Destroying Negatives to Limit Print Production...

[tim atherton]

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....

it's a part of (or parallel to) copyright law in some countries the Right of the Artist I recall it is called.

Artists get a percentage of certain resales of their work at auction etc.

there was an effort to introduce it into US copyright/intellectual property law a few years ago (failed of course) - other countries are considering it as well such as Canada.

 

[juanito]

why not

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.

the prints will be there.

 

[Curt]

I thought it was a terrible practice to destroy them at the end of your life until I heard Brett Weston tell in person why he did it and I can see that now for the first time.

Destroying them in your working lifetime is another matter. Who could really prove that you did it? When you are dead it's a moot point.

As far as that goes, I limit my printing by destroying some of them before they get printed. That's really limited!

 

[Nigel Harley]

Intresting debate..... just a thought

Atlas Gallery in London often have 'Limited Print' runs from well known photographers. My particular favorites has been Shakelton's trip to the Antartic and Hurley's photographs. The negatives would certainly not be destroyed in this case.

Dead Link Removed

So what is the difference? By doing a 'Limited Edition' print run you are by definition Limiting the number of prints made by that negative. If you do another print run then you are simply discrediting yourself as a photographer.

Just my pennies worth

 

[Skip]

I think too much is made of the "limited" in "limited edition". I certainly don't believe you should destroy the negative. A print is the culmination of a number of factors: materials, time, skill, purpose. All of these can and do change. For most fine art prints the negative represents only a small part of the finished print, like the score of the music on a CD. A limited edition is the aggregate of a particular negative, materials, effort and presentation, limited by what the technology can produce and the artist (and market)will accept.

Technologies change. I'm about to embark on new editions of some old negatives because I have new ways of producing an image from them. Destroying the negative prevents the creation of new visions from irreplaceable moments in time. To create some integrity in my editions, they are numbered, limited editions, ie, first edition, second edition, etc. Each edition is made with a different perspective, yielding a different print, even though the negative is a constant. This isn't to say I flood the market with editions - most photos don't yield more than one edition...yet.

A good many negatives have historic value when properly archived. Burning makes little sense, as does destroying your work before you die. Your work is your legacy to your children in the literal and the figurative sense. It is presumptious of you to second guess the value of your work to future generations, however humble it may seem to you.

 

[sqphoto]

I think you are absolutely correct. In my opinion, anyone who burns their negatives is a damn fool.Where would that put the history of photography?

 

[Andy K]

The following exerpt is from the humorous article 'How To Be A Photographic Snob' by David Vestal.


THE LIMITED-EDITION PLOY.

Ignore the plain fact that few photographs exist in more than ten prints. Breathlessly announce a limited edition of 100 prints. Add that their scarcity forces you, reluctantly, to raise your prices.
If the prospect of making 100 good prints appalls you, relax. You really make 10 prints and number them from 91 to 100. You only say there are 100, so you can use the magic word “edition”. The prints do not have to be good, and you don’t have to make them. Any lab can knock them out quickly. You just tell people how hard you worked and how great the prints are.

For collectors: buy limited edition prints and talk about them. Avoid moderate prices. Pay extravagantly (impressive), or drive a hard bargain (you can’t be fooled). Either ploy, delivered with well chosen gossip in which at least two great names are dropped, will show you are “in” and move in awesome circles. If you can be offhand in all this, so much the better.

DESTROY THE NEGATIVE.
Your price can be multiplied by 10 if you destroy the negative or say you did. Not only are destructive tantrums a universally respected sign of genius, but also the scarcity value of a limited edition is thereby so enhanced that destroying the negative makes even a hopelessly mediocre picture extremely valuable. (I have secret plans to destroy a negative before printing a super-limited edition of zero. This will lend the picture even more inestimable value).

 

[bill schwab]

In my opinion, anyone who burns their negatives is a damn fool.

Hey... you calling Brett Weston a "Damn Fool" for burning his negatives before he died?

Bill

 

[Dave Parker]

I think you are absolutely correct. In my opinion, anyone who burns their negatives is a damn fool.Where would that put the history of photography?

I think what constitutes a fool, is those who pass judgment on those who do what they wish with their own property, It is up to the photographer on how they wish to limit their prints and such. Although many of us, even in this day and age, contribute to the history of photography, I for one, don't use that as a basis of why I do photography.

Dave

 

[removed account4]

I think you are absolutely correct. In my opinion, anyone who burns their negatives is a damn fool.Where would that put the history of photography?

i've disassembled things i have printed (and can't assemble it again), ruined-film by soaking the emulsion so it disolves + printed it, heated wax up on a piece of glass and printed it as it was drying, dropped glass with an image - the glass plate broke into 75+ pieces ...

if if the image can't be made again - or i don't want to print the image again, keeping it for someone else to print / interpret - why should i keep the negative around, it seems like a waste of time to me. ... guess i'm a fool ---


its too bad we aren't all still making daguerreotypes and ferrotypes.
we wouldn't be having this conversation, since each image unique.

 

[scootermm]

its all a personal choice, and like has been stated in varying and diverse ways, "to each their own"
but the ritualistic african drum circle debacle on that Pip site is amusing. I find this sort of drivel to be a black mark on the art world.... one of many black marks. The performance art should be left to the dancers, operas, plays, and theater. I dont discount his right to burn what ever he sees fit to burn, but the austintatious, seemingly, ego driven ritual is somewhat insulting and depressing when I think about all the people in the same art community as him (myself included - on a much smaller and lesser scale) ...

but then again... hes more than likely bringing in alot more cash than I, but if I, or many of us, were driven merely by financial gain, we'd have likely quit all this light catching stuff long ago.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Why can a negative not be 'retired'? If the photographer is credible (rather than trying to become creible thru gimmics) destruction is not required. AA did not do it, Roman Loranc does not do it (retires negs instead). I dont know of ANY big hitter destroying part of their work and bequest to future generations for commercial reasons.

The detruction of a neg to me suggests the intent behind taking the image was to sell limited run prints rather than to take a wonderful photograph and produce the most expressive print possible. Those who live and breath their photography as a form of self-expression would be unlikely to do such a thing. It would be too painful. This neg is better lasting than the print and more easily archived etc due to size therefore if future generations or even relatives are to have a record of the work, the photographer, then destruction is to me selfish and cynical and a decision taken with commercial rather than creative intentions.

I suspect that anyone really producing noteworthy work simply does not need this gimmick.

 

[rbarker]

"Why can a negative not be 'retired'? . . . "

I tend to agree, Tom. Actual destruction seems both harsh and far too final.

Of course, most of my negatives start their lives being "tired". So, I'm unclear on the implications of re-tiring them.

 

[Jim Jones]

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

Photography's greatness and biggest strength is that many prints can come of one negative. Limited editions are a marketing ploy. I am even less a peddler than a photographer, and would never intentionally destroy the means of enriching someone's life at a later date with a newer, and probably better, print. Destroying a negative is like saying the photographer has nothing more to learn about printing, and thus can never make a greater print.

Edward Weston preserved many of his negatives. Therefore, many of us can own and enjoy the posthumous prints made by his son. Ansel Adams permitted (and supervised) quality lithographs of his prints. Many of us can own and enjoy these. The greatness of a photographer can be judged better by the effect he has on many than by the money he makes from a few rich fools.

Some of my images casually taken decades ago have acquired historical value. I lack the wisdom to determine now what the future may find useful or satisfying in my other photos. I also lack the selfishness to deny the future the opportunity to use or enjoy my photography.

 

[Dave Parker]

I am not condoning or comdeming, but I do have to ask the question?

What if the photographer in question has no desire to contribute to the history of photography or enrich anyones life in the future?

What a photographer does with his negatives is his/her business, and I for one, don't think it is my right to pass judgment on them, yes perhaps they are cutting their nose off to spite there face, but that is their choice.

As far as limited editions, I don't feel it is a marketing ploy and it has actually been used successfully by many in the past.

Dave

 

[roteague]

I am not condoning or comdeming, but I do have to ask the question?

What if the photographer in question has no desire to contribute to the history of photography or enrich anyones life in the future?

What a photographer does with his negatives is his/her business, and I for one, don't think it is my right to pass judgment on them, yes perhaps they are cutting their nose off to spite there face, but that is their choice.

As far as limited editions, I don't feel it is a marketing ploy and it has actually been used successfully by many in the past.

Dave

I agree with you Dave. I certainly wouldn't destroy any of my transparencies, and I am glad that Ansel Adams didn't destroy his negatives, but that is still up to to the individual photographer to decide.

I also have no problems with limited editions either, I do them for some images. I don't see it as a marketing ploy, I see it as a way of saying "I believe this image is special" - others may not agree with my method of saying this, but I believe this is my choice to make. One of the good things that comes from doing limited editions, IMO, is it keeps me fresh, keeps me looking for images to replace those whose editions are expiring (not that that has happened yet).

 

[removed account4]

Photography's greatness and biggest strength is that many prints can come of one negative. Limited editions are a marketing ploy. I am even less a peddler than a photographer, and would never intentionally destroy the means of enriching someone's life at a later date with a newer, and probably better, print. Destroying a negative is like saying the photographer has nothing more to learn about printing, and thus can never make a greater print.

Edward Weston preserved many of his negatives. Therefore, many of us can own and enjoy the posthumous prints made by his son. Ansel Adams permitted (and supervised) quality lithographs of his prints. Many of us can own and enjoy these. The greatness of a photographer can be judged better by the effect he has on many than by the money he makes from a few rich fools.

Some of my images casually taken decades ago have acquired historical value. I lack the wisdom to determine now what the future may find useful or satisfying in my other photos. I also lack the selfishness to deny the future the opportunity to use or enjoy my photography.

are people who makes bromoils, ink transfers, monoprints or lithographs
on the grift because they make or can only make a few
images from the same matrix, stone or ..... ?

why should someone who make photographic images be held to a different standard
--- just because "they can make more images they should always keep that as an option" ?

if someone doesn't want to make anymore prints,
and if they want to cut, break, burn &C their film
isn't it their prerogative to do what ever they want?


why do we all have to want or do the same thing?
... i think we'd live in a really boring place if we did

 

[MattKing]

I agree that it should be up to the photographer what is done with his\her negatives, but I would suggest that destruction is a choice that should be discouraged.

IMHO enhancing the marketability of an existing print is the worst reason possible to destroy a negative.

When the photographer is alive, he or she can just decide not to do any more prints. If the photographer wishes to control use of the negatives after his or her death, the photographer can request destruction in a Will, or sell or give the negatives on terms that limit further printing.

It may be difficult to make such requests or limitations fully enforceable, but at least they would be likely to carry moral suasion.

In addition, a photographer who considers destruction at, for example, age 40, might very well have a different viewpoint at age 70.

It is always good to keep your options open.

Matt

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . As far as limited editions, I don't feel it is a marketing ploy and it has actually been used successfully by many in the past.

Dave

The success of limited editions strongly suggests that it is a marketing ploy.

I agree with others that a photographer should be free to chose between personal gain and the public good. Those who want the ultimate limited edition should perhaps turn to painting, not photography. However, consider this: in the half century before photography, and before quality polychrome lighograpny, Gilbert Stuart created over a hundred images of George Washington. Many consider these as the definitive images of the subject. Unfortunately, there are only those few originals, scattered among dozens of galleries, museums, public institutions, and collections, available for viewing.

The photographer Yousuf Karsh did for many sitters what Stuart did for Washington. When I saw an exhibit of his enlargements in 1978, the price was only $600 to $1200. In comparison, posthumous Edward Weston prints were $225. Both Karsh and Cole Weston could make a good a living by bringing those masterpieces to the multitudes rather than by pandering to the wealthy. It's a choice everyone makes about anything they produce. Karsh and Cole Weston made a choice which has enriched the lives of thousands.

 

[Dave Parker]

The success of limited editions strongly suggests that it is a marketing ploy.

Jim as a person who has made my living off and in photography for over 20 years now, I would like to pose a question?

Isn't everything we do, besides hitting the shutter button..."A Marketing Ploy" to get the masses to purchase our products? And if you are a photographer, that makes a living off of photographic images, even the act of "hitting" the shutter button could be considered a "Marketing Ploy"

Every single product, including my screens are "Marketed" the marketing builds value in the product, some that "market" deliver a quality product, some that "market" take the money from the masses and don't deliver what they promise, but each and every single one of us, that desires to sell a product, have to "market"

Every single product that is on the "market" is "marketed" there is no way to sell a product, unless you "market" it to those who wish to purchase it..

Dave

 

[avandesande]

Reminds me of how Weston peeled the emulsion off his prize winning plates and used them for window glass. Quite a bit of contrast!

 

[Jim Jones]

Jim as a person who has made my living off and in photography for over 20 years now, I would like to pose a question?

Isn't everything we do, besides hitting the shutter button..."A Marketing Ploy" to get the masses to purchase our products? And if you are a photographer, that makes a living off of photographic images, even the act of "hitting" the shutter button could be considered a "Marketing Ploy"

Every single product, including my screens are "Marketed" the marketing builds value in the product, some that "market" deliver a quality product, some that "market" take the money from the masses and don't deliver what they promise, but each and every single one of us, that desires to sell a product, have to "market"

Every single product that is on the "market" is "marketed" there is no way to sell a product, unless you "market" it to those who wish to purchase it..

Dave

Photography has rarely earned the major part of my income. For the past 30 years I've photographed only for the pleasure of creating images and solving photographic problems. Since there is some local demand for these photos, they are available at a few area shows. Someone with photographic and business acumen could make such an activity profitable. I'd rather not let business interfere with pleasure. Therefore, I shoot for the image, and occasionally print for a possible sale.

There is only a tenuous connection between success in business and success in life. Schubert couldn't make a living at music, but what magnificant music he wrote! Eugene Atget apparently made little money at photography, but what a treasure trove of photos he left behind! Inventors have often gained little from their creativity. Of the several writers I know, only a few working for newspapers are making a poor living at it. None of my artist friends find painting or drawing profitable. Yet, we do what we choose to do. If what we do brings affordable pleasure to others, that pleases us, too. There are things that money can't buy.

Dave, your generous contributions to these forums might be good business, but they go far beyond that. I've learned much in a short time from you and the others that give so much of their time and knowledge. Thank you.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I absolutely agree that the photographer has the right to do exactly what they like with a neg or a print. They may decide not to print or share an image we would all derive great stimulation from in the first place! However it does not seem right (to me) to destroy a neg which has proven stimulating enough to motivate people to buy it. Of course they have the right, but I don't have to respect the fact that they have exercised it! To be able to produce work that is enjoyed by others is a gift, at whatever level. I personally personally feel that it is more honorable to share that talent, where possible, whether it be in this generation or the next. Destroying a neg reduces the creative process to its commecial bones and allows little scope for anything else. I am very glad that so many accomplished photographers felt it important to contribute to the artistic community and society as a whole by leaving negs to museums etc. I aspire to produce images that are one day felt to be 'worthwhile contributions', to whom or how many it does not matter. I derive great pleasure from others deriving pleasure from my images. It is a 'sharing thing' and I am yet to be convinced that this in incompatible with commercial success. Destroying negs to me does nothing to further enrich our culture and the lives of those who do not have a personal collection. We have all benefitted from those generous enough to leave negs for future generations and so I feel it is incumbent upon all of us to be a tad altruistic and do likewise. This is not about destroying negs that are 'rubbish' but quite the opposite.

Rant over

Tom

 

[rbarker]

While I certainly agree that every photographer (or, artist) has the perfect right to do whatever they wish with their work, I wonder if those who destroy negatives have thought of the "responsibility" they might have to future generations. For example, we try to be "responsible" with the ecology, and we usually try to be "responsible" with our finances (usually for the benefit of our offspring). Why not feel a similar "responsibility" to our work and its potential value (either historical or artistic) to those who follow us? Do we "own" the photons with which we create images, or are we simply their caretakers?

 

[Claire Senft]

I do not care for puffery. If they wish to destroy negatives at the end of a 5 year period I care not. I would be even more impressed if all new priints from these negatives that were selling well that were in their inventory were also destroyed.. Given what is passed off as fine art today a number of negatives should be burned as soon as the film is dry.

To each their own.