Digital BW, The Print

on 11/18/02 11:59 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Your "contract" as you say above, is not worth the paper it's
> written on if you can arbitrarily decide in three years to introduce
> yet another edition of that same image.
> 
> When that buyer is standing there with checkbook in hand,
> pondering the purchase, the buyer thinks at that point that only
> 30, or 50 of these prints will ever be in circulation. How fair is it of
> you to then decide later on, (after the image becomes popular),
> that you're going to come out with a new 50-count Sepia Edition
> in a smaller size? I say, quite unfair, and borderline sleazy.

Mark -

I've been called many things in my time but up to now, sleezy hasn't been
one of them and I suggest that's a word not to toss around lightly. I think
you misunderstood my comment. I said "Watermark or not, any limited edition
run is only as limited as the integrity of the artists allows. Thus, I would
also submit a certificate of authenticity with any limited edition print
stating its number and the total number of that run. It should also specify
if additional quantities might be made available at a different size or in
sepia instead of cool black, etc., and, if possible, how many. This is your
"contract" with the buyer and will assure the buyer that you will stick to
what you've stated."

I'm not suggesting that you do additional runs at a different size or sepia
toned etc. but simply that if you ort anyone else intend to do so you should
state this on the certificate. As I said, the key issue is the integrity of
the photographer. I would think you might want to know me before you suggest
that I might be "sleezy."

Thanks,

Rick Colson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Rick Colson 
<colson@i...> wrote:
> Mark -
> I've been called many things in my time but up to now, sleezy 
hasn't been
> one of them and I suggest that's a word not to toss around 
lightly.

------

Rick,

I completely worded that post incorrectly. I was not referring to 
"you" specifically. I completely apologize for the ill-written 
wording. I used the word "you" in general terms, almost in an 
analogy sense. I am sorry you took it that way; not intended at all.

I'm slammed right now. I'll post a response later. But wanted to 
correct this as soon as I saw it. I re-read what I wrote and could 
see how you'd read it that way.

One other thing to everyone who's freaking out about my 
suggestion to destroy the file after printing -- I should have 
avoided this. Everybody's up in arms about it. It probably is 
super-purist like someone suggested. Maybe just to give your 
written word that no other prints would be made available, 
besides what's quoted on the Certificate of Authenticity; how 
about that? Keep the file, keep the neg; just retire the print.

I'm fine with having larger editions too, maybe 30 or 50 or even 
100. But to me, it seems better to have one large edition, rather 
than a "big size" and a "little size" edition. The two-size approach 
feels kinda "decorator" if you know what I mean. I'd bet everyone 
here has images that they think work best in one certain size; 
why not find that size, and restrict the edition to that 
interpretation?

Again, to Rick, complete apology.

Mark