Yes, I think that given my limited knowledge of the giant world of colour management, and the fact that my printer is a solvent (although what I've printed so far looks pretty dang nice), I should perhaps focus on everything & anything other than the high-end market.
Given that a per sq ft pricing can't be done profitably on those one-off 8"x10" print jobs, something tells me that perhaps a three-tiered pricing structure might be a good idea.
Like:
1 - 10 sq ft = $25.00/sq
10 - 30 sq ft = $15.00/sq
30 sq ft and up = $10.00/sq
Good intentions but a bad structure.
By your schedule a 10 ft^2 would be $250 but an 11 ft^2 would be $165, a 30 ft^2 would be $450 but 31 ft^2 would be $310. It doesn't make a lot of sense that more should be less. The price for X+1 should never be less that the price for X.
To do this right you need to price on a curve. A simple curve might be similar to the one I use...
(max-min)+(ft^2 x min)+(2 x media_unrolled)
Where...
max is the maximum price per ft^2. What you would charge for, say, 1 ft^2 or less.
min is the absolute minimum per ft^2 for which you'll print regardless of size.
ft^2 is the actual size of the print rounded up to the nearest integer.
media_unrolled is your cost per linear foot of media unrolled for this print, including all waste. I multiply this by 2 for a 100% markup. Your mileage may vary.
For example, I use $25 for a maximum and $6 for a minimum and my cost for media is ~$4 per linear foot so an 18"x24" print would be...
(25-6)+(6 x 3)+(2 x 12) [12=$4 times 3 feet of media unrolled]
or 19+18+24
or $61.00
These are my rates, set your to whatever gets you off.
This algorithm yields an exponential curve that goes from your maximum ft^2 price to your minimum ft^2 price. Actually it becomes asymptotic about the minimum. In other words, it gets close but never actually gets there.
The nice thing about it is the the larger the print, the less per ft^2 it is but X+1 is never less than X.
