[pure-silver] Re: Editions and Numbering
- From: Joel Alpers <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:11:22 -0600
Harry Lock wrote:
Hi All
All this talk of fibre-prints has got me thinking of the age-old
question - "To number, or not to number".
I am sure this has been discussed here before, but if you don't mind
could I raise the question again.
How many on the list print photographic prints and sell them as 'art'
- in galleries, etc. (as opposed to printing for commercial clients
and commissions.) That is, you take a photograph, decide it is worthy
of selling, make some prints and frame or mount and sell them through
a gallery.
Harry:
I sell prints through a gallery in the area. The gallery owner (my
first gallery, hopefully
more to come!) made strong arguments to me in favor of limited editions.
If so, do print an edition, ie.limiting the number of prints, and
number the prints accordingly?
I mat the photos with a "reveal" of the bottom mat, the way Ansel Adams
(understand that
I am not comparing my photos to his, simply the matting ;) ;) on
page 157 of "The Print",
with a the opening of the single top mat larger than the final print
size, which causes a "reveal"
of the substrate mat. This leaves an area for my signature (on the
right), title, (centered), and
an edition number (which I put on the left). It is customary to include
the print number and edition
size (i.e 3/250). I also reserve the right to do a number of Artist
Proofs, I label these AP1/5, etc.
Artist proofs are a small number of prints that are usually given as
gifts or kept for oneself.
Then the questions are:
How do you determine how many to to print from the negative?
As someone else pointed out, the real value is if there are not many
total prints. But I find that
usually a practical limit is "how many prints do you want to make?" I
limit mine so far to 250,
and I have yet to sell out of an edition ;) A couple of my prints
have limits of 50. But you
can pick whatever you like! I think a "limited edition" of 3000 may
as well not be limited at all,
for example...
Do you print then all at once - same paper, chemicals, toners, etc.,
or do you print on demand from a catalogue say.
Definitely on demand. I keep accurate records of exposure, enlarger
height, etc., and for
my harder-to-print negatives, I keep a "reference' print (one of the
artist proofs) to refer
to when printing.
If you choose to print on demand, and let's say you have chosen to
print the previos images in the edition on 12 X 16 inch paper, and a
client order a smaller or larger image, is it still part of the 12 X
16 edition, or do you stick to your guns and say it comes in only one
size?
When you price the work, does the selling price increase with the
edition number? ie prints numbered 1-10 = $100.00; 11-20 = $150.00 and
prints 21-30 = $200.00, and so on.
This is an area where opinions differ. I took the approach that it
really doesn't matter, as
long as you are clear. On the back of my matted prints I dry-mount an
"info sheet" about
the print that includes interesting info about the print, etc. and also
includes details about
the limited edition. On early prints I limited to a total edition of
250 prints of any size.
On later editions I have gone to a limit of 250 per print size offered.
I also include a clause
stating that small prints for promotional purposes (i.e. post cards) are
not included in the
total, and that the limited edition does not preclude inclusion in a
book. Just to be on the
safe side.
And then the last question: does the numbering of prints really
increase the value of the print, and does the average buyer really
understand the concept and appreciate the value of a limited edition?
My gallery owner is absolutely convinced that it does - she has told me
of people
who come into her gallery and ask, "Why are these so expensive compared
to the
prints at XXX gallery, so she has an opening to explain how XXX sells
unlimited
prints - the photographers there can sell any number, and that cheapens
them. She
has sold prints on that argument.
That said, some very well known photographers (example: John Sexton) do NOT
limit their print editions, and do quite well. The truth is that, for
at least prints made
traditionally, are naturally limited anyway - who wants to print 3000 of
the same
print under an enlarger??? I don't - I want to move on to new images.
So it is a
complex issue.
Sorry for all the questions - it is looking like one of those dreadful
surveys we all try to avoid.
Not at all! Hope this helps.
Cheers for now
I do not agree with the person (sorry, didn't save the email, so I don't
recall
the name) who said you must destroy the negative after the edition is done.
I believe that self-control is sufficient. I do keep my negatives in
archival
sleeves, so my intent when I do sell out an edition) is to simply mark that
fact on the sleeve.
I keep a data base of all limited edition prints made, including, if
possible,
who purchased them (info not usually available if it is a gallery sale) so I
know what the next edition number is when I make new prints.
Hope this helps!
Joel.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joel K. Alpers
| Expressive Images of Colorado and Rocky Mountain National Park
| http://www.jkalpers.com
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
