Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

When you put up for sale an edition of 5 the representation to the buyer is there will be only 5 printed. The buyer gets the print and the assurance he/she will be only 1 of 5 in the entire world to ever own that image. Subsequent sales of additional prints lower the value of the original 5 because now there may be no end of the number of prints. No only that, your word is no longer to be trusted and your value to collectors is nil.

George
>
> From: steves <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> Date: 2004/07/04 Sun PM 05:15:25 GMT
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: 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 21:50:36 2004