Posted by Drew M Wright on October 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM
When you buy from an independent photographer you are buying more than just an image. You are buying hundreds of hours of experimentation and thousands of failures. You are buying days, weeks, months, years of frustration and moments of pure joy. You are buying nights of worry about paying rent, having enough money to eat, having enough money to travel, having enough to feed the pets etc. You aren't just buying a thing, you are buying a piece of heart, part of soul, a private moment in someone's life. Most importantly you are buying that photographer more time to do something they are truly passionate about; something that makes all of the above worth the fear and doubt; something that puts the life into living.
We often got that question in our photo business, which centered on contract photography in one form or another. Our hourly rates started at about the same level as local engineers and architects, and went up from there depending on the complexity of the job. Much of what we shot was time-sensitive, no-second-chance photography. If we blew it, there were no retakes or second chances. Our easy answer was "Because you're hiring us to get it right."
There are cheaper photographers around, but we easily out-competed them because we did get it right and developed that reputation. Our long list of repeat customers included clients who had tried the cheaper photographers or doing the work themselves with negative results, then came to us for their next job and never complained about our rates. We carried E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance to cover our work and never had to file a claim in 23 years of shooting.
Yup, you get what you pay for.
Posted by Drew M Wright on October 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM
LMAO Charlie!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 17, 2012 at 10:20 PM
At a very, very basic level, something is only worth what people will pay, regardless of the effort, time, or skill behind it; And sometimes that's the better answer, depending on who you're talking to. Even if you walked outside one morning and chanced upon a terrific photo, you wouldn't charge less just because it was so easy.
Of course your time, and effort, and passion all play a part; And if you're trying to make a living at photography, your time and expenses certainly set the minimum amount you need to make. The heart and soul you put into the images, and how you feel about them, will lead you to make photos you care about, and most likely better photos than you would otherwise. But at the end of the day people are paying for the value they see or get out of the shots, not how much you value them.
Now that's mainly for straight print sales. As Hank mentions, if you're shooting for hire, there are other consideration - many of them.
Note I'm a print buyer, not a seller. I actually haven't sold anything! But I have bought prints, and at prices I thought were reasonable for what I was getting; I didn't pay in order to subsidize the artists life - I paid to get a great print that I liked. Hopefully they sold enough to make a living - and hopefully enough to make a good one; But that's not typically a consideration for a buyer I don't think.
Posted by Brad Mangas on October 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM
All that may be fine and good Drew, but that is Not why people buy art. They buy art because of one thing and one thing only. They have to like it or they won't spend their money on it.
Creative artists of any kind must Do It from the heart if they are to make their life centered around their art, but that has no bearing at all on why people buy it. Try to explain why you charge $1500 for a print and I guarantee your explanation will fall on deaf ears. Produce art that touches others hearts and emotions and they will not care the price if they truly love it on a personal level.
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM
FWIW We all tend to feel defensive about our prices from time to time, especially in the digital age when everyone is a photographer and every photo posted to the web is "unbelievable" and "awesome". Bear in mind that the 1st really famous photographer, Ansel Adams, struggled most of his life to pay the bills. It was only in later life (about age 60) that he was making enough to be comfortable. It is absolutely true that all that background time and expense goes into making every image but if the photo doesn't grab the customer XXX dollars worth, they aren't going to pay that out of sympathy. You need to develop (no pun intended) the attitude that the worth of your image is not measured by those who don't care for it. Rather it is measured by what you put into it and the satisfaction you feel from doing it whether others 'get it' or not. In the end if you are looking for ego strokes, photography probably isn't a good profession for you.
"Note I'm a print buyer, not a seller. I actually haven't sold anything! But I have bought prints, and at prices I thought were reasonable for what I was getting; I didn't pay in order to subsidize the artists life - I paid to get a great print that I liked. Hopefully they sold enough to make a living - and hopefully enough to make a good one; But that's not typically a consideration for a buyer I don't think."
That's a really important insight for all of us David. Speaking for myself, and I think it's fair to extend it to most photographers, we don't spend enough time thinking about our clients. I.e., market research. Without regard for the photo subjects and products that toot our personal photographic whistles, if we're failing to shoot what buyers want or failing to put our unique work in front of clients that value our uniqueness, no amount of expense and effort is "worth it" in business terms.
Yeah, I might be bored senseless with bear, eagle and puffin photos to the point I won't even raise a camera, but those are the prints that sell to tourists up here. Am I an artist, or am I building a business? I well remember a contract we took to photograph a sewer treatment plant. Try to wrap your artistic soul around that one! But when all was said and done it put over $4k in the bank account and helped support our art print endeavors.
Posted by Scott Fricke on October 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM
David is 100% correct. The most expensive piece of art to ever sell was a painting called The Card Players by Cezanne, for $254,000,000. If I saw that thing at a garage sale with a $5 price tag on it and didn't know the painter, I wouldn't buy it, it just isn't aesthetically appealing to me. If I noticed the signature on the painting I would certainly buy it, but only as an investment.
My fondest memory of selling a photograph was at a restaurant that displayed artwork and at the opening and closing of the show the restaurant owners, who were artists themselves, would have the artist at the restaurant do a little talk and then circulate around the restaurant. For most of the evening I got a lot of the "nice, but a little expensive" type of comments until I got to a table with a little 8 year old boy and his parents. Above their table was my favorite photo that I took in Iceland. The son began asking a series of questions for the next 30 minutes about my experience in Iceland and what it was like, and how it felt to be there. It was obvious he was very interested and passionate about our conversation. I kept glancing over at the parents and they seemed quite amazed at the boys enthusiasm. At the end, the boy just looked up at the photo and then looked at his dad and said, "I sure would like to have that photo in my room and I really want to go there some day!." The dad already had his credit card out... That's where the value in a piece of art is.
I’m not even sure where you are coming from so please don’t take this the wrong Drew, but from time to time I read statements like yours on other photo websites and they normally come from frustrated/ struggling photographers who are having trouble making ends meet.
Then other photographers chime in and say “times are changing, but if you can set yourself apart from the crowd, you will be successful”. I am thinking it takes talent, drive, an edge, business smarts and a whole lot more to succeed in this arena.
I wish that I had worked with someone like Hank in the early years of his business so as to one day take over upon his retirement.
Now I’ll put my head down and get back to my day job….
Posted by Drew M Wright on October 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Very interesting to hear every ones comments. I found this statement on another art forum and I tend to agree with Richard and David that in the end it comes down to "value" and "emotional impact" which of course plays into the value piece. What do find interesting in the original post, especially with photography, is the perception of photography as art which is a whole other topic and I'm not going there at this point. Same holds true regardless of the medium (photography, painting, sculpture etc.), capture their heart and the sales will follow.
When I view a photograph, I ask a simple question of myself: Does this piece of work have heart? It doesn't matter a whit to me if the photographer hiked through a mile of steaming camel dung to get the shot, or he spent five hours blending fifteen exposures in Photo Shop, or business to support. If the photograph has no soul, it has no soul, and I move on.
By the same token, I ask the same question when I view my own work. I may have set up my camera on a ledge, risking my old bones and then spent a great deal of time with post processing, but if the resulting image has no heart, it goes into the digital dust bin, and the transparency lines my round file.
Bottom line: The photograph has to stand on its own merits.
Discussion
11 replies- Drew M Wright
http://www.wimp.com/feedssquirrel/
There are cheaper photographers around, but we easily out-competed them because we did get it right and developed that reputation. Our long list of repeat customers included clients who had tried the cheaper photographers or doing the work themselves with negative results, then came to us for their next job and never complained about our rates. We carried E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance to cover our work and never had to file a claim in 23 years of shooting.
Yup, you get what you pay for.
At a very, very basic level, something is only worth what people will pay, regardless of the effort, time, or skill behind it; And sometimes that's the better answer, depending on who you're talking to. Even if you walked outside one morning and chanced upon a terrific photo, you wouldn't charge less just because it was so easy.
Of course your time, and effort, and passion all play a part; And if you're trying to make a living at photography, your time and expenses certainly set the minimum amount you need to make. The heart and soul you put into the images, and how you feel about them, will lead you to make photos you care about, and most likely better photos than you would otherwise. But at the end of the day people are paying for the value they see or get out of the shots, not how much you value them.
Now that's mainly for straight print sales. As Hank mentions, if you're shooting for hire, there are other consideration - many of them.
Note I'm a print buyer, not a seller. I actually haven't sold anything! But I have bought prints, and at prices I thought were reasonable for what I was getting; I didn't pay in order to subsidize the artists life - I paid to get a great print that I liked. Hopefully they sold enough to make a living - and hopefully enough to make a good one; But that's not typically a consideration for a buyer I don't think.
Creative artists of any kind must Do It from the heart if they are to make their life centered around their art, but that has no bearing at all on why people buy it. Try to explain why you charge $1500 for a print and I guarantee your explanation will fall on deaf ears. Produce art that touches others hearts and emotions and they will not care the price if they truly love it on a personal level.
That's a really important insight for all of us David. Speaking for myself, and I think it's fair to extend it to most photographers, we don't spend enough time thinking about our clients. I.e., market research. Without regard for the photo subjects and products that toot our personal photographic whistles, if we're failing to shoot what buyers want or failing to put our unique work in front of clients that value our uniqueness, no amount of expense and effort is "worth it" in business terms.
Yeah, I might be bored senseless with bear, eagle and puffin photos to the point I won't even raise a camera, but those are the prints that sell to tourists up here. Am I an artist, or am I building a business? I well remember a contract we took to photograph a sewer treatment plant. Try to wrap your artistic soul around that one!
My fondest memory of selling a photograph was at a restaurant that displayed artwork and at the opening and closing of the show the restaurant owners, who were artists themselves, would have the artist at the restaurant do a little talk and then circulate around the restaurant. For most of the evening I got a lot of the "nice, but a little expensive" type of comments until I got to a table with a little 8 year old boy and his parents. Above their table was my favorite photo that I took in Iceland. The son began asking a series of questions for the next 30 minutes about my experience in Iceland and what it was like, and how it felt to be there. It was obvious he was very interested and passionate about our conversation. I kept glancing over at the parents and they seemed quite amazed at the boys enthusiasm. At the end, the boy just looked up at the photo and then looked at his dad and said, "I sure would like to have that photo in my room and I really want to go there some day!." The dad already had his credit card out... That's where the value in a piece of art is.
Then other photographers chime in and say “times are changing, but if you can set yourself apart from the crowd, you will be successful”. I am thinking it takes talent, drive, an edge, business smarts and a whole lot more to succeed in this arena.
I wish that I had worked with someone like Hank in the early years of his business so as to one day take over upon his retirement.
Now I’ll put my head down and get back to my day job….
By the same token, I ask the same question when I view my own work. I may have set up my camera on a ledge, risking my old bones and then spent a great deal of time with post processing, but if the resulting image has no heart, it goes into the digital dust bin, and the transparency lines my round file.
Bottom line: The photograph has to stand on its own merits.
--P