Somehow the idea of pricing a print based on how much it cost to print it
doesn't seem like a good idea. The print should be priced on its artistic
merit, not by the square inch or yard. I'd rather sell one limited edition
print for $500 than 10 mass-produced ones for $50 each. No?
Tina
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Sawyer, Edward <Ed.Sawyer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >small fraction of digital. A tiny fraction. I really don't want to
> >share what my costs for the most premium-grade fiber-based B&W paper
> >is, but it's so low as to be almost laughable.
>
> Not like it is much of a secret: Price out paper. Add $0.25 (or less) per
> 8x10 for chemistry. That's the basic cost of materials. (e.g. $1-2/print
> or so for 8x10 on Ilford Galerie FB or whatever). Color RA4 is even
> cheaper than that. I can do 8x10 RA4 color @ home for well under $1/print.
>
> >>I think that in the short term at least I will create 6 x 17
> >>images using my E3 and tripod, and use Hugin to make small panorama
> >>shots, and crop to the desired dimensions using the crop feature of
> >>Faststone.
>
> I see a few issues here with this train of thought. WIthout seeing the
> images to compare with, it's hard to say for sure. (E.g. Maybe his images
> are much better photography? That could be possible.) Assuming your
> photography is of equal artistic and technical merit:
>
> 1. Trying to mimic optically-enlarged 6x17 film (or contact prints?) with
> ANY digital (particularly cropped shots from an E3) is just not going to
> be comparable. Sophisticated buyers will know the difference easily.
> Unless you get a 6x17 camera, master it, and do your own optical printing,
> don't bother trying to compete on this point.
>
> 2. Your costs need to drop by 10x at least, to be competitive. There's
> plenty of online places that will do RA4 prints from digital files. Faster
> and cheaper (and better, in most ways) than anything from a home inkjet
> printer is going to produce, for the most part. (Yes, high-end inkjet
> printers can do nice work, but costs and time become an issue, IMNHSO).
>
> 3. Don't bother Matting unless you really think you can add value and
> recoup costs with that. Maybe, maybe not. Offer things both ways I'd say.
>
> 4. Find a subject matter niche that others are not exploiting. Maybe
> something that relates to your own expertise (Forestry?).
>
> 95% of photos I see at similar "art show" type touristy venues and places
> like that, just suck. Most are poorly printed digital crap, with overblown
> saturation, blown highlights, and mediocre artistic merit. The digital B&W
> conversions are even worse, usually. If what you can produce avoids those
> obvious flaws, you will be far ahead of the game and on the way to more
> sales.
>
> FWIW
> -Ed
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley
http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|