[Richard Briggs]

Recently I have attended some photographic exhibitions in galleries in London and this has prompted a question.


Some of the photographs I saw were absolutely superb and would easily grace my wall. And indeed could grace my wall if I was prepared to pay between £3000 - £5000 for them! Now what I don't get is, that although I'm assured this is a limited print run, what is to stop someone in, say, ten years time, doing a 10,000 print run thus wiping any value off my print?


For this money I can purchase a very reasonable piece of original art (e.g. oil painting) which is, by definition, a one-off.


Am I being thick or something?


Richard

[Digitalis]

I'm assured this is a limited print run, what is to stop someone in, say, ten years time, doing a 10,000 print run thus wiping any value off my print?

This can easily occur with digital - and why none of my digital images are part of a limited run. Many good photographers have backed themselves into a corner being unable to continue selling good and financially successful work just because it was printed in a "limited edition". The only reasons why I have ever limited the number of Prints I make of an image is when the negative I made it from was going to physically degrade from the printing process*. Digital imaging doesn't have this issue, you can print a digital image as many times as you want without damage to the original file.

In short : Limited editions are just a way of making more money.

*With my platinum printing the negative has to be exposed to Ultraviolet light - the paper only reacts to UV which also happens to physically damage the polymer base that the negative is made from, hence the limited number of prints. I do make reproductions of the images however they don't have the same archival longevity and visual clarity that a pure platinum print has.

[BATMON]

This can easily occur with digital - and why none of my digital images are part of a limited run. Many good photographers have backed themselves into a corner being unable to continue selling good and financially successful work just because it was printed in a "limited edition". The only reasons why I have ever limited the number of Prints I make of an image is when the negative I made it from was going to physically degrade from the printing process. Digital imaging doesn't have this issue, you can print a digital image as many times as you want without damage to the original file.

In short : Limited editions are just a way of making more money.

First Edition..........Second Edition...........Third Edition............

[hmirchev]

what about having the photographer sign the limited print? that way if it is ever reprinted, the signature won't be able to be replicated, ensuring the limited run stays limited

[Imageman]

This the exact issue that artists producing prints of their artwork have already faced and resolved.


If you don't want to sell your prints for premium price you don't use limited print runs.


If you want to sell for high price you can opt for limited runs.


Typically they would be limited to 250 or 500 or whatever number you choose and each print is numbered 1/500 or 300/500 to indicate the actual print number of the run.


The decision to limit and never make another print is an integrity issue. sure you can make a limited run of 500, then next year make another limited run of 500, and next year another, each limited run then degrades the value of the limited run preceding it, its a form of deception and profiteering bordering on fraud.


The way its done in the art world is with honour, the limited run is printed, then the original is either locked away and never reused, or is destroyed so it cant be. If the artist sold work on the basis that only 500 copies would be made but then kept making and selling more extra runs im sure he or she would end up being sued for destroying the value of earlier work people bought in good faith.


If you don't make enough money from that one and only limited run and want to make another limited run in a deceitful manner, then you shouldn't have elected to go down the limited run route in the first place.


The reason is of course that higher prices can be charged and the work becomes valuable due to its rarity.


Another option is to photograph onto chrome film stock, and then sell a single print and include the one and only original chrome in the sale, that way the purchaser knows they are buying an original and there can never be any copies.


You can decide if the limited run is for you by simply deciding what profit you want, lets say you want $5000 from an image, you can print for $15, you therefore can look at the kind of price you can reasonably expect to sell for, lets say $20, you now know you need $5 dollars per print, that makes your limited run return the profit you want in 1000 prints.


Advertise a limited run of 1000 priced at $20 plus post and packing and see if you get orders. If your pricing is right you should see sales and get the profit you want.

[dcBear78]

I'd like to just sell one print let alone a "limited" run of say 500.

[Bagga_Txips]

The only profitably compromising photos I ever take are of He Ying, and I always delete the files instantly for fear of reprisals!

[Richard Briggs]

Mmm, so I'm not missing the point. That's a relief! And has been said, the same applies to art prints. I visited an aviation art gallery recently near London and saw limited edition prints of original paintings for £20,000!!! Of course, the borders were littered with signatures of aircrew/pilots etc 'who were there'. But unless these individuals have some sort of celebrity status (regardless of their bravery etc) then it really is a con. But the depressing thing is someone must buy these. Probably people with more money than sense.

[normhead]

Mmm, so I'm not missing the point. That's a relief! And has been said, the same applies to art prints. I visited an aviation art gallery recently near London and saw limited edition prints of original paintings for £20,000!!! Of course, the borders were littered with signatures of aircrew/pilots etc 'who were there'. But unless these individuals have some sort of celebrity status (regardless of their bravery etc) then it really is a con. But the depressing thing is someone must buy these. Probably people with more money than sense.

I hope to meet one of those one of these days....

[jogiba]

World's 27 Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold {NSFW}

[johnyates]

Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer has written a bit on this subject:
The Online Photographer: Limited Editions
The Online Photographer: Limited Edition Photographs

[PPPPPP42]

I've had this rant before, paying for a wedding shoot is one thing, paying for a photo to hang on your wall is for the rich and ignorant.

Almost every single thing on that list of most expensive is a snapshot like you or I could easily take, but done by someone famous. They are buying the name to show off their wallet and "class", not for the art. (there are a few exceptions on the list though even those are overpriced)
They aren't even attractive prints for the most part. In fact most of those border on boring and ugly.

If I want a certain type of picture on my wall I will go take it. Everyone here at least should do the same.

[jogiba]

I've had this rant before, paying for a wedding shoot is one thing, paying for a photo to hang on your wall is for the rich and ignorant.

Almost every single thing on that list of most expensive is a snapshot like you or I could easily take, but done by someone famous. They are buying the name to show off their wallet and "class", not for the art. (there are a few exceptions on the list though even those are overpriced)
They aren't even attractive prints for the most part. In fact most of those border on boring and ugly.

If I want a certain type of picture on my wall I will go take it. Everyone here at least should do the same.

No working class person would pay million$ for a photo but there are a record amount of super rich people today that make million$ every day so the cost to them is no big deal.

[gofour3]

negative I made it from was going to physically degrade from the printing process

Slides had an advantage that way as you could easily get a duplicate made, or an inter-negative of the slide and print from that. The original slide was always kept safe.

Phil.

[Digitalis]

Slides had an advantage that way as you could easily get a duplicate made, or an inter-negative of the slide and print from that. The original slide was always kept safe.

Even with a good slide duplication setup, you still lost image quality. Slide copiers for 8X10 format are rather thin on the ground these days.