Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

RE: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

RE: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Darren Collins

This editions idea matches my current thinking. It means you can keep
printing popular images, but it also means that the people who buy in early
retain the prestige of owning a print from the first edition. Similarly, the
most valuable collectible books are usually copies from the first edition.
 
Darren.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----


Steve/Rick/Anyone:

What about this -- what if you thought about an Edition in the 
same way that a publisher/author thinks about a book? What if 
you had a "first printing", and then if the demand was there for 
more copies prints, then you could decide to invest in a "second 
printing"?

You (anyone) could have a "first run" of say, ten prints. You'd run 
all of those ten prints at the same time. That would be the "first 
run of the edition". The CofA would note this, that the first run 
would contain ten prints, and if that sold out, you'd then authorize 
a second run of another ten prints. And so on and so forth until 
you reached the total limit on the Edition of say, thirty prints. At 
that time, the artist would "retire" the image, and would 
guarantee that no more prints would be made of it IN ANY SIZE, 
in any other form, in any other color.

In this approach, the buyer would be "hedging a bet" in a sense, 
that he would own one out of possibly only ten prints. Yet he 
would also be made fully aware at the time of purchase that 
there was a potential that the full edition of thirty would be run at 
some time, whether that was three years, or thirty years. 

In addition, the upside for the photographer is that he would not 
be forced to invest hundreds of extra dollars for paper and ink, all 
on the front end. This method seems like a good balance 
between "print on demand" (could there BE a nastier term?), and 
running the entire edition all at once.

It seems from several responses on this list today that you guys 
think I'm trying to restrict your income by injecting these ideas, 
when, in a sense, I feel like I'm opening up opportunities in the 
long haul for your income to go up. In that, the overall perception 
of your business would be strengthened. Right now, I'd say that 
there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that they'll 
pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited edition, only 
to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this list 
can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
justification, either).

Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices are 
staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.

-----

I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I don't 
know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that in 
mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to me. 
And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
syllables, so keep your responses simple.

Thanks very much,

MT, http://marktucker.com/ <http://marktucker.com/> 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Mark Tucker

>>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Darren Collins" 
<collinda@n...> wrote:
> This editions idea matches my current thinking. It means you 
can keep
> printing popular images, but it also means that the people who 
buy in early
> retain the prestige of owning a print from the first edition. 
Similarly, the
> most valuable collectible books are usually copies from the 
first edition.

---------------

It goes much further than that.

When a well-known photographer is handled by multiple 
galleries around the country, and one gallery sells a print from a 
photographer, they somehow contact the other associated 
galleries and inform them of that. The other galleries then raise 
the price of the image to the next pricing level.

I have heard it discussed on this list that the tiers are five or ten. 
But I've also heard tiers of one. In that, print one is x dollars, print 
#2 is x+y added amount, and on down the line.

Here is an example of a five-tier:

http://HiroshiWatanabe.com/HW%20website%20Folder/Pages/P
rice.html

And I might add, some quite fine work...

-MT

Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Tom Andrews

Hi Darren, 

Not!  The whole idea of an edition is that it's limited; a fixed number of prints 
and that is it, as Mark said.  He is only suggesting that you stage the printing 
of the edition.   You can't later create a whole new edition of the same image 
and have any integrity at all.  This seems basic.  

The Jul-Aug 2001 issue of LensWork contains a long critique of editions, 
roughly saying it is nothing but a marketing ploy to inflate the cost of your 
work.   I, however, like the edition idea and use it.  

Another entirely different way of doing this is the one used by the very 
successful Christopher Burkett, an ilfochrome printer of some renown who 
starts with 8x10 transparencies and has work in many very fine galleries 
(www.christopherburkett.com).  He doesn't use editions.  However, with each 
increment of print sales of an image the price goes up.  The work is also 
numbered, but in an "UNlimited edition."  His initial large prints go for under 
$1000, but some of his most popular images have sold enough to now sell for 
over $3000.  This method insures that your work gains value (assuming it 
sells) over time.  

I have chosen to do both.  Use a rather large limited-edition size of 250 and 
raise the price progressively as the edition sells (dream on Tom).  The very 
last print goes for $500,000. (ha!)

I suspect that most buyers are much more  concerned with the look and 
quality of your work - the actual image - than with the business of editions.  
Unless of course you are selling for many thousands of dollars to investment 
collectors and are in the upper end of the art world - where, hmmm, actually, 
the notion of editions probably doesn't matter there either.  Now to be really 
cynical about all this, I suppose there are success stories of prints on toilet 
paper by artists who know all the right people, talk articulate post-modern 
art-speak, are very original or at least are doing slightly different work in a 
supposedly "original", in vogue, genre and who are wildly successful.   But 
perhaps these are monotypes.   Apologies.  I really shouldn't rant.  There is 
just so much crap that poses (and sells itself) as expensive art; mixed in with 
the stuff that takes your breath away.  I still remember standing in tears 
before a large inexplicable Motherwell painting at MOMA in 1971, just before 
going into the print room and getting to actually handle and look at many 
dozens or original Weston and Strand prints.   But what do I know anyway?
Not very damn much!


Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> This editions idea matches my current thinking. It means you can keep
> printing popular images, but it also means that the people who buy in early
> retain the prestige of owning a print from the first edition. Similarly, the
> most valuable collectible books are usually copies from the first edition.
>  
> Darren.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> Steve/Rick/Anyone:
> 
> What about this -- what if you thought about an Edition in the 
> same way that a publisher/author thinks about a book? What if 
> you had a "first printing", and then if the demand was there for 
> more copies prints, then you could decide to invest in a "second 
> printing"?
> 
> You (anyone) could have a "first run" of say, ten prints. You'd run 
> all of those ten prints at the same time. That would be the "first 
> run of the edition". The CofA would note this, that the first run 
> would contain ten prints, and if that sold out, you'd then authorize 
> a second run of another ten prints. And so on and so forth until 
> you reached the total limit on the Edition of say, thirty prints. At 
> that time, the artist would "retire" the image, and would 
> guarantee that no more prints would be made of it IN ANY SIZE, 
> in any other form, in any other color.
> 
> In this approach, the buyer would be "hedging a bet" in a sense, 
> that he would own one out of possibly only ten prints. Yet he 
> would also be made fully aware at the time of purchase that 
> there was a potential that the full edition of thirty would be run at 
> some time, whether that was three years, or thirty years. 
> 
> In addition, the upside for the photographer is that he would not 
> be forced to invest hundreds of extra dollars for paper and ink, all 
> on the front end. This method seems like a good balance 
> between "print on demand" (could there BE a nastier term?), and 
> running the entire edition all at once.
> 
> It seems from several responses on this list today that you guys 
> think I'm trying to restrict your income by injecting these ideas, 
> when, in a sense, I feel like I'm opening up opportunities in the 
> long haul for your income to go up. In that, the overall perception 
> of your business would be strengthened. Right now, I'd say that 
> there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
> the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that they'll 
> pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited edition, only 
> to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
> introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this list 
> can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
> business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
> justification, either).
> 
> Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices are 
> staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.
> 
> -----
> 
> I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I don't 
> know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that in 
> mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to me. 
> And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
> syllables, so keep your responses simple.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> MT, http://marktucker.com/ <http://marktucker.com/> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by sdmey4@aol.com

Your edition outline sounds fine Mark, Any Gallery would except it. Here is 
what really happens. Lets say you have a portfolio of prints for sale all on 
editioned 16x20 papers. Guaranteed there will be a call from the Gallery 
about a client who wants a 20x24 or maybe even an 8x10 or even an image 
flipped to face the other way. Questionable business practice? after all its 
the gallery asking if you will make the "different print" Your could end up 
being the "no" guy which is fine.
Most of us don't want to lose a sale, and these types of buyers pay top 
money. I think the best approach, if you think the image has wide appeal is 
to make the edition 50 and if an occasional odd size gets printed it comes 
out of the 50. Better yet, do what the photographers you admire do. I have 
made mistakes (plenty of them) I made a second edition of 20x24's numbered to 
25 with my first #'ed to 50. Now I wish it was one edition. Hell I'm learning 
the game too and there is a lot too it. Regarding savvy investors, there like 
big corporate clients, cheap! First thing they do is pose as Architects, 
designers, etc., and ask for a trade discount 15-25% the discount is almost 
always given, split between the gallery and artist. The savvy investor bets 
his money on a possible rising star, or takes advantage of a dealer artist 
who don't know what they have. Like great work just starting out. It wasn't 
very long ago that Michael Kenna Prints went for 750, now they start at 
1500.00 and are sold out almost before his shows finish touring the country. 
These are 8x10's!Most of the Photography I see in galleries is over priced 
some probably worth it, I have my eye on a 3000.00 piece ;0) but the good 
news is crap doesn't sell at any price and there is a lot of out there. 
Galleries, investors, are all taking gambles there are no sure things, just 
instinct. I'm sure you've noticed what the entry level gallery prices are, 
usually 450-1000 and a little bit more for larger prints, Success at that 
level, about 3 years, leads to the 1500-2000 range and so on. I seen great 
entry level work priced @1500.00 only to get skunked because no one knew who 
the artist was. Hell, another 500.00 can buy you tons of name photographers. 
My point, hell I don't no ;0)
Basically savvy investors look for good work at bargain basement prices. I do 
know I have an image close to a sell out at 50 and I will retire it at that 
number no more of any size. Looks good when shoppers see that there have been 
sell outs.
Some thoughts and rambles thats all!
Steve M.
Snip,>>>>>  , 
In a message dated 11/18/2002 6:29:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
mark@... writes:

> Right now, I'd say that 
> there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
> the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that they'll 
> pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited edition, only 
> to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
> introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this list 
> can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
> business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
> justification, either).
> 
> Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices are 
> staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.
> 
> -----
> 
> I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I don't 
> know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that in 
> mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to me. 
> And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
> syllables, so keep your responses simple.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> MT, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Darren Collins

Oops, yep, I misread that bit. I guess I was reading with a preconceived
idea, and only saw the words I wanted to see. Apologies.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Andrews [mailto:tandrews@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 November 2002 2:39 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...


Hi Darren, 

Not!  The whole idea of an edition is that it's limited; a fixed number of
prints 
and that is it, as Mark said.  He is only suggesting that you stage the
printing 
of the edition.   You can't later create a whole new edition of the same
image 
and have any integrity at all.  This seems basic.  

The Jul-Aug 2001 issue of LensWork contains a long critique of editions, 
roughly saying it is nothing but a marketing ploy to inflate the cost of
your 
work.   I, however, like the edition idea and use it.  
 ... 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Andrew Biggs

I have to agree with the previous posters regarding pricing based on
number of prints sold. Great idea. I believe Michael Kenna and his
apprentice Rolfe Horn do this with their pricing. As a side note, Rolfe
Horn's work is stunning, and a great 'value'. I believe his prints start
at $450.
 
Anyway, the whole dealer model really chaps my hide sometimes, and I
recognize it for what it is. I like to believe that photographers like
to collect other photographers' work, so I like to frequent galleries in
my time away from home. So, I strolled into a local gallery here in
Austin, and saw Saint Ansel's 'Moonrise' print (something like a 40"x50"
print, or something huge like that) priced at a 'sell your double-wide'
price of $175,000. Hmmm. But I remember that sized print, signed by AA
himself, 'normally' sells for $60,000. Hmmmm. Interesting.
 
But don't we want it both ways? In a way, we are collectors ourselves.
No, I cannot afford huge Ansel prints, but I do like to collect prints.
 
I am very fond of the escalating pricing model. It rewards the early
adopters, so to speak, and when the prints start circulating, the price
starts rising.
 
My $.02
Show quoted textHide quoted text
	-----Original Message-----
	From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...] 
	Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:40 PM
	To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...
	
	
	Your edition outline sounds fine Mark, Any Gallery would except
it. Here is 
	what really happens. Lets say you have a portfolio of prints for
sale all on 
	editioned 16x20 papers. Guaranteed there will be a call from the
Gallery 
	about a client who wants a 20x24 or maybe even an 8x10 or even
an image 
	flipped to face the other way. Questionable business practice?
after all its 
	the gallery asking if you will make the "different print" Your
could end up 
	being the "no" guy which is fine.
	Most of us don't want to lose a sale, and these types of buyers
pay top 
	money. I think the best approach, if you think the image has
wide appeal is 
	to make the edition 50 and if an occasional odd size gets
printed it comes 
	out of the 50. Better yet, do what the photographers you admire
do. I have 
	made mistakes (plenty of them) I made a second edition of
20x24's numbered to 
	25 with my first #'ed to 50. Now I wish it was one edition. Hell
I'm learning 
	the game too and there is a lot too it. Regarding savvy
investors, there like 
	big corporate clients, cheap! First thing they do is pose as
Architects, 
	designers, etc., and ask for a trade discount 15-25% the
discount is almost 
	always given, split between the gallery and artist. The savvy
investor bets 
	his money on a possible rising star, or takes advantage of a
dealer artist 
	who don't know what they have. Like great work just starting
out. It wasn't 
	very long ago that Michael Kenna Prints went for 750, now they
start at 
	1500.00 and are sold out almost before his shows finish touring
the country. 
	These are 8x10's!Most of the Photography I see in galleries is
over priced 
	some probably worth it, I have my eye on a 3000.00 piece ;0) but
the good 
	news is crap doesn't sell at any price and there is a lot of out
there. 
	Galleries, investors, are all taking gambles there are no sure
things, just 
	instinct. I'm sure you've noticed what the entry level gallery
prices are, 
	usually 450-1000 and a little bit more for larger prints,
Success at that 
	level, about 3 years, leads to the 1500-2000 range and so on. I
seen great 
	entry level work priced @1500.00 only to get skunked because no
one knew who 
	the artist was. Hell, another 500.00 can buy you tons of name
photographers. 
	My point, hell I don't no ;0)
	Basically savvy investors look for good work at bargain basement
prices. I do 
	know I have an image close to a sell out at 50 and I will retire
it at that 
	number no more of any size. Looks good when shoppers see that
there have been 
	sell outs.
	Some thoughts and rambles thats all!
	Steve M.
	Snip,>>>>>  , 
	In a message dated 11/18/2002 6:29:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
	mark@... writes:
	
	> Right now, I'd say that 
	> there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
	> the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that
they'll 
	> pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited
edition, only 
	> to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
	> introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this
list 
	> can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
	> business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
	> justification, either).
	> 
	> Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices
are 
	> staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.
	> 
	> -----
	> 
	> I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I
don't 
	> know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that
in 
	> mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to
me. 
	> And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
	> syllables, so keep your responses simple.
	> 
	> Thanks very much,
	> 
	> MT, http://marktucker.com/
	> 
	> 
	
	
	
	[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
	
	
	Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is
at:
	
	http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
	
	If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same page.
	
	Please follow these basic guidelines:
	- Include your full name with your message.
	- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
	- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
messages to keep them short.
	- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
subject header.
	- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
	- Complete your Yahoo profile.
	- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various resources on the homepage. 
	
	
	
	
	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 
	



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Ernst Dinkla

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Andrew Biggs" <abiggs@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...


> I have to agree with the previous posters regarding pricing based on
> number of prints sold. Great idea. I believe Michael Kenna and his
> apprentice Rolfe Horn do this with their pricing. As a side note, Rolfe
> Horn's work is stunning, and a great 'value'. I believe his prints start
> at $450.
>
> Anyway, the whole dealer model really chaps my hide sometimes, and I
> recognize it for what it is. I like to believe that photographers like
> to collect other photographers' work, so I like to frequent galleries in
> my time away from home. So, I strolled into a local gallery here in
> Austin, and saw Saint Ansel's 'Moonrise' print (something like a 40"x50"
> print, or something huge like that) priced at a 'sell your double-wide'
> price of $175,000. Hmmm. But I remember that sized print, signed by AA
> himself, 'normally' sells for $60,000. Hmmmm. Interesting.
>
> But don't we want it both ways? In a way, we are collectors ourselves.
> No, I cannot afford huge Ansel prints, but I do like to collect prints.
>
> I am very fond of the escalating pricing model. It rewards the early
> adopters, so to speak, and when the prints start circulating, the price
> starts rising.
>
> My $.02

The escalating pricing model is very nice. I haven't observed it here in
Europe but in a way the same thing happens when an artist becomes better
known. As long as the print is defined as being part of a limited edition
and that edition is really the only one or defined as being part of an
unlimited  edition it sure is a good concept. Nothing unethical and a good
marketing model.

Ernst

Re: [Digital BW] Editions: Another Dumb Idea...

2002-11-19 by Paul Roark

"Andrew Biggs" wrote:

> I have to agree with the previous posters regarding pricing based on
> number of prints sold. Great idea. I believe Michael Kenna and his
> apprentice Rolfe Horn do this with their pricing.
>As a side note, Rolfe
> Horn's work is stunning, and a great 'value'.
>I believe his prints start at $450.
>...
> ... the escalating pricing model. ... rewards the early
> adopters, ...

I agree.

A limit of 50 total display images is also what I've concluded over the
years is where I want to draw that line.  I'll probably never reach that
limit anyway -- most don't.

If I ever do get close to my 50 limit, my reward will be the outrageous
prices I'll be asking.  The limit will also help me avoid stagnation.  I
don't want to be stuck with the same old image.  I probably have more than a
lifetime of negatives acquired from my "image acquisition" years, and I hope
I always want to be out there getting more.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.