Digital BW, The Print

Hi All

For the first time I have been invited to contribute to a group
selling show. I will be supplying the gallery with 4 b/w images from
my epson 4000, the images will be 20" on the long side and framed in
80cm x 60 cm frames, titled, numbered (350 in the edition) and signed.

I will be offering smaller prints of these images (12" on the long
side). My question is... do I start the edition sequence again for the
smaller prints? ie: another edition of 350 prints for the smaller
size. What is the norm in these situations.

Apologies if it's a stupid question... I'm new to this gallery thing.

Cheers

Steve

Steve - In my experience, an edition usually refers to a specific image
printed in a specific way and at a specific size.  Some people who make a
small edition of an image and then wish they had made a larger one get
around the issue by producing another print at a different size, etc.

The whole edition thing is a little strange in photography, as I'm sure you
know.  Originally, sets of prints were limited in their numbers because an
etching or engraving plate or a stone for a lithograph wore down as
successive prints were made, so that it simply wasn't possible to go beyond
a certain number of prints before there was a loss in image quality.  With
negatives and digital files, that obviously doesn't happen.  I think it's
more about business than about art - dealers and collectors feel that
something has more value, and can thus be sold for a higher price, if it
exists in limited quantity.

Maybe you've even seen a price structure where the first prints in an
edition sell for a certain amount, and the next ones go for more money as
the edition runs out. Ah, capitalism...


Stephen Petegorsky

On 3/10/05 12:50 AM, "steve208242" sent the following verbage:
 
> For the first time I have been invited to contribute to a group
> selling show. I will be supplying the gallery with 4 b/w images from
> my epson 4000, the images will be 20" on the long side and framed in
> 80cm x 60 cm frames, titled, numbered (350 in the edition) and signed.
> 
> I will be offering smaller prints of these images (12" on the long
> side). My question is... do I start the edition sequence again for the
> smaller prints? ie: another edition of 350 prints for the smaller
> size. What is the norm in these situations.
> 
> Apologies if it's a stupid question... I'm new to this gallery thing.

So am I, but a gallery contacted me this year out of the blue, I have eight
pieces that have been up since April 11 and will continue to be exhibited
thru the end of March. I asked friends their opinions on editioning and
numbers, as they've had experience.. The gallery wanted this work editioned
and I've always thought it primarily focused on prints that change thru the
print run due to the degradation of the plates etc. Not to prints that will
in essence be the same throughout, and are not printed at the same time.

I chose to edition the eight images in the series in sets of 20, available
in two sizes, 11 x 14 and 16 x 20, 20 each size size. Some have an open size
policy, set the edition number, and then sell the print size requested, no
matter the size, the edition number then increases. I gather there are no
set rules, and that it's all about marketing. But one thing that all agreed
upon, was to keep the editions small in number.

The smaller prints, 8x10, of the same series are open ended.

Good luck with your show.
Carolyn

Stephen

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question,
you've been a great help

Regards

Steve


--- Stephen Petegorsky <petegorsky@...>
wrote:
---------------------------------
Steve - In my experience, an edition usually refers to
a specific image
printed in a specific way and at a specific size. 
Some people who make a
small edition of an image and then wish they had made
a larger one get
around the issue by producing another print at a
different size, etc.

The whole edition thing is a little strange in
photography, as I'm sure you
know.  Originally, sets of prints were limited in
their numbers because an
etching or engraving plate or a stone for a lithograph
wore down as
successive prints were made, so that it simply wasn't
possible to go beyond
a certain number of prints before there was a loss in
image quality.  With
negatives and digital files, that obviously doesn't
happen.  I think it's
more about business than about art - dealers and
collectors feel that
something has more value, and can thus be sold for a
higher price, if it
exists in limited quantity.

Maybe you've even seen a price structure where the
first prints in an
edition sell for a certain amount, and the next ones
go for more money as
the edition runs out. Ah, capitalism...


Stephen Petegorsky



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
 

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

You might find this PDF interesting:
http://www.ctphoto.com/whatsizeistheedition.pdf

Mark

On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> On 3/10/05 12:50 AM, "steve208242" sent the following verbage:
>
>  > For the first time I have been invited to contribute to a group
>  > selling show. I will be supplying the gallery with 4 b/w images from
>  > my epson 4000, the images will be 20" on the long side and framed in
>  > 80cm x 60 cm frames, titled, numbered (350 in the edition) and 
> signed.
>  >
>  > I will be offering smaller prints of these images (12" on the long
>  > side). My question is... do I start the edition sequence again for 
> the
>  > smaller prints? ie: another edition of 350 prints for the smaller
>  > size. What is the norm in these situations.
>  >
>  > Apologies if it's a stupid question... I'm new to this gallery 
> thing.
>
>  So am I, but a gallery contacted me this year out of the blue, I have 
> eight
>  pieces that have been up since April 11 and will continue to be 
> exhibited
>  thru the end of March. I asked friends their opinions on editioning 
> and
>  numbers, as they've had experience.. The gallery wanted this work 
> editioned
>  and I've always thought it primarily focused on prints that change 
> thru the
>  print run due to the degradation of the plates etc. Not to prints 
> that will
>  in essence be the same throughout, and are not printed at the same 
> time.
>
>  I chose to edition the eight images in the series in sets of 20, 
> available
>  in two sizes, 11 x 14 and 16 x 20, 20 each size size. Some have an 
> open size
>  policy, set the edition number, and then sell the print size 
> requested, no
>  matter the size, the edition number then increases. I gather there 
> are no
>  set rules, and that it's all about marketing. But one thing that all 
> agreed
>  upon, was to keep the editions small in number.
>
>  The smaller prints, 8x10, of the same series are open ended.
>
>  Good luck with your show.
>  Carolyn
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

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

Stephen,
 
To add to the photographic background of limited editions. As to the economics within the artworld for collectors, you can give a lot of credit to Ansel Adams's business manager to finally bring the limited edition printing to photography. A excellent business man, from whom Ansel (and now us) benefited greatly. So for the business/collecting side: supply and demand, if you print less, then they start to take on more value when the supply becomes very limited (scarce). As to how limited editions work, e.g. proofs, artist proofs, first editions (yes, you can have more than one edition for a limited edition, go figure, but you have to appreciate your gallery business partners regarding their resourcefulness, also having been one), etc., that will be a message string for another time.
 
The other side of photographic limited editions is the making of the prints, when the silver bromide prints were made by the artist photographer or his chosen printer. They take awhile to do, e.g. 6, 7 or 8 solution trays in the darkroom. More so with Palladium printing. Thus a photographer could choose to spend his time in the darkroom or out in the sunlight making more images. Artistically, an artist should want to continually develop their vision and evolve forward, not stay rooted to their past. Thus print an edition of your current best, then time to move on.
 
Okay, my soapbox for a brief moment. What I perceive is that from some of the silver bromide photographers, their digital thinking is that you use Photoshop to quickly alter the image, then hit "print" and go have a cocktail while the edition prints. Thus you see the galleries and new associations dedicated to the preservation of the silver prints as "Art". Reminds me of the days that the art community argued, was photography "Art"? My opinion: digital prints will quickly become "Art" when collectors pay high prices to the galleries for the prints. Enough said.
 
Best regards,

Stephen Petegorsky <petegorsky@...> wrote:
Steve - In my experience, an edition usually refers to a specific image
printed in a specific way and at a specific size.  Some people who make a
small edition of an image and then wish they had made a larger one get
around the issue by producing another print at a different size, etc.

The whole edition thing is a little strange in photography, as I'm sure you
know.  Originally, sets of prints were limited in their numbers because an
etching or engraving plate or a stone for a lithograph wore down as
successive prints were made, so that it simply wasn't possible to go beyond
a certain number of prints before there was a loss in image quality.  With
negatives and digital files, that obviously doesn't happen.  I think it's
more about business than about art - dealers and collectors feel that
something has more value, and can thus be sold for a higher price, if it
exists in limited quantity.

Maybe you've even seen a price structure where the first prints in an
edition sell for a certain amount, and the next ones go for more money as
the edition runs out. Ah, capitalism...


Stephen Petegorsky




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

I edition an image as 1st ed 1/50, 2/50 + 10 AP.  When finished, do the same
for 2nd ed etc.  Truly different sizes = different series.  Just my
compromise and seems honest to me.  I include a statement with each print
sold about care, as well as ³other editions and other sizes may exist².


On 3/10/05 11:04 AM, "Douglas Stockdale" <dstockdale@...> wrote:

> Stephen,
> 
> To add to the photographic background of limited editions. As to the economics
> within the artworld for collectors, you can give a lot of credit to Ansel
> Adams's businesshe artist photographer or his chosen printer. They take awhile
> to do, e.g. 6, 7 or 8 solution trays in the darkroom. More so with Palladium
> printing. Thus a photographer could choose to spend his time in the darkroom
> or out in the sunlight making more images. Artistically, an artist should want
> to continually develop their vision and evolve forward, not stay rooted to
> their past. Thus print an edition of your current best, then time to move on.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
Stephen Petegorsky <petegorsky@...> wrote:


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

Interesting or amusing?  I propose the latter.  I have no idea who the
author is except insofar as he introduces himself.  It is rather clear
though that he has little, if any, understanding of economics.

The very value in limiting the number of prints is because without this self
imposed constraint they are infinitely reproducible (discarding the obvious
possibility of the negative or digital image being destroyed or permanently
lost at some point in the future).  It is well understood that any object of
positive utility has greater value/utility if it is in finite supply and
even more value if it is scarce.  So yes a limited print (call it limited
edition or whatever you like) is, all else being equal, worth more than an
unlimited one.  To deny this is perverse.

How and in what quantity one decides to limit reproduction of their work is
entirely a decision which can only be made based on a personal (or mutual
with advice) assessment of a bunch of uncertain variables.  Can you make
enough from just one? Two? Three? Or one hundred?  The market will set the
price after you have made your decision.  What is certain is that an
unwillingness to convey with certainty the fact that you will limit the
reproduction of your image will only lead to the buyer pricing that
uncertainty against you.

How much would you pay for a Mona Lisa knowing there were any up to 100 out
there?  I don't know but certainly less than what you would pay if there is
only ever going to be one.  Now what if the Mona Lisa were readily
reproducible - identically.  How much value is there in having the first vs
the second?  I can tell you I wouldn't pay much if any for No1 vs No2 - the
price differential can only be attributable to ego.  To number prints
without regard to finite volume is largely useless - nothing but cute.
Would you pay a premium for the 1,000,000th Mini out the factory door vs the
1,000,001st?  I doubt it.  But let's say they were a limited edition in hot
demand (like the Ferrari Enzo)?  Might the price rise as the early ones were
snapped up and the end of line was approaching?  Quite possibly yes and even
better if the secondary market was limited (and earlier buyers refused to
sell).

If you are in the postcard business don't limit the prints - afterall you
have to sell a lot of 25p postcards to make a living and there is only so
much someone is going to pay for a postcard.  If you want your work to sell
as art and to establish yourself as an artist of value - limit your work and
clearly convey such intention either by marking the print or attaching a
certificate.  As to the quality and whether there is a ready buyer...well
that you will have to see with time.

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:44:36 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions
> 
> 
> You might find this PDF interesting:
> http://www.ctphoto.com/whatsizeistheedition.pdf
> 
> Mark
> 
>

He is Brooks Jensen of http://www.lenswork.com/
Mark


On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> I have no idea who the
>  author is except insofar as he introduces himself.  It is rather clear
>  though that he has little, if any, understanding of economics.
>


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

> ... an edition usually refers to a specific image
> printed in a specific way and at a specific size.  Some people who make a
> small edition of an image and then wish they had made a larger one get
> around the issue by producing another print at a different size, etc.
>...

The "limited edition" game can be a real scam from what I can see.  On the
other hand, I also see nothing wrong with limiting output to try and market
the photos to collectors who do put a value on scarcity.  

What I'm doing is just saying that I will not make more than 50 archival
display copies of any image.  I define display size as greater than 8x10,
and "archival" means cotton-based paper or Wilhelm >200 years.  I don't
number the prints.  Many start with #5 or whatever.  The date of the print
seems more relevant.

I find that I change the file slightly with most of my prints.  As I learn
more or as my eye changes, I like different things.  The prints reflect
this.  Even if I re-scan some of my old photos -- which need it given the
poor quality of the early scans -- the image numbering and limit stay as is.
It's not a new edition.  So, a print made today may, indeed, be a one of a
kind.  For my limit, I won't play the different size or different paper
game.  I'm just, in effect, trying to tell collectors that there will not be
lots of these images out there that have collectible value.  (Hey, I'll be
lucky if any have collectible value.)

I don't expect to ever be restricted by this 50 limit.  If I'm lucky enough
to have an image that really sells that many, the price will simply go up as
the limit is approached.

I wouldn't be interested in printing more than 50 of any image anyway.
Doing new images is more fun.

The truth is, most of my buyers never ask about any of this.  They just like
the picture and buy it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> He is Brooks Jensen of http://www.lenswork.com/
> Mark
> 
>It is rather clear though that he has little, if any, understanding
of >economics.


I happen to agree whole-heartedly with Brooks Jensen.  There is no
reason to limit a photographic edition.

However, I do understand economics as well and would make the
following suggestions.

First, It depends on why you are buying a print.  If I am buying a
print to hang on my wall, I am buying because it is beautiful and it
brings me pleasure each time I look at it. I don't plan to ever sell
the prints.  This is subjective value.  I don't care how many other
prints there are like it and the edition numbers and certificate of
authenticity means nothing to me.  I think there are other people like
me and there may be a large untapped market out there.  I won't pay a
premium for false scarcity.  I know how high quality prints can be
produced and know there is no reason that they cannot be made in any
number.

On the other hand people buy "art" as an investment.  These people
want the limited edition in order to preserve the value of their
investment.

Now, consider the following.  In economics there is a "demand curve"
that determines the value of a product.  Simply stated it says that if
you lower the price you will sell more units.  If you raise the price
you will sell less units.  You have to decide the price based on how
you will extract the most profit.  If you set too high a price you may
not sell any units.  If you set it too low, you may not make any
profit from each sale even if you sell millions.

Another economic theory says that it is possible to "fill the demand
curve".  Airlines are a prime example.  They have many different
prices for the same seat on a airplane.  If you want to travel cheap
you book well in advance.  If you are a business person you will pay a
premium to book at the last second.  Same product sold at a different
price.  If you had a fixed price for the airline seat it might be too
high for a trip to see Aunt Martha, but if you were a business person
who needed to travel, the airline has not extracted the maximum value
out of the seat.

Now lets consider art or photography.  Imagine that there is a Norman
Rockwell original.  Now imagine that there were signed and numbered
Litho prints.  In addition there are millions of POST magazine covers
with the same image.  Many of these are framed and hanging in people's
homes.  Would it diminish the value of any of these pieces if someone
made inkjet prints and offered them as numbered, but unlimited, and
unsigned edition?

With respect to making your own inkjet prints, I suggest that you
could make a limited edition signed and numbered of a certain size and
sell these to the investors.  You could then make a numbered, but
unlimited edition of a smaller size and sell to the subjective value
crowd.  This should not lower the value of the limited edition.

This is called filling the demand curve and extracting maximum value
from you work.

Thanks for you attention,

Ray Maxwell

> This is called filling the demand curve and extracting maximum value
> from you work.
> 
> Thanks for you attention,
> 
> Ray Maxwell

That's some fancy thinking, but it doesn't relate to the reality on
the ground. 

The fact is that no photograph has any dollar value at all beyond what
somebody wants to pay. And the most expensive work is sold through
expensive galleries at big markups in limited editions. NOT through
online offers by new magazines touted by unknown photographers.

If the buyer goes into an important gallery he expects to pay
important prices. Otherwise he wants cheap. 

The "important gallery" plies the potential buyer with champagne (at
the very least) and demands limited editions. There's no champagne in
an online deal.

Well Mr Jensen was against an express limitation - period.  You offer
nothing new other than that which has already been noted ie that it can make
sense to segment the market in some way:  unlimited (and potentially
unsigned - if it is just the picture you like then who cares if it is
signed) prints at low prices for the masses - people like you who just like
the image and don't care about retention value - and more expensive, signed
and limited prints for those that don't want to find their purchase freely
available to the masses and hence reduced in value.  But this was not what
Mr Jensen proposed.  He simply stated that there is no value nor reason in
expressly limiting the production of any image.

Now let's say you fell in love with an image in the gallery - you just had
to have it to hang on your wall because it is beautiful and will bring you
pleasure each time you look at it.  But a person next to you also "just has
to have it".  If there is only one copy of the image you must compete for
it.  If there are two then you might agree to pay the asking price.  What if
there were 100 available but the gallery was perpetually empty?  Perhaps now
you might vigorously debate the price with the seller - perhaps very quietly
so the seller isn't forced to disclose to the other interested party that
you didn't "pay retail" - after all, it's not like they are selling like hot
cakes.  Now when the seller has not covenanted to limit supply, if he is
smart he will supply at marginal cost (including a suitable return for his
labour and capital).  As long as he gets a price exceeding the cost of
"printing another" he continues to make money.

At the end of the day an "artist" needs to decide what business he or she
wants to be in.  One off masterpieces?  "Limited edition originals"?
Unlimited prints? Postcards for the masses?  One can participate in several
markets at once - even with the same image - but this requires very careful
segmentation.  Mr Roark wisely does his segmentation on the basis of
archival quality.  The small cheaper prints won't last.  With the larger,
limited and more expensive prints the buyer is charged and will pay a
premium for something that will last, that has scarcity value and, as a
result, that has potential as a "collector's item".  With regard to any
given photo, number 4 in the "edition" (a misnomer really as there is only
one edition) of 50 is not worth any more than number 5 or 50.  But there is
value in the fact there is only 50.  Anyone who doesn't covenant that there
is only one edition may as well not bother numbering them in the first
place.  No 4 of 50.1 is worth no more than number 4 of 50.2 and if the
artist is allowed to have an unlimited number of editions there is little
reason to believe the piece of art is scarce....unless of course he or she
dies and then we get into the debate about signing images ie how we
distinguish prints printed by (or for) the artist while living vs those that
might be printed by his or her estate post mortem ad infinitum.

Your airline example is not a useful analogy.  A flight has a finite number
of seats and once it has departed (full or empty) there are no more - you
can't just print off a few seats for the 10.30am to Heathrow at 11.30am.
Yes airlines segment pricing for each seat and the new low-cost airlines
have forced upon the market dynamic real-time pricing.  This is great for us
consumers.  But this is not at all analogous to the topic at hand.

The collection of cars is a much better example.  As the number of any
particular car falls, the value of the remaining cars increases - they t
became more scarce.  People reward scarcity value - assuming there is more
than one person who likes the scarce object.

> From: ray_maxwell2000 <rmaxwell@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:30:40 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> He is Brooks Jensen of http://www.lenswork.com/
>> Mark
>> 
>> It is rather clear though that he has little, if any, understanding
> of >economics.
> 
> 
> I happen to agree whole-heartedly with Brooks Jensen.  There is no
> reason to limit a photographic edition.
> 
> However, I do understand economics as well and would make the
> following suggestions.
> 
> First, It depends on why you are buying a print.  If I am buying a
> print to hang on my wall, I am buying because it is beautiful and it
> brings me pleasure each time I look at it. I don't plan to ever sell
> the prints.  This is subjective value.  I don't care how many other
> prints there are like it and the edition numbers and certificate of
> authenticity means nothing to me.  I think there are other people like
> me and there may be a large untapped market out there.  I won't pay a
> premium for false scarcity.  I know how high quality prints can be
> produced and know there is no reason that they cannot be made in any
> number.
> 
> On the other hand people buy "art" as an investment.  These people
> want the limited edition in order to preserve the value of their
> investment.
> 
> Now, consider the following.  In economics there is a "demand curve"
> that determines the value of a product.  Simply stated it says that if
> you lower the price you will sell more units.  If you raise the price
> you will sell less units.  You have to decide the price based on how
> you will extract the most profit.  If you set too high a price you may
> not sell any units.  If you set it too low, you may not make any
> profit from each sale even if you sell millions.
> 
> Another economic theory says that it is possible to "fill the demand
> curve".  Airlines are a prime example.  They have many different
> prices for the same seat on a airplane.  If you want to travel cheap
> you book well in advance.  If you are a business person you will pay a
> premium to book at the last second.  Same product sold at a different
> price.  If you had a fixed price for the airline seat it might be too
> high for a trip to see Aunt Martha, but if you were a business person
> who needed to travel, the airline has not extracted the maximum value
> out of the seat.
> 
> Now lets consider art or photography.  Imagine that there is a Norman
> Rockwell original.  Now imagine that there were signed and numbered
> Litho prints.  In addition there are millions of POST magazine covers
> with the same image.  Many of these are framed and hanging in people's
> homes.  Would it diminish the value of any of these pieces if someone
> made inkjet prints and offered them as numbered, but unlimited, and
> unsigned edition?
> 
> With respect to making your own inkjet prints, I suggest that you
> could make a limited edition signed and numbered of a certain size and
> sell these to the investors.  You could then make a numbered, but
> unlimited edition of a smaller size and sell to the subjective value
> crowd.  This should not lower the value of the limited edition.
> 
> This is called filling the demand curve and extracting maximum value
> from you work.
> 
> Thanks for you attention,
> 
> Ray Maxwell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Champagne is cheap.  If that's all it takes to sell art at "important
prices" then form an orderly queue outside my door!

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:25:14 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> This is called filling the demand curve and extracting maximum value
>> from you work.
>> 
>> Thanks for you attention,
>> 
>> Ray Maxwell
> 
> That's some fancy thinking, but it doesn't relate to the reality on
> the ground. 
> 
> The fact is that no photograph has any dollar value at all beyond what
> somebody wants to pay. And the most expensive work is sold through
> expensive galleries at big markups in limited editions. NOT through
> online offers by new magazines touted by unknown photographers.
> 
> If the buyer goes into an important gallery he expects to pay
> important prices. Otherwise he wants cheap.
> 
> The "important gallery" plies the potential buyer with champagne (at
> the very least) and demands limited editions. There's no champagne in
> an online deal. 
> 
>

Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is the bastard child 
of the artworld.  My local college gallery hosts an annual student show, and the director 
also purchases a small number of works for the permanent collection.  His one 
comment is that he pays less for photography, as it is infinately reproducable (and 
therefore not unique).  Unfortunately, this also means that he purchases cruddy paintings 
for 4X the price of one truly beautiful BW print.

Beyond that one example, what I find hysterical are printmakers (or so-called 
photographers, loosely used) who do the tiered pricing scheme.  It brings all the joy and 
excitement of being an Amway Distributer into the art community.  Seriously though, 
where do you see yourself in five years?

Maybe I am alone, but I want my work to remain singular and unique.  When I am satisfied 
with a final print, darkroom or inkjet, I destroy the negative or delete the associated files.  
I understand Brett Weston did this with a number of his images (ironed the negative to the 
back of the print), as well as holding a negative burning ceremony not wanting anyone 
else to print his negatives after his death.  That being said, I have participated in a few 
print exchanges with members of this group (so I am not militant).

Inkjet printing has degraded all unique qualities of the fine print.  While the work can look 
much better than a darkroom print, it has no value other than the materials it is printed on 
and with.  Another member has put it much more eloquently, that it is only worth what 
someone is willing to pay.  I refuse to pay more for a print because it is at the tail end of a 
limited edition run, actually I would never buy a "limited edition" print.  Seriously, would 
any of you either?  I understand the mechanics of the tiered pricing process, but I find it 
distasteful.  Besides, why not go whole-hog and make snazzy posters, t-shirts, notecards, 
mousepads, and select images on coffee mugs?  

don

On 3/10/05 9:44 AM, "Mark Savoia" sent the following verbage:

> 
> You might find this PDF interesting:
> http://www.ctphoto.com/whatsizeistheedition.pdf
> 
> Mark

Thanks Mark, I have that article and completely forgot...
Carolyn

I toss it at my customers when they ask me any "edition" questions. 
Really confuses them (in a nice way) :)
Mark

On Mar 11, 2005, at 1:34 AM, Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> On 3/10/05 9:44 AM, "Mark Savoia" sent the following verbage:
>
>  >
>  > You might find this PDF interesting:
>  > http://www.ctphoto.com/whatsizeistheedition.pdf
>  >
>  > Mark
>
>  Thanks Mark, I have that article and completely forgot...
>  Carolyn
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

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

Interesting way to treat people who ask a question that's typical of
experienced art buyers.

> I toss it at my customers when they ask me any "edition" questions. 
> Really confuses them (in a nice way) :)
> Mark

These are the artist I give the article to, not the art buyers.

Some artists are SO hung up on what to do for editions it's amazing. 
They worry about it more then their art. It is just there to give them 
another perspective and help them make up there mind how many prints 
they want me to print. It is obviously a big issue, hence this current 
thread.
Mark

On Mar 11, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Djon wrote:

>  Interesting way to treat people who ask a question that's typical of
>  experienced art buyers.
>
> > I toss it at my customers when they ask me any "edition" questions.
>  > Really confuses them (in a nice way) :)
>  > Mark
>


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

I feel that limited edition prints are for those collectors that 
can't afford the price of an original. To get art into the hands of 
the masses if you will. If you were to buy an honestly priced 
original and the artist is able to make a living at the same time, a 
$50.00 per hour price on the piece would be fair. Now couple that 
with how may pieces are sold for every ten that are produced. Then 
the artist has to charge for the hours on the pieces that aren't 
sold. So now one has to charge say $200.00 per hour to cover the 
time used on the no sales. If the artist spends 40 hours on a 
typical piece, then the selling price would be $8000.00 and with the 
gallery 40% added, then the piece would cost $12,800.00. I don't 
sell too many $12,000.00 pieces, but I sell a heck of a lot of 
prints for $300.00. My brother the doctor says I'm prostituting my 
art, and I'll point out to him that he takes money from sick people.




Greg Lockrey

Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling + 25 mph on a smooth road.

http://pages.prodigy.net/glockrey






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hill14701" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:
> 
> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why 
photography is the bastard child 
> of the artworld.  My local college gallery hosts an annual student 
show, and the director 
> also purchases a small number of works for the permanent 
collection.  His one 
> comment is that he pays less for photography, as it is infinately 
reproducable (and 
> therefore not unique).  Unfortunately, this also means that he 
purchases cruddy paintings 
> for 4X the price of one truly beautiful BW print.
> 
> Beyond that one example, what I find hysterical are printmakers 
(or so-called 
> photographers, loosely used) who do the tiered pricing scheme.  It 
brings all the joy and 
> excitement of being an Amway Distributer into the art community.  
Seriously though, 
> where do you see yourself in five years?
> 
> Maybe I am alone, but I want my work to remain singular and 
unique.  When I am satisfied 
> with a final print, darkroom or inkjet, I destroy the negative or 
delete the associated files.  
> I understand Brett Weston did this with a number of his images 
(ironed the negative to the 
> back of the print), as well as holding a negative burning ceremony 
not wanting anyone 
> else to print his negatives after his death.  That being said, I 
have participated in a few 
> print exchanges with members of this group (so I am not militant).
> 
> Inkjet printing has degraded all unique qualities of the fine 
print.  While the work can look 
> much better than a darkroom print, it has no value other than the 
materials it is printed on 
> and with.  Another member has put it much more eloquently, that it 
is only worth what 
> someone is willing to pay.  I refuse to pay more for a print 
because it is at the tail end of a 
> limited edition run, actually I would never buy a "limited 
edition" print.  Seriously, would 
> any of you either?  I understand the mechanics of the tiered 
pricing process, but I find it 
> distasteful.  Besides, why not go whole-hog and make snazzy 
posters, t-shirts, notecards, 

> mousepads, and select images on coffee mugs?  
> 
> don

> From: hill14701 <hill14701@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions? why bother
> 
> 
> 
> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is the
> bastard child 
> of the artworld. 

Wow this is a  bit much.  Because, unlike the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
or the Mona Lisa, a photographic image today is readily replicable, it is a
rational precursor that photography today requires a covenant of copy
limitation in order to be taken seriously as art.  Some photographs have
sold for very "important prices".  The important, older, scarcer items
continue to appreciate in price.  Photography is still very new.

> 
> Maybe I am alone, but I want my work to remain singular and unique.  When I am
> satisfied 
> with a final print, darkroom or inkjet, I destroy the negative or delete the
> associated files.

So you print and sell just one image and covenant that it is 1 of 1.

That's fine if it pays the bills but the vast majority of 1 of 1 artists in
history were poor and their pieces didn't attract significant value until
after their death.  Depends on what you are after.  I don't know a single
artist that doesn't want to feed his or her family.  Photography has the
advantage of allowing artists to produce more than one but still (by
covenant) a finite number of prints and to lower the price point, better
increasing their chances of putting bread on the table.  In this respect,
photography is a godsend for the artist.

> 
> Inkjet printing has degraded all unique qualities of the fine print.  While
> the work can look
> much better than a darkroom print, it has no value other than the materials it
> is printed on 
> and with.  Another member has put it much more eloquently, that it is only
> worth what 
> someone is willing to pay.

This is a bit naïve.  If this were the case, photography as commercial art
would not exist at all - it would not be commercially profitable.  Inkjet
production techniques still produce beautiful prints and if they are
durable, scarce (by covenant or better by actuality) and valued they can be
worth a lot of money.

> I refuse to pay more for a print because it is at
> the tail end of a
> limited edition run, actually I would never buy a "limited edition" print.
> Seriously, would 
> any of you either?

Of course I would buy a limited edition print.  To not do so would likely
deny yourself and, if collectively so, all others from the existence of
tradable photography.  Either we would all price most of us out of the
market - owning photography would, like the ownership of the great paintings
even when they were new, become solely the domain of the extremely wealthy -
or most photographers couldn't pay their bills and begrudgingly would go off
to do something else.  The ability to produce multiple copies but limited by
covenant helps us all - both the person who would like to own and the person
who would like to sell.

> I understand the mechanics of the tiered pricing process,
> but I find it 
> distasteful.  Besides, why not go whole-hog and make snazzy posters, t-shirts,
> notecards, 
> mousepads, and select images on coffee mugs?
> 

Ah the elite "artiste"!  Each to their own.  Many can find a sensible middle
ground that pays the bills (and allows them in today's economic world to
live from their passion).

The reason they are so hung up about it is because it is the pure economics
of their work - how many can I sell at what price depending on which
covenant and will that be enough for me to pay my bills.  Capitalism at its
purest.  The reason why it is so difficult is because you are trying to
price pure human creativity - rather than a good which has a known cost and
where one can at least partially evaluate barriers to competitive entry.

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:27:19 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions
> 
> 
> These are the artist I give the article to, not the art buyers.
> 
> Some artists are SO hung up on what to do for editions it's amazing.
> They worry about it more then their art. It is just there to give them
> another perspective and help them make up there mind how many prints
> they want me to print. It is obviously a big issue, hence this current
> thread.
> Mark
> 
> On Mar 11, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Djon wrote:
> 
>>  Interesting way to treat people who ask a question that's typical of
>>  experienced art buyers.
>> 
>>> I toss it at my customers when they ask me any "edition" questions.
>>> Really confuses them (in a nice way) :)
>>> Mark
>> 
> 
>

I think to two dissimilar sizes would be separate editions (perhaps with a
note on the back acknowledging the other edition).  11x14 and 16x20 won't
crop the same.

I don't normally worry about stock sizes.  That is, I print the image the
way I see it.  An "11x14" is really 14 on the long end; the with falls where
it may.  Ditto for 16x20.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Carolyn Frayn [mailto:carolyn@...] 
==
==I chose to edition the eight images in the series in sets of 
==20, available in two sizes, 11 x 14 and 16 x 20, 20 each size 
==size. Some have an open size policy, set the edition number, 
==and then sell the print size requested, no matter the size, 
==the edition number then increases. I gather there are no set

I am curious how (or if) folks print for mat sizes.

If you print a 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, etc., do you make it that size?  Or, do you
print it 1/4" smaller on each side (like photo easels used to do) so that it
"fits" stock mats?

Seth

Of course this is also true for restaurants, coffee, books, college
educations, fashion, medical care, cosmetics, software, food, housing,
professional athletes...

Wendel

> The reason they are so hung up about it is because it is the pure economics
> of their work - how many can I sell at what price depending on which
> covenant and will that be enough for me to pay my bills.  Capitalism at its
> purest.  The reason why it is so difficult is because you are trying to
> price pure human creativity - rather than a good which has a known cost and
> where one can at least partially evaluate barriers to competitive entry.
>

They're not the only ones :)  I guess you could make a 'stance' if you are a
'name'.. I will never have that issue to deal with, so just do as I'm
told... Sort of. :)

Carolyn

On 3/11/05 4:49 AM, "Mark Savoia" sent the following verbage:

> 
> I toss it at my customers when they ask me any "edition" questions.
> Really confuses them (in a nice way) :)
> Mark
> 
>

> So you print and sell just one image and covenant that it is 1 of 1. 

Correct.  But like I stated, I have participated in a few print exchanges.

> That's fine if it pays the bills but the vast majority of 1 of 1 artists in
> history were poor and their pieces didn't attract significant value until
> after their death.  Depends on what you are after.  I don't know a single
> artist that doesn't want to feed his or her family.  

I'm not sure what being poor has to do with limited edition printing, or this discussion.  
My function of art is not sales but my passion for the creative outlet.  Sales are best left to 
salespeople.

> Either we would all price most of us out of the
> market - owning photography would, like the ownership of the great paintings
> even when they were new, become solely the domain of the extremely wealthy -
> or most photographers couldn't pay their bills and begrudgingly would go off
> to do something else.  

Are these issues; ownership, bills, and domains of the extremely wealthy?  I cannot believe 
that an artist would quit painting or sketching because their bills were not being met.

> The ability to produce multiple copies but limited by covenant helps us all - both the 
> person who would like to own and the person who would like to sell.

I disagree.  The medium is stigmatized by being reproducible, and we are able to present 
perfect and identical copies of the original.  As a "1/1" printer, those who print multiple 
perfect copies of their images degrade my work as it is also "reproducible photography". 

> Ah the elite "artiste"!  Each to their own.  Many can find a sensible middle
> ground that pays the bills (and allows them in today's economic world to
> live from their passion).

No, I'm not an elite or even an artiste; but the middle ground is not suitable for me.  If I 
need to pay bills, I will do so,  but not by diluting my work because more than one person 
finds it pleasing.

Don

That's what I did, as I didn't like the sound of the other approach I was
told about. The sizes I typed out were just for quick reference.. I'm like
you, the sizes vary.

Carolyn

On 3/11/05 6:44 AM, "Seth" sent the following verbage:

> 
> I think to two dissimilar sizes would be separate editions (perhaps with a
> note on the back acknowledging the other edition).  11x14 and 16x20 won't
> crop the same.
> 
> I don't normally worry about stock sizes.  That is, I print the image the
> way I see it.  An "11x14" is really 14 on the long end; the with falls where
> it may.  Ditto for 16x20.
>

This whole issue is extremely interesting to me, as I deal with this daily.
The reality is that many of us cannot continue to follow our love of fine
art photography unless it supports itself financially.  Thus, I plead guilty
to ³the ed 1, ed 2, and editions up to 50 + AP¹s².  I also plead guilty to
being aware of my market through the whole process of image creation and
printing.  I sell the images that I deeply love in both fine art fairs and
galleries as well as I can, everything from 75 cent postcards to very large
prints up to 48 X 72² prints on Photorag ($600 -$800).  For myself, I enjoy
meeting and talking to the potential customers very much (Art Fairs),
somehow it is about sharing the love of these prints, whether I have done
them in traditional hand made Carbon pigment or inkjet (I usually say
microthermal in my case by the way).  Each person¹s situation is so
different that it is impossible to come to any kind of overall consensus on
this I think.  J Vee

On 3/10/05 9:10 PM, "hill14701" <hill14701@...> wrote:

> 
> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is the
> bastard child 
> of the artworld.  My local college gallery hosts an annual student show, and
> the director 
> also purchases a small number of works for the permanent collection.  His one
> comment is that he pays less for photography, as it is infinately reproducable
> (and 
> therefore not unique).  Unfortunately, this also means that he purchases
> cruddy paintings 
> for 4X the price of one truly beautiful BW print.
> 



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

> No, I'm not an elite or even an artiste; but the middle ground is 
not suitable for me.  If I 
> need to pay bills, I will do so,  but not by diluting my work 
because more than one person 
> finds it pleasing.
> 
> Don

In otherwords, You'll prostitute yourself at something else to "pay" 
for your "art". I guess Michealangelo was just  wall painter.




Greg Lockrey

Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling + 25 mph on a smooth road.

http://pages.prodigy.net/glockrey

Help! Not another discussion on limited editions? ;)

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>

> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is 
> the
> bastard child
> of the artworld.

Wow this is a  bit much.  Because, unlike the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
or the Mona Lisa, a photographic image today is readily replicable, it is a
rational precursor that photography today requires a covenant of copy
limitation in order to be taken seriously as art.  Some photographs have
sold for very "important prices".  The important, older, scarcer items
continue to appreciate in price.  Photography is still very new.