Digital BW, The Print

I've got to calm down after that last post; my heart is still 
churning. I want to be level-headed when i write this.

I was thinking today about Paul Roark's post this morning:

(snip from paul's post:)

The fear that the digital printer can simply press a button and 
print as many copies as s/he likes with no manual labor 
probably does lower the price of the product. (Of course, AA just 
hired legions of assistants to do the printing, but who's counting 
....)

(end snip)

It seems as if we must do something to counter this perception 
of "just pressing the button and another one pops out". I agree 
that this has a negative effect.

What about this?:

What if, when you thought you had a "keeper image", you then 
sat down and determined an edition number. Then, (just like in 
the darkroom), you'd make some test prints on the 2200, or 
whatever printer you're using, and then when you got it perfect,  
you'd print out THE ENTIRE EDITION in one run, in one day, at 
one time? To even carry it further, you might even banish the 
actual file that it was made from from your hard drive when the 
print run was over. (You might keep a rezzed-down version for 
PR and Publicity usages, but it might even be watermarked as 
such).

It seems to me that this procedure might make one straighten 
up, get serious, and realize the goal that's in front of him: he 
realizes that, at this point, today will be the very last and only time 
that this image will EVER be printed again. 

In your documentation, you clearly declare this, in a sentence on 
your CofA.

(Now... this brings up that other issue of what I've heard about, 
where the old guys, AA, etc. would get sneaky and then come out 
with a NEW edition in a different SIZE. Is that slimy or what?)

So, my approach, listed above, would even supercede and 
eliminate that practice of changing sizes later in a new edition. 
You are saying, TODAY is the ONLY time this image will be 
printed. Today, I will make twenty, or thirty, or whatever my edition 
states it is, but then after that, NO MORE. Ever...

I would bet that if the top twenty or fifty guys that are known as 
digital printmakers got together and agreed on this approach, 
you'd see an immediate shift in the perception of digital 
printmaking. Overnight.

Just a thought,

Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com

SNIP

> I've got to calm down after that last post; my heart is still 
> churning. I want to be level-headed when i write this.

SNIP

ME TOO!


> 
> What if, when you thought you had a "keeper image", you then 
> sat down and determined an edition number. Then, (just like in 
> the darkroom), you'd make some test prints on the 2200, or 
> whatever printer you're using, and then when you got it perfect,  
> you'd print out THE ENTIRE EDITION in one run, in one day, at 
> one time? To even carry it further, you might even banish the 
> actual file that it was made from from your hard drive when the 
> print run was over. (You might keep a rezzed-down version for 
> PR and Publicity usages, but it might even be watermarked as 
> such).

> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com

Mark,

Recall the Stieglitz has multiple variations on single 
images...feeling them out.  When F. Sommer was asked for advice about 
limited editions as you mention...his comment was usually that the 
individual wasn't much interested in learning to print were they 
(paraphrased from memory).

There are not enough of either of these artists in public or private 
collections, neither was bothered with limiting an edition.  It will 
be rare that ART work will be needed in greater quantities of 50 in 
their lifetime.  Once accepted as masterpieces, 50 isn't nearly 
enough and rarely then available from the artist themselves.

Cleavis