So, if limited editions are used to....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

create an artificial scarcity, why don't photgraphers take the ultimate step and sell only one print and destroy the negative? Wouldn't this be more like what painters do? We talk about "fine art photography" but in reality as long as we can reproduce it more than one time, they are nothing but snapshots, pretty, but none the less just endless reproductions.

If we are supposed to be "artists" then we should not be afraid to let go of the negative and show that with our talent, vision and mastering of the technical part we are capable of producing more work, if we are supposed to be only as good as our last shot, why not just do one print and be done with it?

[Greg Lockrey]

Or include a piece of the negative with the limited edition print. But in the world of K-mart the artist can't really afford to make one print and hope to make a living at it. I make limited editions for artists who sell prints for $65-150 each based from originals that may have taken 300 plus hours to make. Now if they would get a "livable" rate for their 300 hours, the originals would have to net anywhere from $15-30K each. I don't know that many buyers with that kind of disposable cash. If the artist is willing to do the shows, he/she could sell prints at an affordable rate and surpass the value of the original. Now if you are speaking of photography which is a technology based medium then the photograph by it's nature should be able to take two dimensional art to the next level, meaning it should be 3D. (Just a plug for us "whole camera" users.)

[Maris Rusis]

All my gelatin-silver photographs seem to be in editions of one.

Since I make an extra one only when I have a buyer some negatives come out of the archive only every few years. Even though the negative is the same the paper, developer, burn, dodge, tone, and the photographer's mood are not reproducible enough to yield a duplicate of what I have done before.

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.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . 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.

If I like a photograph and pay a price based on my liking it why would I care how many other people have the same thing? I own numerous lithographs, most signed and numbered in sets of 100 to 200. I could care less that other people have basically the same ones, in fact until now it never occurred to me that anyone would (unless of course someone was told they were buying one of a kind and paid a premium on that basis, then found out there were others out there).

[paulr]

I own numerous lithographs, most signed and numbered in sets of 100 to 200. I could care less that other people have basically the same ones...

and if you don't care about the scarcity thing (in other words, you buy it because you like it, not because of how collectible it is) then the big edition works in your favor. You payed less than you would have if the edition was 10.

likewise you can profit from this in collecting photographs, by buying older prints rather than vintage ones. with some artists, the older ones are actually nicer, either because the photographers' style got more refined or because they final figured out how to print the thing! but the vintage ones are usually seen as more collectible, and cost way more.

[naturephoto1]

Paul,

The earlier copies may cost more for resale or in the future. But as limited editions sell the later copies tend to cost more than those that were produced or sold earlier on. That tends to be the case because fewer are available as the edition sells out.

Rich

[Vaughn]

Paul, The earlier copies may cost more for resale or in the future. But as limited editions sell the later copies tend to cost more than those that were produced or sold earlier on. That tends to be the case because fewer are available as the edition sells out.
Rich

My limited editions increase in price as the edition sells out. This can work well for both me and the collector. Buying early is a edition means a lower price (and an incentive to buy). And as the edition sells and the price increases, the earlier buyers have a documented increase in the value of their prints.

Vaughn

[Stephen Willard]

If I am correct there are basically two camps, the limited edition and the open edition. Limited can be from one to 1000s, and open is unlimited in number. Both camps are acceptable practices in the photographic market. Neither is thought to be unethical.

Each of us will choose the best model for our own needs. Righteous words will not influence any of us and will most likely have just the opposite effect. I have chosen limited editions of 900 and 1500 with the later being used for only for my most popular selling images.

And, I can assure you, I am neither lazy nor a prostitute.

[Greg Lockrey]

If I am correct there are basically two camps, the limited edition and the open edition. Limited can be from one to 1000s, and open is unlimited in number. Both camps are acceptable practices in the photographic market. Neither is thought to be unethical.

Each of us will choose the best model for our own needs. Righteous words will not influence any of us and will most likely have just the opposite effect. I have chosen limited editions to 950 and 1500 with the later being used for only my most popular selling images.

And, I can assure you, I am neither lazy nor a prostitute.

There is the "one only" camp too.

[Shen45]

create an artificial scarcity, why don't photgraphers take the ultimate step and sell only one print and destroy the negative? Wouldn't this be more like what painters do? We talk about "fine art photography" but in reality as long as we can reproduce it more than one time, they are nothing but snapshots, pretty, but none the less just endless reproductions.

If we are supposed to be "artists" then we should not be afraid to let go of the negative and show that with our talent, vision and mastering of the technical part we are capable of producing more work, if we are supposed to be only as good as our last shot, why not just do one print and be done with it?

Completely agree with you Jorge.

I spoke on this matter with a friend of mine in California about 2 or 3 years ago as to me the whole editions idea is a "[fill in the gap to suit]"!!

And why isn't #1 the most expensive in an edition anyway first up? If you intend to have an edition that is. It is nearest to the original and it is #1 afterall? Who wants to own anything other than #1.

Let's face it, in our world no-one wants to be less than or seen to be less than #1. Imagine the shame, you show a friend your new print and it is #5/20 -- or worse still #20/20 ----- oh the shame!!! Any prints after #1 really are not worth the paper they are printed on, can you imagine the humiliation associated with owning #2.

Oh look he has the Mona Lisa on his wall --- "Yeah, but it is only #2!!!"

Do the prints somehow magically get better after #1 and mysteriously gain "perceived" value.

Jorge what you are considering is an excellent way to distinguish real photography as an art form not just a mechanical reproduction time after time.