Digital BW, The Print

Hello Richard,

>I'm wondering how I should sign a print that is, say, the first print
of the second open edition .... I'm forever looking at prints and
thinking I could do better and should start another edition. 
> 
>How about 2nd ed 1/open? 

If you want to confuse people then it's a great idea <g>.  The entire
concept of printings and editions seems overworked to me (Brooks
Jensen's method is the epitome of a bad idea taken to it's logical
conclusion - I think it's the only idea I've read of his that I don't
like - otherwise I'm a fan and I subscribe to his magazine).   Seems
to me there is only one reason to number a print, and that is to
uniquely identify it.  There is no reason or obligation to do anything
beyond that (the concept of a limited edition is an additional
complication which you may or may not want to use, for whatever
reason.  But if you call it limited then it should be limited).  

If you are going to have multiple editions of the same image,
distinguished by some slight difference, then you deserve whatever
trouble comes your way as a result.  You'll be explaining and
justifying for the rest of your life, no matter what numbering system
you use.  

There is also the underlying assumption that the owner would care and
want to know that his print is #4 of the 3rd printing of the 4th
edition of the warm rendering of the horizontally cropped version of
the 11x14 limited edition on Photorag 308 of "lighthouse in storm". 
Isn't it enough to know it is print #24, and more meaningful as well? 
Something like "#7, 2nd Pr., 3rd Ed." doesn't tell the owner whether
his print is the 22nd or the 76th print you've made (which is probably
what he is interested in if he cares at all).  I also feel that the
title, number and signature are part of the complete work of art and
should be done in such a way that contributes to the presentation.  A
complex and meaningless number like that, or a too bold signature for
example, is a distraction to the eye and weakens the overall effect. 
What if the viewer spends more time contemplating the number than the
image?

Here's a really radical idea that will avoid all those problems:  the
first print you make of an image, regardless of treatment, is #1.  The
second one is #2, and so on for as long as you print.  If at some
point you change how it's printed (warm or cool tone, different paper
or size, whatever), it doesn't matter.  Every print is numbered in
sequence.  What does it matter that #4 is 8x10 warm on PR and #5 is
11x14 cool on VFA?  Does anyone care?  If the image is different
enough to be considered a different picture, then treat it as such and
give it a different title and begin over with #1.  

Everytime you create a new concept, such as a special edition of some
sort, you have constructed another box which constrains you forever. 
What if you get a great new idea for how to print an image, or a new
paper or ink or printer comes out?  What are you going to do now, make
yet another special edition?  What if, in a fit of creativity some
full moon night, you make one each of three different renderings of an
image, all equally beautiful but different, all worthy of being shown
and sold...what are you going to do then?

Using the simple numbering approach, you are free of these kinds of
complications and the burden of having to explain anything to anybody.
Keep a record, if you wish, of every print, with a description of it,
paper, ink, when made, sold to, etc.  If someone contacts you 20 years
later about print #27 of "Xyz Waterfall" he purchased at an estate
sale, you can look it up and have all the original information.  

The fact that you are here in the forum asking how to do the numbering
is self-evident proof that the concept you're working with is an
awkward burden.  Doesn't have to be.  

There's my rant for the evening, no extra charge <g>.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm