Re: Editioning ... and Unique Works of Art

Hello Mark, I couldn't agree with you more- I have been told often that I am a bad girl because I don't have limited editions- all my prints are limited due to the process...
Thanks for the nice note,
always, Susan
www.susanhuber.com
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ender100@aol.com
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:01 PM
  Subject: Re: Editioning ... and Unique Works of Art

  Some thoughts on editioning.

  I wonder if editioning prints is more of a benefit to galleries than it is to photographers? I have heard a number of photographers say that they were asked by galleries to provide limited editions of prints or they would not accept the work.

  I've seen a lot of editioned prints in galleries that left me thinking that the world would have been a better place if the photographer had destroyed the negative before making the edition.

  It doesn't really matter to me if a person does limited editions or not, except for the fact that I hate to see someone make a bunch of prints for an edition, sell one and then have the rest lay in a stack underneath their bed until their death. Seems like a waste of time and natural resources.

  I doubt if 99% of photographers ever sell that many copies of any single image to even warrant wasting their time worrying about whether or not they should edition their work.

  If a person does decide to limit an image to an edition, then I think they should follow the laws governing editions.

  I think that doing a second edition of an image at 95% the original size of the first edition is dishonest and the photographer should be punished by having zones III and VII permanently removed from every negative they shoot from that point on for their entire lifetime.

  Is editioning just a practice adopted from print making and not that relevant to photography?

  When I am lucky enough to sell a second print of an image, I often go back to the original negative, scan it and rework the image because I want to interpret the image based on how I "see it" now and with whatever improved skills I have managed to gain since the first printing/interpretation.

  I understand that a print might be unique (one-of-a-kind) and that is cool and it should probably should be designated as such—the rest I might mark on the back "1 of a bunch" or "first of hopefully 2 or 3"

  I still marvel sometimes at the optimism of a guy who had a friend of mine (who runs a custom photo lab) print 500 gelatin silver prints for a "limited edition." I hope the guy got lucky. I know he made my friend happy.

  I'd rather give a print to someone who really loves it than have someone buy the same print not because they love it, but because it might be "worth something" someday. Well, maybe if they would pay $1,000,000 for the print, I'd promise to burn the negative, if that would help justify their investment and improve their odds of gain on the investment.

  There are a lot of prints I would love to own, but I can't afford them. I guess that's why I own a lot of books with great photographs in them. If I can afford to buy a print, I buy it because I love it and want to look at it often—not because of what it might be worth someday.

  Some of my favorite prints (and most valuable) are prints given to me by friends.

  Mark Nelson
  www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com

  In a message dated 7/7/04 8:49:21 PM, kateb@paradise.net.nz writes:

    Well, I think the term EXACTLY is subject to wide
    interpretation... If I were collecting, I would be happier
    (more comfortable) to know that I had the only print made
    with that particular negative and the creator had either
    destroyed or sealed up the negative(s) created to produce
    it. Additionial prints made and labled for the
    photographer's exhibitions and publications, if within
    reason, so marked and properly controlled would be in my
    mind acceptable, if that data was freely availible.
Received on Thu Jul 8 06:31:39 2004