The idea of publishing limited editions in photography has reached a point where it is almost a scam. First off, let me say, there is a place for limited editions, but we'll get to that in a minute.

An example: a few years ago Annie Liebowitz had a show at a local gallery and among others, had a copy of her famous John and Yoko image in color for sale. This is the one where John is nude and lying on top of Yoko. Fine. Nice limited edition print, about $3,000.00 I believe -- would be a lot more now 10 years later. But... next year or so another show and another "limited edition" John and Yoko -- same image -- not quite. This one was in platinum and his eyes are open not closed. Ah, good ole motor drive, clikety clack, more film more images. So either the fact that it was in platinum, or the fact that it was taken 1/10 of a second after the previous image, made it another image in and of itself.

So under this scheme we can have "limited editions" up the ying yang. The permutations are so large as to make the term meaningless. lets look at some of the "excuses" I have actually seen used to justify a reprint of the negative.

Different sizes.. "Oh that was limited only in 11 x 14." I suppose a 11 1/64 x 14 1/64 justifies another edition????
Different print process: "That was limited to gelatin silver, this one is in platinum." Hmm does palladium justify another edition?
And the real sticky one, the next negative on the roll or the back up shot on back side of the film holder.

Add up all of these and, well you get the point, we can quickly go into the thousands or millions.

Unlike most issues like this in the world of commerce, there is rarely a disclaimer presented to the potenttial buy as to what the artists consders to be a "limiting" of the edition.

Letting the buying public know would be self defeating. Suppose one saw this disclaimer:

This edition is limited to 25 images in 8x10 platinum. Other editions reserved include: 8x10 platinum, 11 x 14 platinum, 16 x 20 platinum, 8 x 10 Ilfochrome, 11 x 14 Iflochrome, ok, I could go on and fill the page. It certainly would not be enhancing any sales of the limited edition.

Now let's consider how this might effect the artist. Consider the late Arnold Newman. 11 x 14's go for around $7,500.00 and 20 x 24's for $25,000.00. A nice piece of change for a print. This print was made in 1946 when Newman was a young man. The price? Maybe $25.00 or maybe $50.00. Now had Arnold limited his edition to 25 in 1946, by 1956 he may have sold out the edition and netted a few thousand dollars. BUT, he didn't and he was selling the, like hotcakes up until his death in 2006. It is hard to know how many he sold and at what price but i think we can easliy say he probably averaged over the life of the print, maybe $2,000.00 per and sold several thousand. My guesstimate is certainly on the short side. Ok add to this his images of Max Ernst, Pablo Picasso, Dwight D. Eisenhower and others, and well... you can do the math.

The point for a young photographer is: limit your editions if you are one of the typical flash in the pans and will be forgotten in a few years, but.. if you are destined to be a great master in your old age, keep your options open. Oh, but maybe you can go for that 11 1/64 x 14 1/64 edition.

--Dick

"If you're going through hell - keep going!" -- Winston Churchill

Good points all around, Dick...but I'll still edition my carbon and platinum prints.

I reserve the right to do editions of the same image in both carbon and platinum/palladium (editions of 5 and 10 respectively). Reasoning...as a print-maker, I see them as two completely different processes, two different acts of creation. (helps that the carbons are reversed!) Since I see the print as an equal to the image printed, the fact that the image is the same for the two processes carries less weight with me.

One of the reasons I edition is that I do not want to print more of an image than the edition. Yes, there is a possibility that I will not gain extra income if a popular image sells out in its edition. But this does not worry me...I have faith in myself that I can create new and better images in the future. If I did not believe this, I'd put the cameras and chemicals away and spend more time with my kids.

As far as your other points -- as long as the artist is upfront about what he/she is doing, let the market decide if their 11.25"x14.25" edition is worth anything.

There are some laws (state-by-state) that govern the use of editions. It is good to check up on those if one does limited editions.

Vaughn

Vaughn,

It's not that I'm against limited editions, just the abuse of them as you point out. Now I haven't spent a good part of my life chasing donkeys up and down the Grand Canyon keeping me young, I am at an advanced age, and it is probably more important that my prints sell well now instead of 50 years from now.<grin> So if I were to sell, it would most likely;y be in limiteds. We are working on a couple of proposals to print some editions of dead folks from archives and those will certainly be limited. Since the negs would come from established archives, there is little chance of abuse. However, not always, look at the abuse of Salavdore Dali's prints by his heirs and others.

I have yet to sell a print so the idea of printing in editions is lovely.
Part of the joy of printing in unlimited editions is being able to revisit images again and again. However, if you are printing someone else's image like you mention, then editions make sense.

I have to hand it to Annie L., she sure can market herself and work. Even though it is does take advantage of the system.

This creates a sense of connoisseurship for images.

Since we're on the topic of print sales, anyone want to buy some of mine. All of them are first printing.

I've sold a few prints. I don't limit them. Hell, I'm an unknown. If someone likes my work and one piece in particular then I'll make them a print. Each print is a work unto itself. My creation and inspiration at the time of printing determines how I present the image. No limited editions for me. Maybe when I get famous!!! Yeh, right!!

Jim

Good points, all.

Still, it seems to me to be like arguing about the number of angels able to dance on the head of a pine (and me with an Augustinian education...). That is likely a function of my ignorance, however.

Still, I think that Jim has a point. Each print (non-digital...that's a whole different story) is a performance rather than a reproduction. Even if the buying public doesn't generally recognize the difference, some of us do. 'Course, I don't depend on selling my prints to put food on the table (Thank God!!!!!). Makes me enjoy re-visiting a negative, as Mr. Cowie so elegantly put it in his post.

However...and it's a BIG "however", for those serious about selling their work, and perhaps supporting themselves by doing so, I think the idea makes sense. Vaughn, your ideas about artistic control are also persuasive. Of course, with your images. the quality is such that I'd collect them (given the cash) whether they were limited or not! The control issue is a good one though, and worth consideration.

Enough blather...back to the darkroom for me!!!!! Maybe someday I will have an image worth sharing, and perhaps worth buying. Still. the conversation on the AP Board is a great source of education for me. Thanks to all!

Best regards,

-SPD

One thing about platinum prints is I'm never going to pump them out like cupcakes or Irish Families. I might limit my images to twelve prints for sale. That's a good number.

You raise a very good point Jim, that each print is unique. Unless all of the prints in an "edition" are printed at the same time chances are there are going to be subtle, or not so subtle differences. I believe part of the problem with any art purchaser is the level of involvement with the media they purchase. Does a person purchasing a print understand the art of printing it? People's experience with photography is mainly with machine prints, all the same.
Ron

I think if you print in editions, you owe it to the collectors to have a fairly even print run. Anything made by hand has differences but one shouldn't reinvent the wheel midstream.