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.
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...
"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.
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 ?
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.
"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.
""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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks