Comments on: The market value of photography

By: Laurie

Laurie — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:30:52 +0000

I can only wonder if the photographer has raised his prices now that one of his images made it big on Time Magazine?

Times are changing and with so many photographers out there the prices were bound to react to the saturation in the market.

Times are also tough…I mean I’ve read that Annie Leibovitz may be forced into bankruptcy…and may lose rights to her photos.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:00:54 +0000

The times have changed, and quite simply I think photographers are going to have to diversify. I don’t particularly agree that $30 seems like a fair rate for a cover, but then I am not the photo editor purchasing it either. Obviously they felt they found something that fit their needs for that issue. I don’t think every cover is going to be obtained for that rate.

Look at musicians – and think about how much effort, creativity, etc they put into a song – and they get what – less than $0.50? Of course the economies of scale are different here, but perhaps that type of thing is evolving for photographs as well. Pictures are everywhere now – on our phones, the net, print, etc, etc. There are many other places to sell them than magazine covers. And if you don’t like the price they are paying, no one says you have to supply the photo to them.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:49:38 +0000

@Chris: Yep! It’s film. Ilford FP4 Plus. I took it on the way back from one of my son’s basketball games. The games were in Augusta, GA. This is somewhere between Augusta, GA and Charleston, SC. I know that it is in SC, and much closer to Augusta, but I don’t remember the little town, but I think that it was Pelion, SC. Had I used my digital and GPS, I could have told you where it was within 50 ft.

By: Chris Klug

Chris Klug — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:54:35 +0000

Hey Paul, changing the subject . . . tell me about this image. Is it film? Sometimes I can tell, but this time I can’t.

By: Anita Jesse

Anita Jesse — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:12:59 +0000

Great topic, as usual. This has become a habit with you. And terrific responses.

Reality is harsh. The market is both harsh and capricious. People will pay what they are willing to pay or any type of goods or services, and all the wishing in the world won’t change that. However, I shudder to think about some bureaucrat being given the authority to establish a “fair” price. I think we either accept the rules of the marketplace, or stay out of the game. It’s not a place for folks who bruise easily. Joe McNally is an excellent example. He continues to evolve as the market does.

By: Robert LongprÃ©

Robert LongprÃ© — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:03:20 +0000

I concur with your position. Value is set by the buyer. Otherwise, one has a tendency to not be in touch with the real world of economics.

By: Ove

Ove — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:35:23 +0000

It’s always been a balance between availability and demand. This in combination with bad times gets it even more evident. Even big companies have to find new ways to cut cost. And seriously, if the photo was bought from a stock agency, they simply wanted a picture, not THE picture. It was probably not worth the effort calling around to see if anyone could come up with a photo of a duck, or whatever.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:22:03 +0000

@Bob: Well,the market is the market and we get what people think its worth. You have the ‘right’ to ask for any price that you want, but the market has the same right to go to someone who is less expensive.

@Gary: Those are excellent points about the free music and Photoshop!

By: Gary Brown

Gary Brown — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:59:25 +0000

Re: “Perhaps photography books should cost several hundred dollars each because they hurt the teaching/workshop market”: A Strobist posting a few years ago talked about a similar topic. It’s a long essay â€” read it here â€” but a brief extract:

“The gist of these conversations [with a local photographer] were pretty much him noting that he liked the Strobist site, but didn’t agree with the idea of my giving the information away for free. … He was concerned that I was giving away something of value. And by doing so, I was devaluing the photo profession.”

In addition to your points, I think it’s fascinating to read messages from photographers who, while complaining about low prices devaluing their product, nevertheless look for free music to accompany their slide shows or seek ways around paying for software like Photoshop that they don’t want to pay for.

By: bob wong

bob wong — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:52:27 +0000

I’d like to have authored the following but I didn’t and I can’t remember the name of the man who did. I once had dinner with a professional paint artist and her agent (They were doing well, living/working in Australia and selling in NY while affording to commute between the two). During the conversation I pressed hard for them to reveal the price of their paintings and in so doing define a reasonable price.

They stuck to this answer.

If a professional works diligently and the market values their work, then they should be paid a reasonable livelihood.

Then, my experience. What is often viewed as a free market is in many cases a manipulated market. I kind of like the idea that a free market will establish a fair price but… “You ain’t gone get no free market sucker”.