I talked to a painter once about sizes. He said it's not much easier
to paint a small picture ($100) vs a large picture, but the public
expects to pay less for a small one. In this case the buyer getting
the small one is under-paying, while the one getting the large
painting might be over-paying.
With photography I think it's easier to grasp. Like with usage rights,
a buyer is paying for wider distribution, for example, while the buyer
of a large print (photograph), is getting "more art" for the higher
price.
The greater the use, the higher the price for the "artistic value".
We're not in the business of selling art supplies.
-Steve
On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, James Parker wrote:
>
> I've often wondered how it is that a print that is 30x40 retails for
> more than a print that is 3x4 (for example). Factoring out the cost
> of materials and labor, there really is no difference in the image,
> only in the cost of goods. Yet we, as photographers, get to charge
> more for those grand over-the-mantel images. I think that's why
> Michael Kenna, for example, only prints an edition in a single size.
> Eliminates the whole "cost per pixel" argument altogether.
>
> Jim Parker.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment