Thoughts on limited editions

[paulr]

It really doesn't matter how the system started, are for whose benefit it was initially. At this point it's just the way that market is. Is if you're going to sell in that particular market, you're going to have a much harder time if you don't follow its conventions. This is what I mean when I say you'll make more money by editioning your work in that world ... if you don't edition it, you might not sell anything. You might not even get in the door.

I've seen plenty of people in the high end gallery world use a tiered system of increasing values, like you describe. maybe some dealers don't like it, but plenty of them do.

[Merg Ross]

Bill beat me to it, but I immediately thought of Pepper # 30. Weston offered it as a limited edition of 50. Whether he ever made 50 prints is open to debate. However, I can say for certain that at one time I owned 30/50 of Pepper # 30 and assumed that he had at least made 30 prints from that negative. But, as we know, the negative was not retired and Cole continued to make prints of Pepper #30 for many years after Edward's death in 1958. So, I guess the important thing is to know what to limit, how to limit, and when to limit.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

The gallery market drives editions as it creates demand and incentive for a buyer to get in while the number is low and the price is low. I have never had a gallery tell me they don't like the "tiered system" of pricing as this is the tool used to drive the sale - but then I don't sell a lot of prints through galleries.

Heck, I don't sell a lot of prints period, so I limit mine to 25 prints plus 4 artist proofs that I can use as gifts to gallery owners, friends, etc. The AP should never exceed 10% of the edition total as far as I am concerned as it deflates the reason for the edition. The couple of galleries I work with like the 25 number and the price is tiered to increase with every 5 sold which seems fairly standard these days. Also, I only print each image in one size, that size being one I think the image looks best at.

Of course, a person has to be honest and ONLY print the number allowed in his/her editions. If they get a hot seller, and it actually sells out ( which is RARE) then they should be honest and not print the image any more. One photographer I know of here in Denver will actually cut the negative in two after the final print and the buyer gets it taped to the back of the image! Now that is sticking to your edition.

Of course, I think smaller editions also command a higher price ( supply vs demand and all that). I cannot recall who said it or where I read it, but a photographer was quoted as saying that everytime a person buys a print it should hurt a little, and every time he sells a print it should hurt a little ( perhaps this was Stu Levy - not sure). The point being that the print price should reflect the pride and hardwork of the phorographer, and the limit should be small in order to support the price and the market. A small limit gives the artist reason to get out and make more images he/she likes ( I guess).

If I were ever to sell all 25 iamges of a print then I would jump for joy, kiss my wife, take my kids to the park and then drink a couple bottles of fine wine in the quiet of my den. So far, my number one selling print is at 11 out of 25. The image was made almost 15 years ago now, so I can't celebrate yet ( of course I still kiss my wife, play with the kids and drink wine - just bad wine).

It has been fun reading this thread, thanks to all for the great comments.

www.ericbiggerstaff.com

[Ben Crane]

I think most collectors, at least ones who are willing to pay more than a few hundred dollars for a print are savy enough to realize that a mediocre print by an little known photographer in an edition of 100 will never sell out. Thus I think having a limited edition only helps with fairly low priced work or if there is a chance that the edition will actually sell out. Most collectors also understand that even if there isn't a stated price increase with incremental sales, most artists tend to increase the prices of their more popular work over time. Collectors also realize that photographers will eventually stop printing or die in which case the prints made by the photographer during their lifetime will become limited and more valuable.

One problem with a limited edition is that in the rare instance of a really good print that does sell out the edition then galleries will be unlikely to promote that print to possible customers because none will be available to sell. Seeing a print at a friends home or in a public location is a great tool for promotion. I believe some prints and photographers become more popular and famous partly because there are so many prints sold. I was told by a former Ansel Adams assistant that he printed Moonrise over 1000 times. Would the image be as popular if he stopped printing it at 50? Would he have been richer?

Finally I think limiting an edition only helps sell the print to those collectors who are considering a print as an investment and it actually excludes collectors who buy because they have an intrinsic interest in the work.

[Jeff Moore]

I think the whole concept of limited editions is complete horse@#$%.

Brooks Jensen of Lenswork wrote a fairly lengthy essay on the subject, which can be found here: http://www.lenswork.com/whatsizeistheedition.pdf

My position on the issue is the same as his.

[Doug Keyes]

My philosophy about limited editions is keep it small. I don't print my own color work so I started out by making editions of 6 because that is where the best price break was at my lab. I also didn't want to manage alot of prints or become a print "factory" for lack of a better term. I show in several galleries and they all like limited editions for the same reason I do. The price can start higher and can go up quicker over time as the edition sells out. It also shows that you are interested in producing work/ideas more than producing prints. I feel my time is valuable like everyone does so I look at the potential income from the complete edition. Often this is the same as someone doing 20, 30 or more prints in their edition since they start at a lower price. Ultimately, I want to spend my time creating images not producing, storing, shipping, framing, etc.

As far as who benefits, everyone does. The gallery (higher price per print), the collector (as the edtion sells out their purchase is worth more), and the artist. I print several artist proofs, one to trade, one to keep for color control and one to sell at a later date if I want. (why should the collectors be the only ones who benefit from the investment?)

If an artist wants to get their name and images out to a larger audience, put it on the web, print posters/ postcards, publish a book, etc. These are the ways to keep your fine art print editions small but still distribute the image in a way that gets you visibility.

With all that said, there is some pressure to make editions slightly larger as your work matures so that a wider audience can afford your work. (larger edition, lower per print prices) Start out with edition of ten when your "undiscovered", then 25 when your established in several galleries or have an audience, then 50 as you become nationally/internationally known. Yes, I would love to have this dilemma, but for now I'll keep it small and hope for the best.

[adrian tyler]

things were very different 50 years ago, now photographs are a part of mainstream "art" and if this is what you aspire to then you have to strictly edition your work. however there are a very small percentage of photographers producing such work. certainly when one body of work is finished it is stimulating to move on to another, but it is not the same selling selling 12 prints at $75.00 to 12 prints at $4,000.00. so my point is that if you choose that your work is going to be professionally represented in the elite art world, then those are your pre-established rules.

however there are other systems out there which may be better suited to your creative output. your work may make great posters, or stock, i mean you may like to photograph golf courses which would sell best in the clubhouse, or simply be suited to longer runs that sell cheaper in more diverse places. there are examples also of non-art based institutions who don't edition prints and work well like magnum, who represent many fine photographers.

another intersting thread may be how these editions are arrived at... and another thought, many artist's lithographs/prints (picasso, miro, barcelo etc.) were/are editioned in hundreds...

[Capocheny]

Hi Paddy,

Ahh... I must have been asleep at the wheel and missed your point... like a 767 zooming overhead!

But, spot on! I'm in full agreement with you on this point.

Cheers

.

Bill,

"Like it or not, pretty soon virtually all photographic printingf is going to be done with inkjets (or some other, more advanced, digital gizmo), and instead of the photographer taking hours to make a print (0r a few of them), it's just a question of getting the file right for the first print, then pushing a button for as many as are wanted."

Yikes, I'm not sure whether this is going to be for the better or not... But, I have to agree with you on this one... that's what it could boil down to in the future. However, I know there's always going to be people out there who "want" to print their own prints via an enlarger and traditional photographic paper. So, John K's point is well taken... imagine printing 100 prints of the same image and getting them to all be consistent (especially if there's a lot of burning/dodging etc.) Of course, under the circumstance, this speaks to the advantage of a digital image.

I'm sure there are folks who prefer the idea of digital prints but I guess I'm from the "old school" where I have a personal preference for a traditionally printed image.

This isn't to say that digital prints aren't good or anything like that... simply a personal preference or bias.

.

Interesting perspectives on limited editions... thanks for posing the issue Chris.

I try and learn something about something every day! Stimulating debate!

Cheers all!

[julian_4860]

>>I disagree Paul, galleries are the ones demanding these "editions" for their benefit and the benefit of the collectors. Lets not kid ourselves into thinking it is for our benefit

I hate to agree with Jorge but in this he is right. Limiting editions adds added value for galleries and collectors who then want to resell work later. A CJ print from a sold out edition quickly increases in value for the buyer, not CJ! Most artists try to allow for this by jacking up the price as the editions nears sell out.
I'm no where near selling as many prints as you do, Chris, but I sell in small editions becuase collectors and galleries expect it, also, as I get few shots at exhibitions, every sale I make has to pay for the work for the year...
like the new stuff by the way...

[neil poulsen]

My gut level reaction is that I don't care for limited editions. It makes sense with an engraving, where too many pressings (if that's what they're called) from the same plate taxes quality of the image. But in photography, it's entirely artificial. I guess that I don't care for artificiality.

For me, it goes back to our reason for being in photography. Is it to make money, or is it to provide the pleasure and benefit of our craft to others? Is our art inward directed, or is it outward directed? Are we in this world to provide a net gain or a net benefit? I'm always flattered when I'm asked for a print of one of my images. One of the neat things about photography is that fine art images can be reproduced.

I say this knowing that marketing strategies are justified and needed. Perhaps the one that makes sense is the tiered approach. Raise the price the more an image is requested. (Up to a point.) This encourages people to purchase early, if they think a print is good. It gives everyone the opportunity to purchase any image at a reasonable price. Yet, the print always remains available. This strategy is still in keeping with the principle of supply and demand.

There can be a point where we get tired of printing an image, where repeated printing has an affect on the quality of an image. Like with engraving, perhaps this is the point at which an image should be retired.