Would making only one print increase value of photography?

[Jedidiah Smith]

I was browsing a book on printmaking at Barnes & Nobles last night - very fascinating. Went from the history of ink prints to photographs, lithos, through modern, computerized half-tone plot patterns, etc.

Toward the end of the book, on one page the author had a painting and said the difference between that painting and the print was that there will only ever be "one" of that exact painting...with the brush stokes exactly so, with the colors exactly as they are; with what we might call "minor imperfections", etc...precisely as the artist rendered it (the painted scene) that time.

I got to thinking a little about this. OK, that's scary, I know!
But I'm curious how my fellow photographers feel about this subject. Do you feel that the value of photography in general would be greater if only one "print" was ever made of each original scene? I know there are "collectors' editions" of various famous photographers' work. However, it is still possible that they could make another print from that negative or digital file.

What if you made only one print, and then sold it or displayed it with the negative right next to it...or maybe even damaged the negative in such a way that another print could not be made? That almost sounds like sacrilege to me - destroying a negative, but I wonder what it would do for value? Nothing or everything? :confused: And as a side discussion - could this ever be done to a digitally captured photograph? Wonder what the value difference would be there?
Just looking for a little discussion on this.
Thanks,
Jed

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Until you're famous enough to rival Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Man Ray and the like, stick to perserving your negs. In AA's case, Alan Ross would have needed a different line of work the past few years (referring to special edition prints for AA galleries, that is).

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The single print you make may have added value only if there is already a demand for your work. The value is entirely dependend on what the buyer is willing to pay. Imagine that you had that single print up for sale on Ebay. If there were no bidders then the print would be worth nothing. If there was a single bid for $x then x is the worth. If you were Ansel Adams... or the Ansel Adams trust, and you put up the one and only print AA made from a newly discovered negative then you would see the sort of value inflation written about in your book. There would be multiple bids for the AA print and the price would go very high, very quickly. All of that value is driven by the reputation of the photographer.

 

[jgjbowen]

Of course it will increase the value of the work. The problem is the artist will NEVER receive the increased value. The increased value will only be recognized on the secondary market after the artist is dead. I'm sure there are thousands of such photographs in existence. We call them portraits.

For we photographers a fellow named Kevin Saitta made a HUGE fuss about this on APUG and perhaps the LF forum back in December 2007. Kevin suggested we should all do as he was doing, make just one original print from the negative then sell the negative with the print. THIS would bring us all to photographic salvation. A month or two after Kevin's tirade, he sold his gear and gave up photography. I guess it didn't work too well for Kevin.

 

[John Koehrer]

Daguerreotypes are one offs.

It's possible that additional prints could be made from "limited edition" negatives. It depends what you call limited. Some photographers will make an edition of different sizes and claim them to be "limited editions". Whether this is ethical or not is really defined. Some states actually regulate what can be called a limited edition.
There's a photographer from Ireland that, when he retires a negative has a bonfire to destroy the negs. I personally think it's just a marketing ploy.

Re:digital editions would you delete the file from the hard drive? & how do you prove there's not a copy of the file on another computer?

OK now, Adams, Weston, Brassai, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Lange, Bernhard, Man Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen, Brandt, Sudek, Sheeler Didn't limit the # of prints made from an individual negative and it didn't hurt them any. I do believe there were limits on the number of portfolios that they made.
Again, I believe the edition game is just that, a scam to artificially increase the price(income to) of an individual.

 

[SuzanneR]

I don't think limiting your print editions of one, ten or one hundred has anything whatever to do with the medium of photography, which by its very nature is one of reproduction. Who knows what makes certain photographs more valuable in the market place, and I suppose rarity can make something worth more. But it's not a monetary value I'm after. I'd love to make some cash selling prints, but since limiting yourself to one print (or ten or twenty-five) is about marketing, and not the medium, I'd rather not.

And you never know... you might decide to print something differently down the road (a nice benefit of the medium), but if you've put a whole punch through the neg, you've pretty much shut down an avenue of expression. If a collector can't deal with that... oh well.

Limiting print editions, btw, comes from printing mediums... I think etching plates and lithographic stones etc. can only produce so many prints before the press squashes them enough that they can't really be inked properly anymore.

 

[tkamiya]

Limiting the number of print will increase value both in initial sale and resale. However, if you are thinking about your earning potential, it will also limit your ability to market more prints to satisfy the market demand. If you produce limited copies, you owe it to the purchaser to honor your commitment. Otherwise, the whole scheme of "limited and numbered" copy is null and void. Of course, this type of things require that there is enough demand and value to the product themselves. I could number my prints but that won't increase value or demand of what I produce. 10 times zero is still zero.

Can digital copies be destroyed? Sure.... Is film along with the print ensure there's only one print? No it doesn't... you can copy film or produce more prints. I think, it has a lot to do with trust and integrity, more than physical destruction.

I was reading Ansel Adam's autobiography and at one point, he did destroy his negatives after numbered copies are completely made. He says he regretted this decision and never did it again.

 

[removed account4]

For we photographers a fellow named Kevin Saitta made a HUGE fuss about this on APUG and perhaps the LF forum back in December 2007. Kevin suggested we should all do as he was doing, make just one original print from the negative then sell the negative with the print. THIS would bring us all to photographic salvation. A month or two after Kevin's tirade, he sold his gear and gave up photography. I guess it didn't work too well for Kevin.

i agree with what kevin was saying ..
let the pixi0graphers make the posters
and let the photographers make photographs ..
the thing that will set photographers
apart from the pack will be the fact that photographic images
will be unique ... not mass produced.
we should be more like tin typists and dag-makers not button pushers ...

for a long time i made negatives by hand and made 1 usable print and disassembled / destroyed the negative.
i see nothing wrong with destroying a negative

 

[keithwms]

Do you feel that the value of photography in general would be greater if only one "print" was ever made of each original scene?

Yes, but it'd be a shame if photographers valued their work only in terms of the prices of their prints.

 

[removed-user-1]

I have negatives and slides that are works of art to me, in and of themselves, and I could not bring myself to destroy them. Displaying them means printing them, of course; but since I don't make many prints (silver or inkjet) to begin with, I feel that each print is always a "one off." Each time I do print I may be using different materials (by chance, or even deliberately choosing to do something different). I do this for artistic expression, nothing else. I've had a couple shows, and have probably sold less than twenty prints since 1992 when I started taking photography seriously. Certainly the very small amount of my work that's out there is "limited edition" but that's just an accident.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hi to all, and thanks for the great discussion. I think that it's a bit of a mixed bag, myself. I do agree with the thought of "what if I wanted to print that scene different later?" It would limit creativity. But then, that isn't true to the philosophy of "getting it right the first time" either. (Shooting slides this is pretty much a must.) Arguments for both ways, for sure!
I can also see the "monetary value" increase that only one print would create. However, I can't really figure out how that would increase the market for a photographer's work - i.e. you've got to be able to reproduce those photos in such a way that many people see them, want them, and then of course, purchase!

Well, I'm not a pro photog by any means; I've sold a few prints here and there to friends, given away lots to family, but never tried to make anything at it. I was just curious what the general consensus was on that author's line from the book, because it did pique my interest.

You know, I was thinking about the digital aspect on this too...and I guess what I don't like is the inherent inequality of the market for photographers (from my perspective only, of course). For example, someone who just pushed the "print button" for the 100th time, could potentially get the same cash value for his/her print as someone who seriously labored in the darkroom for a one-off print. Maybe that's apples to oranges, but I was thinking there must be some way to get the general public to see the difference and value the one print higher.
Or...maybe not...it IS the general public. And I suppose, the market place rewards based on the end product, not necessarily how hard a person/company worked to get that end product! hehe
Thanks for the discussion!
Jed

 

[markbarendt]

There's a photographer from Ireland that, when he retires a negative has a bonfire to destroy the negs. I personally think it's just a marketing ploy.
...
Again, I believe the edition game is just that, a scam to artificially increase the price(income to) of an individual.

I don't understand what your point is. Should various marketing methods not be allowed or is it that this one doesn't work or ... ?

If you are selling anything, it requires some marketing, and by my estimation all marketing is a ploy. Frilly words, nice frames and mats, advertising, showing in a nice gallery, having fancy web-site, blah, blah, blah...

That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

If you are trying to sell something for significantly more than the value of the paper it's printed on, then a significant amount of hype will be needed.

OK now, Adams, Weston, Brassai, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Lange, Bernhard, Man Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen, Brandt, Sudek, Sheeler Didn't limit the # of prints made from an individual negative and it didn't hurt them any. I do believe there were limits on the number of portfolios that they made.

Mass printing for these guys was also tougher, they couldn't just hit the print button.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Ansel Adams most famous photograph is "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico." This photograph was printed more than any other of his photographs. Photography is not painting. If you have a great image, people will want to own it. Why not print them and sell them to people that want to buy them?

For the "single negative, unique print" crowd, offer yourself as a "commission photographer." Offer to create photographic art on commission, providing your patron with one negative and one print to be theirs and theirs alone. That way, you and your patron can flaunt your uniqueness to the art world.

Better yet, consider the "virtual photograph." Ask your patron to pay you not to make a photograph, but only to tell him/her what you are going to photograph and how it will look. That would be the most valuable photograph of them all. Unique, unseen and unknown. It would have an infinitely large value. I haven't quite figured out the logistics of it yet, but I do think it's a great way to go.

 

[Shangheye]

You know, I was thinking about the digital aspect on this too...and I guess what I don't like is the inherent inequality of the market for photographers (from my perspective only, of course). For example, someone who just pushed the "print button" for the 100th time, could potentially get the same cash value for his/her print as someone who seriously labored in the darkroom for a one-off print. Maybe that's apples to oranges, but I was thinking there must be some way to get the general public to see the difference and value the one print higher.
Or...maybe not...it IS the general public. And I suppose, the market place rewards based on the end product, not necessarily how hard a person/company worked to get that end product! hehe
Thanks for the discussion!
Jed

On tis point I have a story to tell. I have a customer who visited my home to review my portfolio and he came with a budget. Given the budget, I offered that for 35 Euros more he could receive a hand printed signed, dated and numbered (not limited edition...see below) print. But he came with a budget. As an alternative he was offered a staight digital print signed, but not dated or numbered for the price he quoted. The reality is as a photographer I made the same amount of money (I saved the time in the darkroom, which I cost in to my sales), and he got what he wanted to pay for.

What I am trying to say is some people buy photographic images, not only because they like the photograph, but because they are either genuine collectors or have an affinity for the art medium itself. Others just want a nice photograph at a reasonable price. I differentiate these by what comes with the print...i.e. Analugue hand printed prints come with all the provenance to show I did the printing with my own hands.

I don't do limited editions, I prefer to approach the issue through the eyes of differentiation. I am offering prints produced by me, and I make sure they have a number and a date, so that the buyer knows how many are already sold...if he sees one that says #1242...he would duly be concerned it is mass produced etc. and I would not blame him if he fealt he wanted to choose a different print (then again he may like it enough to buy #1243...it's his/her choice). I keep a record of the print numbers so that I know what the following number is.

Limited editions are a marketing tool...ask yourself this....

What makes an AA photograph printed by him so valuable?....not that it was limited (they were not....)...but that HE printed it. I tink that matters to people buying my art, and it has been commented on often that becasue I hand print (and no print is exactly identical) and make it an issue in my marketing, I am seen as closer to painting than my digital competition.

Hold on to your negs.

K

 

[removed-user-1]

Better yet, consider the "virtual photograph." Ask your patron to pay you not to make a photograph, but only to tell him/her what you are going to photograph and how it will look. That would be the most valuable photograph of them all. Unique, unseen and unknown. It would have an infinitely large value. I haven't quite figured out the logistics of it yet, but I do think it's a great way to go.

That... would be quite a trick.

 

[jeffreyg]

Paintings and portraits were mentioned as "single prints". How about hand-coated photographic processes such as platinum/palladium especially when the brush strokes of the emulsion coating show as opposed to a masked border? Although the actual image may be very much identical the brush strokes won't (unless you've invented a robot to perform that task.)

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Kal,
I really enjoyed what you had to say about that, and thanks for sharing a "story from the trenches" of selling a photograph. That inspires me a little. Differentiation at the price level by the artist can teach the consumer the difference between the analog and digital print. This will take time, of course, but I believe it will work.
Jed

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Even though I use closed-loop enlarging and developing timers, I've never been able to make identical prints from the same negative - even back-to-back.

My dodging and burning tools (my hands, primarily) never find *exactly* the same spots. Or remain for *exactly* the same durations. Especially during complicated negatives.

Processing solutions can be slightly different from session to session. Or be slightly different from the beginning and end of a single session.

Paper characteristics change - albeit only slightly - from batch to batch. Paper also ages over time.

And I also age over time. My idea of what looks best often evolves as well.

It's safe to say that *none* of my prints from the same negative ever look the same.

Ken

 

[Ian Leake]

The monetary value of art is more a function of how many people want to possess the artwork than how many copies are in existence.

The artistic value of an artwork is more a function of its content (what it reveals and how it engages with people) than the number of copies made. To an extent the artistic value of an artwork drives its monetary value, but only because it's likely that more people will want to own it.

Which "value" is important to you?

There's another thing of value, which may be more important than both the "values" I've mentioned. Sharing your work with someone who appreciates it enriches both of your lives, and this has value (to me anyway). The more great prints you make then the more people can share in this enrichment. If you're very lucky then these enriched people will become so many in number that demand for your work will rise and people will want to pay more for your prints.

Happy Christmas!

 

[df cardwell]

While I can think of photographers whom I wished had only made one print,
this really has never been an issue. Photography has never, and will never, attain the prices of painting
unless in the case of some added value to a collector. A Stieglitz, or vintage Edw. Weston, prices for the scarcity and 'collectability' which exceed the lifetime income of either artist.

No vintage photogapher ever lived above the poverty level on the sales of the pictures alone, however many copies they made.

An interesting conversation between Adams and Paul Strand on pricing one's work, can be found in Adams' Letters. Ansel felt that he could keep the price affordable by making a large edition, and through selling editions could make a living. Strand disagreed, and felt the price for a real photograph should be much higher. Both agreed the lie of infinite repeatability to be ridiculous. Like a gravure stone which erodes and places an inherent finity on an edition of prints, the photographer wears out producing many prints. Adams likened the process of making prints from a single negative, to no surprise, to a musician's performance of a piece of music over a long career. Adams' own work is a good example. While a collector might prefer the rarity of an early print, Adam's himself looked at his evolution as an artist and felt his later prints to be superior to the early; the courage of an older artist, and understanding, make a clear and strong statement without the fuzzie-headed prettiness of youth.

Strand took a different approach than Adam's in making editions, he mastered gravure and produced, early on, images which a working man could afford.

We have a wonderful opportunity in our time, if we had but a vision that could justify it, of making extremely high quality inkjet editions that can be sold to normal people, not Foundations. No inkjet can match a first rate photographic print, although they are the equal of a second rate photograph, especially of a second rate photographer.

Here the digital revolution has done us all a favor. If we cannot produce a photographic print that is superior to a pricey inkjet, we need to reconsider our ambitions. For many of us, myself included, making only a single print of an image would be doing Photography a favor. But I gave up pretensions of 'art' long ago, and am perfectly happy to make good, but not great, prints for my family and friends. The only people who ever buy my pictures are customers for whom I make the picture in the first place. Thank goodness for them !

 

[GraemeMitchell]

I have done editions and am leaning more towards them now than ever. I have on a few rare occasions destroyed negs from old work: one is cut up and taped to the back of a print frame that is a one off that I did for a close friend as a gift - b/c he really treasured the fact that he had the only one - others are destroyed simply b/c it was poor work I don't want around, ever.

Anyway, the edition for me have nothing to do w/ marketing. I've found it makes little to no difference of whether someone will purchase something - they're more interested in how much and how big. What it is, is a way for me to limit how much of my time/energy I'll spend on a photograph or project, and it allows me, or forces me to move on. It is the end.

Other than that I don't think it matters, whatever makes you feel good, better off worrying about living well and taking better pictures.

 

[mopar_guy]

Recording History

In February of 1945, US Marines were invading a small island in the south Pacific called Iwo Jima. On Feb. 23, 1945, a photographer named Joe Rosenthal photographed US Marines raising a US Flag at the top of Mount Suribatchi. This may be the most widely distributed photo in American History, It has been reproduced countless times. What is the value of this image? I would say that the image of those marines is more widely known than even AA's Moonrise. What is the value of recording History? Priceless.

Photography is not painting. In my opinion, this is a strength and not a weakness.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Would making only one print increase value of photography?

No, it wouldn't. Because it still doesn't offer an answer to potential customers who ask: "Why should I pay you when I can make a photograph myself?"

That, IMHO, is the deep underlying problem with photography as art. The buying public has been convinced that anyone can do it (Kodak spend a huge amount of time and its vast resources on this and has largely been successful) and therefore it has no value.

Interestingly to me, the buying public doesn't feel the same way about painting when in fact they can also drag a paint brush across canvas. I've heard the above question from the buying public a number of times, but I've never heard the similar question about a painting.

As long as the buying public thinks it could produce Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" one day (presumably by shear random chance?) they'll never buy it from one of us. And no amount of playing tricksy with editions is going to change that.

BTW, the answer to that question is basically: "Because you didn't make the photograph -- I did." How diplomatically you choose to convey this answer is up to you. :rolleyes:

 

[eddym]

Personally, I plan to print as many photographs as I damn well please, and let the art world fight over them after I'm gone. Then I won't care one way or the other.

 

[JBrunner]

The price of a print is based on what the market will bear. If it's a one of a kind that no-one wants it will be as equally worthless as if there were a hundred, or a thousand. If everyone wants it, then you've got something. Rarity doesn't convey value, the market does, and then rarity sets the price.