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.)

[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.

[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.

[windpointphoto]

create an artificial scarcity, why don't photgraphers take the ultimate step and sell only one print and destroy the negative?

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.

[Greg Lockrey]

All I can suggest is to try it. See how many "original only's" you will have to make weekly just to eat. And just how many originals can you expect to make that are salable anyway? I too understand what it takes to make that first print from a negative, from the time it takes going to the location setting up and processing and marketing. But a guy who makes about $200 a day sweating his ass off in a factory isn't going to let his wife spend too much for a very reproducable piece of art. If you make portraits for a living for example, I can see a hyper-price since who else would be interested in your portrait. Unless you happen to be a has-been actor selling publicity stills at shopping center openings at $30 per 8x10 glossy. The whole idea of numbering is bs in the first place since the artist just has to change some minor thing to suggest a new limited edition. AA limited editions are still being made after his death. It's up to 8500 or so now.

[kjsphotography]

The thing with editions is that it makes an artist lazy by allowing them to make an income for the exact same image time and time again therefore not pushing their creative edge and making them stale by reproducing the exact same piece over and over again.

If you want to make a living and eat just as a painter, sculpture, has to, you have to get off your backside and push it and create new work constantly. I agree with Jorge on this 110%. The only way to differentiate yourself as an artist and not just another guy with a camera is be willing to offer that one of one and destroy the negative. Then your photograph could be classified as a panting per say making it more worthwhile to collect as the buyer knows full well they are receiving an actual one of a kind and not one of a fill-in the blank.

Now get this.

Once you start selling your images as one of one and you take off with name recognition, I can see you getting $1000-2000 a photograph just a a painters get over time with your one of on, works of art. The only thing, in order to make a living doing it this way is that you have to continually photograph, just as a painter has to continually paint. If you don’t want to starve then you have to not be lazy and push yourself every single day. The question is, do you have what it takes to make it as an artist or do you want to just be another photographer selling prints?

Me personally, I want to be known as an artist. Looks like I might have to put my money where my mouth is and start selling 1 of 1 and let the negatives go. Over time if people like my work I can raise my prices and sell them for $xxxx just like a painter.

You got to make a stance somewhere and I think this is where it starts.

That is how I see it.

[Brian K]

The thing with editions is that it makes an artist lazy by allowing them to make an income for the exact same image time and time again therefore not pushing their creative edge and making them stale by reproducing the exact same piece over and over again.

If you want to make a living and eat just as a painter, sculpture, has to, you have to get off your backside and push it and create new work constantly. I agree with Jorge on this 110%. The only way to differentiate yourself as an artist and not just another guy with a camera is be willing to offer that one of one and destroy the negative. Then your photograph could be classified as a panting per say making it more worthwhile to collect as the buyer knows full well they are receiving an actual one of a kind and not one of a fill-in the blank.

Now get this.

Once you start selling your images as one of one and you take off with name recognition, I can see you getting $1000-2000 a photograph just a a painters get over time with your one of on, works of art. The only thing, in order to make a living doing it this way is that you have to continually photograph, just as a painter has to continually paint. If you don’t want to starve then you have to not be lazy and push yourself every single day. The question is, do you have what it takes to make it as an artist or do you want to just be another photographer selling prints?

Me personally, I want to be known as an artist. Looks like I might have to put my money where my mouth is and start selling 1 of 1 and let the negatives go. Over time if people like my work I can raise my prices and sell them for $xxxx just like a painter.

You got to make a stance somewhere and I think this is where it starts.

That is how I see it.

I have to disagree with you here Kevin. 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. I've gone on the road for 5-6 weeks at a time and came back with only 5 images that i would use. Now if my work were limited to only one print per image, the only way to make a trip profitable , and to be able to make a living as a an artist, would be to print and try to sell a lot of the images that I currently don't consider good enough or to sell the few that do survive my edit at a price of tens of thousands of dollars each.


Also painters don't have the same start up costs as photographers. Easels, brushes, paint and canvas don't come close in cost to cameras, lenses, meters, tripods, darkrooms, dry mount presses, etc. While editions are a false means to produce scarcity, and I have to argue with that point somewhat, because often a successful artist just gets bored of printing a certain negative and chooses to stop anyway, it's the most effective means to keep work at a value high enough for a photographer to be able to make a living.

It's not how many prints of a given image that defines you as an artist, it's the quality of the work.

[Bruce Barlow]

While I completely agree with Jorge, I'll offer an alternative.

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. I am neither ANsel nor Edward nor Eugene, to name a few favorites. Getting seen, to me, implies a different approach and a different set of economic assumptions.

I'm also in it to have fun.

So, for me, I'd just as soon do 4x5 Polaroid portraits outside the burrito shop for $10, hang a show in the bagel shop down the block, hang another show in my studio just for me and any special people I invite, try to put on the best workshops on the planet, and produce a book worth reading.

Someone else can do editions of one, and I really hope it works. Thanks for raising the issue, Jorge - it's really interesting and provocative. Let us know how you go about it, and how it works.

[Jim Becia]

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. A play can be performed only once. There are some artistic endeavors that are not meant to be "one of one." Now if you choose to do that with your photography, have had it. The process, in my opinion, is meant to be reproduced if and when necessary. There are so few of us that will ever be "collectible." I personally don't limit my work and I don't believe this makes me push myself any less. Jim

www. spiritllightphotography.com