How much money for my photos?

smr

smr

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,047
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

This is a question I have been asking myself for a while now. I have had a few people ask "do you sell your prints, you should" or "can I buy this print from you?" and I never know what to say.

I have had a lady ask me tonight if she can buy a copy to put on canvas as she loves one of my photographs.

I really don't know how to decide on how much money and at what size I should set so if anyone else could give me some advice that would be really appreciated. Surely there must be folk on here who have been in a similar position!
 
last one I actually sold went for £100 but that was for the rights to use it on a CD cover by a Japanese pop group.. selling to a private person I would assume £25-£30
 
smr said:
Hi,

This is a question I have been asking myself for a while now. I have had a few people ask "do you sell your prints, you should" or "can I buy this print from you?" and I never know what to say.

I have had a lady ask me tonight if she can buy a copy to put on canvas as she loves one of my photographs.

I really don't know how to decide on how much money and at what size I should set so if anyone else could give me some advice that would be really appreciated. Surely there must be folk on here who have been in a similar position!
Click to expand...

I work out what the printed/framed cost will be, and double it.
 
There isnt a set price........ the answer is. "whatever makes you happy"

You can take the answers from this thread and charge that.. but if at the end of the day you think its not worth it or you feel robbed then it was too cheap...

if your thinking of doing it as a business then take a business approach and factor in what its cost you to take the pics.. how many you think you will sell over x period and come up wiht a figure you need to sell at to make ....a living or part time living or whatever..

however if its just the odd one here and there then whatever price will put a smile on your face is the right price :)
 
KIPAX said:
There isnt a set price........ the answer is. "whatever makes you happy"

You can take the answers from this thread and charge that.. but if at the end of the day you think its not worth it or you feel robbed then it was too cheap...

if your thinking of doing it as a business then take a business approach and factor in what its cost you to take the pics.. how many you think you will sell over x period and come up wiht a figure you need to sell at to make ....a living or part time living or whatever..

however if its just the odd one here and there then whatever price will put a smile on your face is the right price :)
Click to expand...

TBH If someone wants one of my pictures I'm so pleased that I usually give it to them if it's someone I know. I used to keep bees and in the first year I gave all the honey away although for the following five years I made about two grand from what was essentially a hobby. Gave it up though, too stingy, too much pain.
 
One of the problems for me has been that when I'm asked to sell a print or canvas, that I consider everything that's gone into it. The early start, the hours (potentially) on the road, the fuel, the food, the time, not to mention the gear involved. If I'm asked to do a framed print (I bespoke frame at home) then the same considerations come into it again, except the food of course but then it becomes more material expenses on top, mountboard, glass, backboard, mouldings, paraphenalia etc not to mention the print too. I'm also invested in framing tools, which are not cheap, easily as expensive as some camera gear.

Depending on what it is, for a bare print, straight off the printer, I'd probably treble that. A framed print however is in a league of its own, depending on size, moulding type etc etc, there are so many variables in a frame.

Back to the problem, I see these things first hand as I'm the one doing them, Joe Public tends not to and sees it just as a picture and more often than not, they visbly back off when the true cost becomes apparent.
 
Last edited:
:plus1: :agree:

In general when it comes to a selling price......one size does not fit all.

Photography is (almost) unique in its democratisation.....and the 'consumers' perception cost vs value. Compared to paintings where a potential buyer can understand the time involved......many see Photography as ' just pressing the shutter button' and ignore everything else involved!
 
jakeblu said:
There will be some on here sticking pins in an effigy of you at that comment :D
Click to expand...
Please themselves, it's my picture, if I choose to give it away to a mate that's my business, I'm hardly stealing a livelihood from anyone. I write songs too, if you want them you can have them. I'm 67, I have enough money to get by, why would I want the hassle of trying to get money out of someone when I don't need it just for one or two piddly pictures. I insist on a credit though, if it's a good picture I want people to know who took it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShinySideUp said:
Please themselves, it's my picture, if I choose to give it away to a mate that's my business, I'm hardly stealing a livelihood from anyone. I write songs too, if you want them you can have them. I'm 67, I have enough money to get by, why would I want the hassle of trying to get money out of someone when I don't need it just for one or two piddly pictures. I insist on a credit though, if it's a good picture I want people to know who took it.
Click to expand...

While I sympathise with your personal situation, giving photos away or selling them dirt cheap does have the effect of devaluing photographs in general.

In general terms it really depends on who you are selling a print to. If it's for the general public I think you have to accept that the price people pay will rarely cover the ACTUAL costs that Dale has listed. If you're closer to the "art" market, or already have a personal reputation, you can charge a more realistic price. I have one foot in both camps.
 
What I would strongly recommend is that YOU get the print made and sell that to them. If you give them the image file to make a print then they will have that forever more, whatever promises have been made. If you give them a print you will both feel good about the exchange because they're getting something substantial, and you retain control over the image.
 
When I was looking into selling some of my paintings, it was mentioned that you price them per square inch, that way a 10 x 20 painting would be the same price relatively speaking as a 15 x 43. the frame was extra.

The issue of selling becomes contentious when Joe Bloggs who is retired or has a day job is selling a picture for £30 and is happy that someone wants his picture, when Joseph Bloggs Photography who is trying to make a living out of photography is selling a similar pic for £120 :)
 
Last edited:
Lunkwill Fouk said:
What I would strongly recommend is that YOU get the print made and sell that to them. If you give them the image file to make a print then they will have that forever more, whatever promises have been made. If you give them a print you will both feel good about the exchange because they're getting something substantial, and you retain control over the image.
Click to expand...


I sincerely hope that that is what Joel had in mind. Did I hear the word copyright being mentioned?

JayceeC said:
The issue of selling becomes contentious when Joe Bloggs who is retired or has a day job is selling a picture for £30 and is happy that someone wants his picture, when Joseph Bloggs Photography who is trying to make a living out of photography is selling a similar pic for £120 :)
Click to expand...


This is indeed a problem.
 
I am not sure my advice can be directly applied to your circumstances but I worked on the basis as follows: when two thirds of my potential enquiries state that I am too expensive that is when I know I am charging enough. Plus we benchmark our costs against our competitors.
 
Lunkwill Fouk said:
What I would strongly recommend is that YOU get the print made and sell that to them. If you give them the image file to make a print then they will have that forever more, whatever promises have been made. If you give them a print you will both feel good about the exchange because they're getting something substantial, and you retain control over the image.
Click to expand...

Despite what I was saying in my post above, if I was selling to someone I didn't know then I would definitely be charging. As per the above, never, ever give or sell the image file as there is nothing to stop someone making a large quantity of money out of it (should it fit the bill somewhere) leaving the photographer with nothing but a bitter taste in the mouth.
 
JayceeC said:
The issue of selling becomes contentious when Joe Bloggs who is retired or has a day job is selling a picture for £30 and is happy that someone wants his picture, when Joseph Bloggs Photography who is trying to make a living out of photography is selling a similar pic for £120 :)
Click to expand...
Hardly contentious. Surely this is no different from someone selling, for example, an almost new cement mixer on eBay when retailers running a business are selling their new cement mixers for five times the price. Should we not sell our older camera equipment because retailers have to sell new stuff and we are undercutting them?

When I kept bees I would charge £6 for a 1lb jar or three for £15. Commercial beekeepers got all bent out of shape because they wanted to sell their honey for £10 or more per jar and all I wanted to do was get rid of it at a reasonable price that would cover my expenses. Unlike them, I did not have warehouses of honey with associated advertising budgets and if I'd only sold it at commercial prices I would have had the stuff hanging around in my house for months. It was a hobby and as such I sold at hobby prices, my photography is a hobby and I treat that the same. I don't want to go traipsing around galleries or sending samples off to commercial enterprises; if I wanted a job, I'd go and get one.

The same professionals would probably complain about the likes of Shutterstock, Alamy or Getty Images, et al. It's market forces, if professionals don't like the field then they must leave it and go do something else as all the complaining in the world is not suddenly going to make people only buy their images.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShinySideUp said:
Hardly contentious. Surely this is no different from someone selling, for example, an almost new cement mixer on eBay when retailers running a business are selling their new cement mixers for five times the price. Should we not sell our older camera equipment because retailers have to sell new stuff and we are undercutting them?

When I kept bees I would charge £6 for a 1lb jar or three for £15. Commercial beekeepers got all bent out of shape because they wanted to sell their honey for £10 or more per jar and all I wanted to do was get rid of it at a reasonable price that would cover my expenses. Unlike them, I did not have warehouses of honey with associated advertising budgets and if I'd only sold it at commercial prices I would have had the stuff hanging around in my house for months. It was a hobby and as such I sold at hobby prices, my photography is a hobby and I treat that the same. I don't want to go traipsing around galleries or sending samples off to commercial enterprises; if I wanted a job, I'd go and get one.

The same professionals would probably complain about the likes of Shutterstock, Alamy or Getty Images, et al. It's market forces, if professionals don't like the field then they must leave it and go do something else as all the complaining in the world is not suddenly going to make people only buy their images.
Click to expand...


If you were, have been, or would like to have been a professional, you would think differently.
 
jerry12953 said:
If you were, have been, or would like to have been a professional, you would think differently.
Click to expand...
If you were a cement mixer salesman you might feel differently. :)
The analogy is reasonably valid, I'm sure sellers of new good often feel upset about competing with used sales, but it must be said new hardware typically sells with a guarantee that's not present or at least not as good for used goods, and the used goods can have considerable wear....
 
If there is a market for these particular images then maybe a professional should have seen that, taken the photo and marketed it properly so that Joe Public finds their version rather than just stumbling across an amateur’s picture……..
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
If you were, have been, or would like to have been a professional, you would think differently.
Click to expand...

But are you really suggesting that no one but a professional should sell photographs? Only professional musicians should make music? No one but paid actors should act? Only garden maintenance companies should mow your lawn? If someone asks me what sort of camera they might like to purchase, I cannot answer but instead must refer them to their local camera shop -- who perhaps might sell them the item that will make the most profit rather than the one they need (yes, someone did this to my elderly mother many years ago, I took back the item which was far too complicated and gave them a piece of my mind)? The premise is irrational. Photographers make money from selling pictures, equipment, advice etc., they should not, and almost certainly will not, feel threatened by the occasional amateur sale of a similar-looking photograph. If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShinySideUp said:
If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the hundreds of regional press photographers that have lost their jobs only to be replaced by User Generated Content.

The simple fact is that giving your work away/charging artificially low prices does affect those who work in the profession - whether you like that idea or not.

By all means do whatever you want, but do it with your eyes open. Not trying to kid yourself.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
The simple fact is that giving your work away/charging artificially low prices does affect those who work in the profession - whether you like that idea or not.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with this in any way unless you have misconstrued my position. I am an amateur photographer, most of my pictures are junk but there are occasional flashes of inspiration that someone may have liked and asked for a copy of and I have given it to them just because they asked me nicely. No professional took that same picture, I did not sell it to a newspaper, it has not been uploaded to the best of my knowledge and the recipient has made no money out of it, they just liked it. If I hadn't given the picture away the person would just not have had the picture and almost certainly wouldn't have gone looking for a professional version of it. Now explain to me how I have deprived a professional photographer of his livelihood.

Every profession has to move with the times. Look at the miners after the move to natural gas, the dockers after containers took over, the Luddites who objected to textile automation and now the photographers who have to deal with on-the-spot people with mobile phones. It's the way it is and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is not going to halt the 'progress'. I didn't want to let go of film but in the end I realised that digital was the way to go as film became an arcane and archaic art pursued for it's own sake. The manufacturers of internal combustion engines have had to start to create electric motors for cars. No one is exempt from change, not even professional photographers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShinySideUp said:
If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.
Click to expand...

A newspaper will choose a bad fuzzy poorly cropped horrible composition for free.. over a well taken photo paid for... Its got nothing to do with skill..its all about free v money at the moment.. The above is a proven fact :( So yes all free pics to media or what could be otherwise sold are a threat... I appreciate your situation doesnt come under that.. however your comments do argue a more general point that your simply wrong about... Not in my opinion.. your just wrong :)
 
KIPAX said:
your just wrong :)
Click to expand...
Well, that's put me in my place. I can't have an opinion because I am just wrong. No reason given, no explanation, no comeback, no references, just plain wrong. How am I 'wrong'? Do we still have loads of dockers? Is our textile industry still thriving? Where are all our mine workers? If being a realist makes me 'wrong' what would make me right? Agreeing with you?

Also, I have to ask as a sop to Grammar Nazis everywhere, if it's my 'just wrong', where is yours?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smr said:
Hi,

This is a question I have been asking myself for a while now. I have had a few people ask "do you sell your prints, you should" or "can I buy this print from you?" and I never know what to say.

I have had a lady ask me tonight if she can buy a copy to put on canvas as she loves one of my photographs.

I really don't know how to decide on how much money and at what size I should set so if anyone else could give me some advice that would be really appreciated. Surely there must be folk on here who have been in a similar position!
Click to expand...
What’s important here is the value to that person, surely? Maybe ask her where she has in mind to hang the picture, discuss how amazing that would look and then ask what budget she has in mind?

When this first happened to me I sold a print of the picture for 700. I would organize printing for the customer myself as mentioned above.
 
When I setup my website, I could create price lists in the background for different print sizes, combinations etc. I decided to set my prices low to make them accessible to as many people as possible. Turns out all those people who said "you should sell prints" were projecting onto what they thought others might buy, rather than being willing to part with their own cash . And turns out that projection was wrong. So after a few months of no sales I whacked my prices up a lot lot higher*. Still no one buys any, but I feel more value in my pics and all those "you should sell your prints people" see more value in them too :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Maybe if I increased traffic to my website there might be a bit more, but almost certainly not worth the effort. When someone does choose to buy one it'll be a nice hit of pocket money.

*I haven't revisited the pricing in ages ago probably too low now
 
Last edited:
Petrochemist said:
If you were a cement mixer salesman you might feel differently. :)
The analogy is reasonably valid, I'm sure sellers of new good often feel upset about competing with used sales, but it must be said new hardware typically sells with a guarantee that's not present or at least not as good for used goods, and the used goods can have considerable wear....
Click to expand...
To be honest when I work in the wholesale and retail photographic market we preferred used, especially if it was the latest/most desirable items. The mark up on a used item was much higher!
 
ShinySideUp said:
Well, that's put me in my place. I can't have an opinion because I am just wrong. No reason given, no explanation, no comeback, no references, just plain wrong. How am I 'wrong'? Do we still have loads of dockers? Is our textile industry still thriving? Where are all our mine workers? If being a realist makes me 'wrong' what would make me right? Agreeing with you?

Also, I have to ask as a sop to Grammar Nazis everywhere, if it's my 'just wrong', where is yours?
Click to expand...


Yes, you are wrong, for all of the reasons that Kipax gave that you didn't quote.

Dockers miners, textile workers and others weren't replaced by 'free work', their industry was automated or became financially unviable.

None of that has happened with photography. In fact it is more prevalent and valuable than it has ever been. It generates millions of pounds for its end users.

Execpt those end users are less inclined to pay for its use because people are willing to give their product away for nothing.

As I suggested, you have your head buried in the sand.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Yes, you are wrong, for all of the reasons that Kipax gave that you didn't quote.

Dockers miners, textile workers and others weren't replaced by 'free work', their industry was automated or became financially unviable.

None of that has happened with photography. In fact it is more prevalent and valuable than it has ever been. It generates millions of pounds for its end users.

Ececpt those end users are less inclined to pay for its use because people are willing to give their product away for nothing.

As I suggested, you have your head burried in the sand.
Click to expand...
People giving away photographs or selling them at a price considered by some to be below a "commercial rate", is where we are now. To think that is somehow going to change, means you are the one with your head buried in the sand.

Whilst I have a certain sympathy for those who make a living from taking photographs, please don't make this about professional v amateur.

To answer the OP charge what you feel is right.
 
A lot of these answers are heading towards banning people other than “professionals” from owning cameras and taking their own photos — which is roughly where we were before George Eastman came along with “… we do the rest”! :LOL: :exit:
 
ShinySideUp said:
Well, that's put me in my place. I can't have an opinion because I am just wrong. No reason given, no explanation, no comeback, no references, just plain wrong. How am I 'wrong'? Do we still have loads of dockers? Is our textile industry still thriving? Where are all our mine workers? If being a realist makes me 'wrong' what would make me right? Agreeing with you?

Also, I have to ask as a sop to Grammar Nazis everywhere, if it's my 'just wrong', where is yours?
Click to expand...

I did give you a clear and precise explanation as to why you where wrong..

You said : If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.

I said : A newspaper will choose a bad fuzzy poorly cropped horrible composition for free.. over a well taken photo paid for... Its got nothing to do with skill..its all about free v money at the moment.. The above is a proven fact :( So yes all free pics to media or what could be otherwise sold are a threat

Thus explaining that your view is plain wrong and not a matter of opnion.. its provable wrong


Not sure what your missing here or what prompted your response ? :)
 
munch said:
People giving away photographs or selling them at a price considered by some to be below a "commercial rate", is where we are now. To think that is somehow going to change, means you are the one with your head buried in the sand.
Click to expand...

Yeagh we know that and I would say its only going to get worse.. its poeple promoting it that is hard to take :)
 
KIPAX said:
I said : A newspaper will choose a bad fuzzy poorly cropped horrible composition for free.. over a well taken photo paid for... Its got nothing to do with skill..its all about free v money at the moment.. The above is a proven fact :( So yes all free pics to media or what could be otherwise sold are a threat
Click to expand...
I think it's more a case of papers choosing a poorly taken image of the moment that matters, for one taken properly of the scene afterwards. They'll quite happily pay for a critical news worthy image that will sell many thousands of papers. A good image that doesn't sell extra papers is of little use to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top