Digital BW, The Print

Hey Frank,

Replies underneath each paragraph....-MT

> 1.  I never heard about size changes within editions.  My art 
> photographer buddies survive by selling an edition (say 1-20 
16X16 inch 
> prints) and then doing another edition at say 1-10 at 30X30 
inches.

I agree here. An edition seems like ONE size.

 
> 2.  I sell my 20X24 silver prints for $500 each, but I told Photo 
Eye 
> I'd sell 13X19 inch carbon pigment piezo (no TM because I'm 
using MIS 
> variable tone inks) prints for $375.  I was going by Jennifer 
Drucker's 
> pricing.  I originally thought it was too cheap and now I see you 
are 
> giving your fabulous images away for $300. (Is that before or 
after 
> commision?) I can't figure out this digital pricing problem.  
Maybe 
> editions of 15 or so is the way to go.  At least the limited 
> availability justifies higher prices.


It kinda does feel like giving them away, but just like on the 
playground -- "The first one's free...", then you gotta pony up the 
money. I've been shooting for twenty years, but for some reason, 
I was so nervous when she asked what price to put on them, I 
buckled. The show is also called "Small Packages", and it's the 
annual Christmas show, somewhat implying "affordable art to 
everyone during this season". That probably influenced my 
pricing suggestion too. Also, since the 7.75" square is so much 
smaller than I'd normally print. (One rule of the show is that the 
framed dimension can be no larger than 15").

> 3.  I noticed that Ray Meeks has his digital prints called "carbon 
> pigment" on the Photographer's Showcase.  No "piezo" 
mentioned.  Mark 
> seems disinterested in describing his prints any more 
specifically.  
> Maybe I'll drop the "piezo" also.

I noticed that too about Raymond Meeks' stuff. He intermingled 
Piezo with silver. I thought that was interesting. No way to tell on 
the web though, other than the caption. Personally, I just don't 
like the word "Piezo"; it just doesn't say anything to me. Might as 
well be XT8, or Supra, or one of those generic names with no 
meaning. I know it has a meaning, but it's too complicated to 
explain to the common art buyer every single time. I almost like 
Inkjet better than Piezo; at least it says something.

> 5.  I think two dates is the honest way to go, but is it too much 
> information?  I just donated a print to auction that was 
1992/2001.  Is 
> that not a suspicious stretch of time?


Not suspicious at all to me. Actually, quite honest. I can hold that 
in my head -- you shot the picture years ago, and are making 
either a new attempt at the print. I like knowing the time frame.


> 6.  I hate attaching too much information to a print.  I once sold 
a 
> portfolio to a guy for around $1500.  He wanted me to write a 
> description (story) for every print.  I'm a shooter not a writer.  I 
> hated doing the extra work.  A signature should be sufficient 
proof of 
> authenticity (unless you are buying a Lewis Hine print).


I like the concept of this Certificate. It wouldn't have to be too 
complicated. Would NOT require writing a story about the image. 
Its just technical information that a collector would want to have.

> 7.  I like to give art buyers archival quality. I'm using Legion 
Photo 
> Matte.  Does anyone think that paper has longevity problems?

Supposedly has Optical Brighteners. That would be the first thing 
I'd think of. Robert Rex has posted much about their effects.