• 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

Selling prints - Limited Editions or not etc?

glaiben said:
Anyone tried the novel approach of a limited edition...of 1....and include the negative with a hole in the center? Price: what the market will bear.
Click to expand...

This approach seems counter-intuitive to one of photography's inherent features; that there is the potential to make many prints from one negative.

Tom.
 
Personally, I'd rather not make limited edition prints because then I'll not be able to use the image in any other way (e.g for a greetings card or stock). But there seems to be a fair bit of pressure to make limited editions...
 
Unlike drawing, painting, and many other visual art forms, photography has the advantage of almost unlimited prints of each image. This makes it a people's art. I'm with the people rather than with the merchandisers who prefer restricting beauty to a wealthy few. Limited editions hobble the photographer. My soul is not for sale to the galleries.
 
Ann M said:
Personally, I'd rather not make limited edition prints because then I'll not be able to use the image in any other way (e.g for a greetings card or stock). But there seems to be a fair bit of pressure to make limited editions...
Click to expand...

Limited edition refers to the production of exhibition prints in a particular size, or say an art book where a cap is put on the number to be sold. Many photographers will produce postcards, sell images as stock or produce popular editions using that same image - and the system considers this fine.

Ciaran.
 
glaiben said:
Anyone tried the novel approach of a limited edition...of 1....and include the negative with a hole in the center? Price: what the market will bear.
Click to expand...

i have made single edition silver prints in the past.
i used materials for negatives that were disassembled
or changed form after a final print was made.
if the materials were assembled again,
they would have made a different print,
and when i say changed form, it was layers of melted semi-solid
liquid that was heated and as it was drying i used it as a negative.
if i heated it up again, it would have solidified a different way ...

i never sold the materials i used to make the prints and saw no need to do
that, but i did manage to sell quite a few of the prints, and people seemed
to like them ( and the fact that there were no others made).
 
Ann M said:
Personally, I'd rather not make limited edition prints because then I'll not be able to use the image in any other way (e.g for a greetings card or stock). But there seems to be a fair bit of pressure to make limited editions...
Click to expand...

Reproduction in other media are not generally considered as part of a print edition. Most can and do use copies of the image in other forms. For instance I have a popular image that is used on packaging, motivational posters, etc. all over Europe. The genuine limited edition print is a completely different thing, and the owners of those prints take satisfaction in knowing they own an original when they see the image used in media, packaging, posters, etc. and certainly don't confuse a box, card, or poster with the real thing. Limited the edition of a print in an original medium absolutely does not not preclude other uses like the ones you mention.
 
" I like the idea of limited editions as it makes me think my work is important and may be worth a lot of money in the future! But then again, who am I kidding? (don't get me wrong, I do value my work very highly - but that doesn't mean that others will).

So maybe I should just sell what I sell - each print will be signed and numbered but there will be no cap on how many will be produced. Then if I do happen to be represented by a gallery in the future, any new images can be printed in limited editions if necessary."

Simon

Simon: You are exactly right. Now about your prices: if your work in any good and you multiplied the 20 price by a factor of 10 it would probably be about right for a total unknown just getting started. Same for your other prices. Pricing your prints as low as you anticipate doing reflects poorly on the medium of photography.

Michael A. Smith
 
Greg Davis said:
so I can either price it at $300 and get $180 or price it at $500 and get my $300....
Click to expand...

The likelier outcome is that you might sell a few through the gallery priced at $300 and get $150 or $180 or whatever; or you price it there at $500 and get zilch. More likely, and more sensible, is that you price it at $25, or $50, or $100; sell it through lower-overhead, more realistic channels; and keep it all. 100% of something still trumps 40% or 50% of little or nothing.

This quote speaks to an attitude that pricing takes place in the abstract, divorced from considerations of supply and demand: "if I say it's worth $500, by God it is and that's that!" [Not picking on you here personally, Greg, just using your quote to make my point.] But value is not arbitrary; it is determined by the buyer regardless what the seller thinks, "limited edition"-ing and other parlor tricks notwithstanding.

The harsh reality is that the gallery-sales model might (MIGHT) work for established artists with a name. If you are one of those very few and are selling well, I salute you and wish you continued success; but it makes no sense at all for everyone else. Why do you think the art world is awash in unsold "fine art" "limited edition" prints? The gallery-sales cost structure is prohibitive when you're selling work that simply won't, by its nature, fetch the sort of prices that can cover that overhead at a sufficient profit for both gallery and artist.

@Jim Jones had it right earlier in this thread when he termed photography "the people's art"; people are simply not willing to pay those prices for something they see as familiar, that they have likely done themselves, and something which can be reproduced infinitely, "limited edition" labeling or not. Perception is reality, and denying reality is not helpful.
 
Okay Greg, I'll contribute personal experience. Thanks for asking.

Paula and I receive pretty much 100% of our income from the sale of our photographs. The production costs on the books we publish are so high that we lose money on them. We teach from two to four weekend workshop a year. The income from those workshops just covers our time. We do occasional lectures and once in a very great while that pays well, but usually it does not. So, 100% is a pretty accurate figure, maybe 95%.

Along with our assistant, Richard Boutwell, we have recently taken over Superior Archival Materials and are hoping that will provide some income. Superior is being renamed Lodima Archival Materials. And we will have Lodima paper. And that may, eventually, provide a little income.

Selling photographs: There are several markets for photographs and they seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive. There is the market of museums and collectors. About six or seven ago, at a major museum, the curator, who was buying our work, said to us rather pointedly, "Your prices are too low!" At the time, Paula's prints were probably $800 and mine were probably $2,000. These would have been the prices for recent work. Older photographs were priced considerably higher. When we told him we thought our prices were fine, we said, "They are not. I see what comes in here every day." He did ask us, however, not to raise our prices until the next day. Subsequently, we have raised our prices. At our exhibition at the 291 gallery in San Francisco at the end of last year, we did sell photographs in the low five figures. We need to do that in order to keep going. Our overhead is high.

In the world of museums and collectors if your work is not priced appropriately high it will not be considered seriously. In that world, it is only the most unusual collector who would even look at a print priced in the low hundreds of dollars. Collectors who may spend six figures for a photographs think anything under $10,000 is very inexpensive.

Then there is the world of non-collectors. This world includes many amateur photographers. They think a print for $2,000 is way too high. They even think a print for $500 is way too high.

Pricing your photographs in the $250 to $500 range is fine if you are just starting out, and gallery sales will not happen (and while I am thinking about it, galleries take 50%. not 40%). But today, anything lower is not taking yourself seriously at all. (I sold my first photographs for $10 and sold 40 of them at my first exhibition (no gallery commission), but that was back in 1966. There has been inflation since then, and the whole standing of photography in the art world has changed since then.

How you price your work is a function of how you see yourself in the art world relative to all the other work that is being done. Those who price their photographs in the less-than-$100 and slightly higher range, do not see themselves in the art world at all, and have no aspirations to join it. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with having your photographs sell, if they do, to local people who would like something on their wall. But there are, or should be, two different discussions going on here.

Now, some of those who want to sell their work, and think they should do so at very low prices, do aspire to join the art world. But from what I have seen, they generally are not really involved with art at all. They are kidding themselves, or perhaps, they just do not know how to proceed. They don't know what is involved.

What would it mean to be involved with the art world? First of all, you have to look at your work in the context of the entire history of photography. And how do you do that? You make sure you know, and know well, the history of photography. And in addition, you follow what is going on today in the photography/art world--whether you like the work or not. And you look at non-photography work--painting and sculpture, and you think about how your work fits into the entire tradition of art making. Who knows where it will lead you? And you have a serious library of photography books and subscribe to photography magazines and art magazines. Not technical ones. And once you have learned it, you pay no further attention to technical things, but pay attention to pictures.

Here is an example of why I believe that most amateur photographers are not involved with photography as art, even if they think they are. I am surprised that the series of book we produce--the Lodima Press Portfolio Book series--books of the highest quality 600-line screen quadtone--by many of the most significant photographers of our time, Nick Nixon, Robert Adams, Keith Carter, Larry Fink, George Tice, and on (see the entire list at www.lodimapress.com), and of all previously unpublished work, and which we originally sold to subscribers to this ongoing series for only $20 has, I believe, not one subscriber who is an APUG member. (I just checked the list, there are two or three subscribers who do contribute on the APUG forums.) When we announced this series on APUG several years ago we received not one response. Why not? I believe it is because those who are involved here are not really serious in a deep way about joining that great pantheon of art through the ages and so have little to no interest in looking and learning. We never expected everyone to like every book in the series. We expect some of the books to seriously challenge the complacency of so many amateur photographers. But technical considerations seem paramount here, not the making of art. There are exceptions, and the brush I am painting with here is probably too broad, but the failure to be deeply engaged with the greater world of photography and art on the part of so many, is . . . disappointing, is, I guess, the word that comes to mind.

This has rambled a bit too much. Were I to write about this not off the top of my head it would be more cohesive, but I hope some of the readers do get the gist of what I am saying.

In closing: To the fellow who started this thread: If you have aspirations to be thought of as an artist, price your work with knowledge of the world you are entering. If you have no such aspirations, whatever price you put on it, however low it may be, is fine.

Michael A. Smith
 
michael

i seem to remember on your website there was an article about
how you began selling your work. it was not through an established gallery,
but you invited people to your apartment / studio and sold work that way.
i searched your website, to re-read the article but couldn't find it.
i do remember that you sold your first images for way-less than 100$ ( maybe i am remembering wrong ) ...
is the price you are suggesting the OP to raise his prices to, around what your 100$ would be worth today ?

i would imagine selling more images for a lesser price until one gets established ( name/ reputation ) would be better
than high prices, and nothing selling ...
 
Back in 1966 there were o galleries. I had to sell prints through my own efforts. And I still do that. Unless one is very famous, one cannot count on galleries to sell enough work so that one can live off of it.

DO read what I wrote more carefully. I sold photographs from my first exhibition for $10, not $100.

Selling for a lesser price when getting started is certainly the way to go, but not for 1966 prices or for prices anywhere near there.

What sell work at all? Just to pay for supplies and equipment? If that is the only reason, and I suspect it is in many cases--so that the hobby can be self supporting--then fine, sell prints for $25 and sell lots of them. But if someone considers their life's work to be making photographs, then there are whole other considerations regarding pricing. And very low prices will not cut it.
 

I would call the former a collector and the latter an investor, and view both animals differently. Collectors throughout art history have recognized and supported new and/or misunderstood artists, acting principally because of their love of art. They would value art for its own sake, not the price affixed to it. Investors, in my opinion, act principally to increase their worth and the fame of those who's work they collect, that is, until the next flavour of the season comes along.

Not everybody wants fame, followers, or fortune. Many like me are leading quiet lives while we build our body of work, unencumbered by the crowds bellying up to the Fine Art World trough. At some later date we may jump in and join the fray, or then again, to continue enjoying our unencumbered lives

Murray
 
Last edited by a moderator:



Here is an idea for a truly limited edition:

Make 12 prints of the neg and mount them, then, cut the neg into 12 pieces and glue them to the back of the mount as prove of 'limited' edition. You don't need that precious neg anymore, right? Well, who has the courage to do it?

This has been proposed and done before, once, I think.
 

Wow... I cringe just thinking about it.
 

Not me... but I'm ok with not revisiting negs long after I've printed them several times.
 
I've had cyanotypes from querlicht where he's cut up the negative and pasted it onto the back of the print. I'm quite pleased I got the boobies part of a nude he sent in one of the exchanges here
 
Aha! Thanks Mr Brunner! (And to Ciaran.) I'd been trying to find out a bit about what's acceptable with limited edition prints and now I have... My APUG education continues.
 
Yes, but this doesn't mean there isn't another neg the same ..??
We all often bracket exposures etc ??
 
Chopping up or burning negatives to prove or enforce the artificial rarity of a limited edition is to my thinking a bit pretentious, or at the very least affected, it won't reap the kind of whirlwind that would befall one who played overt games such as printing "new" editions from an identical negative. The market would take care of game in about two seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register