Destroying Negatives to Limit Print Production...

Not if your work stinks.

Bruce (Camclicker) said:

How can a "limited edition" be limited if there exists a negative? The pretentiousness is in the photographer who thinks by limiting the print run of a photograph they become somehow more valuable (pricier). This may be true if you can prove there cannot be another print made, thus: burn baby burn. It takes a lot of guts to destroy a negative.

Click to expand...

i can't remember who it was, but didn't someone make a series, and cut the negative up into X-pieces and include each piece with each print?

jnanian said:

i can't remember who it was, but didn't someone make a series, and cut the negative up into X-pieces and include each piece with each print?

Click to expand...

John, I don't know if this is who you are thinking. But I know that Cole Weston did that on some of his Cibachrome prints.

Just a couple thoughts....

Excuse me if I reiterate something that someone posted earlier... I read page one and decided to post... I didn't feel that I should have to limit mentioning this point however...

This comes from a guy who is basically oblivious to the "real world"... I choose to be that way so that I can live as purely as possible... The idea of the value of a work being based on the number of prints available seems silly... I know that in some situations (really damn famous or a very important work) this is the case, but I don't care.. I think its stupid... The ego touting of people when it comes to deciding that they are important enough for such practices is almost offensive...

The next thing has to do with the value of being free to "pursue" art... If you have a piece that could be printed better/differently/refined at some later point, you'd be crippling yourself of the ablity to do so... It seems stupid to limit your own ability to create art in the name of something so grounded, questionable, and pretensious...

I agree it takes either balls or stupidity to burn negatives... I tend to do everything I can to back up all forms of my art... I scan negatives, back up all digital files, try to protect my work from the ravages of fire, failure, mold, and just about everything I can... Call me self-righteous, but I assume that the idea of producing art is relevant to personal growth, etc., and shouldn't be based on others actions in this world...

. It seems stupid to limit your own ability to create art in the name of something so grounded, questionable, and pretensious...

Click to expand...

I disagree. With time an artist changes their view the way they see and to me printing old work is boring and useless as I want to grow and not spend my time printing old work. It is really a personal choice. If you treat photography like a painting where there is only one, then yes I can see the point at destroying the negative as it would then be unique just like a painting or drawing. So stupid or pretentious, it is not, it is rather taking photography to the next level of making a single work of art and that is it, just like a painting. Would I do it? Don't know but I might do a few like that.

Reply

The point isn't in actually just printingl like a machine... I'm talking about doing artistic things with the negs and making prints that are unlike any other... If you print like a machine, thats one thing, but an entirely different point...

Aha! Now I see where the DIY TV shows get their expert opinions: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If I understand the difference, it's only when one attains a level of photographic genius, can you clean your closet of clutter, right? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Regards, Art.

I attacked the limited edition print problem years ago when I decided to make my photographs available to collectors through a gallery in Sydney.

Firstly I abolished the word "print" in favour of the word "photograph". I think back in the 19th and early 20th century there was a sense of shame in offering photographs in an Art (sic?) gallery and the word "print" with its connotations of etchings and engravings was much more legitimate, genteel and less embarrassing. Maybe a modern equivalent is the glib elevation of "shameful" ink-jets into "respectable" Giclees.

Next to go was "edition". I realised that I don't work like a machine and that every gelatin-silver photograph was made as a unique original by going through the entire expose/develop/fix/wash/etc sequence every time. This is like playing a musical instrument again to hear the tune again. Photographs are equivalent to separate performances and not like a CD on repeat-play.

"Limited" doesn't apply either. Anytime someone wants to acquire a photograph from me I will make it anew using the best materials I have and with the best intentions I can muster.

The idea of burning the negative betrays a simple-minded attitude that the gelatin-silver photograph is some how a copy, reproduction, or edition of that negative. I can't be sure how other people work but my gelatin-silver photographs have a lot imaged in them besides the negative. Typically these extra things are well out-of-focus negatively rendered images of my hands, fingers, bits of card, wires, or gauzes. Photographers say burning, dodging, and diffusion; commercial gallerists say nothing because they don't really know how photographs come into existence.

The entire vocabulary of "limited edition print, cancelled negative" (and the mind-sets that go with it) is a cynical amalgam of art dealer ignorance/avarice and an ancient cringe factor on the part of photographers.

In the latest issue of B&W Magazine, an advertisement for a certain gallery in Ireland boasts about how they conduct an annual burning of "negatives that have reached the end of their five-year life span". The reason given is to "put a dramatic halt" to the "potential for infinite reproductions".

gallery is a place of liers and business. First of all they do NOT own negatives, so they have nothing to burn, so they lie. Even photographer that give up on his negatives think twice which and why to give up on (if any).
Limiting eddition prints are marketing joke and story for kids. No one when sold all and asked for more will refuse, except if he/she do not live on photography and just do not care. Photography is NOT so good business that make it possible what you found in B&W magazine.
And for indefinite number of photographs made from one negative. Hex man, get back.

www.Leica-R.com

Daniel_OB said:

Limiting eddition prints are marketing joke and story for kids. No one when sold all and asked for more will refuse, except if he/she do not live on photography and just do not care.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Where I live, in Hawaii, when you finish selling all the images in an edition, you are no longer allowed, by law, to make more. However, limiting an edition does not mean the image can't be used for other purposes - like calendars, etc. You just can't use them for fine art prints.

roteague said:

Not necessarily. Where I live, in Hawaii, when you finish selling all the images in an edition, you are no longer allowed, by law, to make more. However, limiting an edition does not mean the image can't be used for other purposes - like calendars, etc. You just can't use them for fine art prints.

Click to expand...

So if I lived in Hawai'i and I noted on each photomat board "1 of many" or "n of Many" on my fine art prints I would be ok?

What if after I had printed to the limit of production, could I print more fine art prints and sell them out of state or out of the country where Hawai'i's laws carry not weight? :confused:

Steve

According to the law in regards to multiples you must define exactly how you are selling your multiples, regardless of media and in some states if you are in galleries you must also include a certificate of authenticity. Also in your certificate you must clearly define exactly how you intend to sell your multiples to the T.

If you sell all X of your images and in your certificate you define the rules in which you sell.

So if you say that this edition of 8x10 will consist of 100 prints then once those 100 sold out you could no longer prints 8x10 but could sell 11x14.

If you state that this edition is of 100 regardless of size for a hand printed silver gelatin print then once those sell out you could never print another silver gelatin print of that images period.

I would suggest you read this link;
http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm

In CA you are also required by law to disclose everything when selling multiples and photographs are classified as a multiple.

You really need to research it but to make things easier for me I include a cert and detailed explanation of how I sell and what is in included for any state or country I sell in. Also I heard that in France you are only allowed 15 or 12 I think. I remember one of the members here in the past was from France and I remember him mentioning something about the law when selling multiples. Don’t quote me on the 12 or 15 but I remember something about by law you have to limit.

However, limiting an edition does not mean the image can't be used for other purposes - like calendars, etc. You just can't use them for fine art prints.

Click to expand...

Even it is law I would still spell it out in the certificate exactly how an images can be used after it is sold out. For example something to the effect of, once this image is sold out no more silver gelatin prints will be made. Reproduction prints however can be made at any time for books, posters, magazines, calendars, postcards, digital reproduction prints, advertising or promotional purposes. These reproductions will not be hand crafted traditional silver gelatin fiber base photographs. These reproductions will not be hand signed by the artist or numbered unless in book or poster form.

So in other words and I cant stress it enough, spell everything out and be honest.

Stever said:

What if after I had printed to the limit of production, could I print more fine art prints and sell them out of state or out of the country where Hawai'i's laws carry not weight? :confused:

Click to expand...

Not legally, as far as I am aware. Then again, how effective are speeding laws - probably just as effective as this law.

kjsphoto said:

Even it is law I would still spell it out in the certificate exactly how an images can be used after it is sold out. For example something to the effect of, once this image is sold out no more silver gelatin prints will be made. Reproduction prints however can be made at any time for books, posters, magazines, calendars, postcards, digital reproduction prints, advertising or promotional purposes. These reproductions will not be hand crafted traditional silver gelatin fiber base photographs. These reproductions will not be hand signed by the artist or numbered unless in book or poster form.

So in other words and I cant stress it enough, spell everything out and be honest.

Click to expand...

Amen....

Ok, so if I or anyone follows the laws with the appropriate blah, blah blah, .. why then destroy the negative? What if long after you are dead, some researcher "discovers" that you were really the greatest photographer since Mathew Brady and this researcher want to publish your prints from the original negatives for his book? All that was done by burning the negatives was adding pollution to the atmosphere.

Steve

I never said I would burn a negative, I said that what ever I do I make sure I spell out exactly what I am doing.

Again each artist can do what they wish. If they want to burn their negs then so be it, it is a personal choice.

And hence

jnanian said:

i have destroyed hand made negatives after making one print from them. i have sold these prints, and have never regretted one bit that the negative is gone.

photography's greatness and biggest flaw is that many prints can come of one negative.

Click to expand...

Why I've never considered photography to be especially valuable art. Valuable art, to me, is one of a kind or original in some way. There is art in some photographs, certainly, but how much I would pay is based on rarity.

Burn negatives? Only one reason. Greed. Accept that a lot of people might like your work and would like a print of it. You make just as much money from 1000 sales at $200 as five sales at $50k.

I say go for it.

The more negatives burned the better.

Smell worse than books, though.

bjorke said:

I say go for it.

The more negatives burned the better.

Smell worse than books, though.

Click to expand...

No! Don''t burn the negative; burn the photographers who burn the negatives.

Steve

IMO, quite stupid.

If you care so much about no-one printing more, put it in a safe deposit box.

Art is a terrible thing to destroy.

Markok765 said:

IMO, quite stupid.

If you care so much about no-one printing more, put it in a safe deposit box.

Art is a terrible thing to destroy.

Click to expand...

I am sure that GR82BART would agree with you!

Steve

17 years ago I had a fire that burned the house and everything in it ...

Today the biggest thing I miss is my prints

I saw some of the prints that survived resently, thay were hanging on the wall of someones house

I sat down and could not speak for a longest time

If you put your heart and soul in your work

You learn from it

Years go by ...

If you burn them you burn yourself

When you know you are dying burn them then ... who cares




I have read somewhere that Leonardo never went anywhere without Mona Lisa

Desperat act of destroying your negateves is OK , it's all about a print anyway

P.S. Note that that photographer in australia owns one of his own prints


Just rembling on ...

Wolfeye said:

Why I've never considered photography to be especially valuable art. Valuable art, to me, is one of a kind or original in some way. There is art in some photographs, certainly, but how much I would pay is based on rarity.

Burn negatives? Only one reason. Greed. Accept that a lot of people might like your work and would like a print of it. You make just as much money from 1000 sales at $200 as five sales at $50k.

Click to expand...

hmmm ... not sure if this was directed to me, but since you quoted me
i'll respond

if you don't like destroying / distressing negatives, no one is asking YOU to ...

my wrecked images were / are experimental images
with the emphasis on *experimental*
i do experiments, assemblages and make prints ...
i didn't suggest anyone else destroy their work, and if they did,
doesn't really bother me too much, as long as THEY wanted to do it,

if the action was forced upon them like a flood or fire or worse ...
that would really be terrible, i am sorry you lost your work ilya

greedy ... ? that's kind of funny !
i don't think i have been called greedy before

john

now i do not have the time or interest in reading all these posts....

but.....

just make more than one neg. and you are set. burn all you want. just make one more than you burn! sounds simple to me. no need for honest behavior. no relying on your word. no trust. just plan for deceit in the beginning and burn away.

eddie

Donald Miller said:

John, I don't know if this is who you are thinking. But I know that Cole Weston did that on some of his Cibachrome prints.

Click to expand...

It was Cole's son, Kim Weston who actually dry mounted some of his 4x5 negs onto the back of the unique print. On the back of the mount board, that is. Of course, the prints were dry mounted. And in some circles that would make them not archival. Whatever. And then Brett Weston burned a bunch of his negs around 1992 or so, shortly before his death. He had been threatenting to do so for years, and finally did the deed. What's it about these Westons? Anyway, I for one would not even dare to challenge someone with Brett's credentials. Even so, he waited a long damn time. He made his first negative in about 1914 and burned some negs in the 1990s. I'd say he earned the right to set any standard in the medium he wanted to.
P.S. I dropped a whole box of my first two years of 4x5 negs into the San Lorenzo river in Santa Cruz around 1983. Family troubles, along with depression. I guess I regret it. I did another "purge" right after my divorce. Suffering for my art. Now there's pills for this stuff.