Yet another limited edition post but different

[Mark_3632]

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.

[Paddy Quinn]

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?

[Ralph Barker]

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.

[Joe Lipka]

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.

[steve_782]

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?

[paulr]

"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.

[CXC]

Who cares?

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

[Paddy Quinn]

"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?

[Brian C. Miller]

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.

[Mark_3632]

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.

[tim atherton]

"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"

You just knocked a reasoable number of some of the better photographers out of the game... (those whose work is only printed by a lab and not themselves)

[steve_782]

"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?"

You mean like when Ansel Adams actually was using a pin punch with the word "CANCELLED" that he would use to punch a negative after he had made XX amount of prints? He soon dropped that practice after he could no longer make more prints of the images he had cancelled - and had the market demand for the print.

The "reason" given for discontinuing the practice was that his archive (University of Arizona) requested him to stop the practice, so that his images could be studied by future scholars/ photographers . Yeah, okay.... sure... I guess it was just a coincidence... planets aligning...stars in the right quadrant...

Which brings up another point related to this discussion. AA had made a portfolio of 16x20 prints that had an edition number of about 100 (mid '70's - so I don't remember the exact number) - but, he never stopped printing the photos that were in the numbered edition. You could still purchase individual prints of the images in the portfolio.

Joel Witkin truly makes limited editions. When he makes an image, he will only make that image for a certain amount of prints which he scroupulously catalogs. After he has done the edition of prints, he will not make anymore prints of the image.

Part of this has to do with the amount of hand work or darkroom work required in producing the image, and once he's got his production method for that image, he does not want to attempt to replicate it at a later date.

The other part is that he's seen that by limiting the edition and sticking to that practice, it has increased the sale price of his images when first available, and has increased the secondary (auction / private sale) market price of his prints - which, in turn, feeds back into higher prices for a new images.

As for "preventing" additional images being made - isn't that a personal integrity issue and not something that can or should be "prevented" through some other means. If you're assuring your intended market that only a certain amount will be made, isn't that up to you to live up to your promise?

[Paddy Quinn]

"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. "

it's just another somewhat artificial form of limitation - one which lack the conviciton of actually destroying the original matrix - it's half hearted. Destroy the negative/transparency or orignal file if you want to take this rout.

This is basically the same question raised seventy years about art in the age of mechanical reproduction with photogorpahy used as the pritmne exampel - you can just keep making pritn after pritn after pritn if you want to - with all the same questions about the cult value of an original, the devalutation of art and so on. It's really nothing new

[steve_782]

"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. "

Let me restate my question - which you've ignored.

Why is this question aimed at digital images only? You can produce nearly unlimited amounts of analog photographs as well. The question is equally as valid for analog produced prints.

So, my question to you is - would you be willing to destroy your negative or transparency after making a certain amount of prints?

[tim atherton]

http://bid.berkeley.edu/bidclass/readings/benjamin.html

have a good read

[Paddy Quinn]

"You mean like when Ansel Adams actually was using a pin punch with the word "CANCELLED" that he would use to punch a negative after he had made XX amount of prints? He soon dropped that practice after he could no longer make more prints of the images he had cancelled - and had the market demand for the print.

The "reason" given for discontinuing the practice was that his archive (University of Arizona) requested him to stop the practice, so that his images could be studied by future scholars/ photographers . Yeah, okay.... sure... I guess it was just a coincidence... planets aligning...stars in the right quadrant...

As for "preventing" additional images being made - isn't that a personal integrity issue and not something that can or should be "prevented" through some other means. If you're assuring your intended market that only a certain amount will be made, isn't that up to you to live up to your promise?"

Yes, the more recent example is the one of photographer Michael Smith's Lodima Press. He initially promised a series of books, each book in the series having a signed and numbered Limited Collectors Edition of 100 books at a much higher price than the "standard" book. Subscribers were encouraged to sign up. Then, at a later date he found his costs haad risen (and possibly demand had too?) so he decided to scrap the original limit of 100 and increase it (200? 250? I don't recall).

Now, I'm not sure about limited edition publishing, but in many jurisdictions, contract issues aside, if that were artwoork - lithographs, photogoraps or such, that would generally be illegal under the legislation which covers selling art. Though perhaps it is because as I recall he has said in the past he doesn't believe in limited editions in photogorpahy and only makes open ended editions - and ths doesn't feel bound by such conventions. But maybe you can see the slope down which such problems lead because the very nature of such artificial limitations?

[steve_782]

Except his analysis is flawed from the start since he doesn't know (or want to recognize) that multiple exact copies of bronze statues have been made since bronze statuary was invented - sort of throws his whole bloviating analysis into question.

[tim atherton]

"The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity... etc"

I presume you didn't actually bother reading it?

[Mark_3632]

I am not asking you to destroy you slides or negs Steve. I am not even asking if folks are willing to erase their original raw scan. I am asking if you are willing to destroy the file you tweaked and did all of the creative work on. Don't look for implied meanings when none exist.

I do not see this as a problem in Analog. Every image is made by the hand of the artist. No two images are exactly alike. No matter how well I or anybody takes notes and makes diagrams no two images will ever be the same. This is the beauty of the hand process. This does not make it better than any digital printing method. That first print is exactly like the first print in a darkroom. The issue pops up once a file is created and archived. All a person has to do is hit the print button to get an infinite number of exact prints. All subsequent prints are EXACTLY like the first.

[Jeff Moore]

"Personally, I don't want unlimited numbers of my images out there either . . . "

No offense intended Paul, but frankly, I don't believe a word of that. If suddenly your artwork became so in demand that half the people in North America just had to have it, you are going to turn down the sales for the sake of staying within some artificial, arbitrarily set limited edition?

Not me, I'd start churning them out like Thomas Kinkaid. But then I am more of a capitalist than an artist.

I definitely subscribe to the Brooks Jensen (of Lenswork) school of thought on the subject. If an artist believes in his work, and has a desire to share his vision with as many people as possible, then the concept of limited editions directly contradicts this. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a scam, but you do have to admit, for better or worse, it has nothing to do with art and everything to do with marketing.

One other obvious truth that hasn't been said here: At least 99% of photographers and other artists who promote the use of limited editions are never going to have to worry about selling out an edition. And THAT is what is laughable about all this.

[Edward Mast]

I agree with Jeffrey Moore and Brooks Jensen. Limited editions benefit marketers/gallery owners and collectors/investors, but not the artists themselves or - most especially - not the person who wants to own a piece of art because he actually loves it.

[chris jordan]

Lots of photographers have increased their editions sizes in various tricky ways after the editions were supposedly sold out. But when it happens it is considered a broken promise of sorts, which bums out the collectors and and reduces the credibility of the photographer for later editions.

For my own work, when my editions sell out, I don't destroy the digital files for several reasons. First, I have reserved #1 of each edition for myself, plus a couple of artist proofs, and so the whole edition is not yet printed. I also can make non-editioned prints for exhibition, that won't be sold as part of my edition (those prints are mine, to be destroyed eventually). And despite the fact that the editions are sold out, those images will still be available for publication, books, magazines, etc., so the files must be around for that.

I also would consider doing another edition if some new amazing printing process comes out that is much more archival. For example, if in 25 years there is a carbon-pigment inkjet printer that makes 1000-year prints on a very archival paper, I'll probably print a small edition of those just so my prints can last longer. It would be a bummer at that point to have destroyed the digital files.

In other words, digital files are not synonymous with prints; there are lots of other reasons to keep the digital files around even after print editions are sold out.

The other thing is, even if someone destroyed their digital files, it would not be too difficult to make new prints from a well-made 8x10 copy transparency taken of another print. Using that process I think it would be possible to make new prints that were indistinguishable from prints made from the original digital files. Hmmmmmmm, let the counterfeitting begin...

[Mark_3632]

"For my own work, when my editions sell out, I don't destroy the digital files for several reasons. First, I have reserved #1 of each edition for myself, plus a couple of artist proofs, and so the whole edition is not yet printed. I also can make non-editioned prints for exhibition, that won't be sold as part of my edition (those prints are mine, to be destroyed eventually). And despite the fact that the editions are sold out, those images will still be available for publication, books, magazines, etc., so the files must be around for that. "

This makes sense. I had not thought about that.

[QT Luong]

In this suggestion of destroying the master file, there is implicitly the possibility of making new prints from a new master file after the edition made from the first file has ran out. How different would the new prints have to be, so the obligations to the first edition buyers would not be breached ? As we know, Adams printed quite differently at different points in his life. So if he sold out an edition of a given negative, then created a new one, printed more dramatically with deeper blacks and more contrast, would that be OK ?

[Mark_3632]

QT,

In Analog there is the possibility of making more prints. The thing is those prints will be different. After the initial run, A person wants to print more then they can but they no longer have the true feeling of printing the image or their printing style has evolved and they print differently. I am not saying it is right at all to print beyond the number stated but we all knwo it can happen. The thing is those new prints will be different.

There are times when a run is self limiting because of the work involved in the process. In Analog the person has to go through the work each time, thus making the desire to print beyond the chosen number a real big one. For a digital printer who has done the work and saved the work there is no decision at all. Hit the print button and go have some coffee. It seems logical to me that if the file were destroyed and they had to go through the work again it would much less desirable to print a run over and over. Also if they do the work again there would be an evolution of sorts in their style. The new prints would be different.

How much different do they have to be? I don't know. I would imagine that since it would take a while to sell out a series completely the person's printing style will have evolved and their images will be different. Thud creating a seond run that looks different. I just know they would be different, if , thus showing an evolution of the photographer's prints. I met a guy who only collected AA prints printed before 1940 because he appreciated the AA of that time. He said the later AA was much darker and had evolved beyond this guy's likes.

I was looking at my prints I worked on a few years ago and stored. There are definately things I would do differently before I printed them a second time. In fact I bet they would look much different after I printed them and laid them side by side.

[paulr]

"In Analog there is the possibility of making more prints. The thing is those prints will be different."

Keep in mind that a lot photographers print partial editions ... they will declare the edition to be 30, but they'll only print 1 through 5. The rest only gets printed if there's demand.

I never liked this approach ... I always felt that an edition should be an edition, and they should look like each other. But never the less, it's been an accepted practice to it this way for a long time.

[paulr]

""Personally, I don't want unlimited numbers of my images out there either . . . "

No offense intended Paul, but frankly, I don't believe a word of that. If suddenly your artwork became so in demand that half the people in North America just had to have it, you are going to turn down the sales for the sake of staying within some artificial, arbitrarily set limited edition?"

Of course I will! Otherwise I'd lose all credibility with anyone who's collected my work or who represents it. An edition number is a promise ... that's all it can be. No different than if a furniture maker sells something as one of a kind. Nothing to stop him from making another one besides his word.

Anyone worried about losing out on profits if they get popular can always do a stepped edition: prices that go up as the edition numbers get higher. Some people don't like this because it seems more artificial to them, but there are nice things about it. It allows you to set a low point of entry. It also encourages people to buy some of your less popular pictures and not just the one that happened to get famous. And it encourages people people to buy now rather than later.

At any rate, I truly look forward to the day when my worst problems are associated with my editions selling out.