labeling of photographs for sales

[chaim]

I'm about to have my first public showing(!) and of course would be pleased to sell something (although the show in itself is a treat). A friend tells me that the value of a print can be enhanced by labeling it a certain way, which would indicate how many copies of the print have been created, and which copy the potential buyer is actually looking at. Is this actually a significant factor?--because I'm not inclined to disassemble 14 frames for this purpose if it's not that important. If it is worth doing, then exactly how does one do the labeling?
Thanks,
Chaim

 

[Joseph]

Hi, I have always regretted creating "Limited Edition Prints". It was a mistake. It takes too much time to keep track of which print is next, etc. If I was just starting, I would not create limited edition prints. Best, Joseph

 

[MSchuler]

There's been quite a bit written about limited series on the internet and in magazines. Most of what I've read is against the process to one degree or another, saying that it is a ploy created by the art market, that the rules for what constitutes a "series" are vague, etc. Personally, I wouldn't do it unless I've shot another "Moonrise over Hernandez" or am otherwise in the big league - I'm a beginner and think it looks pretentious for a beginner to suggest that their work is valuable enough to ration out.

 

[chaim]

thanks...

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I agree with MSchuler. Unless you are ready to prove beyound doubt that the origional negative has been destroyed you cannot suggest a limited anything.

 

[aterlecki]

I've always liked the idea of, rather having limited editions, increasing the price of a print as it sells more. It seems the best of all worlds - it doesn't artificially limit potential income from a popular print, it allows early purchasers to get a print at a good price, and guarantees to a collector that the print would not decrease (and would probably increase) in value. Limited edition prints seem to be something that galleries favour but I'm not convinced it is in the interests of the photographer.

 

[roteague]

I'm a beginner and think it looks pretentious for a beginner to suggest that their work is valuable enough to ration out.

I would have to disagree with you; in some cases (probably a lot) the person buying your image won't know you from Ansel Adams or Christopher Burkett, so it really doesn't matter that you are a "beginner". Also, by making some of your images (you don't need to do all of them) limited edition you give the buyer an "image" of your work that it is more exclusive than it really is. Yes, it is more work, but you are getting paid better for it.

 

[roteague]

Unless you are ready to prove beyound doubt that the origional negative has been destroyed you cannot suggest a limited anything.

It depends upon where you are living. Here in Hawaii, you are not required to "destroy" the original negative or transparency upon completion of an edition - but, you are required to provide a certificate of authenticity to the buyer. You can still use the image for other purposes, just not as fine art.

 

[Thomas Hoppe]

Someone from the Weston Clan, Brett or whoever, makes one print from the original negative and sells both, print and negative.

 

[User Removed]

That was Kim Weston (www.kimweston.com) Because he shoot almost all his nudes in in studio, he could fire off hundreds of negatives each day, make a single print, then offer the 1/1 print W/ Negative. If I remember right, they sold like hot cakes!

People love rare/collectable stuff! I sell my work on Ebay, and the 1st print I offer of the edition always sells for more then all the other prints! People want to own the FIRST print of an image. Think about if you owned the FIRST print of Adams Moonrise? I am sure it would be more valuable then all the others! Here at the Center For Creative Photography, they own the FIRST ever print of Edward Westons most famous image, "Pepper #30". That print alone is one of the most value photographs in the whole collection!

Back to you question thought, I do not limit my work to a certain number at the start, but rather increase the price as X amount of prints sell. After a few years of printing the negative, I will retire it and stop the edition at any random number (15, 23, 7, ect) I may decide 10 years from now to go back and print that negative again, so I dont limit myself.

Best of luck to you,

Ryan McIntosh