Yet another limited edition post but different

[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.