Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

So then, how does this apply to a second edition numbered to show this is a
second edition? As with the example of 1/5.2 to indicate this edition of
five is the second edition?

It is my case that the edition, 1/5 is an honest representation of that
first run by the artist, and when other prints are made they are either not
numbered or numbered as a run of many, and after the first edition. This
would be similar to a book, printed later with the phrase 'second printing'
inside the book cover.

How could any part of my examples given below be considered Grand Theft?

I don't know any photographer who made editions, then destroyed the
negative. Brett Weston destroyed some negatives at that point in his life
when he determined he would never have the time to make any more prints from
those negatives, and wanted to make the point that reprints of his pictures
using his negatives was not the same. His argument was over the craft of
his photography as little difference from that of a painter. That his
photographs could not be replicated by anybody but him, himself; and he
didn't want to leave to posterity that dilemma over the craft or art in
photography.

If I own the negative and make an eiditon of five, decide to make more and
don't attempt to hide or even MARK the subsequent prints as following the
first edition, I simply cannot see how that applies to PC 487

Steve Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: <res1dvao@verizon.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

> PC 487 (Grand Theft). If you make a representation that you know to be
false (Only edition of 5 when knowing you will make more when the first
edition sells out), the buyer relies on this representation (Only edition of
5), parts with his/her money and then finds edition is actually 10-15, etc.
you have grand theft (assuming the cost is over $400.00.
> >
> > From: steves <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> > Date: 2004/07/03 Sat PM 11:00:17 GMT
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Subject: 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 Sun Jul 4 11:12:43 2004