Posted by Zack Clothier on March 18, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Does anyone here offer limited edition prints? If so, what is your process of going about it? And besides the prints do you believe it is OK to still sell the image to other markets such as calendars, magazines, etc? I am just trying to get a better understanding of what exactly a "limited edition print" is.
Posted by Mitch Erwin on March 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM
Zack, I think this topic is similar, though on a smaller scale, asking which camera maker is better, Canon or Nikon? Opinions are going to vary greatly!
Here is my take on Limited Editions. I personally do not offer them, reason being, with the advent of the digital camera, every, and I mean every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" ( including myself) is shooting, trying to market their photos, through various means. Many are spending the big $$ to buy their own professional grade printers or outsourcing their printing to companies who pretty much all do top notch work.
With all of those cameras out there, what is going to keep someone from viewing a photograph that one takes under "normal" circumstances, recreating ( copying ) that same photo, or something VERY similar, and calling it a Limited Edition?
For me a photograph to be a limited edition, there must be two things that need to happen: 1) The photograph must be of a VERY rare circumstance, never before seen, or 2) There must be an Edition of #1 only! I've seen many " unknown " photographers saying Editions of 100, 200, 300.........come on!? Many will not sell those higher numbers in their lifetime.
As for marketing Limited Edition prints for calendars, magazines, etc. I'd be pretty ripe with the photographer if I shelled out a larger sum of money on what I thought was a Editioned rare photo only to see it in a magazine or on a calendar.
Zack, I do sell Limited Editions. If your photos are of a good quality nobody can copy them.A good photographer has his/her own style. And they do sell if you frame them. I've editions of 5 and editions of 100. I know I'm 'unknown', but I do sell them. It doesn't matter if they are in calenders or magazines, because its not the real thing. It's the same in art, the limited editions are of the best quality and signed by the artist, but photos of their work are also printed in magazines and calenders. Sometimes they even print reproductions.
So if your photos are good enough, go ahead and do it.
Merel
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 19, 2010 at 8:27 AM
I don't do limited editions. IMHO it is a farce to limit the number of prints you will make of a photograph. The concept began with art prints (lithography, intaglio, woodcuts) where there were practical limits to how many quality prints you could make. It made only slight sense with darkroom prints where dodging and burning made each print slightly different but even Ansel Adams never did limited editions. Now we have digital where printing involves (once it is set up) pushing a button for endless identical prints. Artificially limiting the times you will push the button becomes nothing more than a marketing gimmick to get the buyer to pay more. I don't do gimmicks.
If you were going to do a truly limited edition of an image, here is what my standard would have to be: 1) Print all copies up front. Printing them as they are purchased, a process that can go on for years, even an entire career with larger editions, is a perversion of the word "edition" which means "The entire number of copies of a publication issued at one time or from a single set of type." (from thefreedictoinary.com). 2) After printing the edition destroy the original file and all work copies of the file that the image was made from. Erase them from your hard drive(s) and shred any backup CDs/DVDs. If you want it to have real credibility have an independent party verify that all copies of the digital file were destroyed. Art printmakers did this with their originals. The cleaned the drawing off the lithostone, gouged or cut in two the plate, etc. Printing one or a few at at time and more later and keeping the file while claiming to be working in a limited edition tradition is fraud IMO. The facts are that most photographers never sell more than 5 or 6 copies of any photo on average. Most (99.999%) of photos are not and never will increase in value because of rarity. The percentage that will is falling geometrically as the shear number of digital images explodes.
What I do for my framed prints is number them consecutively, sign and date each print on the back. I place no limit on the number I will print but have never sold more than 6 of any given print anyway. Usually by then I've moved on to new work and am not even showing the old stuff. YMMV
I offer prints of my photographs as "limited variant editions." I am not doing it for any financial gain. My main reason is that I have "no desire" to produce more than a certain number of prints of a photograph. By limiting the edition, I let people know of that fact (up front).
Unlike Jim Bullard (and I suppose many others) I don't see this as a gimmick. It is my choice and I am doing it because I want to and I because can. If someone thinks that the idea stinks they can always refuse to purchase a print from me. I am perfectly ok with that.
Posted by Brad Mangas on March 19, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Zach, in my never ending quest for knowledge of the arts I came across this opinion of "limited editions" when it comes to art, photography in this case. I completely concur with this statement as provided by Henry Domke.
Limited editions are designed as a marketing tool. In most cases, its use is artificial. The use of the term “limited editions” for photographic prints bothers me just like the pretentious fake word “giclée.”
The idea behind limited editions is based on something real; it goes back to 19th century printmaking. Back then, many traditional printmaking techniques could only produce a limited number of top-quality impressions, as copies of prints are known. This can be as few as 10 or 20 for a technique like drypoint.
In today’s world, however, printmaking technology allows an almost unlimited number of prints to be made with identical quality. To artificially limit the print number to create a sense of urgency or scarcity in an attempt to keep the price high is phony.
The big issue here is whether you want to sell your photos in art shows or to galleries. If you do, then you'll have to create pieces as limited editions.
I wrestled with this myself. After seeing so many art shows and galleries REQUIRE that all photos for sale there be limited editions, I do everything I want to sell as a framed print as limited editions. Until art shows and galleries change their out-dated philosophy, this is what we're stuck with, regardless of whether it makes any sense in today's world or not.
I think that is your major consideration.
As for selling limited edition images to magazines, books, etc. I don't see a problem because that image will never see the size and print quality that a buyer can get in a large, framed piece. It may also be cropped differently in publication. So that version is not the same "editon" to me. I don't think owners of an Ansel Adams print feel slighted because his pictures also appear in books. (I know he didnt' limit his editions, but his work gets prices far beyond what a contemporary photographers' LE gets).
Once more, if I'm being forced into creating limited editions by art show and gallery rules, then I don't think I should inflict further poverty on myself by not marketing that image to mediums different from framed art pieces.
My 5 cents.
Randall K. Roberts
randallkroberts.com
archive.randallkroberts.com
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 21, 2010 at 8:55 PM
An instance where (in retrospect) a limited edition would have been a good idea: I was talking at a local gallery opening last night when I was told of an instance where an artist couple (potter & painter) collaborated on some work. Some mail order company saw one of the pieces and asked if they could put it in their catalog. "Sure" they answered but it was a big hit and making the thousand plus copies that were ordered occupied them full time for six straight months. Not a situation we photographers are likely to encounter but placing a limit on how many they were willing to produce at the outset would have been a good idea.
As for galleries or shows that require limited editions, I have never seen that demand but I would politely explain that I don't do them and why. If it remained a condition of acceptance I would withdraw. I personally feel that it is phony and I don't need to sell work so badly that I am willing to resort to phony just to please someone else. I have considered responding to that demand by numbering prints as 125 of 53 or perhaps G7 of 23Z and telling them it is code.
Discussion
7 repliesHere is my take on Limited Editions. I personally do not offer them, reason being, with the advent of the digital camera, every, and I mean every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" ( including myself) is shooting, trying to market their photos, through various means. Many are spending the big $$ to buy their own professional grade printers or outsourcing their printing to companies who pretty much all do top notch work.
With all of those cameras out there, what is going to keep someone from viewing a photograph that one takes under "normal" circumstances, recreating ( copying ) that same photo, or something VERY similar, and calling it a Limited Edition?
For me a photograph to be a limited edition, there must be two things that need to happen: 1) The photograph must be of a VERY rare circumstance, never before seen, or 2) There must be an Edition of #1 only! I've seen many " unknown " photographers saying Editions of 100, 200, 300.........come on!? Many will not sell those higher numbers in their lifetime.
As for marketing Limited Edition prints for calendars, magazines, etc. I'd be pretty ripe with the photographer if I shelled out a larger sum of money on what I thought was a Editioned rare photo only to see it in a magazine or on a calendar.
Just my $01 1/2 cents worth, which isn't much
Signed,
" Nobody " Tom
So if your photos are good enough, go ahead and do it.
Merel
If you were going to do a truly limited edition of an image, here is what my standard would have to be: 1) Print all copies up front. Printing them as they are purchased, a process that can go on for years, even an entire career with larger editions, is a perversion of the word "edition" which means "The entire number of copies of a publication issued at one time or from a single set of type." (from thefreedictoinary.com). 2) After printing the edition destroy the original file and all work copies of the file that the image was made from. Erase them from your hard drive(s) and shred any backup CDs/DVDs. If you want it to have real credibility have an independent party verify that all copies of the digital file were destroyed. Art printmakers did this with their originals. The cleaned the drawing off the lithostone, gouged or cut in two the plate, etc. Printing one or a few at at time and more later and keeping the file while claiming to be working in a limited edition tradition is fraud IMO. The facts are that most photographers never sell more than 5 or 6 copies of any photo on average. Most (99.999%) of photos are not and never will increase in value because of rarity. The percentage that will is falling geometrically as the shear number of digital images explodes.
What I do for my framed prints is number them consecutively, sign and date each print on the back. I place no limit on the number I will print but have never sold more than 6 of any given print anyway. Usually by then I've moved on to new work and am not even showing the old stuff. YMMV
Unlike Jim Bullard (and I suppose many others) I don't see this as a gimmick. It is my choice and I am doing it because I want to and I because can. If someone thinks that the idea stinks they can always refuse to purchase a print from me. I am perfectly ok with that.
Limited editions are designed as a marketing tool. In most cases, its use is artificial. The use of the term “limited editions” for photographic prints bothers me just like the pretentious fake word “giclée.”
The idea behind limited editions is based on something real; it goes back to 19th century printmaking. Back then, many traditional printmaking techniques could only produce a limited number of top-quality impressions, as copies of prints are known. This can be as few as 10 or 20 for a technique like drypoint.
In today’s world, however, printmaking technology allows an almost unlimited number of prints to be made with identical quality. To artificially limit the print number to create a sense of urgency or scarcity in an attempt to keep the price high is phony.
I wrestled with this myself. After seeing so many art shows and galleries REQUIRE that all photos for sale there be limited editions, I do everything I want to sell as a framed print as limited editions. Until art shows and galleries change their out-dated philosophy, this is what we're stuck with, regardless of whether it makes any sense in today's world or not.
I think that is your major consideration.
As for selling limited edition images to magazines, books, etc. I don't see a problem because that image will never see the size and print quality that a buyer can get in a large, framed piece. It may also be cropped differently in publication. So that version is not the same "editon" to me. I don't think owners of an Ansel Adams print feel slighted because his pictures also appear in books. (I know he didnt' limit his editions, but his work gets prices far beyond what a contemporary photographers' LE gets).
Once more, if I'm being forced into creating limited editions by art show and gallery rules, then I don't think I should inflict further poverty on myself by not marketing that image to mediums different from framed art pieces.
My 5 cents.
Randall K. Roberts
randallkroberts.com
archive.randallkroberts.com
As for galleries or shows that require limited editions, I have never seen that demand but I would politely explain that I don't do them and why. If it remained a condition of acceptance I would withdraw. I personally feel that it is phony and I don't need to sell work so badly that I am willing to resort to phony just to please someone else. I have considered responding to that demand by numbering prints as 125 of 53 or perhaps G7 of 23Z and telling them it is code.