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

[John Brady]

Hi Jorge, What would keep a one photo from one negative photographer from setting up and firing off like ten or twenty sheets of the same image, presenting each one as an original? Granted there will be some slight change in light, clouds etc. but if done very quickly, very little. I don't disagree with your concept, I just think there is still too much potential for duplication...
______________________
jbrady@timeandlight.com

[tim atherton]

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.

That's average to cheap for a standard edition art photograph (say an edition of 15). The distinguish one-off photographs you'd need to sell at say $15,000 to $20,000

[naturephoto1]

It would be nice to be able to sell single photos for $15,000 to $30,000 or more apiece for an edition of 1. But most of us would rather eat than starve. Additionally as pointed out is just too costly to travel and produce enough photos to pay all of the bills and the scans for printing etc. As I recall paraphrasing Ansel Adams he could only take 12 images a year worth printing (or something like that).

I sell my editions of 250 for all sizes that make up an edition (1 to 5 sizes) to collectively total 250 copies. For participating in art shows and for others that want smaller pieces I also offer smaller open ended copies that are available through the sale of the editions. Also, much of my work is sold framed and certainly almost all is matted. Much of my time and income comes from the framing of the work. Framing can be very important to the value of the display of the work to the buyer.

Rich

[bob carnie]

I see it both ways, a one off print really is a statement that your work is original and not just an assembly line product. But for others it takes years to get known for your work and without different prints getting out there into different markets for potential fans to see your images and pony up the cash to purchase, its a bit of a catch 22.
I am personally working on a series of solarizations that this question on editions is relevant and I need to answer for myself. These prints are very large, time consuming and very subjective, I now have made three different versions on smaller size just to get the right balance I am happy with. This has taken me time , money and energy, but I love the process and think I am close to start producing the large prints.
The question that is bugging me is I have invested x amount of dollars into each print. How much will I be able to sell them for , where and how many of each will I print.
I would prefer to only to make a small number of each print as they are very difficult to reproduce and after its made every one after is just copy work and I agree with you about one the one off value aspect.
My only concern is that I do not want to give these images away to the first lowball bidder who may or may not see my genius.
I am an unknown to the art buying public but I do have respect for my work and feel it is good and of value to some one other than my Mom, so without getting the work out there what do I do?
I have considered making three to five prints , of each image , once they are fully toned and finished in presentation matts , I would then snip the negative and that is that.
Since you brought it up , maybe this thread will help me in the decision on how many prints of each image I should make.

[matthew blais]

I sincerely do not believe selling "one-of" is going to achieve or award status as an artist. The work is what will accomplish that or not.

It is the quality of one's work, the ability to transcend the medium where it is viewed/perceived/accepted as art, and not just as a photograph. Photography is just a medium.

[paulr]

I sincerely do not believe selling "one-of" is going to achieve or award status as an artist. The work is what will accomplish that or not.

I think that's the general feeling in the various art markets. I haven't heard of any major figures using a destroyed negative as a gimmick ... and even if some do, I haven't seen any evidence of the market pressuring people to do that.

There IS pressure to limit your editions, if you're trying to sell to collectors or sell through a dealer. It's done on the honor system. If you had the good fortune to make a name for yourself, and then got caught violating the trust of your dealers/collectors, it would be bad news for you. Definitely not worth making a few extra bucks in the short term.

This has been true for hundreds of years with other kinds of printmaking. Even though you can't make an infinite number of prints from a lith stone or etching plate, you could certainly make more than the number most artists limit themselves to. Again its the market influencing them to keep the numbers smaller than the physical constraints, and again it's the honor system holding them to their word.

[Louie Powell]

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.

I believe that it originated with etchings, where the act of making a print actually shortened the life of the original original etched metal plate. Therefore, lower numbered images were thought to have greater value because the metal plate had not been subjected to as much wear and abuse when they were made.

In photography, it is purely an artifice used to either justify a higher price, or increase the "artsifartsiness" of the image, or both.

[Greg Lockrey]

The "dirty" little secret for notariety for an artist isn't the one print that is sold as an original but the countless examples that are on display as copies, posters and in manuscripts. Then the artist becomes well known enough whereby a consumer appreciates the "value" of his work and be willing to pay the actual worth of that original. Even the newbie artist that come to me to make prints, I tell them that their work is at least worth $50.00 per hour at today's prices if they want to be able to produce enough to live and retire on if they manage to market their work correctly. Sure, the newbie is sort of flabergasted by the fact that they spent 40 or so hours on apiece I and I have the audacity to suggest that it worth at least $2000.00. If you want to survive in this business, then it is. If you really think you can produce on piece a week, you'd only make $100K. Sorry, but that's not enough to plan for your future let alone live at a decient standard today. If you can't sell a $50 poster, how would you ever expect to make at least $50 per hour for your effort? I'm thinking that some here are either dreaming and/or are just plain elitests. All of my succsessful clients that command $5-30K per painting sell prints first. They sell a lot of prints prior to when the original is finally sold if it is ever. By then they are well known. I don't know any photographers who make that much other than those in commercial work and most of those make a weeks pay tops for a print because it takes that long to satisfy their client. Too many try to get "original" prices for something that everyone knows that they can produce 30 or more in a day. It's just a too much of a hard sell for photog/artists.

[tim atherton]

Of course the obvious answer is that photographic art isn't like or the same as painting. Nor is painting the same as architecture; nor architecture like music, nor music like bronze sculpture, nor bronze sculpture like etching; nor is etching like film; or film like dancing; or dancing like poetry.

In places there may be similarities, but there are frequently much more major differences.

There is simply no particular point - apart from an obtuse one - in trying to force one into the paradigms and practices (artistic or business) of another.

[Peter Lewin]

While the discussion is interesting, isn't it ignoring the innate differences between different techniques for creating art? For example, the silk screen process is designed to produce multiple prints, so arguably one would not use the process to produce a "one-off" piece of art. An oil painting or a monoprint is by definition a single piece, so presumably the artist is aware of that in choosing the medium. Using the same logic, photography was "designed" for multiple prints via the negative. I would think that digital photography is even more "designed" for multiples, since each print made from a file will be identical, whereas multiple "wet darkroom" prints from a negative will have some differences. What I'm trying to say is that the final piece of art is related to the process used to create it, and photography is by its innate technology not designed for single images (excluding polaroid). I guess I will fall back on the old Ansel Adams idea, that like music, the negative is the score, but [each] print is the performance. Re-reading my own note before posting, it occurs to me that the photographer with single images in mind would be best served by using Polaroids, eliminating the conflict between the technology and the desire for a single print.