Non-Traditional Answers Part II: Pricing and Editioning
In Part I of this series, I mentioned interesting email exchanges around common photographic topics where my personal position may be at odds with traditional approaches. Continuing along this line of thought and relying on recent experiences at my gallery, I wanted to share a few more.
In the way of a disclaimer: these are my answers at this point in time and may well change down the road.
~~~
Located outside Capitol Reef National Park, my gallery often attracts visitors working their way around the national parks of the Southwest. Many of these visitors are photo enthusiasts and/or art lovers who stop at various galleries along their route. It is always interesting to hear comments comparing my work, presentation, pricing, and other aspects of the business with those seen in other places. Among the recurring questions are why my prices are different (often lower) than others and about the unique finishing of my framed work, using no mats and no glass.
Pricing artwork is a unique a challenge. Common pricing methodologies based on formulas and calculations simply do not apply. The disparity in cost for similar products between artists, even in the same market, can span many orders of magnitude. Pricing photography, in particular, polarizes these differences as the public understanding of the art itself is not sufficiently mature and may still be greeted with skepticism from those who still believe that fine photography is somehow easier or less worthy than, say, an oil painting.
Many photographic artists opt for the “vanity pricing” approach, whereby setting a high price tag lends prestige to the work. This is a risky direction since it relies on very high margins and, generally, very low volumes. When it works, it works very well but in most cases it simply doesn’t for a variety of reasons, not all of them easy to quantify (notoriety and name recognition, presentation, location, etc.) In a downturn, these artists may incur significant losses if their volumes drop by even a handful of sales. Part of the challenge is that, once you’ve set your prices very high, it is nearly impossible to lower them when times get tough. Your earlier customers may feel cheated and your reputation may suffer.
The opposite strategy of setting a low profit margin and hoping for high volumes is not a good fit for most photographic art, either. Quite simply, the demand is too limited to make such an approach profitable. This is especially true in the context of impulse buying which characterizes most galleries (as opposed to, say, selling to commercial buyers or agencies). Tourists passing through a small town are not likely to acquire a dozen pieces of art on a whim.
What is a photographer to do? For one, abandon academic pricing models. When it comes to art, there are no formulas. In deciding my own prices I, instead, turned to what some may call my “mission statement”. I want my work to promote an appreciation for the places and subjects I photograph, and I want it to further the acceptance of nature photography as a form of visual art. The solution I chose is what some call “Goldilocks pricing.” I offer my work in a handful of styles and presentations: framed wall art, priced to represent the vision, prestige and unique finishing that will appeal to the high-end market; as well as tastefully matted pieces at affordable pricing that are within anyone’s price range and that represent my goal of promoting my visual message and making it accessible.
The result: my prices for some products are significantly lower than what some visitors expect; while my high-end finished pieces remain competitive and appealing to discerning buyers. My matted pieces sell for $30-50 and they sell well, generating more profit than if I had sold a handful of them at ten times the price.
Along with the standard-issue puritan white mat and thin black frame of traditional galleries, often also come arbitrary edition limits. In my gallery you will find neither. To put it bluntly: I do not believe in limiting edition for photographic prints. It is a practice most photographers pursue not because they feel it is justified but because “everyone else” is doing it (and we all recognize the questionable wisdom behind such reasoning). Some will claim that limits create scarcity and allow charging higher prices. In a world of overwhelming abundance of photography this no longer passes the common-sense test.
Pursuant to my mission statement above, I feel there’s some hypocrisy in declaring such goals as sharing, promoting, and making my work accessible while at the same time artificially limiting its availability. There is also a certain arrogance to the practice that I am not altogether comfortable associating with my work.
The ability to reproduce a work of photographic art without loss of quality is a significant advantage of the medium over other forms of visual art, and should not be treated as a handicap.
Limiting editions serves to artificially inflate the price of a given print, rather than its value. A fine print draws its value from the connection with the artist, when it is personally created and signed by the photographer as the ultimate expression of their vision. To that end, every print is part of a limited edition by virtue of the artist having a finite life themselves.
I find that the people who buy my work do so for its emotional appeal and their ability to derive joy from it, rather than treat it as an investment commodity. After nearly a year of operation, I can say with pride that I have not yet lost a single sale to the fact that my prints are not editioned.
A New Day Dawns
Category: Business
Pricing and presentation always seem like kind of a crapshoot. Thanks for the post — it’s interesting to read your insights into it.
“I want my work to promote an appreciation for the places and subjects I photograph, and I want it to further the acceptance of nature photography as a form of visual art”
I’m keeping this among many other treasured words from you. Being such a novice in nature photography I’ve been blissfully ignorant about the opinion our “enlightened scholars” here in Greece hold about landscape photography. Until recently that is. I’ve been meaning to make a summary of most of those opinions and send them to you just to give you “food for journal” and I will at some point do it if you don’t mind. Just let me tell you that this kind of photography is not just ignored but heavily scorned and laughed at. And if someone dares to refer to it as “art” he becomes a target for heavy irony.
I like your philosophy here Guy. I have always thought that editioning may also lock creative growth. I would hate to think that an image and print I produced 5 years ago could never benefit from the knowledge I have today.
Thanks for sharing this Guy. I went through this a few months ago when I did my first big show, and I keep returning to the topic because, I like photography and I like to eat too.
William Neill wrote an article a few years ago about going back and re-visiting (re-doing) a photo in his archives that he felt had never been quite what he wanted. If it had been a limited edition print, does this make the “improved” version a new edition? Seems crazy.
Thank you for this. It’s great to read an actual perspective with thought rather than “this is why I followed this formula.”
I feel similarly. Whats the point of beautiful photos if no one can appreciate them because they can’t afford them? I feel its vain and selfish to want to “share the beauty of nature” with others, then mark up photographs so much that the only way 99% of folks can enjoy them is looking at a computer screen while visiting a photographer’s website.
As always Guy, very insightful. I’ve already written this response, so now I went back to the beginning to apologize for the upcoming novel. I’m in the middle of this dilemma right now. I’m going to attempt to offer an opposing view. I very much respect and admire your artwork and philosophy and I likely always will. For a long time, I had similar thoughts regarding the theory behind limited editions. “They were meant to inflate the artificial value of an image, by associating a higher cost with a higher quality and the ‘rarity’ of an image”.
I am contemplating offering a Limited Edition collection of prints. For me it’s the opposite, most of the photographers I know are NOT doing it. I see people consistently lowering their prices in our “less than ideal” market and economy, but with little success. I feel (like you, it seems) that lowered prices only degenerate the overall value of the medium. Cheapening it, just like micro-stock cheapens and degrades the overall stock photography market.
Pricing pieces too high is worse, it excludes many people who truly love the art form and would be happy to purchase, if they only had the money.
To respond to some of the arguments in the comments here:
Mark – I agree and disagree, very respectfully (I’m another fan of your incredible work). I don’t feel that limited edition necessarily limit or lock creative growth. Perhaps I have been going about this wrong, but I have not felt the need to rework my old images. I feel that they stand on their own and, like a painter typically does not go back and try to ‘re-master’ a previous work, I focus on what is in front of me and all the things I have not photographed yet. If we spend our time returning to a previous image (in post production), we could be missing all that is before us – much like a mason returning to a previous foundation instead of building something new. We can still use the past and improve upon it, but by using our new techniques and knowledge on new pieces.
Al – very good point regarding William Neill. I will return to what I said previously though. Perhaps, rather than attempting to re-work and image in post – why don’t we revisit a location and make a new image. Yes, there will always be images in our archives that we may want to revisit, but I look at those pieces as my foundation, and use the “mistakes” I made, or the processing challenges as a way of learning for future images.
Kari – I completely agree. I have always wanted a my prints to be affordable and available to a wide variety of people. So here is my concept (at this time…) and what I’m considering implementing:
“Limited Edition” – Prints that are sold pre-framed in a standardized display. Editions are limited to 500 pieces and all pieces are identical (presentation, as much as is possible): 1 size, 1 matting/framing option. Each is signed and numbered along with a custom “badge” that I’ve designed to signify the Limited Edition piece. Prints also come with certificates that are signed and numbered to match the print along with another badge on the certificate. Once the Edition has been fully sold, that’s it. Because of the exclusivity of the ‘package’/displayed piece, these sell at a high price point. The images CAN be sold in other formats though, such as…
“Contemporary Collection” – laminated prints, signed and un-numbered. These also come with a certificate or authenticity. These are sold in a variety of sizes. Because they are sold pre-”framed” (laminated, a less expensive but still semi-unique option) and as an open edition with multiple size options, the price is “middle of the road” and more affordable to a wider variety of budgets.
“Open Edition Prints” – signed and un-numbered. Sold as a print only with a certificate, these images will be up to the buyer to frame. They decide how much more money to put into it. This is the lowest cost print purchase option, and more affordable to an even wider variety of people.
My reasoning for this pricing scheme (and perhaps it is a “scheme”, hahaha) is that it still allows a wide variety of people to enjoy my work, but takes advantage of different collector’s needs. From fans to discerning collectors looking for exclusivity.
There is also the concept that Peter Lik has pushed. Now, many photographers seem to despise Peter Lik. “Overpriced”, “Loud”, “Cocky/Arrogant”, etc. I think a lot of that is frankly, jealousy. Peter Lik is highly successful. Overpriced? Perhaps, but people buy out his images in record time, he has a rabid fan base and his work is highly sought after. Is he the best photographer on the planet? Probably not. In my opinion, he is quite good though. But, photography aside – he is probably the best fine-art photographer/MARKETER we have ever seen. He has elevated his work to fine-art status. So, pettiness aside, I give him credit. One of his theories (perhaps theory isn’t the right word, because it works for him) is that the prices of his Limited Edition prints climb as more pieces are sold. The later the number in the edition, the more he gets for it. I’m still very divided on this concept.
There. That’s my opinion. For now. But, a very smart and talented man once wrote: “In the way of a disclaimer: these are my answers at this point in time and may well change down the road.”
Again, I apologize for the novel. But your article was very timely for me Guy. Thanks for sharing!
I wonder are “limited” editions set at 500 pieces are really considered “limited” by anyone, especially when the image is also available in other sizes?
Guy, I like your pricing approach. It’s very similar to the “real people pricing” that Brooks Jensen (Lens Work magazine) has been supporting for quite some time.
I find it amusing when I see “fine art” prints hanging on coffee shop walls priced at $200 for matted 8″x10″s! I’d love to know how many sales are actually made by these aspiring photographers. But hey, if that pricing strategy works, go for it
I hate everything to do with pricing and marketing my work. I second guess every option and am never fully comfortable with any choices, feeling like there are repercussions no matter which way you go. I started out with middle of the road pricing and numbered (but not limited) prints. When I got gallery representation they insisted on limited editions and my prices had to rise as well to account for the gallery commissions. I’ve never been comfortable having limited editions. The extra work it adds in having to track every print is a nightmare for someone that dislikes paperwork. A few years later and I am tired of them, so I moving away from them. My gallery work is going more towards one of kind works – hand made prints and/or mixed media works. The rest, with the exception of my existing limited edition work, is going to be open editions.
I am curious what sizes you are referring to in your $30 – $50 matted prints, and what size and price your framed prints are?
I find that discussions on limited-editions often take things to the extreme. Its not surprising, however, because it appears that folks on both sides of the fence have strong feelings on this subject.
I offer my prints as limited editions. This is not because I want to create some artificial scarcity in order to justify a high price. I do it because I have no interest whatsoever in making endless prints of the same image. I decide up front how many prints I would like to make of a particular image and I limit the edition to that number. By doing so, I am informing folks whe own those prints of this fact. My prices are on the lower end of the spectrum and I often donate or gift prints from the edition. As an artist, I feel I have complete freedom in doing what I please with my photography. One of those choices is deciding how many prints of any image I would like to make.
Thank you very much for the great responses, everyone!
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that my approach will be the best fit in every situation. Certainly there are markets where LE is enforced and one has to play along to participate.
Al, one example I keep thinking of is Ansel Adams’ “Moonlight, Hernandez”. I vividly remember an exhibit some years ago showing one version of the print made shortly after Adams made the image and next to it another print of the same image from a couple of decades later and looking like the version most of us are used to seeing. The difference was startling.
Dave, I know you thought this through carefully and will be interested to hear whether your customers will find the new offerings appealing. Like Bill, though, I do wonder whether 500 is a realistic limit. I know very few photographers who sell more than a couple of dozen copies of a given image.
Roberta, it sounds like we are similar in obsessing and stressing about every little aspect of our work. I find some consolation in knowing this is not an uncommon trait in artists. The inexpensive matted prints I’m referring to are sized 8×10 and 11×14 (matted to 11×14 and 16×20 respectively).
Anil, of course you are free to make any decision regarding your own art. In fact, if it were any other way, one may argue it is not entirely your art. Still, playing devil’s advocate: if you don’t want to make endless prints, why not just stop when you feel the image had run its course rather than trying to predict in advance when your patience will run out? You can always make a general disclaimer saying that a given print will only be sold for a limited time without committing to a number of copies.
> why not just stop when you feel the image had run its course
> rather than trying to predict in advance when your patience
> will run out?
As you probably already know, there is no right or wrong answer here. This is just how I like to work.
I just wanted to point out that not everyone who offers limited edition prints are doing it in order to jack up prices.
One aspect of pricing that I find many people overlook is the hard costs of producing and selling the work. Specifically, factoring in the possibility of gallery commissions and/or having to outsource the printing.
When calculating a price, I therefore start with how much it would cost to print the work at a high-end print shop: my printer may be down, or I may be asked to do a size I cannot handle. I double that number, figuring I should make at least as much as the printer. I then double that number again, since if I sell that piece through a gallery or art consultant, they’ll take 40-50% of the price. This gives me a good starting point for a price.
Regarding limited editions, yes, I too dislike them quite a lot. I find, like Mark, that they limit my creative potential. I also believe that they artificially limit my potential for income. A popular photograph will often outsell others by 5, 10, or even 20x. If I sold them only as limited editions, I’d be shutting down a major source of income. Here’s some posts I’ve writing about them on my own blog: http://blog.danielsroka.com/tag/why-open-editions
Actually, I’m not sure why I typed ’500′. I haven’t decided the run number, but it will likely be around 100. At the very most 250. One area of Peter Lik’s LE that perplexes me is his offering of so called “Limited” Editions… He “limits” them to “only” 950! He also offers artist proofs at a substantially higher price. These are limited to 45 copies. The only difference? They cone with a second signature and a poem written by Peter… All that for only $25,000 more…
At 950 copies, he is selling a LOT of LEs.
A very good article Guy regarding both pricing and presentation. Having different price levels certainly helps to introduce a much wider selection of people to your work, making it available to everyone and meeting them on their “level”.
Guy,
Very interesting article. I am not a professional photographer, but am sometimes selling my work directly, or through community related shows.
Did you plan on writing a more detailed post on the presentation perspective? I would be very interested to read – and see some examples from your gallery – on the way you present your work.
Thanks!
Great post Guy and a good topic for discussion. I have enjoyed reading the many perspectives here from working photographers whether they call themselves pros or not. When I was first researching these issues to determine what to do with Dad’s authorized digital prints made by Carr Clifton, I found that many people consider edition limits to be a myth in the digital age, whether or not you state your edition amount or number your prints. We have heard here mainly from the seller’s perspective. However, everyone who sells a significant amount of prints soon finds out that the buyer’s perspective is important. There are many types of buyers but here let’s say there are essentially only two: 1. Tourists and everyday middle and upper-middle class folks who like pretty stuff and wander into galleries to see; 2. Serious photography collectors. Limited editions are a way to either increase or hold the value of the work. Collectors want rare. The rarer any commodity is, the higher the likelihood it will go up in value over time. Andrew Smith gallery in Santa Fe carries a lot of Eliot Porter. One of the managers there said that Porter’s work is soft in the market generally because 1. It is color; 2. He made 200 prints of each portfolio image. This particular manager said that Philip Hyde’s color prints could be worth much more than Porter’s because Dad made only 34 portfolios and because many of Dad’s prints were made in “editions” of only 4, 6 or 8 prints. I recently talked to another gallery owner of comparable caliber about the digital prints we are making. He said I needed to limit them and I suggested 250, but he laughed and said, “That’s not ‘limited’. I’m talking about maybe 10, 25, 50, that is limited. Numerous other galleries and one appraiser who is also a columnist for BW Magazine told me that we absolutely HAD to limit the print numbers for them to be desirable in the marketplace. We don’t. We make sure they are limited in other ways, with the pricing structure, etc, so that it is obvious to collectors that what they are getting has the potential to become collectible some day. Raising prices can be seen as arrogant and if you do feel that way don’t do it, but it is also part of making sure the work maintains a legacy into the future. Having the goal of “sharing the beauty of nature” must be weighed against other goals such as “perpetuating a legacy of sharing the beauty of nature” and we all must find what feels right and seems best ethically. Meanwhile, nevermind that the most sought after photographic prints in the world are of “Moonrise, Hernandez,” of which Ansel made 900+ prints, near the upper end of the scale as print numbers go. The reality is that we are in a testing ground and a transition: 20 years ago digital didn’t exist and now a short time later it both dominates the market and at the same time “The market has not been established,” as the curator of photography from George Eastman House said. A pattern has yet to settle out, but rare will always be the byword for the savvy collector and in that sense, Guy is offering it. The point is, that by the time any buyer meets an unusual craftsman and unique artist such as Guy Tal or Philip Hyde, he or she has less concern about whether the print is numbered or not. The question then is, do you have a unique personality and way of producing your work, and will you have an opportunity to get this across in the way that you interact with clients.
One other comment that I don’t believe has been brought up. I have read that some artists inflate their prices not to be arrogant nor to create an aire of collectibility to the work, but to weed out those who are not truly serious about purchasing. These artists claim to have started their careers with lower prices, but quickly learned that they received too many questions from non-customers about print quality, type of printer/paper used, and quality of materials that it actually impeded their ability to conduct day-to-day business. And in the end, it didn’t result in increased sales. More food for thought, I guess.
I’ve been involved in this industry for 20 years now, and if there is one thing I can say for certain, is that there is nothing certain or standard for pricing photographic Art. I worked to find a pricing balance that works for me, and yet, after years of implementation, I realize now there are certainly some things I’d have done differently. Now the question comes how to implement changes that work to both the benefit of myself, my “art”, my customers, and my desire to have my work seen, shared, and appreciated, without the thought of alienating those who had previously purchased one of my limited prints.
We all know with edition pricing, there are no real rules, just a set of guidelines that can be bent with some flexibility to adjust to a target audience. If you’re aiming for the high-end Int’l ART market, there’s much less flexibility, while if your work is on display at the local coffee shop, your pricing & edition latitude can be quite wide.
Pricing is a balance between Artist goals, business requirements, and the market. There never will be one right Answer. For myself, I know I’ll seek to establish some continued balance offering both limited and open editions for the same prints at different sizes and price points.
[...] Guy Tal also gives his take on pricing (his is a fine art market, but I reckon there are some nuggets in there), offering ‘Goldilocks’ pricing to cater to both the value-for-money and the high-end client. [...]
[...] a comment on Guy Tal’s blog post, “Non-traditional Answers Part II, Pricing and Editioning” caused me to stop and think about the direction of landscape photography today. Is it [...]
I could not agree with you more Guy. I have written about this before with the same conclusion. To artificially create a limited number of photographic prints in this day and age is done purely for monetary reasons and has nothing to do with the true value of a photograph to it’s creator or admirers. Your philosophy on pricing is that of honest common sense and is refreshing to see in this day and age. So very well said. Thanks for speaking out on this.
I’m getting ready to put up a show of my art soon, so I’m struggling with how to present and how to price my work as well. Your post and the discussion thread with it have been quite helpful!