Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    108

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    I don't understand the concept of a limited edition print unless the phrase means that the negative and/or digital file is destroyed or permanently retired once the edition has been sold. Nor do I understand why a photographer would destroy or permanently retire a good negative.

    Here are my questions:

    If you are a vendor of limited edition prints, do you in fact destroy or retire the negative and/or digital file once the edition has been sold? If not, what do you think limited edition means?

    If you are a buyer of prints, what do you think limited means, do you care whether an edition is limited and, if so, why?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    390

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    I've wondered this myself. I know that in casting the mold is destroyed and Northwest Coast Native artisans destroy the screens after the last silkscreened print is made. Maybe photographers do what bret Weston did on his eightieth-at least I think it was his eightieth-birthday.

  3. #3

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    There is probalby some contributors who are involved in art collecting so their opinions may differ, but:

    as a buyer (which I am currently not) I would expect "limited" to mean one of the two:

    1. print is available ONLY in stated quantity and will not ever be reprinted (except in publications such as books, calendars etc.), so the number is fixed which hoepfully will drive its value through the roof. I see how collectors might want this. I don't know if this has ever been done.

    or

    2. print is available in stated quantity ONLY in the specific format/extra features (like original signature). This approach would allow the print to sell in other forms and would likely not be as valueable.
    Witold
    simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...

  4. #4
    multiplex
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    local
    Posts
    5,345

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    hi rory

    i am guilty of destroying negatives after i make a good print ... well, not all my negatives .. i make "hybrid" prints - from found items, glass, plastics, ink adhesives &c with / without a camera made negative - i "dissassemble" / destroy my negative after i get a good print. i do this mainly because i don't want to be able to make another. i think it is a great thing to be able to make print after print of the same negative (sometimes i do it myself ) but i also like the idea of having a singular item that can not be reproduced.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    My only major holding of a limited edition print is a very large "nude in a bathtub" by Kim Weston, purchased at Maggi Weston's Gallery in Carmel. It was limited to a single enlarged print, and the cancelled 8x10 negative is glued to the back of the mount. I personally think that limiting the number of prints is a counterproductive thing to do, (particularly since we all know how easy it would be to cheat). The size of the marketplace will automatically limit the quantity of prints; for example, I think there are only about 15 genuine "Pepper #30" prints by EW. Frankly, I would prefer that they just sequentially number the prints as they are made or sold.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  6. #6
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    It's pretty rare that originals are destroyed. But I believe most artists keep to their word not to print over the edition number. Sometimes, one can get away with making a few more prints and selling tham as "artist's proofs" or something like that, but even this practice has been questionned. Of course, it's all about the economics of creating scarcity to elevate value of an object that otherwise could be mass-producted.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    Almost all of my negatives are images of my family, and destroying them is as unthinkable as someone wanting to buy one. Clearly the motivation is different for artists selling their work, but I wonder if they suffer pangs of remorse when they retire/destroy a negative, or if they're relieved to be done with that image and move on. Probably the answer is both, depending on the artist and the image. I find it fascinating that the market introduces destruction into the act of creation. Interesting thread.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    640

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    It raises the question: If you were to purchase a limited edition, where the terms of "limited" were stated and meant no more prints and limitation on other reproductions (eg. only in books and under a certain size) and the shyster did print some more past that, then would you have legal recourse? And against whom? The seller or photographer? And for how long; if the heirs decide to make a print 50 years later, can you pursue action? I would be leaning towards some sort of contract breach or misleading advertising.

    Of course, a ULF polaroid is a true limited edition...

  9. #9

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    This is a great topic for discussion, Rory, and I look forward to seeing more of others' responses. I also agree with you in thinking that this label, "limited edition," is problematic. Here's what the respected A Gallery for Fine Photography in Louisiana says:

    "Every day we educate our guests with the important fact that an original photograph of this quality is handmade, signed, and copyright protected by the photographer. We correct the impression that these originals are easy to make. We convey the truth that in reality, the editions, whether open or limited, exist mostly in quantities of less than 200--and that only a very few have reached 700-1000 in a photographer's lifetime. Even so, each and every one of the originals have a type of uniqueness since they are almost always printed one or two at a time over a many year period."

    So far as I know, Ansel Adams produced only open editions of his images. I believe he printed on demand or when his stock of a given image was getting low, and that these additional prints were given sequentially higher numbers. Even so, the most hotly collected image of the 20th Century, Adams' "Moonrise Over Hernandez," numbers only about 1100 prints.

    I number my prints sequentially as produced and also by size, so that there is a number 1 print in 16x20 and also in 8x10, for instance. I wrestled with this, not sure it was the best way to handle the issue, but my research showed that this is the most common practice among fine-arts photographers. I'm thinking that I'll eventually impose a moratorium on printing a given negative when the number of prints from it in all sizes collectively equals 200, but that decision is still a ways off for me. Even with an image I've become weary of printing, I'm not sure I could bring myself to destroy its negative.

    I fear this is one of those topics among both buyers and sellers that generates more heat than light.

    --James

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,794

    A question for sellers and buyers of limited edition prints

    "If you are a buyer of prints, what do you think limited means, do you care whether an edition is limited and, if so, why?"

    It depends on why you're buying. How much you're paying. If you're a collector then it might matter if it's limited. If you're investing with the hope the print will go up you REALLY care if it's limited. If you are just buying something nice to cover the hole in the wall then no you don't care if it's limited or not.

    On the issue why a photographer would destroy a negative or otherwise limit a print. The reasoning is pretty simple. You belive the stream of income from the limited edition will be higher then the amount you'll get from an unlimited print. One way to think about it is that no matter how good a print is the world holds a limited number of buyers. You really aren't limiting yourself a great deal by limiting the number of prints. Hopefully you're getting more per print.

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. Limited edition, not really that limited ?
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2005, 16:45
  4. Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 6-Jul-2005, 10:17

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
  •