the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Selling prints by the square inch

Selling prints by the square inch

December 7, 2010 JimK Leave a Comment

Selling prints by the square inch
As I grow older, rather than becoming more set in my photographic ways, I seem to be developing an urge to kick over the apple cart.
I’ve already written about displaying works without overmats. The reaction to my doing that has been highly bimodal. Many people don’t notice. Of those that do, the majority find it refreshing, or at least say they do. A small majority doesn’t like it, and it doesn’t seem to matter to them how the work looks: it’s a matter of principle. If I valued the work, I’d mat it. If it were finished project, it would be matted. It’s a traditional way of looking at photography, but not one that makes sense to me anymore. I’m not saying that all photographs should be presented without overmats, but I don’t believe that one size fits all.
But this isn’t a post about matting, it’s a post about pricing (or, for you Arlo Guthrie fans, this is a song about Alice). For years, photographers universally charged more for large prints than small prints, in approximate proportionality to the area. Before there were photographers selling art, there were painters. You could argue that it takes twice as much work to paint a canvas that’s twice as big, and therefore the painter ought to get twice as much for it. But even in the silver printing days, it was only slightly more difficult to make, say, an 11x 14 as opposed to an 8×10. The materials and chemicals probably cost twice as much, but the photographer’s labor was only marginally different.
This calculation completely leaves out the artistic and aesthetic decisions, which is what you really paying for when you buy a piece of art. It’s hard for me to imagine that there are any differences there, no matter what the size of the work.
Today, for many photographers, printing an image means pressing <Control> P and getting a cup of coffee (I know, I know; but I’m exaggerating for effect). That means that the difference and the cost of a large and a small print is simply the difference in the cost of materials, which is maybe 5% of the price of the print.
I usually make prints in one of two sizes, 17×22 and 22×30. The 22×30 paper is becoming hard to get, and I will probably be switching to 24×30 or 24×36. From now on, I’ll be charging the same for both sizes. Somehow, that just feels right.

As I grow older, rather than becoming more set in my photographic ways, I seem to be developing an urge to kick over the apple cart.

I’ve already written about displaying works without overmats. The reaction to my doing that has been highly bimodal. Many people don’t notice. Of those that do, the majority find it refreshing, or at least say they do. A small majority doesn’t like it, and it doesn’t seem to matter to them how the work looks: it’s a matter of principle. If I valued the work, I’d mat it. If it were finished project, it would be matted. It’s a traditional way of looking at photography, but not one that makes sense to me anymore. I’m not saying that all photographs should be presented without overmats, but I don’t believe that one size fits all.

But this isn’t a post about matting, it’s a post about pricing (or, for you Arlo Guthrie fans, this is a song about Alice). For years, photographers universally charged more for large prints than small prints, in approximate proportionality to the area. Before there were photographers selling art, there were painters. You could argue that it takes twice as much work to paint a canvas that’s twice as big, and therefore the painter ought to get twice as much for it. But even in the silver printing days, it was only slightly more difficult to make, say, an 11x 14 as opposed to an 8×10. The materials and chemicals probably cost twice as much, but the photographer’s labor was only marginally different.

This calculation completely leaves out the artistic and aesthetic decisions, which is what you really paying for when you buy a piece of art. It’s hard for me to imagine that there are any differences there, no matter what the size of the work.

Today, for many photographers, printing an image means pressing <Control> P and getting a cup of coffee (I know, I know; but I’m exaggerating for effect). That means that the difference and the cost of a large and a small print is simply the difference in the cost of materials, which is maybe 5% of the price of the print.

I usually make prints in one of two sizes, 17×22 and 22×30. The 22×30 paper is becoming hard to get, and I will probably be switching to 24×30 or 24×36. From now on, I’ll be charging the same for both sizes. Somehow, that just feels right.

The Last Word

← iOS 4.2 on the iPad Printers, revisited →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.