FA+
Shop
That "Artists Price Guide" going around: It's wrong.
14 years ago
T-Shirts: http://theatomicsoul.spreadshirt.com
ETSY: https://www.etsy.com/shop/TheAtomicSoul
StorEnvy: http://theatomicsoul.storenvy.com/
3D Print Store: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/thea.....ul?sort=newest
ETSY: https://www.etsy.com/shop/TheAtomicSoul
StorEnvy: http://theatomicsoul.storenvy.com/
3D Print Store: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/thea.....ul?sort=newest
A BIT wrong at least.
I'm sure you've all seen this by now: http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/.....wv41r4uxcf.jpg
Sorry, but I find it humorous how people use PIXELS as price guides.
Size only should matter when it comes to physical mediums: oils, pastels, paint, solid objects, etc.
When it comes to digital mediums, why would you charge people more for being able to print their paid for commission without it becoming pixelated? Would you really give someone a lower quality of work because your virtual space is at a different setting?
Digital medium commissions should be charged based on the quality and amount of work involved, not a limited file size.
To give an example there is one artists I watch that only does Icons. Their icons are SUPER DETAILED and high quality. The artists ALSO gives the commissioner a larger version of the icon. To me, I would not pay their price for JUST an icon, no matter how detailed it is. The quality they spent on it is there, but because of the size I couldn't enjoy it. On the other hand, giving me a larger version that I can print and hang up gives the commission what I consider an equal or added value to the price. Despite having the same amount of work involved in the creation process not skimping on the pixel size will only add value to the customer.
I'd have been far happier if the person who originally made the prior image gave quality of work examples and based their listed prices on that rather then a "Business published ALWAYS high quality required" price guide based on a size standard that doesn't effect the amount of work being done for the image.
(Hell, if you want to follow THAT images guidelines I'll make a MSPAINT image for you!)
I'm sure you've all seen this by now: http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/.....wv41r4uxcf.jpg
Sorry, but I find it humorous how people use PIXELS as price guides.
Size only should matter when it comes to physical mediums: oils, pastels, paint, solid objects, etc.
When it comes to digital mediums, why would you charge people more for being able to print their paid for commission without it becoming pixelated? Would you really give someone a lower quality of work because your virtual space is at a different setting?
Digital medium commissions should be charged based on the quality and amount of work involved, not a limited file size.
To give an example there is one artists I watch that only does Icons. Their icons are SUPER DETAILED and high quality. The artists ALSO gives the commissioner a larger version of the icon. To me, I would not pay their price for JUST an icon, no matter how detailed it is. The quality they spent on it is there, but because of the size I couldn't enjoy it. On the other hand, giving me a larger version that I can print and hang up gives the commission what I consider an equal or added value to the price. Despite having the same amount of work involved in the creation process not skimping on the pixel size will only add value to the customer.
I'd have been far happier if the person who originally made the prior image gave quality of work examples and based their listed prices on that rather then a "Business published ALWAYS high quality required" price guide based on a size standard that doesn't effect the amount of work being done for the image.
(Hell, if you want to follow THAT images guidelines I'll make a MSPAINT image for you!)
Sometimes the industry standard shouldn't be the standard. Or rather, people should adopt their own forms of marketing, rather than follow behind the business models of some company. I can almost guarantee that they will get very little business with prices like that. I most certainly wouldn't pay several hundred for a digital image that would not even be big enough to be my wallpaper. Unless MAYBE if I owned a company, had money like that to spare, and marketed that image.
What I propose, at least as a temporary model, is to base prices on physical size, physical materials, time, quality (some people can pump out masterpieces in minutes), and maybe an hourly rate (I guess that would be included in time).
They charge $20 an hour and all their time slots, including 15-20 hour slots, were filled. There ARE a few like her that do manage to get an "industry standard" rate, but thats determined on how long she takes to do it rather then preset standards.
I doubt I'll be commissioning her as she's asking for roughly 2X my hourly income. 20 hour commission = 40 hours of work! DX
Thus is my conundrum. In cases like this, I'll just take a step back and kind of eyeball the price. I'd probably sell the image for maybe 20-25 bucks. That's how much I think it's worth. Yet I'd be working for less than desirable wages.
Ugh.