In the past, I showed my work in a few galleries (always got excited when I had a show coming up) - and the expenses of such a show (printing (I did my own printing, Cibachromes - not cheap), matting, and framing, as well as the time to set up the show...to the point of buying refreshments to serve during the show - all this adds up real quick. I'd put "prices" on my prints (in a very artsy sort of way...$350 or so per print)...I really was not in the mode of "selling" prints - I enjoyed "showing"...but a few prints actually sold. Should I feel bad about it? I'm thinking...NO (actually had a couple who wanted a picture of me with them in front of the print they bought..go figure.

To answer your question - should you sell your work: Depends...if your work is so "personal" (not meaning that in a demeaning way), then maybe you shouldn't - it could be work that you want to keep within your own circles (I've met several artists who will not show their work to anyone, let alone sell the work - it's just for them...and that's fine). Personally (and that means for ME), I shoot for my own enjoyment - but it's a bit of "me" that i want the rest of the world to see - it's a form of communication - and you can't communicate if nobody else sees it - and if they see it, they may want to buy it...and can that be bad? I had a photo published in Organic Gardening, one of my earliest publications...and a woman from California (I'm in NC) - wrote OG wanting to know where she could get a print of that photograph - they forwarded her to me - and I sold her an 8x10 for $75 (hey, I was just starting out) - and we were both thrilled.

the point is, for me, why shoot if you don't want others to see your interpretations of your vision - and, being that you want them to see it - let them have it...but let them at least cover your costs.

Pricing: Pricing (as much as we would like it to be) is NOT dictated by the image. Pricing is dictated by the market, and (as unjustified as it may sound), bigger names can dictate higher prices for even lesser work (let's face it, a blurry, underexposed reject of Ansel Adams is going to fetch more than any perfectly exposed and composed image of mine...or most anyone else here...no offense, just a fact) - the price set depends on what YOU think the work is worth...based on what the "going rate" in your area is and the quality of your work (not just the photo, but the print material...how archival, the presentation, framing, etc.). Don't be afraid to ask what the image is worth - if you spent two days getting to a specific location to shoot a specific scene, take that into consideration, as well as your film costs and printing costs, framing costs, display costs, etc.)...also take into consideration the number of prints you intend to make from that original - AND STICK TO IT. In other words, if you market an image as a "limited" print of only ten images, then you need to destroy the negative or transparency after you've printed the tenth image - Limited prints will fetch a much higher price tag than "unlimited" prints (and believe me, if you sell prints as a "limited" edition and don't destroy the original, you WILL BE tempted to reproduce it in the future - which will absolutely destroy your name artistically.

Bottom line - should you sell your work?...up to you.
Should work be sold....up to the artist (I don't see HOW this could affect the "artistry" of the work - other than making it available to the public. What's the difference between a $5,000 image and a $5.00 image? - about $4,995...LITERALLY. ART should not have a price tag...but that's just me.

Marc