Destroying Negatives to Limit Print Production...

[wm blunt]

Brett Weston burned only a few of his negs. The rest were put in a container of water to float the emulsion off. Same results. Not all were destroyed but hole punched. Again same results, no one else could make a "fine print" from them.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Brett Weston: (Brett Weston destroyed his negs when he died, concerned that nobody else print them. They were HIS work, and they would go when he went.) Though far from being on the same level as Mr. Weston, I have already begun doing the same. I have never thought of my photography work as "Fine Art" and never will! Many picture makers wish to become famous and leave some sort of mark that will never be forgotten.
I have no such wish! I do not want my negatives printed by anyone else. I came into this world with nothing and completely unknown it is my wish to leave exactly the same way. Clorox does a much nicer job of clearing a negative than burning. A "Limited Edition" does nothing for me! Charlie.....

Charles:
You are correct, your negatives are yours to do with as you will, but ....

There is at least a reasonable possibility, that in addition to being your work, they also may be a valuable record of what you observed and appreciated during your life.

I expect anyone here who has a background in museum work or archiving will cringe when they see many of the references here to destruction of negatives.

Those who follow you - decendants, or friends and colleagues and their decendants, may also regret that you did not save your negatives.

I look at negatives as being like diaries - who knows what value the information contained in them may have many years from now.

As to not wanting others to be able to print them, I expect it is like a piece of sheet music, or a script for a play - printing from a negative is an interpretation, and some interpretations can be magical, while others can be awful, but the underlying material will retain its quality no matter what (although if poorly interpreted, it may be harder to see).

As I said, they are your negatives, to do with what you please, but if you refrain from destroying them, they may bring real value, and great pleasure, to those who survive you.

All the best,

Matt

 

[Shawn Rahman]

As I said, they are your negatives, to do with what you please, but if you refrain from destroying them, they may bring real value, and great pleasure, to those who survive you.

Matt,

I agree with this for the most part, but there are many who would say that art belongs substantially to the public, and that artists relinquish their exclusive right to destroy their own art once it becomes part of the public conscience. Of course if a piece is sold, then the artist retains no right to destroy that piece, but I do not think famous photographers or artists with important and iconic images should have the right to destroy his own negatives and artwork just because he/she wants to.

 

[BruceN]

My mom was up to visit a couple of weeks ago and during our conversation I let slip that I was thinking of weeding out some of my older and poorer negatives. She reminded me, rather forcefully, of something I told her once: "Never ever ever ever EVER get rid of negatives. Weed the prints out if you must." OK mom, point taken.
I only hope that after my death one of my descendants will be interested enough to try and print my negatives. God willing, I hope they get rich off of them too. They'll need some luck for that, I expect.
Bruce

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're going to have a gimmick, give it some drama. I'd say cut the negative into as many pieces as the size of the edition and include a piece of the neg with each print. If you want to have a larger edition, of course, you should use a bigger neg.

 

[big_ben_blue]

If you're going to have a gimmick, give it some drama. I'd say cut the negative into as many pieces as the size of the edition and include a piece of the neg with each print.

Cutting the the negs or burning em? That's for kiddies!!! Boringgggggggggg is all I say to it.

If ya wanna do it right and with enough drama worthy of a real Mr. artisté, KILL THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!! Best to burn him or her at the stake along with the negs. It's that simple - it terminates any potential future work which could dilute the value, therefor making any still available work scarce and ultra rare - a feast for every greedy collector who is genuinely concerned on how to become filthy rich by having the one and only pieces of work by now deceased artists. That should take care of propelling the prices of the limited artworks into the stratossphere.

Cheers,
Chris, who is planning on living a very loooooooooooooong life

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I dunno. If I die and someone actually found it worthwhile to drag out my negatives and print them I would be more honored than horrified.

 

[laz]

I've resisted saying this (very rare for me) But I destroy my negitives. Usually by attempting to develop them!

-Bob

 

[Joe Lipka]

Whenever I see a limited edition photograph, I would like to ask the photographer, if I could look through all fifty prints he has made and let me make my choice from the entire edition.

Or, I would like to purchase number 46 of 50, but only after he has sold 45 prints.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Here is a limited edition print 3 of 3: http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php?ms=19&fn=rtprod&id=2320 - only $60000.00 AUD

This scene no longer exhibits. Should this transparency be destroyed? or kept as a record for the future.

Having read the description of the special permission required to even take this photograph, and seeing the price. I would say as a potential buyer, I would expect this image to be unique. I would expect any negative to be destroyed, I would even insist on that.

Any art gallery can ask me for permission to exhibit this item - Geesh, I just paid $60k for it.


Graham.

 

[davetravis]

For me two concepts suffice:
My Slides are My Slides.
My Ilfochromes are My Ilfochromes.
My prints are "naturally limited" by the fact that no one else will ever be allowed to make any form of print from my slides, except me.
No scanning, no lightjets, no inkjets, no jets.
I can't of course prevent fraud, but who can?
I have considered going camping in the Rockies, building a final fabulous fire, and having a sweet little ceremony of Jack Daniels and slide roasting, when I'm getting to the end of this life.
Selfish? Narcissistic?
Of course!
That's what my art is all about.
With any luck, I should have about 30 more years to think about it!

 

[roteague]

Having read the description of the special permission required to even take this photograph, and seeing the price. I would say as a potential buyer, I would expect this image to be unique. I would expect any negative to be destroyed, I would even insist on that.

It is a very, unique image of an Australian icon. A scene that no longer exists.

 

[BruceN]

Why doesn't it exist anymore, Robert? What happened to that place?

Bruce

 

[roteague]

Why doesn't it exist anymore, Robert? What happened to that place?

Bruce

The formost "Apostle" fell down 6 months ago.

 

[laz]

Here is a limited edition print 3 of 3: http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php?ms=19&fn=rtprod&id=2320 - only $60000.00 AUD

This scene no longer exits. Should this transparency be destroyed? or kept as a record for the future.

By definition every scene ever photographed is one that no longer exists.

This image does nothing for me (even in it's "gold timber" frame) For $60k one can purchase a couple of nice Ansel Abams. You can bet your bottom dollar that 20 years from now the AAs will be worth far more than $60k, this pic far less then $60K.

 

[roteague]

By definition every scene ever photographed is one that no longer exists.

This image does nothing for me (even in it's "gold timber" frame) For $60k one can purchase a couple of nice Ansel Abams. You can bet your bottom dollar that 20 years from now the AAs will be worth far more than $60k, this pic far less then $60K.

True, but this scene is an Australian icon; you can see images of the "12 Apostles" on almost every tourist brochure, etc that you can find on Australia; however, few were taken from this vantage point. I've even taken pictures of them myself (not as good as this one, I guarantee). Yes, the price of this image is high; if I was in the position to pay that sum, I would. Ken Duncan is very highly respected and sought after photographer in Australia.

Frankly, Ansel Adams prints do very little for me. I remember a few months ago, Aggie took me to the Mum gallery in Napa Valley; on one wall hung AA prints, on the other were prints by William Neil, Charles Cramer, Christopher Burkett, etc. I almost totally ignored the AA prints - I love color prints. Lesson, we all see and react differently.

 

[Quinten]

if leonardo da vinci "printed" 150 identical mona lisa's, would they be worth anything, or would they just be a run of the mill ?

i don't see any problem whatsoever that they burn or destroy the film.

you said it bruce!

Actually there have been three versions of the mona lisa. Only one made by Leonardo himselves, the other two where fakes of the highest standard. Made not too long after the orriginal, so tests can't reveal the thruth. The real mona lisa has been stolen in the past, once returned they wheren't sure wheter the real one hangs in the louvre right now...

I think the one painted by leonardo will always be of imense value no matter how many fakes there are.
After all you can buy great posters of the great works from the past. (I always see the American tourists overr here walking around with the posters from the Van Gogh museum.)
cheers!
Quinten

 

[laz]

we all see and react differently.

Oh I totally agree with you. And AA doesn't do all the much for me either. I guess the point I was trying to make was that this print is being marketed as a valuable commodity. I think then that the price should have some grounding in the reality of the market.
-Bob

 

[Ole]

I think the one painted by leonardo will always be of imense value no matter how many fakes there are.

Yes, but which one is it? All three are slightly different, and there is no consensus on which one (if any) was painted by Leonardo da Vinci

 

[roteague]

Oh I totally agree with you. And AA doesn't do all the much for me either. I guess the point I was trying to make was that this print is being marketed as a valuable commodity. I think then that the price should have some grounding in the reality of the market.
-Bob

In the Australia market, it probably does. Most of his images sell for $1000 or more, with many editions sold out. Ken is probably the most well known photographer in Australia. Were you aware that Ken Duncan was also the official photographer for the movie "Passion of the Christ"? His work is quite well known (I have two of his books myself, "Australia Wide" and "America Wide").

 

[gbroadbridge]

It is a very, unique image of an Australian icon. A scene that no longer exists.

Sure, and as I just paid $60k for it I expect that no further prints be made. My print should appreciate in value, and not be devalued by prints that take advantage of the apostle falling into the sea.

Take a new shot if you will, but don't reprint a shot for which I paid big bucks.


Graham.

 

[jvarsoke]

A few years ago I read about a stamp collector who own 1 of 2 of some extremely valuable (and obviously rare) stamp. In an auction he bought the other one. Right after paying for it, still in the auction house, he took out his lighter and torched it. To gasps of horror he said, "Well, not I have the only one in the entire world."

The price of the single stamp when up 5 fold.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

A few years ago I read about a stamp collector who own 1 of 2 of some extremely valuable (and obviously rare) stamp. In an auction he bought the other one. Right after paying for it, still in the auction house, he took out his lighter and torched it. To gasps of horror he said, "Well, not I have the only one in the entire world."

The price of the single stamp when up 5 fold.

What kind of nonsense is this? No one else had another one. He had the only two.

 

[jvarsoke]

What kind of nonsense is this? No one else had another one. He had the only two.

There is more value in scarcity than quantity, sometimes.

If Da Vinci painted 1,000 Monas, do you think owning them all would make your collection equal in value to possessing the only one in existence? You would just own all of something that would be 'common', and while brilliant, definatelly worth less.

 

[lenny]

Coupla points

Remember that a limited edition is only limited for the specific size. After you print n number of 16x20's, you can now go out and print some really great 16.5 x 21.5's.

Furthermore, prints made with inkjet printers are getting better and better. Some like them better. Who is to say that this neg one is destroying didn't get scanned first.

This limited stuff is very unfair. Consider that you limit an edition to 25. By the time you sell them all, they are finally worth something - and you get nothing. It is terribly unfair. Collectors benefitting from the sale of our work, back and forth. I think we should turn this totally around. The musicians have a union. Every time a song gets played they get a buck.

I think all artists should have a registry. Every time a photo is sold, a small percentage shoudl go back to the photographer. Your life's work could ultimately amount to a pension plan. Be a nice way of keeping us off the streets later on....