17 print for $20.00. I think that's a very fair price for that size. I sell my 11X14 for $20.00 at the shows, so his price is better then mine as he is offering a larger size at less money.

I own a 7880 epson printer that according to epson cost about a dollar a sqaure foot to print with matte paper. On that 11X14 I have about a dollar in cost.

I think a mark up from one dollar to twenty dollars is enough (2000%). But I see photogrpahers sites where their 11X14 go for way more then that, sometimes even a hundred dollars or more.

Flickr has two billion (yes Billion) photos on it, facebook as 850 million photos posted a month. combine all the nature photography sites, pbase, betterphoto, photo.net, all the art website where people are selling photos, all the royalty free sites and you have billions more. This doesn't even include the BILLIONS that are not even on line. As Brad Mangus points out. "Photography has become so watered down with the mass influx of pictures from every other person you meet", and I totally agree, when you look at supply and demand, there is just way to much supply to think it has that much value.

Many people today can take their inexpensive canon G10s out and produce great images without a lot of camera know how. Someone can buy that camera for less than some people sell their large prints for and make their own images.

This is only the start as digital has made it much easier for the average photograher to produce exceelent results.

So my opinion is digital has made photography much easier, and to repoduce the images is not much different then a production line. I get up in the morning, program all my images in my computer to print that day, send them to the printer and the production line runs on its own.

In the art show business the other artists do not like having to compete with the photographers as they realize how easy it is to reproduce our product. They kid me saying stuff like is your finger sore from pushing that button on your printer all day (they say it to be funny, but you know it really pisses them off).

How would you feel if you spent days or maybe weeks to create to a painting, metal sculpture, etc. of art when in 30sec the photographer has his product.

Don't get me wrong I think it takes a lot of talent to see good composition, process and print properly, but it's so easy and cheap to repoduce that product that I don't see it having the value that most photographers put on it.

Mike, The short answer is 'volume'. Movies and music are sold to huge numbers of people, not just the occasional customer. The other part is that they are selling the right to sit in a seat in the theater and watch while it plays or in the case of a DVD (which only gets released after they recoup production costs) the right to play it on your TV at home. The photographer who sells a gallery wrap image is selling a physical object that costs more than the buck or two (The cost of a blank DVD, case and writing the movie to it) to produce. Remember, they have already recouped the production cost when they release the DVD.

A fairer comparison would be if photographers hyped their photos, giving free previews to reviewers who then wrote so enthusiastically than thousands or millions of people would pay $5 or more to go look at the photos without actually having seen them before hand (except maybe a few small details) or leaving with a print in hand. The photographer would then be able to sell the prints somewhat more cheaply but (and this is a big but) production cost for prints to hang on the wall are still much higher than copying a CD/DVD and sticking it in a jewel case.

FWIW I have made screensaver/slide shows consisting of 50+ images on CD which I market in galleries and used to have on my website. I originally sold them for $14.95. I'm selling the remnants of that experiment for $10 and/or giving them away as promotional items. It was/is useful as a promotional item but was a bust as a money maker. Like it or not, the movie/music marketing model just doesn't work for photography.

As for affordable prints, Brooks Jackson who is a photographer as well as publisher of LENSWORK sells his prints for $20 http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/singleimages/landscapes.htm. I sell my small prints for $30 but I mat them, Brooks' prints are unmatted. I've given thought to following his example.

The last point to remember (as Jesse Speer points out) is that the movie and music industries work on the 'Star System'. For every movie or music album that makes BIG $$$ there are hundreds and thousands that cost more to produce than they make from them. Sort of like photography.

Hey Jim, I do get the whole volume thing of these industry, and I do realize that photographers can not repoduce their product that cheap, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper then when you had to go to a lab and make prints. So the cost of doing business goes down, so should the price.

Someone on another site made the comment that maybe in the future photographers can sell their images on CD a much cheaper product to repoduce. It's food for thought. Maybe someone will come up with a software program that will only allow the customer to make one print of an image and lock so you can reproduce it again. Any smart tech guys out there, see if can create this program and make a fortune.

Someone wrote on my blog that some photographer he admires sells his 11X14 prints for $1200.00. Come on, I'm sorry but many of the images I've seen posted here on the NPNs forums are incredible, some of the best images I've ever seen, so his images may be great but I'm sorry great images are bing done all the time, you can't tell me his images are so much better that there worth $1200 for a 11X14 print.

Mike, excellent post and discussion. As another photographer who sells at outdoor art festivals, and approaches it as a business, I cannot find anything wrong with your logic or conclusions. That said, allow me to add my two cents.

1. The guys selling for the real big bucks around me seem to be carrying a lot (if not all) of their work home after the show. I don’t think this was so true a few years ago and I don’t know if it’s due to the general economic slowdown or to the competitive factors from Walmart, etc. I’m also not sure it maters. All of us who sell at these venues have to adjust.

2. I am what is known as a lurker on another forum (Art Show Photo). A while back there was a really heated discussion about a fellow who was selling gallery wraps at what the others considered an obnoxiously low price. His work is very high quality and some suggested it wasn’t produced by him, that he imported it from China, and that shows shouldn’t let him in. I am almost certain I know who they were talking about and I do know that he photographs and prints himself. I also believe that art shows are his full time job, and he does not appear to be starving. We have choices. We can either compete on price and quality or sell less and move inventory from show to show.

3. I’m wondering how long it will take for the high, perceived value of images on canvas to wear off. To some degree I think it already has. My cost to produce a finished 20x30 print on canvas is significantly less than a matted and framed print of the same size, mostly due to the cost of glass and a quality frame that will not disintegrate as I carry them from show to show. In fact it is possible to sell canvas work for what many other photographers pay to have their images printed and wrapped and still make a mark up that would make most retailers blush.

4. I don’t think most of us will ever get to the point of competing with Walmart or Ikea, at least not at festivals. The guy selling photos from Europe that you referenced may be approaching that level. Kudos to him, but I wonder how many images he discarded before finding out which sold in sufficient volume to justify mass producing them. It’s my opinion that customers buy from us because they don’t find what they want at Walmart. However, they are cognizant of what the Walmarts of the world are charging and what other photographers are asking for their work at a given show. The successful vendor must find a good balance between price and venue. That said I really don’t want to discourage others from selling at a high price. Just don’t complain to me about my prices.

Hope this wasn’t too far off topic

Larry Reitz

Hey Larry very well said, and good to have someone in the business making this statement. Better pricing does work, and customers appreciate it. Artist don't generally like the business side of running a business and don't always understand something can be sold for less while still making money. you need to figure it out, others have.

I have been in a couple shows with the guy i think you are reffering to, he sell 30X40 gallery wraps for $179.00. Everyone was complaining like crazy because he was so cheap. If you set up a system, buy materials in bulk , work hard, you can do it. I know this guy was selling and none of his customers were worried about the quailty because he had low prices.

You are right that we will never compete with the big box stores but if we don't work on lowering are prices we will drive more people to those store, just like the stock photographers lost out to royalty free companies.

The younger generation has less money to spend on art then their parent and grandparents did, so they will be looking option for their art. We can't count on the baby boomers for long as they age and have all the art they need.

Another way to think about this is that movie industry and music industry are as much about selling stardom and its attending profits as they are about selling the individual works of art produced by stars. A musician makes very little from a cd, but the tours earn them more $ (and cost closer to $200 per ticket) and then there are the tshirts, posters, appearances, endorsements. This is less true of the film industry, but still, the studios are less about selling a specific work of art than about selling the idea of hollywood, stardom, fantasy. Now, if photography had a whole city devoted to selling a fantasy to keep the masses happy in their hovels, well, then the price of a print could go down considerably.

Hey Marylynne, thanks for posting, you are right lot more goes on in these business the just original product.

I don't think people realize that every home in amerca has four walls in every room of the house and most every wall has something hanging there. I'm sitting here writing this and I can see a half dozen frame art pieces (and there not mine) hanging. There is a lot of art being bought. My concern is will photographers be able to be competive with the big box store as the younger generation moves in that direction if they can't afford our art. It may not happen tomorrow but you should be working in that direction with your business.

All of this material is very interesting, pros and cons of the matter. I would love to be a pro, so Mike, can you direct me to a company that will print my work for pennies, mat and frame it for pennies and then distribute to a large franchise that will buy my work and sell it to the public, at a Walmart price. and still I can make a decent living sell my art. I am just a little me, doing maybe 15 or shows a year, meeting maybe 500 to 800 real potential buyers,most are just lookers, whereas the Walmart stores are scattered worldwide, with trillions of customers a day. If they would buy my mass produced photographs and sell for me I would be a happy camper, but guess what, they are already buying from China, and other mass producers. Any way, am I looking at this right or have I been misinformed? I would like to know how they can sell their pictures so cheap too. I sure can't. Maybe we should form a co op., mass produce and sell , like these record companys do.

I think it's important to realize that what we as photographers are selling are hand signed, hand "produced", works of art. A CD is not a hand signed, hand produced, work of art. It is not coming from the artist, it is coming from the manufacturer. Most people that want "art", want some sort of connection to the real artist - a signed print is much more valuable to them than an unsigned one.

Quick example - You can buy Michael Jackson's CD 'Bad' for $6.99 on amazon. But if you want a signed copy, the seller is asking $2,700 on ebay - Signed CD.

I think you can sell mass produced posters at very low cost to satisfy the cheapo market, and there's nothing wrong with that - people have been doing that for a long time. But, those are not works of art. If you start selling your hand crafted pieces for peanuts, I think you're going to destroy your own market and reputation. You will not get into a gallery if you tell them you sell your prints for $20. You'll be considered equivalent to "Walmart" art, which I suppose is exactly what you're going for. Now, if that business model works for you, great, but personally, I think you can nail more markets, and not sacrifice your reputation and lose the respect of the art community, by selling cheap but good quality posters, appropriately priced unlimited edition prints, and a high priced limited edition series.

I cant believe i read the whole thing...

I understand your points, Mike, but the way you made them is simply degrading to most photographers. Give me a huge powerful corporation to force feed my photos down millions of American throats and i'll happily sell my prints for $1.95 at Walmart (well, id probably gag when i saw the prints in Walmart, but id feel better once i got on my private jet for the Caribbean... )

Beyond the comment I've left on your blog post (see below) I would add...

What is missed in your observation is segmenting your audience. There are sales channels to reach different audiences and appropriate prices ranges for each. Research them and market to them appropriately. That doesn't mean all of your work should be priced for the lowest common denominator. Of course if that is the calculated business model you're tackling then best of luck. At the end of the day price is not only determined by what the market will bear, but what you do to maintain profitability. The movie/music industry is a machine optimized to output product to a large audience with minimal expenses (that in actuality are quite great). Photographers don't have that luxury absorbing a lot of costs up front in the production of their work not to mention the other costs of doing business and protecting their intellectual property from theft.

"<em>I would argue artists are starving for many reasons, but not because they necessarily charge too much.

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The music and movie industries operate in an economy of abundance while fine art photography operates in an economy of scarcity. Scarcity creates demand and higher prices versus abundance relies on broad appeal and lower prices. The difference of course is that music and video companies have incredibly well defined distribution & sales networks that optimizes their ability to cash in on an economy of abundance. Photographers in general are individuals or small sets of individuals who have no such network of distribution. While the Internet is widely touted as the means for photographers to decrease costs and expand distribution it pales in comparison to what the music and video industry can do. One other thing that you omit in your observation is the massive lobbying effort that these industries conduct to protect and extend copyright law in their favor often overpowering those they feel are threatening their intellectual property with massive costs associated with a prolonged legal battle. On the other end of the spectrum independent artists are left to scramble to protect their intellectual property with minimal support and incredibly great legal costs.

One other item that you greatly underestimate is where these industries acquire their wealth. Box office receipts and DVD sales are but one piece of the pie. They also receive royalties and licensing fees from cable and TV replays building on a broader network of advertising and cable subscriptions. Their revenue model is quite broad while the revenue model of photographers is quite narrow.

Interesting thought none the less and a good exercise in thought on pricing.</em>"

What Marylynne is referring to is a loss leader business model. If a photographer sees their photos as being worthless and hope to market something else to their customers beyond the photo then by all means go for it but unless you have that sort of business plan and are savvy enough to make it work then it is a recipe for disaster for everyone else.

I have no interest in that. I sell my photos based on what is best for a given situation. If a distribution company wanted to make posters of my work and absorb all of the costs associated with production and marketing then sure I'll sell for $20 a pop. That wouldn't compete with the prints that I sell of my work. Different product, different market. The architect that is designing a office is not going to shop at Wal-Mart for prints. They are going to find someone like me or a gallery and have the money to spend so I'd be leaving money on the table by arbitrarily giving away decent sized prints for $20.

Regarding the reference to stock photography. That is irrelevant. RM image licensing is priced according to the value that individual image brings to the licensee. It has nothing to do with economics. The ones who suffer are the ones who don't understand that and lower their prices to a point where it is pointless to even license. What isn't mentioned is that RF and microstock partly contributed to a downturn for some stock photographers but going down that route is certainly not a recipe for success. iStockPhoto might be doing ok as a company, but 99% of the photographers on there just killed any hopes of a career. For the independent photographer who doesn't play in their market, there's no benefit to adopt those sorts of business practices.

I think that if you market yourself as a unique brand, then you don't need to play pricing games with other people because they wouldn't be looking elsewhere if you are.

Take the other end of the nature photography print market (Mangelsen, Lik, Lough). Do you think they care what others photographers are selling their prints for? Lik in particular doesn't even really position himself as a nature photographer. He created his own market. He is positioned as a certain type of lifestyle and thus is able to sell at places like Caesar's Palace and Mandalay Bay.

Hey Jim G, thanks for posting and I did respond to this at my blog.

Stan, I haven't suggest we will sell at walmart prices (and we never could) I'm saying you have to make prices more affordable so we don't lose people to these stores. It's not just prices going down, where i live in the detroit area wages are going down everywhere, and some of those people didn't have money to pay the price for art before so it's only going to get worse.

Hey Jackie, a photographer friend from the art shows did sell some of his prints on plaques designs to Target. They produced them in china and he gets some very hefty royalty checks. He sold the product in the art shows for twenty some dollars and Target sells them for under five dollars.

I do enough shows and galleries and have talk and heard enough stories to tell you that lower prices are working in the art business. It works for me, and others that I know that have lowered their prices. I even had an email from a NPNer that told me a story of how selling at lower prices as worked really well for him. The photographers that complained about lower prices it when it started a few years ago are now starting to lower their prices as well, and why are they doing this, because they see it working. When you're across from a photographer that is selling at a resonable price and he's eating your lunch, you start to rethink your method of doing business.

Just as Larry said earlier, he sees guys at his shows selling for high prices and carrying it all home at the end of the show.

When I started five years ago at the shows I was selling a 11X14 for $40 and sales were so bad on that size that I was about ready to pull them out of my booth and stop carrying them. I lowered the price to thirty and still no takers, lower them to twenty five and a few sales, finally lowered them to twenty dollars and bingo, the magic price. I sell lots of them now at that price and as I pointed out earlier it only cost a buck to make that print, so a 2000% mark up at twenty dollars. It's better to make sales at a 2000% mark up then no sales at a 4000% mark up.

When I posted this I knew I woud take some hits, but I also know there are those that agree with this idea. I don't expect everyone to jump on board with this, and you have to set whatever price you think your images are worth.

I also think that if you had warned the pro stock photographers that prices were going to drop to a dolllar and image their response would probably be disbelief that any advertiser whould be able to buy a quailty image for a buck. But it seems to be working fine for royalty free. not so good for the pro photographer.

I talked to a VP for a marketing company where they buy images for their clients and her remark was only royalty free images, we would never pay the price pro photographers are asking for their images.

So if you work on the assumtion the people know quaility and wouldn't buy something because it's to cheap, your wrong.

I will say that if your images are bad, it won't matter how low you go, they are not going to sell.
If you want to lower your price buy your material in bulk, look for sales on inks, epson sells photo paper, buy one, get one free, I buy enough for the whole year when this happens.. Get the best price on frames, I buy from FloridaFrames.com. best prices on frames I've found anywhere, and when I past their name to other photographers they thank me for saving them lots of money on framing cost. Eliminate the mats. I print with a white borders around the image which has the apperance of a mat, but you save the cost and labor for the mat. If the customer whats a mat they can add one. Since I stopped selling with mats and I lower the price, sales have been great and nobody cares that there is no mat with the print. All these savings gets passed along to the customer. There are other ways to cut overhead, you just got to think.

Hey Richard, Yes you can sell for more in higher income markets, but it is also cost prohibitive for most photographers to set up shop there. If you have the money to risk setting up shop in Las Vegas, go for it, and you can raise your prices and gamble with the rest of them. The rest of us have to sell in the real world. Peter Lik is not going to get those prices selling in my neighborhood strip malls. So the idea of selling high only works if your in that market. Same goes for Magnelson, he's in some touristy place and higher income areas. And those galleries cost a fortune to set up.

I am not a marketing person but it does seem to me that there is a place for all types of price ranges.

In the world of wildlife painters the same type of argument goes on. For one thing the wildlife artist is not considered a "real" artist by many in the arts community.

Then it is broken down into those who sell only original paintings and those who quickly go to inexpensive prints. There has been a huge controversy about Robert Bateman's marketing plan. He struggled for years but is now laughing all the way to the bank.

That sort of plan does require the artist to be well known to many, however.

Hey Eleanor, I'm not formilar with his marketing plan, I assume you're saying he decide to sell prints.

Hey Anil, I got a chance to look at Brooks Jensens (editor of Lenswork magazine) website again and he is saying what I've been saying but he writes much better then I do He calls it "Real People Prices" and it says that he believes photography should be priced so everyone can afford it. The fact that it's easily repoduced is what makes it affordable. Bingo! It's listed on his site under "about commerce"

Hi Mike,

Glad to hear that you found the web-site link helpful. Brooks Jensen has been advocating the concept of affordable prints for a while. For what its worth, he is quite an accomplished photographer and I don't believe his reputation has been tarnished in any way on account of him offering prints for $20.

Mike, I thought your comparison of photography to the movie and music industry was a pretty good one. Let me extend it to art in general if I can. If Picasso made photographs they would be worth less than his paintings (all actual images being equal in all comparisons). This just by virtue of the mediums alone. Photographs are infinitely reproducible, a painting is a one of a kind original. In addition the photographic medium relys to a great extent on the workings of mechanical equipment while every stroke on a painting documents the workings of the artists eye, mind, and hand and is thus valued accordingly. Photography will always be the lesser sibling vs. painting in the art world. To talk of selling photography as art, one equivalent In the art world might be an artists printmaking vs. his original drawings or paintings. If artists want their printmaking work to be valued more, they make limited editions or destroy the plate. I think most people understand the dynamic of rarity and the natures of the mediums involved especially when they go to make a purchase. Photography in general is destined to never be valued as highly as many of the other arts with the exceptions of Adams, Weston, etc. etc. and thats because the value of an Adams, it can be argued, is not so much in the actual image as it is in the historical and cultural context and the rarity aspect. The supply of photographs and photographers in general will always be high. Tell anyone this truism and they will agree, "If you own a camera you are a photographer. If you own a flute, you own a flute."

Hey Richard, very well said and agree with this, photography is to easily repoduced and to many great images to have a lot of value.

An interesting statement, Richard--i agree with some of it.

Photography will always be the lesser sibling vs. painting in the art world.

That's where we part ways. You have to be very careful to not confuse the process with the result. The result (photo) may be infinitely reproducible, but the process is not. I got into photography partly as a painter looking for a less messy alternative to painting, if you look at my current gallery you'll see a couple "photo art" pieces that were entirely made from photos--there is little difference in this art form from painting other than the type of medium, digital (pixels) vs physical (paint). Quite frankly, i strongly suspect that over the next few decades, traditional art forms that use things like paint will gradually become obsolete, on a parallel path to film. I can make a digital work "unique" by workflow processes (eg--I always flatten my .PSD files so that once a work is done--it's done!) and I could even destroy a file once a print is made, so it is truly unique. Of course, one could photograph the print or scan it, but that's really not much different than a reproduction of a painting. If I wanted, I could even take one of my landscape photos, print it big, then destroy the file. In that case, one could argue that my result is even more valuable than a comparable film shot, since I no longer have access to the "negative". Another thing to consider about the process is that the process of photography is often times much more considerable than the work put into a painting. Ive polished off oil or acrylic paintings in a matter of hours, but some of my photos took months of planning, unique conditions to photograph under, and a lot of sweat and preparation to get the shot. I think we are in a rapidly evolving field, so to make the pronouncement that photography will "never" get the reception of other art forms is something I strongly disagree with.

There are tons of painters too (until recent years, probably more so than photographers!) but if anything their numbers simply increase the value of the few paintings that do achieve popular success. I think the huge number of photos out there is great for the photographers on this site for example (like Mike!) because it makes their quality work stand out all the more so.

You make a lot of good points Stan. I'm rethinking the issue. Photography is an art but it's also a science. I don't think you can say that about painting. To me it keeps coming down to the fact that every stroke in a painting is the original working of the artists eye, mind, and hand and in this there is added artistic expression beyond the resulting idea and image itself. This is part of the ouerve and its valued as such. Unlike the photographer for whom image is king and technique mainly becomes an issue when it fails in its support. The art of photography and the photographer has to shine through and above the technology of the camera, computer, and even creation itself to be considered truly extraordinary. Because the photographer, for the most part, has to find something that already exists to make his photograph, unlike the painter, a lot of people would say, I could do that if only I were there with my camera.

Still thinking about it though.