Limited vs unlimited edition prints?

[Mike Tobias]

First off, before I get flamed here, I've read all of the past posts discussing this, but my question here is not ethical or pragmatic but economic. Here's the deal: I've had offers from a couple of different galleries as well as a number of individuals (ie 15+) to display or purchase my work in the past. I hadn't gotten around to printing and framing anything just yet, because it wasn't terribly high on my priority list. A couple of weeks ago, however, my cat had to go into the vet for some fairly major ilness, and the general upshot is that I've added about $600 a month in extra expenses for the next 6 months (don't do the math on that lol). While I don't expect my prints to cover all or even most of this, I know that I can sell at least a few prints to offset my costs.So here is my question: from a purely sales perspective, do those of you who sell prints see limited or unlimited series prints make more money in the short term (say, 6 to 9 months)? And do you see more interest from serious collectors (which I would define as those who are looking for a long-term investment) or buyers of impulse (ie, "Oooh, look at the pretty picture")? Just for reference, my photos are night landscapes printed on an Epson 1800, anywhere from 24"x13" to 36"x13". If you'd like me to post some examples I can. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Mike

[Michael Gordon]

Here's my opinion and it is just that:

I wouldn't hope too much to offset vet expenses through print sales. Selling prints is a tough business unless you're going to sell them for $20 each or you have images that everyone has just gotta have. With that out of the way, I'd suggest that you don't worry about editioning right now. Just sell prints and worry about editioning if and when you have to. Serious collectors are not surfing the web looking to collect; they go to auctions and buy from dealers. You're likely to have 'ordinary' people buying your work, and most wont ask about or care about editioning.

Good luck, and sorry to hear about your cat. I've dumped a lot of money into my animal companions over the years, so I know what it's like. Best of luck.

[Doug Dolde]

No cat is worth $3600. In fact one ran in front of my car a few weeks ago and met it's maker. I felt no remorse nor gladness, nothing in fact.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Way to show some empathy for Mike's cat, there, Doug! Obviously you've never had a pet. Good luck with your cat and print sales, Mike, and take with a grain of salt what some of the yahoos on this forum say.

[dan nguyen]

a suggestion: take a picture of your cat (or any cat - kitten is best), make a large print and offer it to your vet to offset some of the cost...as for "limited" prints I think you need to burn or destroy to negative in respect to the term "limited":...

[Mike Tobias]

Michael, as far as prints go, I've already got a number of people who have been waiting for me to mount and frame photos, and I quoted each of them somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 to $230 per print, depending on size, and no one scoffed. I'm just trying to decide how I should pitch it to galleries. Leaning towards the limited side, only because I've been asked about it twice.

Doug, and Brian, no skin off my nose. I'm not looking for an endorsement or condemnation to my silly expenses, purely a value judgement on my part. I have little doubt that everyone on this forum has some expense that others would find frivolous and outrageous. Spend on what is valuable to you. Besides, in the end it's only money.

Mike

[Mike Tobias]

Dan, already tried this, they had a good chuckle. Apparently a very large number of artists in this town own either cats or dogs. But hey, it was worth a try.

Mike

[paulr]

my advice would be to talk to the galleries about it. first, see if they're interested in your work, and second, get their advice on editions. their advice will be based on how to make the most money, and it will be based on their clientelle.

there's no one right answer to this, because there's no one art world with one set of rules and one set of collectors with one set of expectations.

at the higher end of things, limited editions are always assumed (and limiting does not mean destroying your negative ... it amounts to a promise and a number scribbled on the back of the print).

at any rate, dealers know their clientelle, and how to best best get their money from them.

if you do edition the prints, an accepted, profitable policy to consider is a stair-stepped edition (this isn't the official term ... i forget what it's called) where the first 10 are cheap, the second 10 are expensive, the final 10 are very expensive (of course you get to decide the edition size and the breaks ...)

i hope your cat is ok.

and mr. doug dolde, it was awfully thoughtful using this forum to spread your hatred and lack of compassion. i'm sure you made everyone feel better.

[Keith Laban]

Mike, there was a similar thread on here a while back with lots of good information and opinion. It might be worth searching the archives.

Let's hope that Doug Dolde's images display a greater level of sensitivity than his mouth and brain does.

[darr]

"No cat is worth $3600."

I spent much more than that on one cat named Fred. In return, Fred blessed us with 17 years of unconditional love and gratitude and then I spent another $300 for his cremation and urn. I presently spend a lot of our disposable income on five stray dogs from *losers* who dumped them "out in the country" when they either got tired of them, got too big for their apartments or became sick. Some of us understand the value of life better than others.

I cannot comment about limited editions, but I can help contribute to your cause. Where can someone look at your work?

[Bill_1856]

Even the greatest photographs are self-limiting in terms of numbers sold. The problem is that you don't know what that number will be, and your cheating yourself if you artificilly limit production to a lesser amount. Few photographs are ever printed more than 8-10 times, and even AA's "Moonrise" exists in only about 1200 signed copies.

I suggest numbering your prints, so that the buyer will know how many has been sold at the time his was printed, but don't put a final limit on the number that you will print and sign. (Personally, I like to print in batches of 10.) I think that it's reasonable to label one print of each batch "AP#" for Artist's Proof.

[Steven Barall]

There is a good article in Photo District News on this very topic. The opinions are mixed. Many gallery owners are sure that very limited editions help secure strong prices into the future just because of the nature of rare objects. Others think that since photography is mechanical in nature and can be reproduced infinately, it should be and not limited to editions and that setting an edition number is just artificial and pretentious and sort of anti-photography. Chris Jordan was included in the article as well. I would be interested to hear more from Mr. Jordan on this topic.

Your photos are valuable but they also have a purpose and that is to make you some money. It's a balancing act. I guess the marketplace rules in the end but for a few hundred dollars, they don't get limited editions. If your gallery owner has a theory for limiting editions and can back it up and the money is right, well then go for it, you can always sell "artist proofs" into the next century if necessary.

[paulr]

"Many gallery owners are sure that very limited editions help secure strong prices into the future just because of the nature of rare objects. Others think that since photography is mechanical in nature and can be reproduced infinately, it should be and not limited to editions and that setting an edition number is just artificial and pretentious and sort of anti-photography."

the second statement is about philosophy. the first is about making $$$. if you're goal is fundraising, i'd talk to the people who know their market and how to profit from it.

digressing into the philosophy subject for a minute, i think it's important to consider the photographer's beliefs and intentions, and not just general ideas about the One True Nature of the medium. personally, i don't want an infinite number of my images floating around out there. this is hypothetical, because i've never once sold out an edition, but i still like the idea of having made something finite. there are 20 of these things, because that's how many i wanted to make, and that's that. i don't see why this is artificial, simply because it wasn't forced on me for technical reasons (like a lithography stone wearing out).

[paulr]

"you can always sell "artist proofs" into the next century if necessary."

using this loophole is strongly frowned upon. listings i see at galleries now typically say something like "edition of 15 with 4 artist's proofs."

[Mike Tobias]

Thank you all for your great suggestions, this certainly gives me a good place to start. Also, thanks to all those hoping the best for my cat, he is doing just fine and will certainly fare better than my wallet.

Darr, if you're in the Ft Collins, Colorado area, I'd be happy to show you my current display (it's currently hanging at the custom jewelry store I work at), or if not, contact me off-list and I can e-mail you some photos of what I have. Once again, thanks all!

Mike

[darr]

Mike: I wish I was in the Ft Collins, Colorado area, but I currently live in South Florida. I will e-mail you off list. "Thank you" also to everyone that participated positively in this thread. For anyone that missed the recent HBO documentary, "Dealing Dogs" I recommend viewing it (Tivo), but take caution as the truth can be hard for some of us to witness.

[bernal]

So, for those who choose to sell limited edition prints, how do you apply the limited count? One count for all print sizes or a separate count for each different size?

bernal

[Jim Michael]

Have you considered selling a series subscription? Subscribers get one print per month @ $x/print. I think you can still set up subscription billing on PayPal (not sure if it's called that, but it's where the account holder allows you to debit the account each month). I hope your cat has a full recovery.

[QT Luong]

So, for those who choose to sell limited edition prints, how do you apply the limited count? One count for all print sizes or a separate count for each different size?


There are merits for each approach. I prefer separate since it maximizes the "limited edition effect".

[77seriesiii]

Mike,

Good luck with the sales and I am sorry to hear about your cat. over the past 2 years we put 3 of 3 cats down due to illness. they were old but kidney failure took all three and they were brothers, raised since 10 days old by my wife and I. Hard choice to make, keeping a pet alive or letting them move along. I hope everything works out for you.

./e

[Drew Wiley]

This is a spinoff from the old days of lithography. A true lithograph etched onto a
stone surface, or comparable wood or metal plate, only lasted so many pressings.
It was self-limiting. Then photolithography came along and people started making
what were essentially posters but calling them lithographs. which in some states is an illegal use of the term. Modern digital printing creates a similar dilemma. In many cases (certainly not all) I view the whole business of "limited editions" as a deceptive marketing tool. But when you can mechanically mass-produce something, this is one
way to created perceived value, though most such images aren't even worth the frame
they're put in, over the long run. Once in awhile I've agreed to make only one print of
a given image for someone willing to pay a premium. But when you're making your own
prints in the darkroom by hand, you can only make so many of them. And like Stieglitz,
I believe there is only one "best" print from any negative. Everything depends on your
potential market. An alternative concept is the one like Christ Burkett and several other photographers use, that you price your first ten or so prints at one level, then the price goes up, then it goes up again after the next ten, and so forth.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Mike I sell both open edition digital prints and limited edition platinum/palladium. Both sell well with the platinum selling more to collectors and the digital to people decorating their homes. I also am published by the Art Group in London. They do a lower priced series of lithographs and I receive a commission from those sales.

I'm in eight galleries at the moment. One gallery owner last year was getting a little too involved in my business and trying to force me to do limited edition prints from my digital and retire some of my images. I fired the gallery and moved to one that is a better match to my business model.

Keep in mind when pricing that galleries take 50% normally although I have had one that only took 40%.

My opinion depending on your work is that most people buy to decorate their homes. The average buyer couldn't care less less about editions but the collector does. Most of my sales are to individuals or interior decorators who couldn't care less. Why limit yourself if there's potential to sell the image for many years. You might consider both as i have. A limited edition just for collectors and the decor series that's open.

Good luck with it.

[sgelb]

i recently offered 6 prints as an edition of 8. I've sold 7 prints so far.

I went to tom tills gallery this weekend... he was having everything as an edition of 350.. but, then again, his ilfochrome prints are about to become a limited edition for real!

[Drew Wiley]

Despite the intermittent misinformed rumors over the years, I haven't heard anything about Ilfochrome actually going extinct, especially since Oji Paper has acquired it. There are still a few commercial labs specializing in it, and individual artists can acquire the materials by ordering a few months in advance. Making large numbers of "limited edition" Ilfochrome prints was always an annoyance because of the corrosize health and maintenance implications of keeping a lot of the acidic bleach on hand, so I can understand why so many labs switched to RA4 and/or digital. Right now
delays in shipping might also affect some of the remaining labs if they are receiving
contemplating volume orders. Sadly, I probably won't have time all this year to print any kind of color, despite having a stash of frozen Ilfochrome.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I rarely see any serious work offered with an edition over 25. These days, editions over 5 in larger sizes are becoming more and more rare.

[Brian K]

I rarely see any serious work offered with an edition over 25. These days, editions over 5 in larger sizes are becoming more and more rare.

David what do you define as "serious work"? My edition is well over 25.......

It's easy to limit your edition to 5 prints if takes you little or no time or expense to produce the work, or the sales price is high enough to justify the time and resources required to have produced the work. For those of us who spend a great deal of time and money producing their work, and can't demand a 5 figure per print price, our only way to continue to produce our work is to have an edition large enough to justify the cost of producing the work.

[Wallace_Billingham]

David what do you define as "serious work"?

My guess is, it is only serious work if you pay to play and shell out the money to be printed in his magazine

Funny thing is Ansel Adams never did limited editions, and he sold his work on the cheap to the home decor market yet I am pretty sure he did serious work but I could be wrong

[Andrew O'Neill]

Then photolithography came along and people started making
what were essentially posters but calling them lithographs.

I'm a former lithographer. I've worked mainly on stones and plates (preferring stones). Photo-lithographs are still lithographs. The process is exactly the same, but instead of drawing/painting directly on the stone, you are burning the image onto a stone/plate that has been sensitized with a light sensitive substance. The stone/plate is etched the same way, and inked up the same way. I hope to get back into it again someday as it's a beautiful process.

[Vaughn]

This is what i do and why.

Carbon prints are in editions of 5, platinum/palladium prints are in addition of 10. I do not print all the edition at once, but make a couple and print the rest of the edition as needed. I do not worry overly much about making each print identical, though they are very close (no radical change of tonal values nor contrast).

I print directly from in-camera negatives, contact only, so an image is only printed in one size -- the size of the negative. The price of the prints increase as the edition sells. Later prints in an edition get the benefit of being printed by an artist who continues to grow in printing skill and in the quality of his seeing.

Carbon prints take easily twice as long to produce as platinum/palladium prints, so carbons cost twice as much as, and the edition size is half of, the pt/pd prints.

My rationale about possibly limiting the income due to limiting the number of prints of a potentially popular image...I trust my ability to continue to produce new work as good if not better than what I have done in the past, so I do not worry about running out of images/prints to sell.

I do not have much time to work...perhaps in another 6 years when my three boys are out of high school, I will have more time to photograph and print. But what little time I have, I do not wish to "waste" by printing large numbers of the same image -- I wish to explore new possibilities...that is why I photograph.

This what I do, I do not expect others to do the same nor even agree (nor approve) of what I do. The only "rules" on edition printing that I reconize is openness and honesty.

Vaughn

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

David what do you define as "serious work"? My edition is well over 25.......

Perhaps serious work was the incorrect term to use. I just don't see, that often, photographers who use editions over 25 and are either trying to establish a career in selling their fine art photography or already have established a career doing that. Very few, if any galleries would accept your work if it was editioned that high.


It's easy to limit your edition to 5 prints if takes you little or no time or expense to produce the work, or the sales price is high enough to justify the time and resources required to have produced the work. For those of us who spend a great deal of time and money producing their work, and can't demand a 5 figure per print price, our only way to continue to produce our work is to have an edition large enough to justify the cost of producing the work.

I disagree completely. I find more of the contact prints, more of the photographs that take a great deal of time to create, are editioned very low, while gelatin silver and inkjet are editioned higher. Again, this is my own personal observation - it is not indicative of the entire marketplace and everyone in the marketplace.

[Brian K]

Perhaps serious work was the incorrect term to use. I just don't see, that often, photographers who use editions over 25 and are either trying to establish a career in selling their fine art photography or already have established a career doing that. Very few, if any galleries would accept your work if it was editioned that high.



I disagree completely. I find more of the contact prints, more of the photographs that take a great deal of time to create, are editioned very low, while gelatin silver and inkjet are editioned higher. Again, this is my own personal observation - it is not indicative of the entire marketplace and everyone in the marketplace.



David, my edition is well over 25 and I have been represented by over a dozen galleries. Granted the only time I ever lost representation with a gallery was with a very highly regarded gallery in London. I was offered representation with the caveat that I cut my edition down to 30. I would not.

And regarding time to produce work, it may be true that people printing with Alt processes use a slower printing process than say silver gelatin, but the majority of time spent in producing an image can more likely be spent in the production of the actual image, the capture thereof, more than the time it takes to print it.

I spend 3-6 months a year traveling for the purpose of landscape photography, and in a good year I only get 10-12 images that I'll use. This being because I seek special conditions or moments for my work, and those are not common occurrences so it takes a tremendous amount of time for me to produce my images. Someone who bangs out a portfolio in a week, sends the film out to a lab and then has a lab or service bureau print it has a different cost and time requirement of production than someone who requires a month to produce a single image. The income required from that cost of production has to be reflected in the cost of the final work.

In my own case if you figure the cost of that travel, the cost of the facilities that I built for processing, printing and mounting (which I do not send out, I do all myself), the cost per image is very high. In order to be viable I'd have to either charge $10k a print for a small edition, or charge a lower price for a larger edition.

And in regards to price, the logic behind why some work is valued over other work can be mysterious at times. I am willing to bet that just about all of us have seen shows at galleries and have been puzzled at some of the asking prices for work that we considered questionable. Often the value placed on work has little to do with the merits of the work and are more about other factors such as the celebrity of the artist, the associated hype, etc. Art in galleries today is as much about the fashion, politics or trends of art as the content or actual merit of that art.

But one of the longstanding ways to give an item the appearance of value is by the scarcity of that item. In the case of limited, or very limited editions, it's an artificial scarcity that exists primarily to create the perception of greater value. What would fetch a higher price at auction, Ansel's "Moonrise", perhaps his most famous and compelling image of which there are 1200-1300 prints out there, or a mediocre Adams' image of which there were only one print in existence? I think many collectors would prefer the mediocre image because it has the cachet, and associated status, of being the only one.

Most people are not collectors. Most people buy a print because they love the image and will display it in their homes for the rest of their lives.