"Editions": A way to limit yourself and your overall marketability in general?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I am all for editions as long as they are low, say no more than 25 with 2 AP. When you have an edition of 100 or more, it sort of defeats the purpose. The VAST majority of photographers will never sell out an edition so if it creates some form of demand in the mind of a buyer then all the better. It can drive someone to make a purchase. I know the argument of "why limit your work" but since most of us will never even reach the limit then who cares. Also, if you have the talent to sell out an edition, then you should have the talent to make other images that people will want, I see it as a driver for the buyer and the photographer.

That said, it really is a matter of ones personality and the risk they want to accept. If you don't mind the risk, then editions are more acceptable. Each method is fine, it all depends on the person.

[BrianShaw]

Totally hear ya on that one, and totally agree! My take is that one can still make "affordable" prints of high quality, but sell at a lower price point, then trying to swoon big-money clientele into purchasing something for it's "investment value". I'd want to know they are buying it because they will enjoy it, first and foremost, not because they're hedging that it will rise in value so they can flip it(which I'm not against, I'm a capitalist myself, in the end)

I suppose the biggest difference is the quality of the product and the savvy of the selller. Look at cars: Toyota vs Rolls Royce. Totally different products and totally different marketting schemes. Both products essentially do the same thing and both marketting schemes seem to work quite well. Which is more enjoyable... depends on wheter you enjoy just getting form here-to-there or if you enjoy getting there in totally luxury.

[bob carnie]

I am thinking that if this was really done, only one or two people would ever see my work.

I like the idea of an edition of 10 , with the ability to escalate the price as the image gains popularity.
This gives me hope that some day I will print out my entire body of work and as I age into the sunset I can see some income from the very thing that gives me most pleasure in life..

other than my wife and two dogs of course.

I had a prominent art dealer tell me once that I should do 1/1 editions and include the negative with the image, perhaps affixed to the back of the print in a negative sleeve.

I thought that was an interesting take on it...but I haven't done it!! I feel like editions make little sense when it's so easy to make more, without the purchaser even knowing to boot. I would think a savvy buyer would realize that too, but maybe not.

[Daniel Stone]

I mean, I'm not looking to have my photographs printed by Costco, then I cut some primo mats and mount it myself, and charge a kings ransom for it. But if market trends continue as they have for the past few years, the Toyota will probably hold more resale value over a longer period, compared to the depreciation value of that Rolls Royce, despite the astronomical difference in price points.

[adelorenzo]

I've got no skin in this game (don't sell prints) but it's an interesting discussion. I was reminded of this video I watched the other day.

The TL;DR is that he made four prints from a glass negative, then cut the negative in quarters and packaged them with the print. Worth the 15 minutes to watch IMHO as he talks about "exploring contemporary issues of consumerism and the issue of selling art." Plus he's an interesting guy and his prints are awesome.

[BrianShaw]

... But if market trends continue as they have for the past few years, the Toyota will probably hold more resale value over a longer period, compared to the depreciation value of that Rolls Royce, despite the astronomical difference in price points.

It depends on if it is a limited-edition Rolls or a regular Rolls.

[Will Frostmill]

If I understand correctly; as a young artist, Ansel Adams sold his handmade prints for quite a small sum, compared to his later/last years, where fame and vastly increased popularity had caught up with him and he was able to enjoy a nice reward financially. Prices ROSE because the demand was there. But the prices were still "reachable" to most people, and a good many folks have an Adams print in their home now, simply because of that lower initial pricepoint, and a seemingly "open edition" mindset. (please correct me if this is wrong)

It does seem an attractive model, doesn't it?

I'm not interested in making wallpaper art to sell at Ikea, but fine pieces that have the skill and attention to detail in them that a print might attempt to be sold for 4-5x as much in most galleries, in a "traditional" gallery setting that's selling to the middle/upper classes with more disposable income.

I'd take that Ikea job, if I could control the print quality, and get credit on the artwork. Have you seen some of the wall- sized posters they sell? Printed large, available to the mass market, and sold through a retail channel that I don't have to manage? Sounds good to me. Especially if it creates an audience for more expensive work later.

That, I think, is what Ansel had going for him: since he wrote those ubiquitous books, he created an audience that would want to see the "originals". Partly because of his 'story'. Never underestimate the power of narrative. Fine art tends to lack that quality, and the story of "there are only 10 of these" isn't very compelling of itself.

One story we could tell is this: "this is an inkjet print from 2011. I've changed my interpretation of that image, so I don't print it that way anymore. I only made five in 2011, so if you like this version, buy it before it's gone. I'll reprint in the fall of 2015, but it won't be the same."

This reflects the true nature of the ease of digital printing, and the real consequences of an artist's power over their work.

[Vaughn]

"Limiting myself"

I am (perhaps overly optimisticly) sure that I will be able to make new meaningful work without having to worry about living off the older work.

[cowanw]

I believe it was David Vestal who wrote about this and pointed out that non limited edition work usually consisted of 2 to 5 copies of a print and limited edition work might be limited to a certain number but that the actual number of prints produced was seldom the number suggested.
In addition the concept of limited edition now is limited to that size, that paper, that technique, and that interpretation re burning and dodging, i.e. meaningless in terms of limiting the actual number of prints of that negative.
It's just a marketing term to convince yuppies and collectors of the exclusivity of the purchase. Not unlike the exclusive luxury vacation that you just bought for Mexico; same as all the others on the plane.

[Drew Wiley]

Ha! Ikea, sure..... Given how cheap they sell those big framed and laminated prints, and how many have to sell to make a profit even at the mass production level, you'd be lucky if you got five bucks royalty per sale. Better off standing on some street corner with a cup and cardboard sign, "Starving. Will work for film" (at least gelatin is edible, if push comes to shove. You can lick off the antihalation backing first). Of course, you might not do any better at a high end gallery, after they'd sliced away sixty of seventy-five percent, you deduct the cost of framing and materials, the overhead of all the prints you had to mount that didn't sell,etc,
lucky if you don't have a net loss, or even a big loss. So what is the solution? In the poll, one option is to only sell to very wealthy people who can afford big sums. Well, if you have interacted with that kind of demographic, you will already know that the richer people are, the stingier they are, the more they haggle;
in other words, they would want to pay you less than Ikea would, then would want you to hand deliver it, hang it yourself, then will turn around and sue you if
you get any dust on their carpet. So maybe it's easiest just to hang yourself in advance.