Limited edition, not really that limited ?

[QT Luong]

In a follow up to my thread about limited editions and posters (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502527.html), here is another interesting example. Robert Turner sells his prints
in editions of 100 (http://www.robertturnerphoto.com/print.htm), with a 16x20 going for $500.
Among them is the Pfeiffer cove (http://www.robertturnerphoto.com/detail_pages/Port_detail_13.htm). The Ansel Adams Gallery sells

that one (http://www.anseladams.com/Last-Light-Julia-Pfieffer-Cove-by-Robert-Turner-P330C300.aspx) 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.

[QT Luong]

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).

[Doug Dolde]

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

[David A. Goldfarb]

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."

[Oren Grad]

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.

[Bill_1856]

"This way to the EGRESS."

[QT Luong]

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 (http://www.anseladams.com/Last-Light-Julia-Pfeiffer-Cove-by-ROBERT-TURNER-P1392C158.aspx), 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.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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.

[Oren Grad]

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?

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

[Oren Grad]

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.

Well said. And the more elaborate and contrived the edition and pricing structure is, the more it becomes a parody of the whole art game.

I think that the ability to churn out additional identical prints at the push of a button runs a substantial risk of changing people's perceptions of what a photograph is and should be worth, and of undermining pricing power over the long run, particularly for photographers whose work is hard to distinguish from other work already out there - which is to say, most of us.

Speaking for myself, if I were ever to find an inkjet or other digital printing method that produces output I like, I'd happily sell prints for $100-200, rather than $750-1000. I know I would never make big bucks at it anyway, and as far as the ego gratification is concerned, I would gain much more satisfaction from knowing that 100 people bought my picture because they like the way it looks than I would from knowing that 10 well-heeled snobs bought it under the delusion that they were displaying their superior connoisseurship or were going to make a killing on a limited edition.

As for the purely tactical question of whether "reproduction prints" are likely to work as a marketing strategy, I can only speak for myself as one buyer among millions. If the $150 "reproduction print" from a contemporary photographer were indistinguishable from the "original", I'd buy it in preference to the original. And if it were clearly inferior, I wouldn't buy it at all - I'd go shopping for someone else's $50 poster instead.

[Brian Ellis]

"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."

"Limited edition" is a marketing ploy with most forms of printing including lithography, gravure, wood block, and etching. When an artist limits a lithograph for example to 25 or 100 or whatever number (within reason) they're engaging in a marketing ploy. While the plate would eventually wear out so that there's a finite number of prints that could be made even without the limitation (unlike photography), that number is typically much greater than the typical edition number, which is why the plate is supposed to be struck after the edition number is reached. But I agree that the practice of artificially limiting editions is particuarly artificial with photography, where the number of potential prints that could theoretically be made without limitation is probably in the hundreds of thousands or more with digital. Still, it's an accepted practice and I don't begrudge any photographer trying to make a decent living in whatever ethical way he or she can.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Picasso lithographs are now worth a decent amount of money. They aren't the originals but have their own merits.

[Oren Grad]

Still, it's an accepted practice and I don't begrudge any photographer trying to make a decent living in whatever ethical way he or she can.

There's nothing immoral or unethical about a limited edition per se, even if the tactics used in selling them are often silly and sometimes downright sleazy. I do wonder how much pricing power such artificial limitation will achieve over the long run as people come to understand how these new types of prints are produced.

How much are people willing to pay for a machine-manufactured book, no matter how much skilled craft and esthetic judgment went into designing the book and setting up the production run? It's not obvious to me why an inkjet or LightJet print should be different - skilled craft and sensitive judgment are required to arrive at the preferred rendering, but then it's just a matter of tending the machine - the "press" - as it churns out as many as you want. For my own taste, I'd actually pay more for a good tri- or quadtone gravure book than I would for any inkjet print I've seen, but in neither case would I be willing to spend many hundreds of dollars.

[John_4185]

In a few years I will be selling the negative along with the best print. Why not?

[paulr]

"For my own taste, I'd actually pay more for a good tri- or quadtone gravure book than I would for any inkjet print I've seen, but in neither case would I be willing to spend many hundreds of dollars."

there are evidently quite a few people who agree with you ... and there are plenty of options for things to buy that were made from more traditional processes.

the growing majority, though, seems to care more about the image and hardly at all about the process. i was just at the photo new york expo last weekend, and spoke with a number of gallery exhibitors who were selling a mix of inkjet and traditional prints. they said the marked just doesn't care. if they like the image, they want the print. Rixon Reed from photo-eye, who is hardly a radical, said that he's been selling nick brandt's black and white ink prints for over $2000 a piece. the issue of the materials just doesn't come up for him. his clients range from serious collectors to walk-ins.

personally, i limit my inkjet prints editions for two reasons: the market demands it, and i don't want an unlimited number of them floating around out there. enough is enough. i do take advantage of the process by printing larger editions than i'm willing to in silver. this lets me sell them for less, but not for dirt cheap. my edition size is about three times as big in ink as in silver, and my price is a little over a third. in the end i get paid about the same for the same amount of work (at least in a magic world where i sell out my editions). the price is still in the many hundreds, and i am not willing, for many reasons, to go cheaper than that.

[Brian Ellis]

"Picasso lithographs are now worth a decent amount of money. They aren't the originals but have their own merits."

I don't know what you mean by this. A lithograph is an original print. Do you mean Picasso made a painting and then copied it by making a lithographic plate? Maybe so, I'm not a Picasso expert, but I've not heard of copying paintings by making a lithographic plate and then running off copies. Lithographs are themselves normally the original print even though there may be 100 or 500 or whatever prints made, each is considered an original if made from the original plate.

[Brian Ellis]

"There's nothing immoral or unethical about a limited edition per se . . . "

I didn't suggest that there was. I said it was an accepted practice.

[Oren Grad]

i was just at the photo new york expo last weekend, and spoke with a number of gallery exhibitors who were selling a mix of inkjet and traditional prints. they said the marked just doesn't care. if they like the image, they want the print. Rixon Reed from photo-eye, who is hardly a radical, said that he's been selling nick brandt's black and white ink prints for over $2000 a piece.

OK, I guess that if commercial success is the objective, probably the best strategy will be to do the exact opposite of anything I recommend. ;-)

Seriously, here's a question about which you're likely to know much more than I do - do you have a sense of what the going rate is these days for lithographs or other limited edition non-photographic prints from artists who are generally respected but not considered superstars? Or are market conditions too variable to generalize about this?

[Oren Grad]

Brian - Understood; I didn't mean to imply that and am sorry if it came across that way. I thought that people might read it into my own cranky observations and wanted to draw the distinction.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Some of Picasso's lithographs were signed on the plate and were designed to be lithographs. Others were reproductions of existing works and signed on the print.

[CXC]

When the limited-edition-ness of a print becomes relevant to the price, then something more than the print is being sold; call it "collectability". Collectability is a cross product of market forces and psychological factors, and a more sophisticated level of salesmanship is required. These are business concerns, and have nothing to do with aesthetics or art.

There often is the implication that a limited edition print is artistically superior to a print from a subsequent (call it) poster run of the same image. When such superiority is in fact not present in the limited edition (or invisible to the buyer, which amounts to the same thing), then unless it is explicitly denied, one enters into a foggy moral area where unethical business practices are likely.

I don't mean to imply that buying something for its collectability is silly or stupid, just that it is an invisible quality that is independent of the value of the visual art. For instance, I would pay substantially more for a print handmade by St. Ansel, than I would for the same image cut out of a book, even if I couldn't see any difference between the two. The mechanics of the limited edition are the means whereby the seller would guarantee the handmadeness to me.

[Oren Grad]

the growing majority, though, seems to care more about the image and hardly at all about the process

Just to be clear, in the specific context of book vs inkjet, the reason I'd pay more is that I think the book looks better.

It's hard to separate process snobbery from esthetic preference because, at least when it comes to monochrome prints, the products of the new processes just look different from those made in the traditional ways, and personal preferences could go one way or the other.

That said, in principle I could see myself paying a modest premium for a work rendered using a particular process even if the process had no impact on the final appearance, if I wanted to show my respect and support for the efforts of a particular craftsman whose work I admire. But there are pretty tight limits to how far I would go, and I wouldn't ever pay a large premium for a work of art or craft that is expensive purely because of the scarcity value of an artificially limited edition, regardless of the process that was used to produce it.

[paulr]

CXC, i think that's an excellent summary of the issues.

there's one way a smart collector can often outsmart the market ... by buying a later print rather than a vintage print. the idea that a print made early in the edition (or within x years of the making of the negative) is going to be better is a silly one that i suspect was created by dealers, and carried over from traditional printmaking (where the quality of the impression was physically better early on).

part of the justification for this is that earlier prints will somehow be closer to the photographer's original vision. i see many cases, though, when the photographer's vision, or maybe skills, improved over the years. in these cases, the later print is better, at least to my eyes. and it's invariably cheaper. if i was a collector, this is where i'd be looking for my bargains.

[Bee Flowers]

If I were a collector, I'd most definitely prefer owning something from 1950 than from 2005, even if the craft had improved in the meanwhile. Collectors collect *objects*, not visions: visions they can see in a book, in the museum, or even on the internet.

[QT Luong]

Ansel did have a series of prints done by assistants and initialed by him rather than signed. They cost much less and enable purchasers to have an AA print without the cost of the final enlarged exhibition print. Not a bad way to go. Is this any different than the marketing ploy being used by the photographer mentioned to start this topic?

One could argue that the difference between AA prints and the assistant's prints was clear enough, since both were made by hand, one of them being AA's own hand. For a machine-made print, the distinction sounds more problematic. Would the crux of the matter be whether both prints are made using the same master file ? What if the master file for the original print was not prepared by the photographer in the first place ? Note that those questions are general, and do not necessarily refer to the photographer taken as example. I learned about a number of other well-known photographers who engage in the practice of "reproduction/special edition" prints. A few particularly succesfull photographers, by their own admission, do not do the digital work on their images.

[Oren Grad]

A few particularly succesfull photographers, by their own admission, do not do the digital work on their images.

A few particularly successful photographers who work purely with analog processes, for example Salgado, also don't do their own printing. Should that matter?

[QT Luong]

I would expect those photographers who do not print or prepare master files themselves not to have two series of prints marketed like AA did, since none of them would be distinguished as "made by the photographer".

[Oren Grad]

OK, I see you're continuing to refine the definition of not-quite-original prints.

Just one observation about the original question re the meaning of "reproduction" - in the absence of any further explanation, I would assume that this means a second generation print, created by scanning or photographing an original print and then putting the resulting copy image on to paper with a printing processs that may or may not be the same as the one originally used. It wouldn't have occurred to me to use "reproduction" to refer to different editions printed from the same master digital file, or from the same negative (as, for example, Alan Ross' current "Yosemite Special Edition" prints from AA's negatives).

[paulr]

"I would assume that this means a second generation print, created by scanning or photographing an original print and then putting the resulting copy image on to paper with a printing processs that may or may not be the same as the one originally used."

This has always been a gray area. The whole idea of an "original print" is a bit oxymoronic, but it's an idea we tend to respect without having a firm definition for it. A purist might say that no print is original; the original is the negative, the painting, the etching plate, or the lithographer's stone, and the nature of any printmaking medium is to sell reprproductions and not originals. But still, some reproductions strike us as more original than others.

One of the darkest gray areas has been when someone uses a commercial lab to print a limited edition. There's nothing wrong with this, but it raises the question of how this edition can be distinguished from any other reproduction that comes along afterwards. It's not even a safe bet that a poster edition will be made from a print; it may well be made from an original chrome or from a scanned negative.

[Oren Grad]

It's not even a safe bet that a poster edition will be made from a print; it may well be made from an original chrome or from a scanned negative.

Good point.

I think the reason the attribute of "originality" is attached to the print is that that the negative by itself isn't enough to determine what the print will look like - even people like me who are allergic to local manipulation still have to choose a paper, contrast grade, developer, toner, etc. In that sense, the negative isn't quite analogous to the printing plate or the lithographer's stone.

One could ask whose "hand" is responsible for the print if a modern-day Ansel Photoshops the picture to his satisfaction, then asks his assistant to take his place at the workstation to click the "Print" button and replenish paper and ink. But I'm not sure that conceptually that's any different from the vintage Ansel handing an exposed sheet of paper to an assistant to run through the fix and wash, or a gravure artist having an assistant help with the press, or many other comparable examples that you could think of.

The search for an unambiguous shorthand is really the challenge here, in part because any terminology is sure to be abused as some sellers push the envelope to gain an advantage with unwary buyers. But if one is selling a print, it's not hard to explain in a sentence or two where it came from and how it was made. That should be the standard of responsible business practice, allowing the buyer to decide for himself what types of provenance he values.

[Oren Grad]

In that sense, the negative isn't quite analogous to the printing plate or the lithographer's stone.

Or maybe I'm just being ignorant about gravure, lithography, etc. - I guess there must be plenty of choices of ink, paper, etc. for those processes as well, which ought to make the print itself definitive for those media too.

[Steve Wadlington]

I haven't seen any current prints from the AA Gallery. About 20 years ago I saw 8x10 reprints at the gallery that were wretched. Dark and muddy, really embarassing.

This my first post here. I recently was overcome with the urge to pull out my view camera which I hadn't use in 25 years. Oddly enough, the purchase of a Nikon D7o digital last year, brought back the pleasure of photography. Now I'm wanting more definition in the images, which wasn't quite there in the digcam.

[steve_782]

"Limited edition" is a marketing ploy with most forms of printing including lithography, gravure, wood block, and etching. When an artist limits a lithograph for example to 25 or 100 or whatever number (within reason) they're engaging in a marketing ploy..."

Not if it is a fine art lithograph made by drawing directly on a stone or plate; and then printed. There is a real limited run on these type of lithographs as the grain in the stone or plate begins to break down after about 75 prints. This can be easily seen in the prints where textures change or fine details are lost, especially in areas made with washes.

In other areas, the stone or plate will begin to block as the grain breaks down. This is because raw stone or the raw plate is exposed in the areas where the grain has broken down. Therefore, the stone or plate is no longer etched in that area and there is no gum layer adsorbed to the surface. The ink is not repelled in these areas and they block up. Once the areas are filled, it is nearly impossible to recover the areas because of the damage and changes caused by attempting to clean and then re-etch the areas.

Etching plates undergo much the same type of breakdown as details are filled in or worn off from the pressure and friction. While the limited edition may used as a marketing ploy for some type of prints, it is definitely NOT so for fine art lithographs, etchings, woodblock prints, or linoleum block prints. There is a true limited life (in number) of prints that can be made before the image changes from the printing process itself.

With fine art lithographs done with stones, after the edition is made the stones are reground after printing so there is no way to make additional prints. When plates are used, the plates may be stored for some length of time, but it is my experience that the plates cannot be stored for an unlimited amount of time without lacquering the image to fix it. This causes another set of problems that can result in changes to the image. In most cases, when printing from original plates, the artist will not want the plates stored because of the changes that are inherent in the lacquering process - and the plates are destroyed.

So, once you are done making a fine art lithographic edition, you cannot make anymore - that seems fairly limited to me.

[Pascal Quint]

this is a perfect example of the sort of commercial and ethical situation you can get yourself in because of the "unnatural" or false nature of such limited editions. In this case not photographs, but books from M. Smith's Lodima Press. What happens when you want to make more from an edition because it appears more sucessful than you thought at first?

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20596

(i almost bought into the edition. I am glad I did not)