I found one thread on this, but I didn't get a real sense of what people consider when pricing their work.
Let's say I have an 11x11" gelatin silver print, toned in selenium, well matted and framed in a 16x16" metal frame. If a gallery takes 40%, what would you charge? I realize that bigger names have earned their right to charge more, but for an unknown, even if the image is strong, what would be a reasonable price without devaluing the work?
It might take, say, 2-5 pieces of paper to get the print just right. With the paper I use, that is $4-$10. The mat board and mounting board might cost $5-$10 after cut from larger boards. The frame costs around $24 and the glass $6. Add on say $10 for the use of chemicals and cost of film, etc. This brings the at cost total to around $55, and that is not taking into consideration the cost of artistic labor in taking the photo, developing, and then printing, toning, and preparing the photo for display. I'll give myself $100 for labor per photo (I just guessed 5 hours at $20/hr.) I am not a fast printer.
So then (bear with me) I come to $155. Should I double that to $300? Somehow that seems a bit low compared to prices I see for some art. Are photographs naturally going to fetch less money?
I am curious what others think about this, since no one should devalue their work but I don't want to charge too much either. Thoughts?
As far as a well known name, I saw some Keith Carter prints for sale. Depending on how many were in the edition, they ranged from $1,200-$5,000. I'm obviously not going to even try for a price like that anytime soon.