Another debate I keep coming upon is to edition or not to edition prints. I like the idea of limiting how many prints are out there and it does cut back on forgeries. I wondering what you guys and girls think.


Also another subject that's enough to give you a headache is how to price prints. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

Se what Brooks Jensen (editor of Lenswork) have to say on this. I agree with him, limited
editions is an obsolete concept in photography and I have put up an essay on my
own site to make my view on this clear to buyers.

Pricing is difficult, but the low price is what you have to make, to make it worth it
to make and sell the prints. The high price is whatever you can sell them for.

Ronny

I spoke to Brooks very briefly about this ( I'm in issue #78) and am still comparing the pros and cons. I'm actually going to talk to several photographers today about it and I'll comeback later and post what they said.

It may be technically obsolete, but if you take a good sampling of the gallery world, you'll see it is well alive.

That's true, but it's an artificial constraint done because of commercial and marketing
purposes, and does not have anything to do with photography and photography as art
as such. In my eyes an image isn't more "artsy" because it's a limited edition, but
I know some people see it differently thou.

Ronny

I agree with Ronny. In fact numbering is a fairly recent development. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, etc. did not number prints and only limited the edition number of portfolios. Adams actually said (I paraphrase) "why limit the number of prints one can make from a medium that is by nature unlimited and in which each print of an image is potentially as good as all other prints?"

I would add that by limiting an edition, one limits how much better later prints of a given image can be made when significant changes to the technology take place (as they do now)! What if you sell out the edition of a specific image, and then find out you could now print it better than you ever did before? If you number, and the edition is sold out, you are out of luck! You can't print this image anymore without breaking the promise you made to the collectors who purchased your work.

To me it seems that numbering comes out of a static approach to photography, an approach in which the artist believes, explicitely or implicitely, that he/she has made the best possible print from a specific image and will never ever be able to do any better. This no longer holds true today in a world where technical advances are made if not daily or weekly then monthly and definitly yearly.

When I realized this about 2 years ago I decided to stop numbering my prints. I only number my portfolios, the way Adams did, because they are collections of prints and not single images. They represent a completed body of work at a specific date and time. I also limit, by nature, prints that are unique, for example if I do paint touch ups to a canvas print. These are usually just one of a kind and are indicated as such.

ALain

I have expanded on my answer in this essay:

The Numbering Affair

Alain

> it's an artificial constraint done because of commercial and marketing purposes

Not necessarily. For instance, Micheal Kenna (who is consistently very popular with collectors) states that he limits his editions because he does not want to spend his life printing again and again the same images. I agree with this approach, as I feel an artist needs to move on, but I entirely respect those who prefer to revisit the same images over and over again.


> When I realized this about 2 years ago I decided to stop numbering my prints.

Alain, if you offer limited edition prints (as I believe you did, at one point I think you mentioned "the larger the size, the smaller the edition", and then you listed edition numbers of 10), isn't it unfair to the collectors who purchased them while they were numbered to stop numbering them ? I too, have been changing my edition numbers over the years, but all my changes have been towards smaller editions, so I suppose nobody would have grounds for complaints.

I've spoken to at least 10 local and nationally well known photographers and several collectors over the last several days trying to see what others would say face to face without them knowing how I feel about the matter. I couldn't find one that agreed with not limiting the amount of the work they produced with a common answer of "it's a way of moving on to the next project". All the collectors agreed with the photographers that unless the photographer was already famous or a print they couldn't live without they would never conceive purchasing a photograph that could number in the hundreds or sell for $20. I won't even mention what my local galleries or museum said. I would rather have 45 people who loved my print enough to pay my price then 100 or more who bought it because it was cheap or abundant. I'm not belittling people that mass produce or sell prints for $20, actually all the power to them but I'm not going to accept that what I'm doing as wrong, unethical or antiquated.

Actually it makes the editions more valuable since the editions are smaller than originally intended (unless they were sold out when I stopped numbering ) :-)

How does that work ? When you stopped numbering, did you also stop issuing all prints that had been sold prior with a number, or are you still offering them without a number ?

That's an interesting piece by an artist who, as of *very* recently limited his prints, and now writes strongly against that practice, going as far as to question the integrity of those who limit their prints. I thought that readers may enjoy reading a piece by an artist that has taken exactly the opposite path at: http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/index.html?di...edEditions.html
Note in particular "Given that just about everyone knows how I feel about the topic of limited editions it should be understood that what is about to transpire is NOT being done for marketing purposes" :-)

They are offered without numbers unless the edition was sold out.

Let me try to understand. By "the editions are smaller than initially intended", you mean that for instance if you sold 1/10, 2/10, 3/10 of image X, then the collectors should be happy because now the edition is actually 1/3, 2/3, 3/3, since your future prints of image X will *not* be part of the edition as they do not have any number ?

Yes.

Not wanting to print the same image the rest of your life is understandable, but you do
not need a limited edition to achieve this. You can simply stop selling the image or
rise the price. I don't mind people having limited editions, but I find saying that it's not
for commercial purposes a little less than totally truthful. Again, I don't mind this, but
IMHO it doesn't have anything to do with photography and art, but is a marketing
decision.

Ronny

Do whatever you want to do, as usual there will be sufficient precedent to justify it.

Art Sinsabaugh (whose work will be shown in the Philly area at Haverford College Oct 4 - Dec 1) typically planned for editions of 3, some of which were never printed. Unless you have an image that will become a big "hit" in your venue for whatever reason, this is probably a realistic number. Understand that there are zillions of ways to "fudge" on a edition later, should you feel inclined. "artist's proofs", "special editions", resized editions, etc. etc. This is is done routinely. The art market is not long on ethical behavior.

Technology - better printers and papers can easily motivate photographers to create a new edition that is, in fact, different from a prior edition. How one might regard the prior (now "inferior") edition is another interesting question.

[quote=ronnynil,Sep 8 2008, 06:27 AM]
Se what Brooks Jensen (editor of Lenswork) have to say on this. I agree with him, limited
editions is an obsolete concept in photography and I have put up an essay on my
own site to make my view on this clear to buyers.




Let me be sure I have this right: from reading the article I gather BJ is now in the business of selling prints for other photographers through the magazine - right or wrong?

If I am right, then he seems to me to be selling cheaply in the same manner as any stock agency, where the maths is about high turnover. This rings good for the agent - BJ, who will have the turnover - but not so hot for the photographer.

Business as usual, then...

Rob C

I rather admire Christopher Burkett's clever position on this. He prints beautiful hand-made Ilfochromes, which are of course quite labor intensive with all their contrast control masks. When an image is first up for sale it goes for his 'base' price. If it turns out to be popular, he progressively raises the price. If it's extremely popular, it ends up going for thousands. Buyers can decide if they're willing to pay the premium, and Burkett gets compensated for having to print the same image over & over. The 'edition size' takes care of itself.

Wrong I think. As far as I know he only sells his own images on that website,
and speaks about his own views and practice on this.

Ronny

I tend to agree with the BJ approach. I'm not a 'recognized' fine art photographer but have won some local competitions and Jurors Awards etc. I try really hard to make the prints at the best quality I can.

I have actually sold more 'framed' and ready to hang pieces in the 200 - 300 range than the smaller 'print in a bag' at $35 - $45

As a small producer it seems that people want to buy and hang, the hassle for many of framing the print themselves (even though they fit commercial frames) or taking it to a shop seems noticeable. I have sold prints on the basis that I can frame it too.

The trouble with numbering is that it adds a great deal of added time to the management of ones collection - however a number of galleries etc in my area insist that work is a limited edition, claiming that it does make a difference to perception and sales. In reality I think most collectors of photo's do not really care, provided that they realize that the print is made by the person and not a run of several thousand for the 'home improvement' warehouse. So as a photographer I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place, although a combination of the BJ model and the production of small limited portfolio packages may be the way to go, especially if I market the work myself.

Why not have the best of both worlds? Make a limited edition of large prints, matted and framed, for consumption by the gallery capitalists; then, for those who love the images, make smaller, more intimate prints at a more "democratic" price point so that everyone can enjoy it. I see not reason why the artist has to limit his/her profits by saying they will sell only X number of prints. After all, the creativity is the hardest part of marketing a fine art print. Why shouldn't the artist be the one who ultimately makes the most money from a particular print?

Especially in modern times, where making a duplicate print is as easy as pushing a button and loading the media, why limit the number of people who can enjoy your work? In the wet darkroom days, sure, an artist would tire of printing the same negative over and over. There was a larger investment of time, our most limited commodity.

In the end, though, as long as the artist is making the calls, more power to them. Let's not let gallery owners affect our creativity. Follow your heart, and by all means, remember that there's nothing wrong with NOT being a starving artist!

Not quite sure I follow: on the one hand folks who buy from a gallery are designated `capitalist´ in a manner which seems to indicate the pejorative sense of the word; then those who buy cheaper are somehow presumed to `love´ the images indicating, then, that the others do not, perhaps?

I also find it strange to believe that `creativity is the hardest part of marketing a fine art print.´ Really? I would have thought that creativity was a given for any artist. Experience shows the opposite to what you posit: selling is by far the most difficult aspect of the game for most artists; were that other than the truth, there would be precious few big-time photographers´ agents arounds or, for that matter, actors´agents either!

The encouragement not to be a starving artist is perfectly good, so why discourage the best ploys of the marketing specialists? You can´t really have it both ways, even if that would be nice. But, you can hardly ask your `capitalist´ for big bucks and give the same stuff away for pennies to the poor on the basis that the size is different. That, indeed, is dubious morality!

Rob C

You make some good points Rob. However, I was referring to the gallery owners as the capitalists. IMHO, they are the ones who benefit the most from limited editions.

The desire to be one of the few who owns something, be it art, 1st ed. books, antiques, etc. is part of human nature. We covet scarce things. If you can market your art using this as one element to create desire in your work, then go for it. Your art will be limited no matter what so you can choose to set the limit by numbering/stating it upfront or you can let the market/time do it for you. Galleries, collectors and most artists working in that world would probably choose the former strategy.

I sell my work through galleries so the choice was obvious for me, I do small limited editions. I'm an artist, not a printer, so I choose to move on with my work rather than print my past work until I die. This benefits me and my gallery equally. I also think it has been more profitable for me since I can charge more per print. Limiting your edition doesn't limit your financial gain either. You can always raise your prices on what is left in your edition. I charge more for each successive print in the edition (1/6=x, 2/6=x+10, etc.) and often raise prices over time as costs go up.

In the end, whether one chooses to limit/number their edition or not, you have made a marketing decision. Neither decision is more ethical or creatively pure.

The topic has come to a bit of a head here! I'm in the process of being reviewed by a local Gallery. The rules suggest that images be limited editions.... I explained my case to the curator - a hy-bred of a couple of number models and she completely agreed with me!

In review the system has a Brook Jenson style policy that I had been leaning toward prior to reading his essay on the subject - except that the total lifetime limit of any print from any file (or similar one - no machine gunning a subject to provide lots of near identical files!!) is 50 unless otherwise noted. (I have a successful and cheeky image that is x/69!!) That means I have a responsibility to manage my printing and also provides the ability to control a price / size stratergy for popular images should one wizz off towards the limit!! To make things clear the 50 include all prints over 10x8 in size (except those evaluation ones I destroy.)

If a small collection goes to exhibition, then any exhibition edition / portfolio would count within the 50, but also become a limited subset of 1 - 10 images.

I think that gives everyone the best of all worlds, but most importantly because photography is essentially a way for me to explore 'being alive' the images are essentially a by-product of the exploration, keep me looking for new, rather than continually reprinting and re-working the old. It gives any buyers that are interested in the providence of the work the ability to find out more about the piece and how many have been produced in a completely honest and transparent way.

Personally I think very few people purchase a photographic print from people like myself because they think it will be worth several times more in the future, however if they enjoy experiencing the presence of a piece then they may well. Imagine thinking a piece is 1/250 when in fact it is the only one ever produced!!

Steven

At least here in Finland the state taxing goes like this.

If my gallery sells a photograph, then the VAT (value added tax) is either

- for signed limited 1-30 and numbered print -- the tax 8%
- for others 22 %

This rule is also for photographs I buy outside of EU area. When buying from
states I need to pay the VAT for your USA/Canadian prints.

This is 8% or 22% from the total price including postage.

So for me it makes a difference. For customers buying, they only see the
selling price - not what part goes to the goverment (8% or 22%)

Kirmo Wilén

www.withlight.com