Questions about limiting editions of prints

[eddie]

The other side of this is, if an image is selling, why stop making prints? (assuming you're not utterly sick of it).

Being sick of printing an image is a good reason to limit it. I'm presently working on an order for 10 prints, which I haven't printed in over 10 years. A few of them have sold over 50 times, and I found working on them (back then) tedious. I was doing it strictly for the money. (I do admit, I'm doing this job strictly for the money, too.)Revisiting them for this job has made them fresh again, but I wouldn't want to do more than what's necessary for this order. I can see them getting stale again, and quickly.

I'm limiting my new work for a variety of reasons:
1- It is good marketing, limiting the availability.
2- I don't want to keep doing the same image, even if it turns out to be popular.
3- It allows me to follow different visual interests, knowing each project has a finite life.

I understand the stances for and against limited editions, when it comes to photography. I think it's a personal decision. The only thing I stress is, if choosing to do LE's, be consistent. Stick to your number. Don't do unlimited AP's. Be honest about how you're selling your work.

 

[MattKing]

Why at a library???Isn't that a place frequented by people who are too cheap to buy books?unlike customer baseI'd say.

Actually, it is a place frequented by people who read. And I would hazard a guess that people who read are more likely to appreciate the visual arts.

Our local library (Ladner, BC) maintains exhibition space for local artists of all sorts. It is known for it. They have already booked up that space for much of 2015. Even if I have no need for any books (or recordings, or videos) I like to check the exhibition space.

A friend of mine (John) is currently showing his photographs there. They are very different than what I normally do, but they are well worth seeing. Drop in if you get a chance.

 

[John Koehrer]

Just a curiosity on my part.

Did A Adams or any of the (now) three generations of Westons run limited edition prints ?

 

[cliveh]

How many people who sell limited edition prints have sold their entire edition? I would suggest very few.

 

[eddie]

How many people who sell limited edition prints have sold their entire edition? I would suggest very few.

I think that depends on the size of the edition.

 

[MattKing]

You should consider limited edition printing if you want to sell into a market where limiting editions increases the marketability of your work.

Gallery owners and artist agents would be the ones to ask about this.

The process and procedure you use probably influences the question. One-off processes like wet plate and daguerreotype are inherently self limiting, whereas straight contact prints from large format in-camera negatives require a choice.

 

[pschwart]

I just want people to perceive them as valuable by making them "limited" edition. Maybe I can get rich by "limiting" them to many as I can sell. I can give them away as gifts. Demand is really high if they're free.

Editioning photographic prints is an artificial construct favored by galleries, but it's not going to benefit you.
I'm never going to destroy my negatives, and making lots of "editions" in different sizes seems transparent to me. excuse the pun. Do sign your work and know that it's not the print number that makes your work valuable.
Also keep in mind that most alt process prints are difficult or impossible to clone, and so to edition -- most result in a print that is unique, so naturally an edition of one.

 

[eddie]

Editioning photographic prints is an artificial construct favored by galleries, but it's not going to benefit you.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. First off, all marketing is an artificial construct. Secondly, if your goal is to exhibit in a gallery which prefers editioned prints, your chances of doing so increase by offering them.

 

[pschwart]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. First off, all marketing is an artificial construct. Secondly, if your goal is to exhibit in a gallery which prefers editioned prints, your chances of doing so increase by offering them.

I did say galleries favor print editioning. Some galleries will not consider representing an artist who does not edition prints. My final word on editioning prints: it's not an aesthetic choice.

 

[Alan Klein]

It's because photos can be "run off" in any number of quantities that makes the limited edition concept more valuable to the buyer. Simple economic theory is Price (all other things remaining equal) is detemined by Demand divided by Supply. If you keep Supply down, it will tend to keep the price higher. Would Andreas Gursky's photograph of the Rhine fetch millions if he noted on the bottom (1/10)? Ok, we're not Gursky. But there still is an apparent feeling of greater value based on limited supply. There's also the "snob" appeal to have bought a limited edition to show visitors when they visit your house. If these things didn't matter, why would galleries insist on limited editions? They're not fools. They're in business to maximize their profits which would accrue to the artist as well.

 

[pschwart]

The question posed was whether the OP should edition his prints. Each photographer will have their own priorities. Here is a thoughtful discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/the_numbering_affair.shtml

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm just thinking about this thread. Limited editions can come from a poverty mentality. It's the thought of another has less so I have more. Where as Jim Jones has a view of abundance by saying "One of the advantages of photography is that unlimited editions of popular images by us ordinary people can enrich the lives of those who can't afford to support galleries and ambitious photographers."

 

[moose10101]

I recently submitted to a juried show that requires edition numbering of all accepted work. That's a first for me, but I guess I can use any arbitrarily large number. I wonder if anyone would notice if I used infinity.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I like how you think

I recently submitted to a juried show that requires edition numbering of all accepted work. That's a first for me, but I guess I can use any arbitrarily large number. I wonder if anyone would notice if I used infinity.

Your photography is limitless!

 

[MartinP]

Another way of approaching, and displaying, limited editions (all of the video is interesting, but the "limits" part is about 7' 30" in) . . . LINK

 

[benjiboy]

The whole idea that photography could be sold as "Art" is a fairly recent idea since WW11 that was largely promulgated by galleries , and photographers agents to increase the products that they could make a profit on by displaying.

 

[gzinsel]

But whatever YOU DO. . . . Do not sign THE MAT BOARD!!!! sign your artwork!!! I think it to be so funny when "artist" sign mat board! Is your mat board a limited edition??? incredulously, I ask!

 

[cliveh]

But whatever YOU DO. . . . Do not sign THE MAT BOARD!!!! sign your artwork!!! I think it to be so funny when "artist" sign mat board! Is your mat board a limited edition??? incredulously, I ask!

I think it's awful when people sign their images, or put their name within the photograph. The image should stand alone and the creator is not important.

 

[pdeeh]

All these Shoulds and Oughts.

Why treat a photograph as different to any other piece of media?

Turner, Picasso, Gainsborough, Contsable, Velasquez ... signing was good enough for them ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recently submitted to a juried show that requires edition numbering of all accepted work. That's a first for me, but I guess I can use any arbitrarily large number. I wonder if anyone would notice if I used infinity.

Number the work you show them and then forget about numbering for everything else. The rest of your time is none of their business.

 

[NB23]

But whatever YOU DO. . . . Do not sign THE MAT BOARD!!!! sign your artwork!!! I think it to be so funny when "artist" sign mat board! Is your mat board a limited edition??? incredulously, I ask!

I believe that the print is signed on the back. Abd since there is no way or point to view the back of the print, the mat is signed in order for the artist to be recognized.

Lets say you have an original A.Adams. How can anyone looking at the framed photograph know? By looking at the Mat board. That print is probably signed on the back.

You see, not so stupid after all.

 

[cliveh]

All these Shoulds and Oughts.

Why treat a photograph as different to any other piece of media?

Turner, Picasso, Gainsborough, Contsable, Velasquez ... signing was good enough for them ...

A subtle signature or initials may not detract, but by signing the back instead of the image you allow the viewer full appreciation without a distraction.

 

[NB23]

All these Shoulds and Oughts.

Why treat a photograph as different to any other piece of media?

Turner, Picasso, Gainsborough, Contsable, Velasquez ... signing was good enough for them ...

For real?

Your logic would be excellent if it was about signing the negative itself.

 

[eddie]

There is no right or wrong to this question. Each person must decide, based on their own goals.

 

[moose10101]

I think it's awful when people sign their images, or put their name within the photograph. The image should stand alone and the creator is not important.

I don't think it's awful, but I do find it distracting, so I sign the back of my prints.