Digital BW, The Print

I'm curious about the numbering of prints in an edition - in a 
scenario as proposed by mark it's a straightforward matter - you only 
print x number of prints in a given session and that is that - for 
ever. You have # 1/15 to 15/15 (if 15 was your chosen edition 
amount/number).

If you later print more than one edition of the same image or perhaps 
decide to change the image size, what is the common practice - do 
printers continue the numbering sequentially, or do they have more 
than one '3/15' for example ?

I think the point Mark makes is one we should all take seriously if 
we ever hope to sell digital prints through galleries or even 
directly to interested people, at a decent price. We do need to 
change the misconception that it's simply a matter of hitting Ctrl-P 
and art pops out !

Arriving at consensus on how best to achieve the goal is probably 
only an ideal, but we could all stand to gain from a fairly unified 
practice. keep the discussion alive.

Frankg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" 
<frank@f...> wrote:
> If you later print more than one edition of the same image or 
perhaps 
> decide to change the image size, what is the common practice 
- do 
> printers continue the numbering sequentially, or do they have 
more 
> than one '3/15' for example ?

------

Frank,

My objection is to this entire line of thinking.

What is so hard to understand here, guys? The word "edition" 
itself implies a finite number of copies. You can't go saying it's 
an edition of 25, and then come up with some cute method of 
lying about it later, when you move into 26 through 50. It's simply 
unethical.

If I'm missing something here, please point it out. (All I see here 
is some underhanded method of trying to keep making money 
from the same image, long after you said you'd stop printing it). If 
this practice fell under the umbrella of the SEC, there would be 
calls for a congressional investigation of corruption.

If somebody with the stature of Ansel Adams participated in this 
practice, I hereby deduct five karma points from his bank 
account. Seriously.

MT

"Mark Tucker" <mark@...> writes:

> My objection is to this entire line of thinking.

Me to.  To the idea of "editions", that is.

> What is so hard to understand here, guys? The word "edition" 
> itself implies a finite number of copies. You can't go saying it's 
> an edition of 25, and then come up with some cute method of 
> lying about it later, when you move into 26 through 50. It's simply 
> unethical.

And this concept is incompatible with the inherent nature of
photography. 

> If I'm missing something here, please point it out. (All I see here 
> is some underhanded method of trying to keep making money 
> from the same image, long after you said you'd stop printing it). If 
> this practice fell under the umbrella of the SEC, there would be 
> calls for a congressional investigation of corruption.

The practice of editioning began with high-quality art prints produced
from artist-created originals (things like woodblock, intaglio prints,
serigraphs, and real stone lithographs).  Some of those had rather
limited capability to produce prints; they wore fast enough to show.
Hence the numbering, as well as the limit.

The rate of wear on a B&W negative printed in an enlarger is much
lower.  The rate of wear on a digital file printed on an inkjet
printer is negligible (okay, zero).  Numbering and editioning make no
sense in this environment.  They're an artificial ploy to inflate
values. 

> If somebody with the stature of Ansel Adams participated in this 
> practice, I hereby deduct five karma points from his bank 
> account. Seriously.

With a very few exceptions, Adams refused to participate in the
commercial fraud of "editioning" photographs. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: printing for editions


> Frank,
>
> My objection is to this entire line of thinking.
>
> What is so hard to understand here, guys? The word "edition"
> itself implies a finite number of copies. You can't go saying it's
> an edition of 25, and then come up with some cute method of
> lying about it later, when you move into 26 through 50. It's simply
> unethical.
>
> If I'm missing something here, please point it out. (All I see here
> is some underhanded method of trying to keep making money
> from the same image, long after you said you'd stop printing it). If
> this practice fell under the umbrella of the SEC, there would be
> calls for a congressional investigation of corruption.
>
> If somebody with the stature of Ansel Adams participated in this
> practice, I hereby deduct five karma points from his bank
> account. Seriously.
>
> MT

Mark, I agree entirely with your answer.

I'm not that familiar with what is normal in (art) photography but similar
multiple editions in lithography, intaglio and silkscreen printing are
considered unethical in Europe. And yet I know that it is done here too.
A well known artist in Netherlands asked me to print a silkscreen print on
two types of paper, one slightly more yellow than the other, same texture,
same paper. As he is more or less a conceptual artist I first thought it had
some meaning. Not at all as I later discovered. Both issues were numbered 1
to 40 and were sold without further information or certificate. That was 15
years ago but similar practice is done today. In every courtroom and city
hall hangs a silkscreen portraying our queen. There will not pass a day
without it being shown on tv. A similar story as I have described is
attached to that portrait, a nice reminder of unethical behaviour. I didn't
print that one though.

Ernst