Digital BW, The Print

"Mark Tucker" <mark@...> writes:

> My objection is to this entire line of thinking.

Me to.  To the idea of "editions", that is.

> What is so hard to understand here, guys? The word "edition" 
> itself implies a finite number of copies. You can't go saying it's 
> an edition of 25, and then come up with some cute method of 
> lying about it later, when you move into 26 through 50. It's simply 
> unethical.

And this concept is incompatible with the inherent nature of
photography. 

> If I'm missing something here, please point it out. (All I see here 
> is some underhanded method of trying to keep making money 
> from the same image, long after you said you'd stop printing it). If 
> this practice fell under the umbrella of the SEC, there would be 
> calls for a congressional investigation of corruption.

The practice of editioning began with high-quality art prints produced
from artist-created originals (things like woodblock, intaglio prints,
serigraphs, and real stone lithographs).  Some of those had rather
limited capability to produce prints; they wore fast enough to show.
Hence the numbering, as well as the limit.

The rate of wear on a B&W negative printed in an enlarger is much
lower.  The rate of wear on a digital file printed on an inkjet
printer is negligible (okay, zero).  Numbering and editioning make no
sense in this environment.  They're an artificial ploy to inflate
values. 

> If somebody with the stature of Ansel Adams participated in this 
> practice, I hereby deduct five karma points from his bank 
> account. Seriously.

With a very few exceptions, Adams refused to participate in the
commercial fraud of "editioning" photographs. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info