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

[JBrunner]

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.

Copyright is an intellectual right, not vested in physical ownership of a print, or the negative. Retention of the original negative can help to prove authorship, should the need ever arise. It is easy to render a negative "destroyed" as in unprintable, without obliterating all traces. A couple of clicks from a hole punch will do the job quite nicely. Susan will retain copyright to her singularly printed image no matter who owns it, unless she specifically licenses it otherwise, and an easily verified "destroyed" negative, should she choose to keep it to help insure her rights.

Anybody who would reproduce it without license would be doing so illegally, regardless of how many or few authorized prints exist.

 

[Sparky]

Ouch....

That wasn't a knock S. And certainly not directed at you - so much as a contribution to the foregoing posts. Sorry if you took it that way. not my intent.

 

[SusanK]

That wasn't a knock S. And certainly not directed at you - so much as a contribution to the foregoing posts. Sorry if you took it that way. not my intent.

Thanks Sparky. The apology is appreciated. I was unsure of how to interpret your post, which is why I chose not to fly off the handle about it.

 

[SusanK]

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!

Interesting question(S). I am considering the 1/1 print for the same reason that I've done the 1/2's for a couple of close friends... an expression of gratitude/caring, crafted for a specific purpose. An analogy that comes to mind is... Christmas form-letters. I prefer sending/receiving hand-written Christmas cards over form-letters, with individualized messages for specific friends. A letter (or in this case, a print), crafted as an "original", and intended for a specific person (or in this case, "cause") has a more personal touch and, in my mind, personal meaning.

Besides.... all of my previous work has been in editions of 50 in 2 sizes, for a total of 100. So... "why not" have a few prints that are 1/1's?

Thanks for the "non-flaming" question.

 

[clay]

I just ran across this thread, and I have to say that the whole 1/1 thing seems a little mannered and precious. The reason that paintings are one of one is because that is an intrinsic result of their production. You have canvas. You have paint. Apply paint to canvas and voila - a painting. One painting. Most photographs are made via a negative/positive workflow. It is intrinsically a reproduction process the minute you go from negative to positive. If you sell the negative by itself as a standalone piece of work- sure - it is one of one. The minute you use the negative to make a positive print, you are admitting the possibility of making another. I guess if you really want to make some sort of statement of artistic purity, you could eschew making test strips and just sell the first print that comes out of the fix and destroy the negative immediately.

Note that this analysis would not apply to polaroids, ambrotypes, tintypes and daguerrotypes. One of one is a natural result of their production process.

If you really get down to it, the underlying reason for making an edition size of one or fifty boils down to the same thing: economics. It is intended to create a market with artificial scarcity in an effort to command a higher price. It is not intrinsically part of the process as it is in painting. In fact, photography more resembles bronze sculptures, where a model is made, and from that a mold from which a number of pieces can be cast. Multiple copies of Brancusi bronze sculptures floating around the world have not kept them from being both pricey and considered art . Limited edition sizes are intended to give the potential buyer a sense of some degree of exclusive privilege because of the tacit agreement between artist and buyer that only so many of the objects will ever be made.

It reminds me of the old joke about the man offering a lady ten million dollars to sleep with him. After she says yes, the man offers ten dollars for the same privilege. His response to her umbrage is "We have already established what you are, and now we are just haggling over the price". I think editions of any size in photography are like that(one of one is still an edition size). It is not about what you are, it is about pricing your virtue. My virtue right now is priced at fifteen copies.

 

[SusanK]

It is not about what you are, it is about pricing your virtue.

Hell, if that's what it's about.... I'm way underpriced.

 

[eddym]

Interesting question(S). I am considering the 1/1 print for the same reason that I've done the 1/2's for a couple of close friends... an expression of gratitude/caring, crafted for a specific purpose. An analogy that comes to mind is... Christmas form-letters. I prefer sending/receiving hand-written Christmas cards over form-letters, with individualized messages for specific friends. A letter (or in this case, a print), crafted as an "original", and intended for a specific person (or in this case, "cause") has a more personal touch and, in my mind, personal meaning.

Besides.... all of my previous work has been in editions of 50 in 2 sizes, for a total of 100. So... "why not" have a few prints that are 1/1's?

Thanks for the "non-flaming" question.

You're welcome. And thanks for the thoughtful, serious answer.
I hand-write Christmas cards too. The problem is that I write slowly and the list is long... so some years I don't get them all done in time. And this year I haven't even started yet...

 

[JBrunner]

I find it much better to sell 10/10 than 3 of 250 or 1 of an open edition. Yes, it's artificial, and yes, it is a silly thing when one considers the world at large. It sells prints, and secondly, for me, ten or twenty prints is quite enough time spent with a single negative.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've started limiting my editions to 5 or 10, depending on the size of the image and the relative value of the image to me. Not per se out of any desire to be snobbish about how "rare" my work is, but I just can't be bothered to keep printing the same damn image over and over again. I get sick of seeing it after about print #3 anyway.

 

[eddym]

If you really get down to it, the underlying reason for making an edition size of one or fifty boils down to the same thing: economics. It is intended to create a market with artificial scarcity in an effort to command a higher price. It is not intrinsically part of the process as it is in painting. ... Limited edition sizes are intended to give the potential buyer a sense of some degree of exclusive privilege because of the tacit agreement between artist and buyer that only so many of the objects will ever be made.

Very true. A gallery owner once explained to me how this market works:
"Never sell your first copy of an edition until the very last. Start selling your numbered prints at about #11, and work your way out to the end. Hold your first ten prints out of the market until the rest are sold, and then those last ten will be worth much more. #1/1 should be the last print you sell of the edition, if ever."
What he did not tell me, but is also true, is that this market strategy is designed to benefit most the gallery owner and dealer, not the artist. After all, the artist only gets to sell each print once; the dealer can sell any of them several times, earning much more from the aftermarket than the artist ever would, because it offers repeat sales.
And of course, after the artist is dead, the work becomes much more valuable .

 

[waynecrider]

Copyright is an intellectual right, not vested in physical ownership of a print, or the negative. Retention of the original negative can help to prove authorship, should the need ever arise. It is easy to render a negative "destroyed" as in unprintable, without obliterating all traces. A couple of clicks from a hole punch will do the job quite nicely. Susan will retain copyright to her singularly printed image no matter who owns it, unless she specifically licenses it otherwise, and an easily verified "destroyed" negative, should she choose to keep it to help insure her rights.

Anybody who would reproduce it without license would be doing so illegally, regardless of how many or few authorized prints exist.

Yes of course your absolutely right based on a non totally destroyed negative, but a hole in a negative means nothing. If I was buying or more appropriately contracting a 1 off print I would require all rights. Especially if the price warranted it.

Btw, do painters who sell 1 off paintings sell them without all reproduction rights? I'd like to know that?

 

[JBrunner]

Yes of course your absolutely right based on a non totally destroyed negative, but a hole in a negative means nothing. If I was buying or more appropriately contracting a 1 off print I would require all rights. Especially if the price warranted it.

Btw, do painters who sell 1 off paintings sell them without all reproduction rights? I'd like to know that?

Obtaining a copyright is a negotiation that is quite separate from owning an edition of something.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Yes of course your absolutely right based on a non totally destroyed negative, but a hole in a negative means nothing. If I was buying or more appropriately contracting a 1 off print I would require all rights. Especially if the price warranted it.

Btw, do painters who sell 1 off paintings sell them without all reproduction rights? I'd like to know that?

Absolutely. Painters always retain reproduction rights to their own artwork unless compensated appropriately or induced to stupidity. Everyone retains copyright to their own creative work unless it is waived/sold contractually.

 

[Vaughn]

I've started limiting my editions to 5 or 10, depending on the size of the image and the relative value of the image to me. Not per se out of any desire to be snobbish about how "rare" my work is, but I just can't be bothered to keep printing the same damn image over and over again. I get sick of seeing it after about print #3 anyway.

I resemble that remark. My carbon prints are in editions of 5, my platinum prints are in editions of 10. Price of prints rise as the edition sells out.

I do have a carbon print, lovely image, that is 1of1...the negative was ruined trying to get the second print. That single print is priced at the level of the usual #5 of 5.

Vaughn

 

[jovo]

Btw, do painters who sell 1 off paintings sell them without all reproduction rights? I'd like to know that?

I suspect that this is an area so new that most artists haven't even given it a moment's thought. My wife, a painter, and her colleagues have just never considered this issue.....and now, for damn sure, I will be certain that they will. Some outrageously overcompensated lawyer will be commissioned to write the appropriate yada yada that will cover the bases. Technology rules!! Technology sucks!!

 

[SusanK]

Very true. A gallery owner once explained to me how this market works:
"Never sell your first copy of an edition until the very last. Start selling your numbered prints at about #11, and work your way out to the end. Hold your first ten prints out of the market until the rest are sold, and then those last ten will be worth much more. #1/1 should be the last print you sell of the edition, if ever."
What he did not tell me, but is also true, is that this market strategy is designed to benefit most the gallery owner and dealer, not the artist. After all, the artist only gets to sell each print once; the dealer can sell any of them several times, earning much more from the aftermarket than the artist ever would, because it offers repeat sales.
And of course, after the artist is dead, the work becomes much more valuable .

Excellent ideas here.... definitely something to ponder, even though I don't work w/ galleries. Thank you for this input.

 

[eddym]

Excellent ideas here.... definitely something to ponder, even though I don't work w/ galleries. Thank you for this input.

I hope you didn't mean the "after the artist is dead" part! Please, think it over first!

 

[pauliej]

Susan, I hope you will not destroy this negative. If it has value for one print/image, it may have value for more later on. The original print holder may have their print destroyed and then need a replacement. I feel this is a really bad precedent, and I hope you will reconsider.

Just my 2 cents, less taxes...

Paul

 

[SusanK]

Susan, I hope you will not destroy this negative. If it has value for one print/image, it may have value for more later on. The original print holder may have their print destroyed and then need a replacement. I feel this is a really bad precedent, and I hope you will reconsider.

Just my 2 cents, less taxes...

Paul

Thanks Paulie,

I appreciate the two cent, less taxes. Here's a question along the same line of thinking.... What do owners/collectors of paintings do when a catastrophic event occurs? And I'm not talking about craping their pants. How do they replace artwork for which there was never a negative to begin with?

Susan

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

They don't. If the painting goes up in a fire or down in a flood, they get a check from their insurer, and go buy a different painting. The only reason a photographer should "replace" a print from their original negative after the edition is sold out would be if the print faded or deteriorated from poor processing/handling on their part.

 

[kjsphoto]

If they replace it then it is not an original but a reproduction.

 

[kjsphoto]

Having thought about it some, I have come to the conclusion that it may be best to dispose of my negatives after having printed one or two prints from them. Seems that doing so <b>will free me to be a bit more creative instead of looking back to what I have already completed</b>.

David

>>>will free me to be a bit more creative instead of looking back to what I have already completed.

Finally a person that understands what creating art is all about. Man it is refreshing to read this.

I myself, do destroy my negatives once a final print is made, so this way like you say, I can move onto the next and never look back. I find no pleasure is re-printing old work over and over again, I find pleasure in seeing new work appear as I discover new way to see with each new image that is created.

So to answer your question, I do not keep my negatives; I destroy them after the final print is made and move on to the next canvas….

Kevin

 

[kjsphoto]

Other negs, like my snappy stuff, are saved for family reasons.

Something we agree on

Birthdays, kids, tips are negs I do keep as they are the family kind of stuff..


Finally!

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Kevin, do great authors destroy their manuscripts after a single book is published?

Should they only publish a single copy of each book, so as to make it "art"?

- CJ

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

>>>will free me to be a bit more creative instead of looking back to what I have already completed.

Finally a person that understands what creating art is all about. Man it is refreshing to read this.

I myself, do destroy my negatives once a final print is made, so this way like you say, I can move onto the next and never look back. I find no pleasure is re-printing old work over and over again, I find pleasure in seeing new work appear as I discover new way to see with each new image that is created.

So to answer your question, I do not keep my negatives; I destroy them after the final print is made and move on to the next canvas….

Kevin

I think it's quite judgmental to imply that those who keep their negatives don't understand what creating art is about. The fact that some choose to keep their negatives (for a variety of reasons) does not mean that they don't take pleasure in creating new work. I'm not quite sure why past work and future work have to be so separated, actually. Many times I'll come across an old negative, and it sparks ideas for new work; eventually the old and the new blend together into a new direction.

I'll add that a big part of the reason I keep my negatives is so that one day my kids will inherit a major record of who I was as a person and a photographer, how I evolved, and most importantly, how I saw my family and friends over my lifetime.

I suppose I see the negative itself as a piece of art, and I value it differently but equally to a final print.

- CJ