Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

Please! Do us all a favor and quote the penal code, if you would be so
kind.

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: <res1dvao@verizon.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

> That numbering system is really a misrepresentation to the original 5
buyers. You are representing to them there will only be 5 prints made then
you turn around and print and offer 5 more for sale. In California thats a
violation of the penal code. You should reconsider that practice.
>
> George
> >
> > From: steves <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> > Date: 2004/07/02 Fri PM 09:06:21 GMT
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Subject: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints
> >
> > Less than trying to make prints identical, I'm so damn happy that I got
one
> > the way I wanted, I simply make more.
> >
> > With a successful mother as an artist, printmaker, I learned to number
my
> > prints. If I go back and make more once the first edition sells out, I
put
> > a decimal after the lower number to mark the edition, i.e. 1/5 and 1/5.2
> > etc.
> >
> > Ansel editioned his prints according to the lower numbers being his
choice
> > as the 'best' quality; and larger numbers that followed.
> >
> > I number my prints, mostly based on the chronological order they were
made.
> > Just for sentiment. If I loose track over the order they were made, I
> > choose the best and number them first. Sometimes, I group them in
> > portfolios in an order of consistency. I found my number four of five
to be
> > the best, and put a higher price, graduting according to editions. In
that
> > way, the less amount of portfolios available, the more valuable the once
> > sold would become. That was merely an incentive to the collector to
make
> > their decision if they were hesitant. One more bauble to influence a
buyers
> > choice.
> >
> > S. Shapiro
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill William" <iodideshi@yahoo.co.jp>
> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:56 PM
> > Subject: RE: Editioning
> >
> >
> > > --- Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> ?
> > >
> > > > (As far as I know, painters do not find it necessary
> > > > to make their
> > > > paintings identical -- or not on purpose anyway.)
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > >
> > > True.
> > >
> > > Still, I have know painters who paint the same subject in
> > > the same way (not identical but close) when they find an
> > > image that sells.
> > >
> > > That doesn't seem much dif. from what photographers do,
> > > except Photographers too often TRY HARD to MAKE them
> > > exactly identical... perhaphs due to the very nature of
> > > the medium.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sat Jul 3 16:57:48 2004