On my blog I recently entered into an interesting discussion on creating limited edition prints with Barney Davey, an experienced art consultant who advises visual artists on getting their originals into the print market, and to facilitate that effort wrote a book titled, How to Profit from the Art Print Market. To read my original post and Mr. Davey's response you can go to my blog at http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/photoblog/digital-photography-tips/43/
In the past, limited edition reproductions of art were automatically limited as a function of available reproduction technology or cost. Mr. Davey contends that with the advent of digital reproduction of two dimensional art, the need for limited edition prints is obsolete and can only hinder the long term potential for an artist to create income. He advocates nothing but open edition prints as the way to create the most sustainable source of income from print sales. While I agree that this may be true for more traditional forms of 2-D art, I think there is still a place for limited edition photographs. The following is my thinking on the sugject and I'd love to hear how other photographers weigh in. Do you sell limited edition prints? Why or why not?
For every painting there can be only one original work. In photography, while there is no single original photograph in the sense of a painting, each photograph printed can be, for all purposes, equal to an original. Original paintings by even relatively unkown artisits regularly sell for thousands of dollars. In part, this must be due to the fact that only one person can own the original at a time. Original works by the masters can fetch millions. Yet, even the best known photographers get only a fraction of those prices for their photographs.
An original painting is worth more than a printed reproduction for two reasons. One is that only one original of a painting will ever exist. The second is that the original painting is in every way superior to a reproduction. It embodies the personal, mental and physical presence of the artist. Conversely, all photographs are both originals and reproductions at the same time. I don't argue that each print I make should hold the same value as an original painting. But, I do think that each photographic print should have more value than a mere reproduction of a painting since there is no difference in quality or the amount of personal contact I, the artist, have had with it.
In order to help create value in my photographs, logic tells me that it helps to limit, although artificially, how many I will print and offer to the public. In this way I enter into a special agreement with those who purchase my art that what they own is something exclusive, one of a select few. Without placing a limit on how many copies of a print will exist, what is to distinguish it from a high quality poster? I might be able to sell my photographs for hundreds of dollars apiece, but but not a mass produced poster. Many of the top contemporary nature photographers (Art Wolfe, David Middleton, Tom Mangleson, Galen Rowell, etc.)all offer at least some of their prints as limited editions. The fact is that limited edition photographs, although an artificial construct in this age, do command higher prices than unlimited or open editions.
Asuming that there is still a place for limited edition photographs, some other questions come to mind. Even with the creation of a limited edition, isn't it still possible to publish second and even third editions if the first edition sells out? I know this happens with books and various kinds of printed artwork, so why not photographs? Also, can't a print exist in both a limited edition and an open edition or even a poster, simultaneously? I know that some of my favorite photographers have published prints available in a variety of formats all at once...limited edition, open edition, poster, calendar, book, greeting card, etc. Galen Rowell's famous "Rainbow Over the Potala" has been available in mass produced books, calendars and posters for tens of dollars, while one of the few remaining limited prints recently sold at auction for many thousands of dollars. If this is the case, a sold out limited edition would not preclude the ongoing sales of other published editions of the same image as long as each edition is identified for what it is.
So, even though there is no functional reason to limit photographic prints, and doing so is a false construct, is there enough perceived and actual value to support continuing to doing so?
This is an excellent question that I've heard addressed on a few occasions, mostly from the perspective opposite yours, so I appreciate the chance you hear your reasoning. In the end, a the personal philosophy of an artist probably goes a long way in guiding the decision about limited editions that he or she will make. Is perceived value something you would be inclined to raise even if it means artificially limiting access to your artwork?
Each path could prove valid for different reasons. I'm a firm believer in the fact that most artwork is relatively undervalued in todays society and that the perceived value and actual value of a work of art rarely match. For this reason, a photographer could easily justify any moral means for increasing the perceived value of his or her prints so that it resembled the true value. Producing limited editions is a practical way of attempting this, though I have no experience on how well it works.
On the other hand, we are artists first because we want to share. Since most will agree that a fine print is the ultimate venue for presentation of our art, limited editions reduces our ability to share in two ways. First and most obvious, far less people will have the opportunity to see one of fifty prints than will have the opportunity to see one of five hundred prints. Second, since our goal in limiting prints is to increase value (read "raise prices"), we will effectively be leaving some group of people without the means to enjoy our work.
Then again, a photographer who is unsuccessful in supporting himself or herself through the sales and presentation of their artwork, is likely to produce far less of it during their lifetime, possibly even missing out on the highest quality photographs they had the potential to produce. In this case the production is being limited without the increased perception of value, and who does that benefit?
At this point, I don't use limited editions in any way except that I don't have boxes of prints sitting around, so the prints that people own currently are extremely rare until someone else buys the same photo. Unfortunately though, my photography doesn't support me, and my ability to pursue it as passionately as I'd like may soon be coming to an end.
I'm undecided; is creating an artificial reason to raise prices the answer? Maybe it is, but I do know that I also have a great deal of respect for successful photographers whose prints remain very reasonably priced.
Hey Sean,
I sell my images mainly through art shows. The established well know art shows will require the photographers to sell their worrk as limited editions. Most customers I've talk to at the shows couldn't care less if its limited edition, it matters more if it matches the carpet and drapes. I have also run into customers that are really happy if they find a print in the bin thats number one of one hundred and fifty. I limit mine to one hundred and fifty and I only sell that many no matter what size it comes in. My best seller last year sold fifty, so at that rate it will take me three seasons to sell out. I wouldn't want to carry any image more then three to four years because I do many of the same shows each year and need to turn over the inventory so customers get to see new work. Plus as I shoot new stuff each year I eliminate ones that are slow sellers so many may never even reach 150 before I blow it out of the inventory. I price my work based not on if its limited edition, but what I need to cover my cost of materials and expences, labor, and profit. So far its worked well for me. Many artist in the art shows don't care for the photographers because its got so easy and cheap to reproduce prints on a epson in your basement that the cost of the prints have gone down and makes it hard for a painter, workworker, metal worker, potter, etc, to compete with us. Galleries I've been in seem to want the work to be sold as limited edition also.
Just to throw a kink in the discussion......
there ARE STILL photographers making a very decent living
handprinting their images and TRULY only creating Limited Editions
and guess what? each one IS an original....due to the process....
May I show you the work of a friend of mine....
http://www.romanloranc.com/
With that said, for those that choose to go the digital print route...
I agree with Mike..above...I also have done shows and exhibits and
have experienced the same issues....
But, my take is to make 150 editions of anything 12x16 (print size) or larger.
Anthing this size or larger the public seems to consider ART....
Anthing smaller I consider "open stock" and will continue to
make 5x7's or whatever...to group over their endtables
As far as recouping cost and time involved vs. what we charge ofr our images
....most of the many artist friends I have that use other mediums
have NO squabbles over what REAL "Fine Art" Photogs
have had to incur montery-wise for equipment and travel costs, training, etc.
If we are talking about P&S amateurs....that's a whole different ball game.
so that's been my experience and my 2 cents....IMHO
"Limited Edition" is just a phrase, and to interpret it today only in its historical context is flawed thinking IMO. The process and pricing of all art (photography and otherwise) is arbitrary at best, otherwise we might as well sell it by the pound like soybeans or by the square inch/yard like textiles.
I agree with and operate very similarly to Mike Moats. It's a selling strategy for galleries to sell only LE's, and unless your name is Art Wolfe, Galen Rowell, or any other name with a proven sales record, most galleries will expect you to LE. If you're operating your own brick-n-mortar gallery or sell exclusively through your own website, then you get to call 100% of the shots. Otherwise we have to play by "the rules", and galleries are the ones who generally create them.
Barney Davey says that "None of the other arts limit sales of reproductions of their work" - this is not true. Who here hasn't seen LE giclee repros of original paintings?
I wonder if after you run your 150 or whatever LE prints, you destroy the original, like for instance a woodcut artist like Tom Killion does.
http://www.tomkillion.com/index.html
Well, this particular bumpkin hadn't seen limited edition giclee prints until today. There was a town art fair and some photographers and painters were limited-edition giclee-ing away. Surely, the value of one's art is not dependent of it's availability. Unless, of course, value is dollars, not joy.
Discussion
6 repliesIn the past, limited edition reproductions of art were automatically limited as a function of available reproduction technology or cost. Mr. Davey contends that with the advent of digital reproduction of two dimensional art, the need for limited edition prints is obsolete and can only hinder the long term potential for an artist to create income. He advocates nothing but open edition prints as the way to create the most sustainable source of income from print sales. While I agree that this may be true for more traditional forms of 2-D art, I think there is still a place for limited edition photographs. The following is my thinking on the sugject and I'd love to hear how other photographers weigh in. Do you sell limited edition prints? Why or why not?
For every painting there can be only one original work. In photography, while there is no single original photograph in the sense of a painting, each photograph printed can be, for all purposes, equal to an original. Original paintings by even relatively unkown artisits regularly sell for thousands of dollars. In part, this must be due to the fact that only one person can own the original at a time. Original works by the masters can fetch millions. Yet, even the best known photographers get only a fraction of those prices for their photographs.
An original painting is worth more than a printed reproduction for two reasons. One is that only one original of a painting will ever exist. The second is that the original painting is in every way superior to a reproduction. It embodies the personal, mental and physical presence of the artist. Conversely, all photographs are both originals and reproductions at the same time. I don't argue that each print I make should hold the same value as an original painting. But, I do think that each photographic print should have more value than a mere reproduction of a painting since there is no difference in quality or the amount of personal contact I, the artist, have had with it.
In order to help create value in my photographs, logic tells me that it helps to limit, although artificially, how many I will print and offer to the public. In this way I enter into a special agreement with those who purchase my art that what they own is something exclusive, one of a select few. Without placing a limit on how many copies of a print will exist, what is to distinguish it from a high quality poster? I might be able to sell my photographs for hundreds of dollars apiece, but but not a mass produced poster. Many of the top contemporary nature photographers (Art Wolfe, David Middleton, Tom Mangleson, Galen Rowell, etc.)all offer at least some of their prints as limited editions. The fact is that limited edition photographs, although an artificial construct in this age, do command higher prices than unlimited or open editions.
Asuming that there is still a place for limited edition photographs, some other questions come to mind. Even with the creation of a limited edition, isn't it still possible to publish second and even third editions if the first edition sells out? I know this happens with books and various kinds of printed artwork, so why not photographs? Also, can't a print exist in both a limited edition and an open edition or even a poster, simultaneously? I know that some of my favorite photographers have published prints available in a variety of formats all at once...limited edition, open edition, poster, calendar, book, greeting card, etc. Galen Rowell's famous "Rainbow Over the Potala" has been available in mass produced books, calendars and posters for tens of dollars, while one of the few remaining limited prints recently sold at auction for many thousands of dollars. If this is the case, a sold out limited edition would not preclude the ongoing sales of other published editions of the same image as long as each edition is identified for what it is.
So, even though there is no functional reason to limit photographic prints, and doing so is a false construct, is there enough perceived and actual value to support continuing to doing so?
Each path could prove valid for different reasons. I'm a firm believer in the fact that most artwork is relatively undervalued in todays society and that the perceived value and actual value of a work of art rarely match. For this reason, a photographer could easily justify any moral means for increasing the perceived value of his or her prints so that it resembled the true value. Producing limited editions is a practical way of attempting this, though I have no experience on how well it works.
On the other hand, we are artists first because we want to share. Since most will agree that a fine print is the ultimate venue for presentation of our art, limited editions reduces our ability to share in two ways. First and most obvious, far less people will have the opportunity to see one of fifty prints than will have the opportunity to see one of five hundred prints. Second, since our goal in limiting prints is to increase value (read "raise prices"), we will effectively be leaving some group of people without the means to enjoy our work.
Then again, a photographer who is unsuccessful in supporting himself or herself through the sales and presentation of their artwork, is likely to produce far less of it during their lifetime, possibly even missing out on the highest quality photographs they had the potential to produce. In this case the production is being limited without the increased perception of value, and who does that benefit?
At this point, I don't use limited editions in any way except that I don't have boxes of prints sitting around, so the prints that people own currently are extremely rare until someone else buys the same photo. Unfortunately though, my photography doesn't support me, and my ability to pursue it as passionately as I'd like may soon be coming to an end.
I'm undecided; is creating an artificial reason to raise prices the answer? Maybe it is, but I do know that I also have a great deal of respect for successful photographers whose prints remain very reasonably priced.
I sell my images mainly through art shows. The established well know art shows will require the photographers to sell their worrk as limited editions. Most customers I've talk to at the shows couldn't care less if its limited edition, it matters more if it matches the carpet and drapes. I have also run into customers that are really happy if they find a print in the bin thats number one of one hundred and fifty. I limit mine to one hundred and fifty and I only sell that many no matter what size it comes in. My best seller last year sold fifty, so at that rate it will take me three seasons to sell out. I wouldn't want to carry any image more then three to four years because I do many of the same shows each year and need to turn over the inventory so customers get to see new work. Plus as I shoot new stuff each year I eliminate ones that are slow sellers so many may never even reach 150 before I blow it out of the inventory. I price my work based not on if its limited edition, but what I need to cover my cost of materials and expences, labor, and profit. So far its worked well for me. Many artist in the art shows don't care for the photographers because its got so easy and cheap to reproduce prints on a epson in your basement that the cost of the prints have gone down and makes it hard for a painter, workworker, metal worker, potter, etc, to compete with us. Galleries I've been in seem to want the work to be sold as limited edition also.
there ARE STILL photographers making a very decent living
handprinting their images and TRULY only creating Limited Editions
and guess what? each one IS an original....due to the process....
May I show you the work of a friend of mine....
http://www.romanloranc.com/
With that said, for those that choose to go the digital print route...
I agree with Mike..above...I also have done shows and exhibits and
have experienced the same issues....
But, my take is to make 150 editions of anything 12x16 (print size) or larger.
Anthing this size or larger the public seems to consider ART....
Anthing smaller I consider "open stock" and will continue to
make 5x7's or whatever...to group over their endtables
As far as recouping cost and time involved vs. what we charge ofr our images
....most of the many artist friends I have that use other mediums
have NO squabbles over what REAL "Fine Art" Photogs
have had to incur montery-wise for equipment and travel costs, training, etc.
If we are talking about P&S amateurs....that's a whole different ball game.
so that's been my experience and my 2 cents....IMHO
In gratitude,
Nelcha
I agree with and operate very similarly to Mike Moats. It's a selling strategy for galleries to sell only LE's, and unless your name is Art Wolfe, Galen Rowell, or any other name with a proven sales record, most galleries will expect you to LE. If you're operating your own brick-n-mortar gallery or sell exclusively through your own website, then you get to call 100% of the shots. Otherwise we have to play by "the rules", and galleries are the ones who generally create them.
Barney Davey says that "None of the other arts limit sales of reproductions of their work" - this is not true. Who here hasn't seen LE giclee repros of original paintings?
http://www.tomkillion.com/index.html
Pete D.