| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/31/2011 08:36:17 PM · #1 |
When a painter does lithographs (or other printed versions of their work), they'll indicate at the bottom of the image that it is #/1,000 (for example). The idea behind this is to create a limited run as a way to increase value. In sculpture, the standard used to be 9 casts of the same bronze (although I believe that has changed). Does this also apply to fine art photography (or sales of any type photography)? If so, what is the standard run size, if there even is such a thing.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 08:43:48 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Does this also apply to fine art photography (or sales of any type photography)? If so, what is the standard run size, if there even is such a thing. |
Yep, you can do limited runs in fine art printing. There is no standard run size.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2011 08:46:19 PM · #3 |
| Put whatever you want. It's mainly a gimmick in my eyes trying to increase the perceived value of the photograph. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 08:53:26 PM · #4 |
| Anything I print that I feel is special in some way I'll limit the run to 10 prints, as that's a real limited run, anything more feels too commercial to call "limited" IMO. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 09:09:21 PM · #5 |
Excellent. Thanks.
@ Jason: it's all a gimmick :-)
I forgot to ask if galleries have a run limit or they too just do what they want? |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 09:20:37 PM · #6 |
Originally, limited runs were a function of the gradual deterioration of the master stone... or the mold... not so much anymore. Now it's all artificial, to create a perceived rarity.
R. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 09:47:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
to create a perceived rarity.
R. |
Sounds like a new challenge topic, Create a Perceived Rarity. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 09:47:47 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally, limited runs were a function of the gradual deterioration of the master stone... or the mold... not so much anymore. Now it's all artificial, to create a perceived rarity.
R. |
I agree. I have seen several different artist's galleries selling "limited edition" prints. When they say limited, it's kinda tongue-in-cheek. The runs I've seen are anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand. I wouldn't buy one of these prints thinking it would rise in value. I *would* buy one if I really liked the artist and the print. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 10:16:24 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally, limited runs were a function of the gradual deterioration of the master stone... or the mold... not so much anymore. Now it's all artificial, to create a perceived rarity.
R. |
I agree. I have seen several different artist's galleries selling "limited edition" prints. When they say limited, it's kinda tongue-in-cheek. The runs I've seen are anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand. I wouldn't buy one of these prints thinking it would rise in value. I *would* buy one if I really liked the artist and the print. |
Just to add another perspective to this discussion. All of my images are sold as signed, limited edition prints from my Estes Park retail gallery, from the art gallery in Grand Lake and several other locations. I usually do runs of 100 to 250. And then, that's it. It hasn't been a problem, because by the time a limited edition is exhausted, I've replaced it with a superior image. Technology is advancing rapidly. Nothing artificial about this for me. It's a real life business model. My customers like the presentation and the images. I have many return customers who come back in successive years looking to add to their collection. My gallery is successful. We just expanded into new space with double the square footage of our previous location. It's not so much me, as a photographer, as it is the 4 million visitors who vacation in my resort town every season. My goal is always to send these people back to their homes with a signed and numbered photograph. It does matter and I'll continue to sign and number prints. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 10:28:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
My goal is always to send these people back to their homes with a signed and numbered photograph. It does matter and I'll continue to sign and number prints. |
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against it. It's excellent marketing. I did it myself when I was selling prints, and still sign and number the prints I occasionally sell now. Will I ever reach the "end" of an edition? I doubt it. But It still works, to do it that way.
Let me repeat that: I have nothing against it, I do it myself, it's good marketing. "Perceived rarity" is a good thing for the photographer. And, IMO (and apparently in Richard's), a good thing for the customer as well.
R.
ETA: It's worked for the diamond industry for a LONG time now. Diamonds aren't particularly rare, actually, it's just that the SUPPLY is tightly controlled.
Message edited by author 2011-01-31 22:29:44. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 10:40:15 PM · #11 |
| This topic couldn't have come at a better time. I bought a signed photograph, framed, from a thrift store. The original retail price was $300, it only cost me $10. I bought it simply for the frame, as the photo is of a sand dune, with the moon rising over it, it is a 24 x 18" frame with a large mat. It's not a limited edition print. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 11:02:58 PM · #12 |
| more power to richard and those that think like him. it really is up to the artist to create their own value. the musicians around here joke about this one guy who will do something for an hour then spend 10 hours telling everyone how great it is, that one thing he did. but, you know what? he's making more money than all of them. it's just marketing. marketing, and shameless self-promotion ;-) |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 11:36:46 PM · #13 |
I have yet to meet a photographer who has ever declined a sale because they had "run out" of the limited edition. Either they never get to the end of the run or they find a way to make the sale anyway. I know it's been done with the famous people, but I'm talking about people I've met.
If someone comes back and says they are that person, I would like to know if they burned the negative or erased the RAW? |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 11:43:10 PM · #14 |
I thought some "old time pros" (Adams?) punched holes in the negatives when they had finished a limited-edition run.
Of course, even negatives deteriorate with multiple exposures, and there is no longer any artistic involvement by the photographer in either the exposure or the development of the print -- with digital prints, I can't see even trying to call them limited -- all you'd have is the word of the photographer as to how many would ever be printed.
Signing prints is a whole other matter -- I think it will add value in the customer's opinion, and will serve as a kind of quality-control reference -- at least the photographer has seen that particular print and "signed-off" on its quality. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 11:51:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought some "old time pros" (Adams?) punched holes in the negatives when they had finished a limited-edition run. |
Correct, but it happened near the end of his life, when his financial advisors convinced him to look out for the future value of his estate. It was announced that one last, limited run would be made of his most famous images, and then the negatives would be "destroyed". As you said, the negatives still exist in the archives, but they have been punched. This started happening in the period of time in which I knew him.
By contrast, the Edward Weston negatives have been preserved, and they are still being printed from, by his offspring, and the prints actually fetch a very decent price, although far less than an "original" Weston, by the master's hand (with provenance) does.
R. |
|
|
|
01/31/2011 11:52:45 PM · #16 |
I know that some are very specific about the Limits of the Limited Edition: a change in print size means it is not part of the limited edition, or can be a part of a different limited edition. A change in print medium (silver gelatin vs platinum vs digital) means not part of the limited edition. Serious collectors and galleries serving those high end clients do take the limits seriously--the galleries don't want to represent something as 1 of 25, price it accordingly, sell it to a client on that basis, and then find out the photographer is selling the same thing on the side, or thru another gallery, without numbers, etc. Photographers I know in this arena are very careful to limit the edition, and define the limits (print size, media) so that they can also sell alternate sizes, etc, via other channels.
A tourist who pays 100-500 bucks for a print is not as likely to be concerned or check on the limitations, verify, etc. But the fine art high-end collectors who "invest" in a limited edition print at prices of thousands of dollars will be displeased with the gallery owner who "misrepresented" things to them (even if accidentally), and the word will get around to all the major galleries: the photographer who sold some extra ones, or kept some back (sold 25 as limited to 25, but held on to 10 more to sell later) will find that none of those galleries will touch them again. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 01:55:05 AM · #17 |
Thanks, Chromey. That's exactly what I thought too. I grew up with a well-known sculptor mom, and I saw firsthand how galleries take limited editions VERY seriously. I just wasn't sure if the same thing applied to photography.
Assuming for the sake of argument, that it does in fact matter, is it SOP to allow the photographer to keep a number of images from the edition for his/her own use? (i.e. the run is 250 images, the photog keeps 15-20). |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:37:12 AM · #18 |
Most photographers I know, especially those with a certain notoriety and large bodies of work, limit the sales of their prints to 3 (up to 5).
I distribute mine numbered from 1 to 15 (independently of print size). When a copy reaches number 12, the price inflates for the last ones.
I sign and number on the back of prints unless asked to do otherwise. For personal use (promotional use for example) I stamp my prints with the mention "copie d'artiste", excluding them this way from the commercial lot.
Especially if you produce large and expensive prints you cannot print the whole series at once; Keeping you numbers up to date involves good bookkeeping in that situation. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 12:56:51 PM · #19 |
I suppose it's about how "limited" the limited run actually is and what that means.
Does it mean these are the only prints that will ever be made of that image?
Does it mean these are all that were made on this production run?
Does it mean these are the only prints signed and numbered?
Does it mean these are the only prints of this size?
etc.
From my POV, if I purchase (or sell) something that's numbered 10 of 15, I expect that there are only 14 others in the world. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/28/2026 04:54:31 PM EDT.
