On 18/02/2013 14:53, orbancc wrote: > > Then the equipment went through a revolution -- printers, scanners, hard > drives, computers, software -- all became cheaper and better and that > transformed the problem. I dropped the price to $50 for a 16x20, and over > the last 12 years I have printed and sold more than 30,000 prints in 5 > sizes from 8x10 ($20), 11x14 ($30), 16x20 ($50), 20x24 ($75) and 24x30 > ($100). Plus I offer archival for quite a bit more -- some people need the > better quality distinction, but only about 2%. That suggests you've maybe grossed ~$150,000 in 12 years. Less (say) 40% for overheads and costs (printers, ink, paper, space, energy, computers, s/w etc), that leaves $90k - a net average income of ~$7,500/year. For how many hours work, and other time spent and direct costs incurred in the photography? Finding a price point at which people will buy but you earn nothing is quite easy... -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Re: Photography That Doesn't Suck
2013-02-18 by Tony Sleep
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.