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 film 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?

Economic forces pure and simple. If film makers could make more than they do, they would...as would photographers.

Also note the relative amount of time that goes into each final product sold.

One factor, people often associate higher costs with quality. If you price your photographs lower than others do, people are going to assume the quality is lesser.

The movie and music industry sells their products in a different maner then photographers. It's more of a walmat sell it cheap method. It's affordable for eveyone no mater how low your income. They produce awesome works of art but they don't get the attituded that they have to sell it for big dollars just because it's art. From a business point they make their money from volume. Why didn't photographers adopt this way of pricing way back when they started selling their work. If it was affordable to everyone as movies and music CD, maybe the photographers would be doing as well as the movie stars and the rock stars.:)

Good point, but you can only get so many photographs on a wall, you can watch about 4 or 5 films a day....or more more...if you are so inclined;)

Hey Adrain, you are perfectly right that people will buy hundreds of CDs and movies, which is an advantage they have over a photographer. But photographers have to be better business people at cutting overhead, material costs, labor cost to lower prices and broaden their market and make it more afforable to the lower wage earners. If you are just selling a few prints to make a few bucks to pay for some camera equipment that's fine, but if you're in business to sell prints to make a living then you should run it as any business model, sell in volume at the lower price and reach more people. By the way Walmarts is selling a 24X36 gallery wrap for $29.00, and Ikea was selling 15X15 inch prints on plaques, 8 of them for $40.00. I'm just saying photographers need to worry about this because the younger people are going there for their artwork. We're losing the baby boomers who supported the art world, and as they age they don't need as much art.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of income that professional photographers make with prints. Maybe this share is going to decrease over time even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

But photographers have to be better business people at cutting overhead, material costs, labor cost to lower prices and broaden their market and make it more afforable to the lower wage earners. If you are just selling a few prints to make a few bucks to pay for some camera equipment that's fine, but if you're in business to sell prints to make a living then you should run it as any business model, sell in volume at the lower price and reach more people.

---

But how big is your market though? Just because you lower the prices doesn't mean you would increase the demand though if the demand is not driven strongly if not entirely by the prices. These days we have digital photo frames that can store ten of thousands of photographs for display. Are photographers selling digital photographs? Are people buying digital photographs for their digital photo frames? So if you're willing to sell in volume, you may have to find a way to create the demand, I think, if the market is not already there.

Hey Axel, I make 70% of my income from selling prints through art shows. I've talked to the veterens that have seen the slide from back in the days when you could only buy photography from furniture stores and art shows. It's not the case anymore. Like I said Walmart is selling a gallery wrap 24X36 for $29.00. Ikea is selling prints on plaques cheap. All I can say is all the art galleries that I had my prints in are out of business while the big box store are doing okay.

Hey Desmond, the market will never be huge, but when you lower your price you have a broader markets of incomes to sell to. I've lowered my price by eliminating mats and just selling the print at the shows, and this year was my best year. I have people all the time coming in saying your price are resonable, most of these photographers prices are to high.

Well, the volume of images sold is a lot less than the number of individuals who see a movie, so the movie people can charge less. Also, I think the microstock agencies are modeled after low price for high volume sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Hey Axel, I make 70% of my income from selling prints through art shows. I've talked to the veterens that have seen the slide from back in the days when you could only buy photography from furniture stores and art shows. It's not the case anymore. Like I said Walmart is selling a gallery wrap 24X36 for $29.00. Ikea is selling prints on plaques cheap. All I can say is all the art galleries that I had my prints in are out of business while the big box store are doing okay.

Hey Desmond, the market will never be huge, but when you lower your price you have a broader markets of incomes to sell to. I've lowered my price by eliminating mats and just selling the print at the shows, and this year was my best year. I have people all the time coming in saying your price are resonable, most of these photographers prices are to high.

---

Thanks, Mike! What is your guess, would microstock agencies be beneficial or make it even more difficult? This would probably be the closest comparison with the movie industry.

Hey Guys, great point, I wasn't even thinking about the micro stocks but they have addopted the concept as the movie and music indudtry, sell cheap and in volume and it seems to be working great for them, but not for the photographers. Just like Ikea, Kirland, Walmart is going this route with art and if we don't make adjustment, print sales will go like stock photography has.

Mike I have just looked at your web sites. The quality of your work stands out and I can only presume you are at the top of your tree. What more can you do?...I don't know....but bags of publicity always helps. Nature photographers who photograph on the contoversial or topical edge will more easily attract publicity and then with intelligent thought maximise their potential. For your goodself it must be harder because of your specialty....so I tip my hat off to you. Maybe it is time to broaden your horizons for better commercial success though I'm not gladdened in heart to say so. I speak only as a humble amateur who in truth has little knowledge of the nature photographers world and little or no commercial experience and endowed with nothing more than average intelligemce. What I do know is that the majority of us get into a rut and never seek to find a way out beyond the daydream. I wish you success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Hey Desmond, the market will never be huge, but when you lower your price you have a broader markets of incomes to sell to.

---

True that, Mike. That's basically my point and there's something in Economics called "elasticity of demand", i.e, how much the demand will change in response to a change in price. From what you said, it seems to me the demand is not that elastic as far as a market of the general public is concerned.

Mike
I think they sell thousands of DVD's of single movie which is marketed by well organized team across the globe and photographer has to sell it on his own skills and that too in limited areas.

So 8 x so manys thousands and 500 x few makes the difference , Plus some action, family drama or cartoon films may have better audiance than nature photos

BTW , this thread is food for brain for sure

Hey Adrain, thank you for your comment, and I actually do really well at the shows because I do have a unique look from all the other photogaphers on the art circuit. There are already to many landscape, wildlife, and european photographers in the shows to branch out into those areas. What made me successful in the art show so far is the fact that have a narrow subject matter that gives me a brand and people know me for that. I also do well because I sell at the low end of the price scale in the shows. The guys at the higher prices are not doing as well.

Desmond, right on, But the market for movies or music would be a lot smaller if they charged hundreds of dollars as photogrpahers do, and could they survive running their business like this?

Hey Harshad, you are excactly right the movie and music business have alot more people that are into what they do then nature photography. My questions is if the film and music business charged hundreds of dollars for their art as we do, could you and would you buy that product? I'm sure there would be some people that could afford to buy their products at those prices, just as there are people that can afford to buy our art for hundreds of dollars. But how long would they last selling at these price to a smaller market, and would they become starving artist and many artists are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Hey Harshad, you are excactly right the movie and music business have alot more people that are into what they do then nature photography. My questions is if the film and music business charged hundreds of dollars for their art as we do, could you and would you buy that product? I'm sure there would be some people that could afford to buy their products at those prices, just as there are people that can afford to buy our art for hundreds of dollars. But how long would they last selling at these price to a smaller market, and would they become starving artist and many artists are?

---

100% agreed

few points in my brain ( I hope I have )

1) We can stack DVD's and watch them many times , Hown many blow-ups we can put on wall 3, 4 max 10 if you have big home , So howsoever I love my own tiger images , I am unable to put more than 3 blowups in my own home. We have limited market though we may have large audiance

2) Can we sell images on DVD's , May be , like I am selling DVD of my images for some $ with low res files for people who wants to enjoy images on computer , I may put 400kb image, If we can sell such DVD's on that scale , We may drop down prices below Movie DVD :)

3) For me it is matter of space than affording capacity , If we sell our prints at low price , may be very competative with movie DVD, we may get better sells but not as big as Movie DVD

I hope I am able to put my thoughts , My English has few limitations

ps

As Movie and Music has BIG market they are not forced to price them high but I agree with you , NO one will buy movie DVD for 500$

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Hey Harshad, you are excactly right the movie and music business have alot more people that are into what they do then nature photography. My questions is if the film and music business charged hundreds of dollars for their art as we do, could you and would you buy that product? I'm sure there would be some people that could afford to buy their products at those prices, just as there are people that can afford to buy our art for hundreds of dollars. But how long would they last selling at these price to a smaller market, and would they become starving artist and many artists are?

---

But Mike, although you keep calling movie art, but that's not what most people see it though. Movies to many are entertainment. All of us can use some entertainment some time :) As for if the movie business start charging, say, hundred of dollars for a movie ticket, will we see fewer and fewer people go to the movie? Sure we will. No different to what will happen if other suppliers who start charging their customers more and more. But how fast will the demand for a movie starts to drop? I don't know.

Harshad,
Yes maybe in the future we will be selling our art on CD's much cheaper and let the people print their own. Some would say well they could print as many as they want without any compensation, but so can people make as many copies as they want of music CDs and movies and give them to there family and friends even though it's illegal.

Yes the movie and music business can mass produce their product to sell cheap, and that's why they are successful at making money, if only we could, we might all be millionaires.

Desmond,
I think an actor is an artist at what they do as musicans are artist, but your right the industry has termed them entertainers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Harshad,
Yes the movie and music business can mass produce their product to sell cheap, and that's why they are successful at making money, if only we could, we might all be millionaires.

---

We will have to look in that way only and as far as prints are concerned , we may have CD's for 4 x 6 , 12 x 18 or 20 x 30 ( e.g , many more sizes )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

Desmond,
I think an actor is an artist at what they do as musicans are artist, but your right the industry has termed them entertainers.

---

Desmond , For me Movie and Music is ART with entertainment

I think it's a stretch to compare selling prints of original art to selling DVD's. One is totally geared towards the mass market and viewed as entertainment while the other is generally viewed as art. When a person buys a signed photograph they are buying someones creation with a signature signifying the artists hand. It becomes more personal to the purchaser.
The selling price a photographer decides to sell their work for depends on a few things. First, what will the market bear and what he is willing to accept. Secondly, is the photographer selling for a living or a way to supplement their income. This is an important factor since the professional is dependant on sales and needs to adjust accordingly.
Mike,in your original statement you diminished the effort it takes to produce a photograph. There are other factors.
Cost of cameras, lenses,software, hardware and aquiring the skill to use them all.
What did it take to get the photograph. Was it shot in your backyard or did you pay thousands of dollars to get to the location and stay for 10 days? Did you get up every morning at 4:00 in time for a sunrise and get 1 good shot in 10 days? What is that worth?
Today, while it's easier to technically create and expand one's photographic horizons one must also know alot more and expend more dollars to produce the results.

So far this comparison is between a huge corporation with massive resources for their product versus a single person. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be a small group making a movie on a much lower budget (which still may be thousands of $). That low cost movie still can not sell for big bucks because the mega corps have set the price point, and they don't make much money. On the other end of a comparison scale might be the painter. Paintings usually go for higher prices than photographs. So fine art photography is in between, regarding price point.

But I do think the future in prints will dwindle. I see a future where people will hang on their walls an LED backlit LCD (or some other technology) and have an array of digital images and movies that can be played. If you have an HDTV that will display images from a memory card, or a 30-inch LCD monitor (4 megapixels), you can get the idea. What's coming are 9, 20 and higher megapixel displays. Imagine a 40-inch 20-megapixel lcd panel 1 centimeter thick on your wall that only consumes a few watts. You can change the image to match the mood. There will be a market for high resolution images for such displays, and they will sell for far less than a print.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harshad Barve

Desmond , For me Movie and Music is ART with entertainment

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

I think an actor is an artist at what they do as musicans are artist, but your right the industry has termed them entertainers.

---

From what I've taught and learned working for a short time as a salesman sometime ago, you don't sell your products; you sell the experience that your customers want to have from your products. It's fine that you two gentlemen see movie as art. I think to most people around the world, it's a form of entertainment, or even a temporary escape from their works. I think that's what movie companies are selling and what most people are buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

From what I've taught and learned working for a short time as a salesman sometime ago, you don't sell your products; you sell the experience that your customers want to have from your products. It's fine that you two gentlemen see movie as art. I think to most people around the world, it's a form of entertainment, or even a temporary escape from their works. I think that's what movie companies are selling and what most people are buying.

---

Hi Desmond
I hope you will agree with me , A Movie with better actors will sell rather than I am acting:D:D, thats why I said acting in Movie and making it is an Art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

.

But I do think the future in prints will dwindle. I see a future where people will hang on their walls an LED backlit LCD (or some other technology) and have an array of digital images and movies that can be played. If you have an HDTV that will display images from a memory card, or a 30-inch LCD monitor (4 megapixels), you can get the idea. What's coming are 9, 20 and higher megapixel displays. Imagine a 40-inch 20-megapixel lcd panel 1 centimeter thick on your wall that only consumes a few watts. You can change the image to match the mood. There will be a market for high resolution images for such displays, and they will sell for far less than a print.

Roger

---

Yes , I think future will be like this only. It will have great prospetive as we see LCD panels getting thinner and thinner & deep in LCD panel prices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harshad Barve

Hi Desmond
I hope you will agree with me , A Movie with better actors will sell rather than I am acting:D:D, thats why I said acting in Movie and making it is an Art

---

My point is, Harshad, for most people that does not matter. And as Mike mentioned on another thread sometime ago, only very few people can appreciate art. Now if you are to sell a product to the general public, how would you decide your selling strategy?

Some movie directors, I've read, produced commercial movies in order to support the art movies that they want to make.

While we are talking about selling photographs, how about trying to figure out why somebody would pay so much - $3 million - to buy this photo:

http://communities.canada.com/sharei...-packages.aspx


I guess if you could figure it out, perhaps you could make a tons out of your photos too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Some movie directors, I've read, produced commercial movies in order to support the art movies that they want to make.

---

Agreed here ,

It seems to me that the price of any item bought with discretionary income is set by the buyer, not the seller. The seller may ask for any price he wants, doesn't mean there is a buyer at that price. Have you ever been to an auction? The bidding goes higher and higher until there is only one bidder left, at that price! I've seen items have no bidders at the sellers starting price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

And as Mike mentioned on another thread sometime ago, only very few people can appreciate art. Now if you are to sell a product to the general public, how would you decide your selling strategy?

---

This is so true. I have a lot of prints hanging on my walls, a mix of mine and others, but in the entry way and living room it is mostly mine, including a number of 30x40 inch prints. Most people never even seem to look at them, let alone be interested. It is so striking to me years ago I started watching people's reactions when they entered the house. I would say less than 1/4, perhaps 1/10 will notice the pictures, but those that do are quite interested and many of them will go up to the prints for closer inspection.

Similarly with books. When I was looking for a house to buy a little over a decade ago, one of the features I was looking for in a house was wall space for photos and where I could put book cases (I have about 3,000 books). What struck me looking at 35 well-to-do homes, was how few books people had. It got to the point that when I entered a house, one of the first things I looked for was any books. Many homes had none, or perhaps 2 or 3. I found that amazing. How can professional people have no books?

Roger

I think because photography over the years photography have established a pricing that people expect to see, and if you charged to little like five dollars, yes the perception would be that is there is something wrong with it, and may turn them off, But I think because it's gotten cheaper to produce our own images instead of the high cost of going to labs, that as cost of doing business drops so does the price. There is some photographer that I've heard charging $1200.00 for a 11X14 print, come on, what is this guy thinking, maybe way back in the days before zillions of people with digital cameras and powerful processing programs and printers in their homes it might of had that value, but we're over run with photography. Ansel Adams the most famous of all nature photographers, you can buy one of his 11X14 prints for I think something like $175.

I have an epson 7880 printer that epson says it cost $1.00 a square foot when printing with mat paper. I sell my 11x14 print at the shows for $20.00. It cost me about $1.00 to repoduce that image, that a 2000% mark up, retails stores make money selling their products at a 100% mark up, man they would love to get a 2000% mark up. I just don't see with the huge volume of great photography out there, and the cheap cost of printing that photograhy has has much value as it use to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Moats

I have an epson 7880 printer that epson says it cost $1.00 a square foot when printing with mat paper. I sell my 11x14 print at the shows for $20.00. It cost me about $1.00 to repoduce that image, that a 2000% mark up, retails stores make money selling their products at a 100% mark up, man they would love to get a 2000% mark up. I just don't see with the huge volume of great photography out there, and the cheap cost of printing that photograhy has has much value as it use to.

---

Mike,
Your costs are much more than the $1.00 for the print. You have to include amortization of the printer, computer gear, your photo gear, your insurance, your costs to travel to take the picture, the cost of your shows, and your time, to name a few things. Once all those costs are figured in, along with your total sales for a year, I bet your profit margin is much much lower.

I set my prices on my web site at the mid to high end of what I see other photographers charge: e.g. $200 for a 16x20, $720 for a 40x50 (for Fuji crystal Archive Lightjet prints, print only, mo matting or framing, but including shipping). Some people inquire then are surprised at the high cost, others see it as normal and are OK with it. I would probably sell more if I dropped my prices, but I don't keep stock in most images, and do a custom print for each order, so it is a fair amount of my time to produce each print. So am am comfortable with the sales level, but I am not trying to make a business out of it. Recently, I have started uploading my digital files to the lab for printing, and having them send the print. Thus, I never have to leave home. It saves a lot of time and increases my profit margin a little.

But I am also seeing more interest and sales in delivering digital images, and there the profit margin is higher, as all I need to do is size the image and put it on an ftp site for download.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

Mike,
Your costs are much more than the $1.00 for the print. You have to include amortization of the printer, computer gear, your photo gear, your insurance, your costs to travel to take the picture, the cost of your shows, and your time, to name a few things. Once all those costs are figured in, along with your total sales for a year, I bet your profit margin is much much lower.

---

Roger ,
I am sure selling your images is not a main stream of income for you , but I do agree with you about costing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

But I do think the future in prints will dwindle. I see a future where people will hang on their walls an LED backlit LCD (or some other technology) and have an array of digital images and movies that can be played. If you have an HDTV that will display images from a memory card, or a 30-inch LCD monitor (4 megapixels), you can get the idea. What's coming are 9, 20 and higher megapixel displays. Imagine a 40-inch 20-megapixel lcd panel 1 centimeter thick on your wall that only consumes a few watts. You can change the image to match the mood. There will be a market for high resolution images for such displays, and they will sell for far less than a print.

Roger

---

Interesting point about a change in formats. Will this make "theft" of images off the internet for one's LCD/LED display more of a problem? Seems then you start to move into the same issues that the music and movie industry are dealing with. Will photographers have to purchase or develop software that allows the buyer to dump the photo onto their display only one time? Will people be finding workarounds to this barrier of sharing? Interesting to think about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harshad Barve

Roger ,
I am sure selling your images is not a main stream of income for you

---

Harshad,
Correct. I actually discourage it by keeping prices high but a few people still want prints. As a research scientist I am pretty busy and when not doing science, I'd rather be outside taking pictures. So given a choice of processing the last trip's images or going outside and making more images, I'll choose outside. When I'm on BPN, I'm typically doing running science programs in the background waiting for results, or need a break to clear my mind. And my career gives me enough resources to feed my photography fun (it doesn't give me enough time though).

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Fuhr

Interesting point about a change in formats. Will this make "theft" of images off the internet for one's LCD/LED display more of a problem? Seems then you start to move into the same issues that the music and movie industry are dealing with. Will photographers have to purchase or develop software that allows the buyer to dump the photo onto their display only one time? Will people be finding workarounds to this barrier of sharing? Interesting to think about...

---

Yes, these will certainly be issues. But images from web sites are too small, so distribution must be by another source, e.g. by memory stick, or purchased download. And that will bring the theft issues just like with music and movies. But also new threats, like the orphaned works act. Someone could steal your image, remove water marking/copyright then distribute it on the net and claim they had no knowledge of who the owner was, claiming it was orphaned.

Roger

Hey Roger, I realize there is more ovehead then stated on the cost of $1.00. As I said I'm working with a markup of 1000% to 2000% of my material cost. Yes I have all those other expences you named but so do all the retail store, in fact WAY more overhead then I do and they make it with only a 100% mark up. I don't have a building to pay for and employees, so my overhead is far lower with a much greater markup.