Film and Darkroom User

Film and Darkroom User (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/index.php)
-   Art and aesthetics (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=48)
-   -   Limited edition protocol (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13181)

JakubV 3rd May 2020 12:38 PM

Limited edition protocol
 
Imagine a (rather common) situation:
One were to print a limited edition of, let's say, 10 prints - all numbered, signed etc. for sale.

I wonder, what is the usual procedure with the negative after the prints are done? The 'limited edition' trademark conveys a certain message of uniqueness of the prints for me...does it mean that the print will not be re-made ever again, or just not for sale, or just for a special occasion (e.g. exhibition)?

It's quite common in other fields of printmaking to destroy a printing matrix after the edition is done, but I don't hear about photographers destroying their negatives (for this reason at least)...

Jakub

Terry S 3rd May 2020 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JakubV (Post 132985)
It's quite common in other fields of printmaking to destroy a printing matrix after the edition is done, but I don't hear about photographers destroying their negatives (for this reason at least)...

Jakub

I can't remember who, but I have read of photographers doing this in the past though. When and by whom, I couldn't say though Jakub.

Terry S

Richard Gould 3rd May 2020 02:20 PM

When I made numbered limited edition prints it was always a case of destroy the negative, which is why many photographers in this line make Editions, !,2,3 Ect so that if the print turned out to be popular then you can return and print further editions, you may not get as much per print, but in the end you would make more,
Richard

MikeHeller 3rd May 2020 03:42 PM

If I may introduce a note of dissension in this. As I understand it the reason for limited editions in print making was that the quality of the print deteriorated with the number of prints made and therefore could be justified to maintain quality.

With photographic prints this isn't the case, so that the only reason for limiting copies is to 'justify' the higher prices charged.

As I see it photography democratised the wide dissemination of quality pictures and prints whether one considers them to be art or not. In my view the artificial hyping of prices by the use of 'limited' editions goes contrary to this particularly in the modern age when high quality mass printing, say in books and magazines is possible.

Anybody that is prepared to pay prices inflated in this way, more fool them.
Mike

Michael 3rd May 2020 06:19 PM

While I agree with Mike Heller's argument, there is a reasonable case to be made for a premium on prints made and signed by the photographer themselves. While they don't amount to a formal limited edition, there is a natural constraint on how many will be produced.

Richard Gould 3rd May 2020 06:39 PM

Limited edition prints, numbered, would sell to collector's and in some cases investors, the idea being that there would only ever be X number of prints, they would happily pay the premium, on the hope that as time went by they would increase in value, this was mainly in the USA and French markets, When I started doing so called fine art prints I would, for the first year or so, do the limited edition's, and destroy the negative, but I very soon learned that I could make more money from numbered edition's, if the print was a good seller then I could make a second or third edition, and keep the negative intact for use again at a later date, but if doing limited edition numbered prints it is essential that no more prints are made of that negative, for whatever purpose, so best practice was to destroy th negative, so it ias actually better, I found to make editions, numbered and signed, but not limited edition, I would never advise any photographer to make limited edition's after all, the idea is to make money, and it is better to sell each print for less, but sell more prints, and come back to them, also I would provide prints for various other reasons, for instance I have been asked to provide prints to hang on the wall in some high end restaurant's over here and sometimes the edition prints were perfect, and I could, sometimes with a slight change, be able to use one or two, where if they had been limited edition's I could not have made further use of the negative, whatever the temptation, so best to destroy the negative in this case
Richard

photomi7ch 4th May 2020 10:18 AM

I am in agreement with Richard and the last part in that by changing the framing of the view you have made another picture.

This post on Cropping illustrates what I am getting at.

Terry S 4th May 2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photomi7ch (Post 133015)
This post on Cropping illustrates what I am getting at.

The link you give is a dead end Mitch. Would be good if you could correct it.

Many thanks,

Terry S

MikeHeller 4th May 2020 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 133007)
While I agree with Mike Heller's argument, there is a reasonable case to be made for a premium on prints made and signed by the photographer themselves. While they don't amount to a formal limited edition, there is a natural constraint on how many will be produced.

Of course that is reasonable. I have a friend who has a number of signed photobooks some of which he has not read in the belief that this would add value (if he ever actually does sell them!). I prefer books for their content.

And I understand John's point of view particularly with respect to making changes to the print. Bill Brandt revisited some of his negatives later and made prints with a very different interpretation. However, while I can see that copies of D/R derived prints may vary slightly, I still foresee that proving provenance of limited editions that can be such a problem in the 'collectible' market may also apply to them.

Mike

photomi7ch 4th May 2020 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photomi7ch (Post 133015)
I am in agreement with Richard and the last part in that by changing the framing of the view you have made another picture.

This post on Cropping illustrates what I am getting at.

Thanks for pointing that out Terry.

Google have moved things around again without telling.:shock:

updated link Cropping

Just checked it working OK


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.