Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Limited edition, not really that limited ?

  1. #1
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    In a follow up to my thread about limited editions and posters, here is another interesting example. Robert Turner sells his prints
    in editions of 100, with a 16x20 going for $500.
    Among them is the Pfeiffer cove. The Ansel Adams Gallery sells

    that one
    for $175. It is also a 16x20, but it is said to be a "photographic reproduction of original work".
    Does the fact of calling something an original and something a reproduction make it so, when both are lightjets ?
    Your thoughts ?

    PS: If there is something that I missed, my apologies in advance to all concerned.

  2. #2
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    I assume the "original prints" are signed and numbered, and the "repro prints" are unsigned. By the way,
    for an example of "originals" and "reproduction" offered on the same site, see
    http://www.seewald.com (he also has a very interesting marketing scheme).

  3. #3
    Doug Dolde
    Guest

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    Actually he sells Pfeiffer Cove 16x20 for $750...it's called a Tier 3 image.

  4. #4
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    Presumably a "photographic reproduction" is a dupe of a print taken with another camera. According to Turner's site, the images are shot with Velvia and output to LightJet. The Adams Gallery describes the repro as a "chromogenic negative photograph," which suggests that they shoot a color neg of the print, and print the dupe either optically or digitally.

    Are you sure they are both LightJets? I'd guess that if the Adams Gallery wanted to output to LightJet, they might dupe it using a scanning back, rather than with a "chromogenic negative."

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,634

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    Not clear whether the version of that picture sold by AA is actually a LightJet - they do sell other Turner prints, not characterized as "reproductions", at the full price.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    "This way to the EGRESS."
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  7. #7
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    I thought "chromogenic negative" refered to a type-C print (as opposed to positive process such that type R and ilfochrome), rather than to a print made using a negative. I am not positive that the "repro prints" are lightjets, but in these days, it is relatively uncommon to find a contemporary type-C print that is not a lightjet. I didn't realize that the image is
    also available at AA, and note that the "original" is also called a "chromogenic negative". Rather than debating whether both are Lightjets or not, what I'd like the discussion to be about is this idea of "reproduction prints" of a limited edition.

  8. #8

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    what I'd like the discussion to be about is this idea of "reproduction prints" of a limited edition.

    I believe what they are trying to do is what many painters are doing presently with their oils and watercolors and selling "prints" made with ink jet. If you guys recall a few flame wars ago, one guy posted about ink jet "paintings", this is exactly what he is doing, taking a picture of a painting and then having it reproduced with ink jet.

    IMO it is not Kosher to say I have an edition that is worth $750 and I also have a "reproduction" that is worth $150 but looks exactly like the $750 picture. I dont get it, first, why would anybody pay $750 if they can get the same good picture for $150? And second, why make a reproduction that looks very similar (if not exactly) as the "edition"? I could understand if one was ink jet and the other was chromogenic, but so far it looks to me like a marketing ploy that does not fit very well to photography as opposed to painting.

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,634

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    For a contemporary photographer like Turner whose work is readily available in the original, and is competent but of no special distinction esthetically or historically, the notion of a "reproduction print" strikes me as a bit pompous and silly. Why not just print a high quality poster and sell it for $40-50 instead?

  10. #10
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Limited edition, not really that limited ?

    Interesting that they refer to the LightJet print as a "chromogenic negative" as well. I hadn't seen that either.

    I think what is relevant here is whether the "repro" is actually a reproduction of an actual print on paper, or whether it is a LightJet made from the same original digital file and just lacking Turner's signature and edition number. If the former, then it is no different from the original AA Special Editions, which were low cost dupes made from fine prints, that required no manipulation and could be made by assistants. If the latter, then I think there really is a question to be asked of whether the edition is really "limited."

    Of course this all points up how artificial it is to make limited editions of digital prints. It is ridiculous enough to do this with traditional prints, though one could argue that over time a color neg/transparency might fade, or a neg might be damaged, genuinely limiting the edition. For a digital file, as long as it's backed up and profiles are revised for new print technologies, there really is no sense to limiting the edition except as a marketing ploy.

Similar Threads

  1. Limited vs unlimited edition prints?
    By Mike Tobias in forum Business
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 13-Jun-2009, 09:14
  2. Yet another limited edition post but different
    By Mark_3632 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2005, 00:33
  3. Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 6-Jul-2005, 10:17
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2003, 16:28

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •