Digital BW, The Print

I think I have to agree with Tom, as much as I enjoy Mark's passionate 
writing. Photography has some unique advantages. The first is that it 
CAN be democratic. That is, unlike a painting, many, many people can 
own an "original." I have revisited images from over ten years ago and 
found a new way to print/crop them. To call the new interpretation a 
new image, thus entitled to its own edition, sounds dishonest, to me.

The concept of editions, it seems to me, would bar me from 
retrospection and reinterpretation. Yes, "go forward" but not blindly 
and not without looking back and perhaps seeing something new. 
Photography allows that, but not if one goes about destroying slides, 
negatives or digital files. Photography can be art. It is not, however, 
painting, sculpture or any other "one off" medium.

Peace, Jim, San Diego

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 08:49 AM, Thomas Keesling wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I'm not a silver printer, but you're asking the questions I struggled 
> with
> re my digital prints a couple of years ago.
>
> I think that a legitimate limited edition must be printed up front, 
> and not
> on demand, whether it be silver or digital. There are just too many
> variables involved to do otherwise and still be legit, IMHO. And this 
> wastes
> a lot of resources unnecessarily.
>
> Because I take this point of view and because I want the freedom to 
> change
> an image or to print a different size if I choose to do so down the 
> road,
> I've decided against doing editions. I don't want to deal with the 
> print
> inventory that would be necessary and I don't want to limit my options 
> with
> previously sold images.
>
> Plus, the technology that's available to us today makes it too easy for
> issuers of editions to cheat. I just don't see any value in being 
> associated
> with such a concept. My stance may mean that I don't sell as many 
> prints and
> that they sell for less than they would if editioned. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]