Editioning prints

[Richard Mahoney]

Why bother? That whole editioning nonsense is basically a ploy adapted from lithography, where the impression plate would simply wear out anyway. Then photolithography came along (posters), and sleazy gallery marketers would start putting edition numbers on things just to look like they were collectible, when they generally weren't. Now you've got digital printing and the possibility of cranking out multiples, but who really sells that many of a given image anyway?

As Drew rightly points out, there are various factors involved in the adoption of photographic print versioning, many of which have more to do with marketing than the medium. I've given this link before, but I'll give it again. This subject is often raised and deserves the sort of balanced consideration given to it by Paul McNamara:

McNAMARA GALLERY - PHOTOGRAPHY - WANGANUI NEW ZEALAND
An introduction to the editioning of photographs

This text, which should be seen as a discussion paper, will be reviewed periodically [last revision 21.1.11]

It has been discussed at public forums in Auckland [Webb's Auctions July 2008] & Melbourne [Centre for Contemporary Photography, March 2009] and there was no significant dissension to the notions put forward.

Paul McNamara
Association of International Photography Art Dealers member
McNAMARA GALLERY Photography

http://www.mcnamara.co.nz/news.html

Please scroll right down for the text.


Kind regards,

Richard

[paulr]

I generally stuck with the old fashioned notion that prints in edition should look pretty close to the same, and should be printed all at once. But this is far from a rule. Many photographers who sell much more than I ever have use an open-ended method. The edition number is just a promise. They'll make the actual prints as needed. This is how I'm editioning all my digital prints.

What Drew calls a ploy is simply a guarantee. It's an acknowledgement that value is determined in part by rarity. Collectors would like to know that when they buy a photograph of yours, in the event that it becomes wildly popular, this popularity will translate into increased value for them and not just total ubiquity of the image.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, my idea of rarity is one of a kind - i.e., printed once and never again, and
expect to pay a premium.

[cyrus]

If I do limited editions, then a second edition would definitely be substantially different from the first (After all, the whole reason I would do a second edition is because I want to be able to reinterpret a negative.)

My editions will be "self-limiting" in the sense that I will get bored and move onto something else, or I won't be able to afford too many plat prints in a session. They are "limited" in the sense that I can only produce a few prints per printing session, not in the sense that I have predetermined to only print a certain number of prints. However since I can't promise that I would never again print a copy that is similar to a print in an existing edition, then I guess it would be better for me to not call them "limited" editions thus avoiding confusion. I would still maintain a certain exclusivity by ensuring that I carefully record the number of prints per session/edition, making sure each print is uniquely identifiable and able to be tracked to a particular printing session, so collectors know that their collectible print isn't just another one in a million or something. Since platinum printing is so darned expensive I don't think they'll have to worry! Also, there's enough "natural" variety in platinum printing that I don't think I could get two prints to look alike no matter how hard I tried. Whoever said that photographs were "endlessly reproducibile" didn't know about alt processes. I guess that's why the link suggested by Richard mentions referring to these prints as "multiple originals" ?


It would be oh so much easier if I just sequentially numbered and dated the prints, of course, and ran them off whenever the spirit moved me, and was free to try different interpretations of the neg during the same printing session. Come to think of it, I might just KISS and do that. I don't expect to print huge numbers of prints anyway. I'll just keep track of the number of prints per session so the collectors still know how many other prints there are out there.

[cyrus]

Noah - I tried visiting your website at http://www.noahaddis.com/

but it was down?

[Noah A]

Noah - I tried visiting your website at http://www.noahaddis.com/

but it was down?

The problem was on the hosting end but it seems to be cleared up now.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[paulr]

Well, my idea of rarity is one of a kind - i.e., printed once and never again, and
expect to pay a premium.

You can have whatever idea you want, but for most English speakers rarity is a relative term, not an ablsolute one ... and in the world of art prints (photographic or otherwise) it's defined by some finite, non-zero number.

[Jim Jones]

. . . It would be oh so much easier if I just sequentially numbered and dated the prints, . . .

That sounds like the best system I've seen anyone promote. It's a great way for posterity to evaluate the progress of your life's work, too.

[Richard Mahoney]

... It would be oh so much easier if I just sequentially numbered and dated the prints, of course, and ran them off whenever the spirit moved me, and was free to try different interpretations of the neg during the same printing session. Come to think of it, I might just KISS and do that. I don't expect to print huge numbers of prints anyway. I'll just keep track of the number of prints per session so the collectors still know how many other prints there are out there.

I found it hard not to smile on reading what you had to say Cyrus. In my opinion, this is not only the easiest, but also the right thing to do. It frees one to do what I believe one should really be doing. Rather than spending time trying to [cynically ?] manipulate the demand for one's prints, one could just concentrate on creating images. If we want to sell our work then we can't afford to be naive, but equally, that doesn't mean that we are obliged to behave like hawkers.


Kind regards,

Richard

[lloyd]

There can sometimes be other issues as well. Here in Newport, RI (and some other parts of the state) we have a tax free art zone--at least for the political moment. For photographs to be eligible as 'tax-free art' they must be in limited and not open editions.