Is this the norm or outrageous?

It's actually very reasonable. The expense is in the framing, and this can vary enormously depending on the frame material and glass.

At Building Panoramics we would have charged the equivalent of $146 per picture but we don't ship glass anymore.
 
Upvote 0
reasonable unless they are doing a total trash job and using poor materials (there are very different types of glass and backing and matting, some backing is not acid free and is really bad and some is museum quality acid free and so on and so forth and on).

framing is horrendosuly expensive, more horrible than you can imagine, truly top quality for 30" range can be practically your entire sum for just a single print, it's hideous

your prices mentioned are actually on the lower side, if anything

what types of glass and materials do they mention?
 
Upvote 0
I just had a 9.5x47" picture of the 1934 Big Hole Valley 6000 ton hay bale stack done for my brother-in-law using matte, barn wood frame and acrylic(no glass as the young kids might knock it off the wall) for $140. Four photos stitched together so somewhat of an odd size.
 
Upvote 0
TexPhoto said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
It's depressing how much good framing costs :( So much of my photography is confined to my computer screen because of it.

Agreed, but sometimes a 20x30 print from SAMS ($10) in a walmart frame ($14) on the wall beats a never printed $500 art gallery quality poster.

Yup, would pretty much agree with this one -

Altho in my shop, I can produce a high-quality framed image for quite a bit less than $120-$140 ($40 or so), not including my labor nor the shoot time for the image. When I price framed images at local retailers, that $120-$140 seems about right pricing for that size today ...

Amazing how quickly the retail prices jump so much faster than our "wages" ...
 
Upvote 0