Pricing by size?

[Mary Sparrow]

First let me say thank you to everyone that helped me on and off forum about my prices. Now I just need to get the nerve to bump them up.

While my first question was about the actual dollar amount, as I was reworking the fee structure, I'm now questioning the way I have done it in the past.

I have done it by size, I have always tried to paint in standard sizes simply to make framing easier. For example:

Head and shoulders 16x20=600 18x24=850 and so on.

Should I not be doing it this way? Should I just price by H/S 3/4 and full? And if I do it that way, do I just take the highest price or meet somewhere in the middle?

The other question is, when you are just pricing by the amount of body in the portrait, do YOU decide the size or do you let the client choose the size (usually they have an idea where it will hang)

And last, I'm wanting the prices to reflect a portrait with a simple background. What would be a typical amount to add in for complicated backgrounds and pets? 20-30%?

[Stanka Kordic]

Mary,

I find it so much easier to price by "body parts". When I used to do landscapes, it was a pain in the you-know-what to decide by size. Assuming you will choose to work life-size, there are certain standard sizes a head with a simple background will fit comfortably on. The size of paper will increase according to complexity, and price accordingly. I charge 15% for that (regardless of it being pet or flowers). BTW, I really like your pastels!

[Tom Edgerton]

Daniel Greene once remarked that he adds 50% for complex backgrounds, defined as anything that's more than a compatible neutral plain background. Most of the artists I know add around 25-30% for such.

It's not just to underwrite the additional effort in doing a complicated scene--I've also found it helps to keep clients who are proud of all their stuff from loading down a portrait with too much extraneous material crap. (They'll be less inclined to ask you to paint the Beemer outside the window if they know it's going to cost more.)

It gets pretty funny sometimes. We were once given a formula at a national conference that dogs and cats were an additional $500 each, and a horse is half a person.

The quick formula given out at the same conference was to charge around $1000 less for pastels than oils, if you did both. So an artist whose average price for an oil might be $6000 would charge a grand less for a pastel, all other factors being equal. So as you can see, you wouldn't discount a pastel by half, for sure. (If you don't charge on this level, maybe the above info would be a guide for working out an equivalent percentage for pastels vs. oils.)

Hope this is helpful.

[Karin Wells]

I sort of price by size. The more square inches of canvas to cover, the longer it takes me.

Even though I otentimes put in more complicated backgrounds, I seldom charge extra as they are so darn much fun to paint.

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

I agree; on my process and pricing page I say that more complex backgrounds are more expensive, but I rarely invoke that for the same reason, Karin. They're a lot more interesting to paint even though they're more challenging. But my next commission will have a lot of medical paraphernalia in the background and I suspect I'll end up charging more for it because of the significantly extra work and time it will require.

[Karin Wells]

I forgot to mention that I have one price structure for portraits, one for still life and yet another one for landscape.

I determine this more or less by the time involved. Portraits require more time thus are priced at more $ per sq. inch. I originally priced my portraits not doing this and have regretted it.

I have since tweaked the prices to conform a bit but as the canvas grows larger, I have reduced the square inch price.

I also have a baseline fee for a portrait - no matter what the size. This figure covers my time, travel and photography expenses.