Prints: Opinions on open v. limited editions?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

01/27/2006 04:50:29 PM · #1

I'm working on a new site from which my husband and I will be selling our prints in the future. We aren't expecting high volume sales but we would now prefer to market and sell the prints ourselves than via other sites such as DPC Prints.

My first question is what you think of open versus limited edition prints? I know that in theory a limited edition print may command a higher price but am doubtful whether this would be a factor in sales by unknown artists such as ourselves.

Secondly, am I right in thinking that I absolutely cannot sell as a limited edition a print that I have previously sold as open, even if I stop selling it as an open print from now on and provide it in a different format?

I'm leaning towards selling prints only as open editions at this stage but appreciate that I won't be able to change my mind at a later date for any of the images we put on sale now so I would appreciate any thoughts you think I may not have considered. I realise I'll still be able to offer new images as limited edition prints in the future should I want to.

THANKS
Kavita

PS Would particularly appreciate input from those of you who have sold work in both ways; John (Setzler) for example, if you could chime in I'd appreciate it.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

01/27/2006 05:21:29 PM · #2

I hope this might help you. It's from an article that Tom Scott wrote for photopoints. The article applies to galleries mostly, but I think it applies to your question also.
look for editions/identification
I don't know if you have to log in to see the article. Sorry.

01/27/2006 05:32:04 PM · #3

Very helpful article, thank you!

Given that I'm not yet going to selling through any galleries other than my own virtual one I'm still unsure about whether limited editions are worthwhile or not...

Further opinions welcomed!

01/27/2006 05:32:22 PM · #4

Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork is pretty scathing about the practice of limited editions in photography, for a few reasons

1/ almost nobody ever makes all 100 prints out of their 1/100 edition - so it is actually lie (even if you might eventually make them - which is doubtful)

2/ almost nobody ever actually sells the 100 prints, so never makes them.

3/ It is a whole artifical means to try and increase percieved value, for digital images - where a run of 100 or 1000 is equally easy to make.

4/ it was a mostly artifical notion even with negative/ B&W hand prints, made less so by the fact that someone had to physically make the print

5/ it was originally meaningful for woodcuts, where the woodcut might actually wear out/ degrade over time

His latest article on 'Trolling for Fools' talks about inflated pricing in photography. The basic argument is if you can sell 1 picture for $100, or 10 pictures for $10, which would you do ? Which is most likely to happen ?

Elitist pricing in the hope of landing a big fish might work, but you might be better going for affordable pricing and selling more, (which leads to the idea of open editions and not trying to artifically rarify the value of the prints.)

01/27/2006 05:38:48 PM · #5

Gordon

That's one of my questions, though not so scathingly put - given that I'd be unlikely, at this stage, to sell 100 of any print, what use is there in stating a limited edition of 100. Then again it's not all about how many I sell but also about creating a perceived value too.

Whilst I just buy what I like regardless of value, there are those who prefer to buy something that they perceive to be more valuable for whatever reason.

I can see both sides so...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/27/2006 05:48:25 PM · #6

It's possible to do both. I am doing both in a couple cases. I just introduced a new limited edition (200 prints) of a recent panorama that I did. The panorama is 12x36 and I'm selling the prints for $150 each. I have an open edition of the same print. The open edition is much smaller (approximately 2.5" x 10".)

I agree with a lot of what Gordon has said as well. If you do a limited edition, you should commit yourself to having the entire run of prints made. You may not have to make them all at once, but making them all is important.

On Gordon's points:

1) This may be true with photographers, but it's not true with the other artists I know. Most of the artists in my area who do limited editions get them all made at once to keep their overall cost down. These prints are usually giclees or lithographs.

2) As I said, it's good to make a commitment to make the entire run of prints.

3) I agree with this, but I have been asked to do some limited editions by the people who are letting me sell my stuff in their retail space. Apparently some of their customers have asked for it.

4) I'm not really sure I understand this point completely.

5) I try not to compare photography with other art forms. It has its own uniqueness.

I think you should try at least one or two limited editions. The limited edition should be hand signed and numbered, obviously. It should also be unique. Don't run an open edition of the identical print. Make the LE print unique in some way... Make it larger or something.

The question here is not an uncommon one. In my experiences, people who buy photographs (or any other artwork) seem to prefer the limited edition. It DOES make them feel better about what they have purchased and the 'perceived value' is higher to the customer.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 17:50:32.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/27/2006 05:57:55 PM · #7

I'm not sre why it matters if you've printed the whole run of a limited edition at once. What's the rationale? Why does it mater when they get printed? Why can't it be sold up to the run size and then discontinued?

This sems like a nitpick, to me...

If it has to do with all the images being identical, maybe... but any reproducable print process should be able to get you that without factoring in time. Just-in-time manufacture is the way of the future, and saves resources! Those 95 out of 100 pictures you never sell won't just rot somewhere if they never got printed in the first place.

01/27/2006 06:03:39 PM · #8

Originally posted by Mousie:

I'm not getting all mine printed at once. I am just saying that lots of artists who work on a much larger scale do in order to save money. Larger runs cost less per print.

01/27/2006 06:04:59 PM · #9

Thanks John

I think this is a more balanced opinion.

Firstly, I would not be so daft as to sell the SAME version of a print as a limited edition and an open edition. The reason I'm bringing that up is because I've sold a lot of prints of Tomboy incorporating the black border and printed title etc via DPC Prints. I'm very very vaguely considering selling a larger size print as a limited edition. I've sold 3 like that already and would have to include those in any numbering system, contacting the buyers to let them know the details and provide them relevant information. I probably won't do it though, and stick to open for all existing prints.

Secondly, whether we agree or not, there is often more value in rarer items than in ones available in high numbers. One only has to look at the world of antiques to understand that - ceramics produced in limited numbers now command high prices whilst equally well produced and beautiful ones made in the thousands are less valuable. I'm selling images to make money for them (or I'd be giving them away for free) so I'd be daft not to take advantage of a method of increasing value IF I think it's something that will actually work for me. I'm not convinced yet that in my case it will but, if I think it might, then I'm not going to refuse to do it just because it's only a "perceived" value thing.

Thirdly, I know I couldn't afford to print sufficient copies of a limited run at the start - it's going to be the profits on each sale that pay for the printing, mounting etc of that sale. How best to approach this?

I won't rule this out but perhaps I'll just try it out on one or two images...?

01/27/2006 06:05:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

4) I'm not really sure I understand this point completely.

5) I try not to compare photography with other art forms. It has its own uniqueness.

Going backward up the list : the idea of limited editions came in to photography from other sources. At least in the case of darkroom work, where you would be printing/ dodging/ burning etc each print by hand (with the associated errors, waste etc) the idea of a limited edition makes some sense, simply due to the workload involved - someone has to actually make those prints.

For digital, it is less valid, given that I can effectively hit print and make 100 perfect copies, with all my dodging and burning done ahead of time.

01/27/2006 06:06:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by Mousie:

I think the point is that if you put on it 'number 1 out of 100' that that actually means something quite different to
'number 1 out of 1, until someone buys another one' which is often the actual truth for photographic print runs, but not true in other cases.

Your second point is entirely correct - we now have a completely reproduceable print process, so the idea of a 'limited edition' is only being done to artifically create rarity and increase value.

If it was limited edition hand made books, or limited edition woodcuts, where the wood physically degrades as more prints are made, or anything like that, then the idea of a limited edition makes sense - you can't actually make more and the rarity and value is real.

For digital photography it is mostly a conceit or more politely : a marketing ploy.

The other harsh reality is, that unless you are wildly popular, 'limited editions' of more than about 5 are never actually going to sell out anyway. I think you'd be pretty happy with selling a handful of each print that you offer - so why try to diminish that with high prices - that's the point about realistic pricing - if you set your prices at a point where you'd sell 10x more prints, then limited editions hurt you. If you set it at a price where you'll sell 1 or 2, does it matter ?

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:11:53.

01/27/2006 06:10:31 PM · #12

Originally posted by Gordon:

For digital photography it is mostly a conceit or more politely : a marketing ploy.

It is indeed a conceit BUT it's also true to say that a large proportion of people really do enjoy the idea of owning something rare. For whatever reason it heightens their pleasure and I don't think that's wholly down to their hope that it will be worth more in the future.

A good saleperson should surely be willing to tap into that or not? I'm not fully decided hence I'm asking.

01/27/2006 06:12:50 PM · #13

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

4) I'm not really sure I understand this point completely.

5) I try not to compare photography with other art forms. It has its own uniqueness.

Going backward up the list : the idea of limited editions came in to photography from other sources. At least in the case of darkroom work, where you would be printing/ dodging/ burning etc each print by hand (with the associated errors, waste etc) the idea of a limited edition makes some sense, simply due to the workload involved - someone has to actually make those prints.

For digital, it is less valid, given that I can effectively hit print and make 100 perfect copies, with all my dodging and burning done ahead of time.

I agree with what you say here but I don't think it's a reason NOT to do limited editions of digital photos. The 'value' of any printed image, whether it be digital photo, traditional photo, or reproductions of any kind won't likely be determined by the method in which it was made. It will be determined by the value of the person who made it.

01/27/2006 06:15:37 PM · #14

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by Gordon:
For digital photography it is mostly a conceit or more politely : a marketing ploy.

It is indeed a conceit BUT it's also true to say that a large proportion of people really do enjoy the idea of owning something rare. For whatever reason it heightens their pleasure and I don't think that's wholly down to their hope that it will be worth more in the future.

A good saleperson should surely be willing to tap into that or not? I'm not fully decided hence I'm asking.

Let's ask it a different way - are you buying a photo because you like it and want to enjoy it, or because you think you can sell it in a few years for several times the value ?

Would you want to invest in something that will degrade and be worthless in at best 100 years (if it isn't ever on show, is kept in a humidity controlled environment, out of the light) or would you want to enjoy the picture ?

Really what is a picture worth to the buyer ? The price of a good movie ? The price of 10 movies ? 100 music albums ? A cd? A good book ?

I think we have a tendency to look at the price of images based on the cost to produce, or our equipment/ investment etc. But what is it worth to the average buyer? How many people would you like to enjoy or own your pictures - 1 person ? 100 people ? 1000 people ? What can they afford to pay ?

If you say do a limited edition run of 100 prints, and price it at $500 - are you going to make $500,000, $0 or maybe $500 ?

Now if you do an open edition of that same picture, price it at $40, are you going to make 0, $40, $160 ? Something to think about. Personally I'd love to sell more of my images than I do. 10x as many would be great. Just having them in people's houses or being enjoyed is fantastic - I'd like to try to price accordingly, rather than boosting the price of one sale.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:20:43.

01/27/2006 06:21:25 PM · #15

Gordon, I'm not so concerned with the reasons _I_ buy a picture... I would be unlikely to pay more for a limited edition photograph myself.

But it would be delusional to suggest this is the way that all my potential buyers think and what I'm interested in is how they might see this and whether they would prefer/ pay more or pay the same but be more likely to buy a limited rather than open edition print.

You're looking at this in a philosophical/ moral way.

I'm looking at it purely in terms of sales/ marketing.

01/27/2006 06:21:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

4) I'm not really sure I understand this point completely.

5) I try not to compare photography with other art forms. It has its own uniqueness.

Going backward up the list : the idea of limited editions came in to photography from other sources. At least in the case of darkroom work, where you would be printing/ dodging/ burning etc each print by hand (with the associated errors, waste etc) the idea of a limited edition makes some sense, simply due to the workload involved - someone has to actually make those prints.

For digital, it is less valid, given that I can effectively hit print and make 100 perfect copies, with all my dodging and burning done ahead of time.

I agree with what you say here but I don't think it's a reason NOT to do limited editions of digital photos. The 'value' of any printed image, whether it be digital photo, traditional photo, or reproductions of any kind won't likely be determined by the method in which it was made. It will be determined by the value of the person who made it.

So that's an argument for just selling the picture then - and as many of them as you can, without bothering with artifically limiting supply.

If people really want your pictures (after all, the value is determined by you, not the way you print it) then you'll be inundated with sales. You won't be able to keep up with the demand.

01/27/2006 06:23:35 PM · #17

Originally posted by Gordon:

If people really want your pictures (after all, the value is determined by you, not the way you print it) then you'll be inundated with sales. You won't be able to keep up with the demand.

That's not what I said :)

01/27/2006 06:23:56 PM · #18

Originally posted by Kavey:

No, I'm really not. I'm looking at it in a realistic, cold, financial way. How many potential buyers have you spoken to that want to say pay $400 for a picture ?

Every photographer I ever talk to says 'oh, but I wouldn't pay that price for a photo' but then expects some poor smuck to fall for it. If we (who are more obsessed than most about photography) don't think its worth it, why should anyone else ?

I would tend to pay more for a limited edition of something that was actually limited, rather than something I know was limited by how often the photographer pressed the metaphorical 'print' button.

Like we've said over and over in this thread - there is no 'limited' editions in digital printing. Most of them never make it past number 2/100. There is no actual limit - because it is never reached, even in the prints sold as limited editions.

It's all a scam and a sham and is based on the PT Barnum school of marketing, hoping to find that sucker that was born in the latest minute.

But it also hurts the photographer. If there was a thriving, bustling market for fine art photography, we'd all do great. But there isn't - because it's marketed at this mythical, rich but not very bright buyer. If prices were set reasonably, without trying to artificially inflate them, then maybe more people would buy and enjoy photographs. We'd all win.

Mind you, we could also try limiting print runs to 1 and seeing how much difference it makes. After all - look how rare it is now - be the only person in the world to own this print. Do you think they'd fly off the shelves then ?

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:30:18.

01/27/2006 06:33:03 PM · #19

Originally posted by Gordon:

It's all a scam and a sham and is based on the PT Barnum school of marketing, hoping to find that sucker that was born in the latest minute.

But it also hurts the photographer. If there was a thriving, bustling market for fine art photography, we'd all do great. But there isn't - because it's marketed at this mythical, rich but not very bright buyer. If prices were set reasonably, without trying to artificially inflate them, then maybe more people would buy and enjoy photographs. We'd all win.

Mind you, we could also try limiting print runs to 1 and seeing how much difference it makes. After all - look how rare it is now - be the only person in the world to own this print. Do you think they'd fly off the shelves then ?

Gordon

No one has suggested that we'll charge a price differential like that...
But what I'm asking is whether someone might pay Â£40 rather than Â£25 for something they perceive as rarer. Not Â£400 rather than Â£25.

I don't "expect some poor schmuck" to pay more, I'm exploring whether people will and if they will then I'm not going to ignore it just because I could just as equally print more if I wanted to. I know I won't if I've said I won't so that's not an issue. If I say there will only ever be 100 prints made there will only ever be 100 made so the number out in the world will be limited, it's irrelevant to the buyer whether that limit is self-imposed by me or imposed externally by limitations in production techniques.

What makes limited editions valuable is the fact that there seems to be a cachet (you may see it as right or wtong) to owning things that only a few other people also own.

I question whether those people who feel that way about cachet care whether the item is rare because the artist has imposed a limit deliberately even though they didn't need to or whether the limit exists because it has to.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:37:30.

01/27/2006 06:36:34 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

No, I'm really not. I'm looking at it in a realistic, cold, financial way. How many potential buyers have you spoken to that want to say pay $400 for a picture ?

Gordon,
You can tell me you're answering this in a cold financial way as much as you like but you're clearly not. You're continuing to look at this in terms of what the ideal financial sales model for photography _should_ be in your opinion. Whether it would be better for photographers in general if limited editions didn't exist in the industry is of absolutely no concern to me. I'm am not asking what you think the ideal photography sales model should be. I am interested in what the model is in reality and how I can best participate it to my advantage.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:38:02.

01/27/2006 06:38:59 PM · #21

Originally posted by Kavey:

What makes limited editions valuable is the fact that there seems to be a cachet (you may see it as right or wtong) to owning things that only a few other people also own.

I understand that. I'm just pointing out that this cachet is not real. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just deluded.

If half a dozen people want to pipe up and say they've ever sold out a limited edition, I'll be quiet.

But the reality is, it doesn't matter. If it did - the limited edition of 1 would be a really great marketing technique - and I haven't seen much of that in photography.

Photographers are mainly deluding themselves when they sell in limited editions. It doesn't help sales (or they'd sell out more) it doesn't increase value (because nobody buys all of the editions to make them worth any more) and so all it can do is push down sales (because they are priced too high as a result of the 'limited' edition.

I've sold several thousand dollars worth of prints in the last year. If I thought I could sell more by claiming I'd destroy digital files or limiting runs to 5 or 6 I would. But the truth is all it would do would mean I'd probably increase the prices and thus sell less.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/27/2006 06:39:05 PM · #22

Gordon,

You are looking at this like pennystock. Where numbers are better than realistic pricing of the work. It only deflates the value of the print market.

Just because it's printed digitally doesn't mean that fewer numbers should be valued less. It's still less copoies of the printed work in people's hands. Where not talking about hi-run litho posters...

I've been wanting to limit my huge prints to a limited edition of 10-20.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 18:40:05.

01/27/2006 06:41:02 PM · #23

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by Gordon:
No, I'm really not. I'm looking at it in a realistic, cold, financial way. How many potential buyers have you spoken to that want to say pay $400 for a picture ?

Gordon,
You can tell me you're answering this in a cold financial way as much as you like but you're clearly not. You're continuing to look at this in terms of what the ideal financial sales model for photography _should_ be in your opinion. Whether it would be better for photographers in general if limited editions didn't exist in the industry is of absolutely no concern to me. I'm am not asking what you think the ideal photography sales model should be. I am interested in what the model is in reality and how I can best participate it to my advantage.

No, I'm looking at it how it currently is. If limited editions increase value - actual or otherwise, wouldn't people be snapping them up ? Wouldn't lots of photographers be selling out their limited editions ?

If they are - why don't we hear about it ? Because it doesn't happen. That's the cold financial reality. It is a meaningless thing and buyers understand that, if they know anything about the photographic market.

If they don't understand it, you are back to trying to find a smuck to fall for a marketing gimmick.