Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Yet another limited edition post but different

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    390

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    On my wall I have three NW coast tribes numbered silkscreens. I read the certificates on each and all three guaranteed that the screen was destroyed at the end of the run. This got me thinking. The original image was not destroyed but the means of producing the copies was. If more images were to be made the artist would need to make an entirely knew screen. There would be differences in the knew screen. There is no way to avoid it. Thus my images would not look exactly like those images that were created with the new screen. This got me thinking about photography and in particular digital printing. Once a file is made and all of the tweaking done to make it look as nice as possible the author hits the print button and each image that comes out will be exactly like the first. Almost like the silkscreen process (though the screen does break down after a while it definately out lasts the small screening runs I tend to be drawn to.)

    SO, here is my question about the limited editions.

    Would digital printers be willing to destroy or delete their file after printing a run of say 100 images? By doing this they would ensure that, if they made a second run it would not be exactly the same as they would have to go in and tweak the image again from the master scan file, or rescan the image again all together thus going through all of the creative printing process again. In some cases I have read about people putting a hundred or more hours into this part of the work. By deleting their file they delete this work ad would be looking at doing it again if they wanted to run it a second time. To me this would make editions self limiting, as people would not be willing to go through the process again.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    192

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    It would be better to go back to the original matrix. A true limited edition in photography would really be one where the negative was destroyed after a certain run.

    Interesting how this crops up in all sorts of areas where there is no actual limit to the length of an edition, and how artifical the whole thing is when it isn't a one off medium - painting etc, or limited by the degredation of materials, but that through mechanical reproduction - the darkroom, the printing press, the computer

    Vis a vis this Michael Smith seems to have caused a furore on a couple of lists because he offered a series of books, each book in the series in two versions. One the joe schmo edition with 1000 paperpback copies; and one a collectors edition - hardbound, signed etc, "limited" to 100 copies. But apparently, in order to ensure the survival of the series, it has been decided at a later date, after the initial subscription to the series was offered, to increase the number of books in the limited edition - and presumably therefore to make more money.

    So it isn't just an issue in photography - it comes into all these creative forms where there is no inherrent form of limitation. When is it okay to decide to increase the number of items in an edition, or is it all just a marketing scam anyway, the introduction of a false sense of rarity - like DeBeers artificially limiting the supply of diamonds to increase their price?

  3. #3
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    I'm not sure I'd characterize limited editions as marketing scams, but rather marketing strategies, the success of which depends on several factors - the limited intelligence of the buyer, the unlimited greed of the collector (with buyer and collector potentially being the same person), and consistency of application. If the size of the "edition" is increased after the fact, or what is defined as the edition is phoney (e.g. sepia toned vs. selenium toned, or 11x14 vs 16x20), the application of the strategy is inconsistent, and the perceived rarity becomes a hoax.

  4. #4

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    The real question to answer is why would the artist want to limit the output of a successful image? If you have an image that everyone wants to buy, why not sell as many as you can make? If you limit an edition, you limit your income.

    You might, however, insure that everyone but yourself makes more money on subsequent sales of your image.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    110

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    Thomas Barrow addressed this in his "Cancellation Series" made from 1973 - 1977

    (see: http://www.geh.org/fm/mismis/htmlsrc14/barrow_sld00004.html)

    The whole idea of a limited edition for other than quality reasons (required in lithography and other types of fine art printing) is simply a false standard setup to try and artificially increase the perceived worth of the image.

    I have a friend who sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 photographic prints of a single image. The orginal image was a transparency. A 4x5 internegative was made from the transparency and contrast adjusted so that it would print with minimal darkroom histrionics.

    After about 10,000 prints from the interneg, the lab making the prints said they needed another one as the interneg had begun to fade, and they could no longer make quality prints.

    So, he had another interneg made. With the experience from the first interneg, he replaced the second at about 8,000 prints, and then again after another 8,000 prints.

    All of these images are printed on Kodak color paper - so they will be a self limiting edition as the image fades over time.

    None of the over 30,000 people who purchased the image ever enquired about how limited the edition was.

    Now, since I've just proven that someone has and/or can make over 30,000 images from a film transparency, why are you attempting to make this a digital-only issue?

  6. #6
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    "The real question to answer is why would the artist want to limit the output of a successful image? If you have an image that everyone wants to buy, why not sell as many as you can make? If you limit an edition, you limit your income."

    This may be true in some markets, but it's just not in others. Photographs are bought by collectors. Collectors are attracted to rarity as much as to quality. In most serious photography art markets, you will have a lot of trouble selling unlimited editions. You may well have trouble getting a dealer to represent you, or at least getting as good a dealer as you'd like. You might be eliminating your income; not increasing it.

    Limited editions are not a scam. No one's being lied to. Collectors know that the limit isn't intrinsic to the physical process. But they also want to know that there are 20 of these things in the world, not 20,000. It makes a difference to most of them when it comes time to invest.

    Question the psychology of the collectors' motives all you want. Just remember, they're paying the bills. And these issues have nothing to do with your creative vision. Personally, I don't want unlimited numbers of my images out there either, so it all works fine for me.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    628

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    Who cares?

    Is anyone going to change their printing, marketing, or purchasing decisions based on this endless discussion?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    192

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    "Limited editions are not a scam. No one's being lied to. Collectors know that the limit isn't intrinsic to the physical process. But they also want to know that there are 20 of these things in the world, not 20,000."

    What happens when an established artists or creator just decides to increase the edition from say 20 to 100 - because it's selling well or they need to make more money? Doesn't that decrease the integrity not just of their own work, but of the whole idea of "limited" editions? How do you prevent that?

  9. #9
    Format Omnivore Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    2,997

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    Photographs are bought by collectors. Collectors are attracted to rarity as much as to quality.
    Is anybody here a novelist? I just realized paulr just created a theme for a new murder novel. Collector bumps off LF photographers to increase the value of his collection.

    Perhaps the photographer's production should be placed into two categories. One would be what he does himself in the darkroom, and the other would be what is done at a lab.

    The photographs which are done by the photographer himself would normally be a self-limiting run, as there is just so much that one person can do. These would be signed, numbered, and dated. Naturally these photographs would command a premium price, beings that they are individually created by the artist himself.

    The photographs produced by a commercial lab would be unsigned and unnumbered. They would sell for a lower value.

    Thus if you have a popular image, you can supply to both markets without either one intruding on the other.
    "It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    390

    Yet another limited edition post but different

    Let me restate the original question:

    Would digital printers be willing to destroy or delete their file after printing a run of say 100 images? in much the same way the screen is destroyed in the top example.

    This not a "are limited editions valid or not" question. Obviously by doing this you ensure a greater value to your digitally created prints.

Similar Threads

  1. Limited vs unlimited edition prints?
    By Mike Tobias in forum Business
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 13-Jun-2009, 09:14
  2. Limited edition, not really that limited ?
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2005, 16:45
  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
  •