by Dan Smith

A print of Moonrise, Hernandez by Ansel Adams sold a number of years ago for over $70,000. Ansel never saw the money as it was re-sold by the owner. A pretty good deal for him & not so good for Ansel.

So, what is a photo worth?

Go to a large gathering such as the Gilroy Garlic Festival & inbetween bowls of garlic ice cream and trying garlic brownies, wander by the art booths & see how photos are priced. Or try Boulder City in Nevada, or your local art shows in the mall or those aligned with various groups.

Look at the pricing for photography. Some is way overpriced at $20.00 and others undervalued for the quality of the work shown and offered for sale.

So, how do you figure out how much your images are worth? Remember that on this one there are many excellent, creative photographers who are also exquisite craftsmen who can't make a living selling their images. Then there are the shlock artists who do little more than low grade copies of whatever seems to be the "hot subject du juor" who are asking-and getting-hellaciously high prices for junk.

If Ansel was selling images for a pittance even shortly before his death, what hope is there for the rest of us? And if low-grade copy artists can charge an arm and a leg & get rich from shlock, how do we decide how much to charge for what we hope is quality work?

How much is a photograph worth?

If you are a major magazine editor, used to charging $15,000 and up for a page of advertising, wouldn't you feel guilty telling a photographer that he isn't worth more than $400 a day for an assignment(and no space rate pay above that and you want all rights forevermore) and that "shooters" are a dime a dozen anyway? If you are an advertising account executive, don't you feel guilty charging the client $3500 for an image for their ad when you only paid $250 for all the images on a clip disk(and then hope the photo doesn't show up in an AIDS or condom ad in the same magazine issue). If you are a photographer, do you feel guilty providing $10,000 plus in equipment, 10+ years of experience and your creative genius to someone who makes $80,000 plus a year and is telling you that you should "be happy we are giving you a credit line"?

At the other end we have little league photo packages for $8.95 each or dance recitals, prom pictures and the ever present low end, lowball studio where quality is a foreign concept. "Good enough" is the norm.

A Photograph is worth what a Photographer charges for it. Usage has to be factored into the equation as well. Talent, in many cases, has nothing to do with the worth of the image to many end users. In others, editors and ad agencies pay specifically for the talent of a particular photographer and consider themselves lucky to get the image for limited use(NOT all rights) for $30,000.

Why the difference?

Why can you buy an art show print for $15.00 yet a Jerry Bybee photoshopped image is $30,000? Why does the editor of one magazine routinely pay photographers $400 a day(and requires-and gets-all rights) yet for the plum jobs calls another photographer and readily pays $1200 a day plus preparation time and other costs?

Talents is part of it, but we all know talented photographers who can hardly make a living.

Marketing is a major part of the worth of an image while a photographer is alive and probably even more important after they have passed on. Whether we like it or not, many consider "images" nothing more than "just another commodity", and quality doesn't really matter just as long as it isn't terrible.

State travel bureaus are big in this respect. Really top quality images aren't on the priority list for many of them. Just so they are pretty and cheap. "We will give you a credit line" is the standard fee for many of these outfits. NAPA County, California uses this one regularly and still gets people giving them images for free, images which then get used by major magazines-for profit- while the photographer basks in the glow of that infamous "credit line". Quite a deal, isn't it?

So, what is the worth of a photograph? Why would someone pay $3500 plus for a Caponigro image of blurry sheep when they can get a more modern color photo of sheep on postcard for seventy five cents?

Who would pay $850 for a picture of Joe Dimaggio to Major League Baseball Images when they can get a good one by cutting it out of Sports Illustrated for the price of the magazine(assuming they don't go to the library & use their ever-trusty razor blade when not slicing pages from the swimsuit issue)

People who appreciate quality are the buyers of these images. Yes, there are some who buy hoping to make money from them, but even these folks expect to pay for quality. Quality in vision as captured on film and then presented in print form for an appreciative audience is what these folks purchase. >From an editor of LIFE magazine to the private purchaser to the representative of a top image collection, quality is the watchword. Even with the "bottom line" in view in the magazine world, quality is paid for by the best editors and publishers.

Quality in the photographic vision of the photographer plays a part here. So does the presentation. Scarcity may have a bearing as well. Timeliness can play a part, though some photos shot as news on the spur of the moment have become timeless icons we value long after the event has passed from the public concience. But take a look at the images that seem to last, from news to the Grand Landscape to still life to portraits and I believe we come down to the undefinable "personal experience" as the main factor in the worth of an image.

The first photographic images are valuable partly because of their scarcity. One original, a singular image because the first photographs were unable to be reproduced in the darkroom. Ansel printed a few hundred of his most famous images. Niether he nor Daguerre received the sums these images have commanded since they passed away. The images of one abound and the images of the other are almost non existant, yet both are worth a small fortune on the market.

Then we have images such as the Pulitzer prize winning photos. Images from life, often at its most painful. Priceless images that strike the heart of most who see them. Images taken by both professionals and amateurs. Images printed and viewed over and over and over again by each new generation that comes along.

Images that retain the elusive power to communicate. Images many of us wish we could photograph yet are often glad we didn't have to. From Daguerre to Steichen to Eisenstaedt to Adams to whomever is coming next, in all disciplines and specialties in photography, images that communicate are the images that are of most value. Photography does speak a universal language that, once learned, communicates powerfully. A language that has people spending a fortune on film and cameras. A language that speaks to the soul when done well, whether with the 8x10 camera or a Kodak Box Brownie.

It is the image that communicates that lasts. Whether on the cover of a major magazine or on the walls of a small gallery, the worth of an image lies in the values of the viewer. The images that speak to more of society command more respect and are seen more often. The images that don't communicate disappear from view.

So, the worth of an image lies in more than the check received by the photographer. Some so much more that they become national treasures. Some become the voice of a world filled with images, somehow becoming bigger than the moment they capture.

Yes, the worth of an image is whatever one can get for it. But its real worth is in how well it speaks to the soul. Images that last speak powerfully, if not loudly, and continue to do so far beyond the influence of the individual photographer.

Many who photographed the lasting images of our time were not aware of how powerful they would become. They were out on a day to day basis, just as we go out with our cameras. Yet by being there they captured a time that continues to speak to all who view the images. If you don't photograph, you don't get that chance. Who knows? You may be the one to capture such an image by being in the right place at the right time & having the luck/talent/technique/good fortune to take the photo. If so, I believe you will discover the real worth of your image is a lot more than money(and I hope you are paid well and long for its use). The worth of your great image lies its ability to communicate your vision to the world. For me, that is the real worth of an image.