• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Price for a photograph limited to "1/1" ?

keithwms said:
Along the lines of what Michel said... if you want to do single prints then why not simply shoot LF polaroid. I have heard that 20x24 polaroids sell for thousands. Not my bag, pushing that kind of gear around, but I do like 8x10s.
Click to expand...

But isn't the 20x24 Polaroid film itself hard to find and/or expensive, not mention the specialized camera? Surely some/most of the price of a print like that takes the relative rarity into account (as opposed to the quality of the shot and/or the artist's reputation). (The Polaroid 8x10's cost ~$10-15 *per print*, I can't imagine what the 20x24's cost. At that price missing the shot would cause me physical pain
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Polaroid 20x24 film is only available as a large special order from Polaroid. I know one photographer currently starting on a project using that film. Unfortunately I am unable to give any details, though it will be quite an impressive project when completed.

As to pricing different for 1/1 . . . I don't know if it makes much difference when people who would normally do editions have an occaissional 1/1 original/only print. I am mostly a commercial photographer, so I rarely ever have chemical photographic prints done, though I do exhibit such prints at certain galleries and venues. Since my traditional art background and training are in oil painting, I never even considered editions for my photography. I also do quite a few Polaroid manipulations, which are basically all one-of-a-kind images. So I probably do price a little on the high side of average, but each buyer knows they will have the only one.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography
 

Hello Susan,

This is something a friend of mine and me are doing. But we go one step further. With all new work we only print 1, no proofs then once the print is sold we destroy the negative and send the destroyed negative with the print. If you want to only have one then make it be.

My wife and I are also painters and after long discussion with other artist it only seems right that if you want to be taken as an artist that does original work then make only 1.

Here is a link to an article on this very subject my friend and I wrote.

http://www.kjsphotography.com/journal/index.php?i=56&mode=r&t=0

As far as prices goes, it really depends on how well known you are.

If you want to talk about pricing PM me as I don't want this to turn into a flame war as many do not agree with the 1/1 ideology.

Kevin
 
Again, as I've said before, making one of something does not make it art, it makes it one of something.. Sure, the price should reflect this but if it isn't "art", or has no artistic merit (usually to be determined by the viewer) making only one will not presume to making it more so. Making editions whether it be a photograph or lithograph or serigraph or silkscreen or woodcut or whatever, is a way to allow more people to enjoy, to own or possess. And, to think there is only 25 of an edition (or whatever number) in a world of over 6.6 billion is pretty damn rare. I'm not saying an editioned print is art either.

Printmaking is a way to share with the masses at a more reasonable cost factor. It also allows the imagemaker to have a more viable means of support.

I think it's quite noble actually to attempt or adhere to printing only one of something, but it's certainly not fraudulent to print an edition either.

As far as agreeing with the 1/1 "ideology", I do and don't. If you do it to proclaim "hey it's art because there's only one", then I disagree with the pretention. If you do it because you firmly believe in making only one, regardless of how or whether it is perceived as art or not, then cool.
 
JBrunner says, $3600 for a cut up negative, Bandicoot has upped the ante to 35,000 pounds sterling for a tree no one else could photograph. Being the competitive guy that I am, I would offer my thoughts on making a photograph for $50,000. I won't share these thoughts with anyone, so they will not only be unique, I promise to forget what I was thinking about, too.

Seriously, though, how much is a 1/1 edition of a photograph worth? It would depend on what your track record is in terms of sales. If it were me, I doubt if anyone would pay for one of my photographs. If your name is Cindy Sherman, Jock Sturges, Sally Mann or Michael Kenna, someone, somewhere would pay big bucks for owning a singular image. In short, it would depend on if the buyer knew they were getting a good photograph from someone with a track record of making good images.
 
Thats your opinion and you have the right to believe anything you like know matter how wrong you are. Making 1 makes it an original unlike a multiple. That is the difference. I am not even going to waste my time here.


Later.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kjsphoto said:
Thats your opinion and you have the right to believe anything you like. Making 1 makes it an original unlike a multiple. That is the difference. I am not even going to waste my time here.

Later.
Click to expand...

1/1 only gives value if the image is very well known and in-demand. Otherwise any one-off should be priced the same as one of an edition of 1000. Nobody is really going to CARE how many prints there are.
 
kjsphoto said:
Making 1 makes it an original unlike a multiple. That is the difference. I am not even going to waste my time here.
Later.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I debated that Kevin, what I stated was that it does NOT automatically make it "art".

If Gainsboroug had created seven as nearly identical as you can get "Blue Boy" paintings, I have no doubt it would still be heralded as art.
 
I guess the qualifier here is that IF a 1/1 makes it art - it does so ONLY in the mind of the 'artist' (a term I'm using loosely here).
 
I agree that name and track record have more to do with price than edition size does.

Edition size always strikes me as a bit dubious in any case. How many photographers who edition prints actually print the whole edition at once? If they print a few and see if it sells, as I suspect is much more common, then "1/50" might in reality be "1/8" or "1/2." And then in today's market for photographic materials, the paper used to print 1/50 might not be there when it comes time to print 32/50, not to mention the possibility that one's interpretation of the negative can change over time, so it might really be quite a different print.
 
Can we just all agree for now that the value of a photograph is actually a confluence of factors, the size of "edition" being only one?

I can swear that a print from a, say, 250 copies edition by Ed Burtynsky will outsold any 1/1 I will ever do in the forseeable future.
 
i agree with kevin for the most part ...
if an artist or photographer wants to make
only one of something, that is ok by me.

cut up negative, sure, whatever makes you happy

--john
 

I absolutely agree w/ you about an edition of 25 (or in my case, editions of 50 in two sizes, for a total of 100) in a world of over 6.6 billion people is indeed "pretty damn rare". And yet, I've received a couple of emails from potential buyers commenting that I should reduce the size of the editions. I found the request to be humorous and didn't respond to the emails.

Re: the 1/1 ideology.... no, I've not done it under the guise of calling it "art" b/c there's only one. I have a couple 1/1's that were images/prints that were made solely for me. And I have a couple of prints that could be called editions of 2... made for a couple of long time college friends. Each friend has the #1 print, and I have the #2 print. Thus far, it's been solely what I would call "personal work" that I've chosen to do this w/. I've signed and numbered these prints as such (1/1 or 1/2). Not that anyone's going to give a damn after I'm dead.
 
Sparky said:
I guess the qualifier here is that IF a 1/1 makes it art - it does so ONLY in the mind of the 'artist' (a term I'm using loosely here).
Click to expand...

Ouch....
 
FYI ~ I didn't intend to start a riot w/ this thread. I thought a 1/1 print, made for a specific purpose, or in this case, a "cause" (not unlike a commissioned painting) would be a nice gesture.
 
Susan, I just wanted to say I looked at your galleries. I especially like your 2006 images. Your work is beautiful!

Janet
 
My sincere thanks Janet. I appreciate the compliment.

 
SusanK said:
FYI ~ I didn't intend to start a riot w/ this thread. I thought a 1/1 print, made for a specific purpose, or in this case, a "cause" (not unlike a commissioned painting) would be a nice gesture.
Click to expand...

hi susan

i think it would be a great gesture!
don't listen to the people that poo-poo your idea
for whatever reasons they have.
if you want to do a 1/1, there is really no reason not to

i agree, great stuff !

--john
 
Thanks for the kind words John.
 
SusanK;551154 Re: the 1/1 ideology.... no said:
I was addressing a previous poster, not your intent or interest.
Very nice work you have, and a nice easy website.
Click to expand...
 
SusanK said:
Keith ~ I don't have the strength to cart around a 20x24. I can barely lug around the equipment that I have now.
Click to expand...


Hehehe......don't try this at home! (This woman is a friend of my wife. Her husband's name is Jay Shoots. There's much humor about Jay shoots broad's foot...or at least it was amusing at the time.)


Dead Link Removed

Read the Statement.
 
I think destroying the negative doesn't necessarily prevent the work from being re-created or marketed in any way should a person deem to do so. The other thing that has crossed my mind is, since your destroying the negative, a copyright would (should) essentially be useless. There's only one, and someone else owns it, not you. So, I would set the price where it was justified by the fact that you have no rights, and at a point where a tax write off wouldn't draw too much attention.
 
SusanK said:
FYI ~ I didn't intend to start a riot w/ this thread. I thought a 1/1 print, made for a specific purpose, or in this case, a "cause" (not unlike a commissioned painting) would be a nice gesture.
Click to expand...
Ummm... OK, I don't want to start a riot either, but I am curious enough to just (respectfully, seriously, in a non-flaming mode) ask you one question:
Why?
Why would it be a "nice gesture"?
Would it not be nice to make more than one print?
Oops, sorry, that was two questions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register