Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leonard Peterson
I believe Kim Weston used to glue his negative to the back of the print. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how and why the numbering of prints got it's start? I'll give you a hint; it had nothing to do with photography.
My oversize Kim Weston print does, indeed, have the 8x10 negative glued to the back of the mount. Damn shame, as far as I'm concerned.
As I understand it, etchings and lithograhs can only be reproduced in a limited number before the stones/plates wear to the point that good prints can not be made from them, and are destroyed. Thus they are numbered to assure the purchaser that they aren't "a few extras" which were run off by the printer's assistant before he trashes the plate. The first prnts are suposed to be the best, and often made under the artist's personal supervision.
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ted Stoddard
.. I have had many prints bought but no where near what AA or Edward Weston sells... I know they are dead but they sell alot more then I might ever do......
It's my understanding that Edward Weston never sold many signed prints from any one negative, except Pepper #30, and there were much less than two dozen of them. I think that he finally raised his price from $10 to $25.
St. Ansel may have printed up to a thousand of "Moonrise," but they are not numbered. No other negative comes even close to this quantity. His final prices after announding that he was going to quit were only $250-$400. He never saw all of the big bucks the prints eventually sell for.
(This could all be B.S., so please don't trash an old man because my memory is faulty.)
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
How much does an original AA print go for these days? How many did he make of it? Is his work not considered to be true art because he made multiple copies of a negative? Not to mention the millions of reproductions and posters, etc.
If your work is considered collectable art then it will be whether you make one or a hundred. You might not be alive when each of a 200 print run is worth a fortune, but hey, lets be honest, making one of a print and selling at a far inflated price relative to the photographic market is not going to make you either rich or famous any time soon.
If the work is considered art and considered worth having then it will be so whether there is one or far more than that. If the work is medicore, cliched or more a photograph than art then no amount of snobbery will mean that it is remembered 50 years hence, possibly not ever.
I can make a 50 print edition of a negative knowing that it's unlikely that I'll ever sell all 50 of that edition. If the punters like the snob value then why should I care, I have no pretensions of being 'collectable'. That I can then make another 50 prints in a new edition of a different size just shows how silly the whole thing is. That said, if the customer wants it then it is something worth marketing. Trying to educate a customer with what you would like to believe is your version of exclusivity will be an up hill struggle at best, most likely utterly futile. It would take some very big names to make this fashionable and until it becomes so, IMO a total waste of time.
Could also come expensive in sheet film as you made sure you had enough negatives! :D:D
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
This has been fascinating to read. I keep thinking about the comparison to painting.... I think that if you wanted to duplicate that model you would:
1) Shoot the negative
2) Make one helluva gorgeous silver print with it
3) Make a photogravure plate with the negative
4) Destroy the negative
Then you'd be left with one original and as many stunning copies (that aren't the original) as you'd like. Sorta like the original painting and the various lithographs made from it.
An intriguing thought.
--A
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alec4444
This has been fascinating to read. I keep thinking about the comparison to painting.... I think that if you wanted to duplicate that model you would:
1) Shoot the negative
2) Make one helluva gorgeous silver print with it
3) Make a photogravure plate with the negative
4) Destroy the negative
Then you'd be left with one original and as many stunning copies (that aren't the original) as you'd like. Sorta like the original painting and the various lithographs made from it.
An intriguing thought.
--A
very interesting idea... only I wouldn't be surprised if you could sell the photo-gravures for more than the silver gelatin print...
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alec4444
This has been fascinating to read. I keep thinking about the comparison to painting.... I think that if you wanted to duplicate that model you would:
paint.
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
I think limited editions are like a pre-nuptial agreement. It's easy to scoff, and both parties can find ways around the letter of the law, but it's in their interest to pretend that they believe in the system.
I think I am right in saying that Sweden's pre-eminent art photographer, Dawid, usually makes two prints of his 'art' negatives. One for himself, one to sell, and a negative to file. Although he does well-paying commercial work too, he has stuck to his guns on the limited number of prints since his earliest days.
Personally, I am a fan of the disembodied image. I think there is a world of visual ideas that is seperate from the world of beautiful objects. I like both, but I prefer the former. I dream of an influential book, and actively dislike the idea of an exhibition. I am unlikely to make the Guild council.
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
D. Bryant
An old debate that is frankly been beat to death. Yawn! Make as much money as you can off your labor as long as you are honest.
Don Bryant
Exactly. I see making photographic prints as even better than making painting reproductions. At least each darkroom print has been touched by the artist and has his or her personal work put into it. That's more that c an be said about most prints from paintings.
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Christopher D. Keth
Exactly. I see making photographic prints as even better than making painting reproductions. At least each darkroom print has been touched by the artist and has his or her personal work put into it. That's more that c an be said about most prints from paintings.
Oh come on now, we printers are artists too, just that we don't get to sign the prints but we are seeked out by artists. ;)
Re: So, if limited editions are used to....
Quote:
The buyer gets a securely distinguishable original. I guess I have never understood why someone would want to pay good money for a photograph knowing that any number of people have the exact same looking thing.
There you go, exactly my question.
Quote:
I think I'd rather get my stuff seen by as many people as possible. While selling an edition of 1 may help validate me as an artist, I'm quite realistic about whether I'll sell even the one at a price commensurate with what I feel its (and therefore my) value is
But what if, by virtue of people perceiving your work as an "original" and more "special" they start buying it more, so instead of having one or two sales a month you have 15?
Quote:
Unlike painters, photographers can't just whip up the perfect scene in their minds and put it down on canvas. We need to be in the right place at the right time.
This is no longer true Brian, digital and photoshop has enabled anybody with a computer and a vision to create what in their minds would be the perfect landscape. Regardless of wether this print is appealing or not to the viewer.
Quote:
So guys, let's take this "one" idea to books, music, theater, which are all artistic endeavors. Why not print one book, better yet, just sell your manuscript to one person? An orchestra can only play a piece of music once, or only one CD
Because these are art forms that people in general recognize that not everybody can do. thus have a special meaning. Unfortunatelly photography suffers from "I can do that if only......" remember, if you buy a piano, you own a piano, if you buy a camera, you are a photographer.
Quote:
Hi Jorge, What would keep a one photo from one negative photographer from setting up and firing off like ten or twenty sheets of the same image, presenting each one as an original? Granted there will be some slight change in light, clouds etc. but if done very quickly, very little. I don't disagree with your concept, I just think there is still too much potential for duplication...
Nothing, in fact many painters revisit a site they have previously painted and do another version, yet it is not considered "cheating".
Quote:
It would be nice to be able to sell single photos for $15,000 to $30,000 or more apiece for an edition of 1. But most of us would rather eat than starve.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that in my opinion is holding photographers back. The idea that one wants to become so famous that you can sell your print for a lot of money. How about, not being famous, but by virtue that your work is perceived as an "original" people buy it more and you are able to sell 30 prints at $500 this giving you the $15000 you want? Does this mean that you will have to get off your ass, stop posting on the LF forum and go take pictures? Most assuredly, but isn't this the point?... :)
Quote:
All of my succsessful clients that command $5-30K per painting sell prints first. They sell a lot of prints prior to when the original is finally sold if it is ever
This is in a round about way what I was trying to make people in this forum think about. Notice I did not say do not sell "reproductions". Digital allows us now to make very cheap reproductions, ink jet, litho, etc. that can be sold for a few bucks. The idea being that there would be only ONE original made from the negative, all the rest are known as reproductions.....just like in painting.
Quote:
If your work is considered collectable art then it will be whether you make one or a hundred.
This is one of the myths that photographers have fallen for. Collectible art has many facets, one of them is exclusivity.