Posted by Scott Bideau on September 25, 2011 at 5:57 PM
There was a recent post about signing prints (http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=65005&CGISESSID=5d51345c9d2ca9b7b85f5f7d73df57e6&u=11239) that got me wondering if others have the same challenge as me for keeping track of limited edition print numbers. Right now I simply use a spreadsheet, but that doesn't scale. Anyone have some wisdom to share here?
Posted by Jody Grigg on September 25, 2011 at 6:33 PM
This is not towards you Scott but the group in general, 'Do you really need to make prints limited edition' , I don't, and I don't even sign half my prints. If the buyer doesn't want them signed then I don't sign them if doesn't bother me.
Posted by Scott Bideau on September 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM
The (reputable) gallery I sell through tells me that if a print isn't numbered, it's considered exclusive (and thus I can't sell that print again.
Posted by Todd Caudle on September 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM
I've only sold privately and through a single gallery at a time, so I don't have that much to keep track of. If I lost track, I always had a vague idea of how high the number was and so I skipped a bit higher. If I remembered it was in the thirties, I'd jump up to #41.
I've never heard of non-numbered prints to be considered exclusive. For a print (photo or otherwise), if it is exclusive, it should be marked as #1/1, signifying a print run of only one edition.
Posted by Jack Garrett on September 25, 2011 at 9:32 PM
I agree with what Mark said...If it isn't numbered it is just the opposite in value. Numbered photos hypothetically have more value because they are limited editions. When the maximum number is sold, the original negative is supposed to be destroyed...again this is what I've been led to believe. I don't think numbering photos is as exclusive as it used to be in the days before digital took over.
Even in the days before digital, numbering was a bit of a crock. By convention, numbers only apply to a specific print size. So if you gave yourself 100 prints at 8x10" and managed to sell out of them, you could try doing the same for a run of 11x14" prints.
The big difference these days is that, unless you were a master printer, you probably had to make your prints in really big batches to ensure that they looked the same. Now, with properly profiled printers, you can make prints one or two at a time and not tie up a fortune in inventory.
Mike Johnston, over at the fantastic blog The Online Photographer if you don't already know it, has a couple of good articles about numbering prints, notably
Short answer? It's probably better for the gallery than for the artist. But that's the way galleries go, so... I set my numbers at 175, because if the edition is over 200, you can't sue for damages under American copyright law. At least as I understand it, which is probably incorrect.
I use Bento to keep track of my inventory. I don't have any limited editions but numbered open editions. I keep track of the number within the data sheet for that image size.
Posted by David Mayhew on September 26, 2011 at 9:30 AM
I use Excel and then sort by title and LE number. I have 2 sheets, one is sales one is stock so I just compare the 2 sheets. Not ideal but manageable.
Posted by Scott Bacon on September 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM
Another "Scott B" !
You should add an email address to your profile. I got a very thoughtful and detailed email in response to your question. The responder must have assumed you were me, and dropped me a note via my website. I figured it was only a matter of time before someone confused us.
I don't do limited editions. I think they are wrongly applied to photography and mostly used as an attempt to artificially increase perceived value. But that's just my personal opinion... Your spreadsheet solution sounds reasonable. If scalability is an issue, you could try a database - MS Access or MySQL. It might be nice to track this info in the image metadata. Then it would always be attached to the image file. Could you use Lightroom or Photoshop to populate a field in the metadata? Might be worth a look. HTH.
Posted by Jack Garrett on September 26, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Glad you clarified the name thing Scott Bacon...I thought Scott B. was you!!
Discussion
10 repliesI've only sold privately and through a single gallery at a time, so I don't have that much to keep track of. If I lost track, I always had a vague idea of how high the number was and so I skipped a bit higher. If I remembered it was in the thirties, I'd jump up to #41.
I've never heard of non-numbered prints to be considered exclusive. For a print (photo or otherwise), if it is exclusive, it should be marked as #1/1, signifying a print run of only one edition.
The big difference these days is that, unless you were a master printer, you probably had to make your prints in really big batches to ensure that they looked the same. Now, with properly profiled printers, you can make prints one or two at a time and not tie up a fortune in inventory.
Mike Johnston, over at the fantastic blog The Online Photographer if you don't already know it, has a couple of good articles about numbering prints, notably
here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/limited-editions.html
and here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/limited-editions-and-scarcity.html
Short answer? It's probably better for the gallery than for the artist. But that's the way galleries go, so... I set my numbers at 175, because if the edition is over 200, you can't sue for damages under American copyright law. At least as I understand it, which is probably incorrect.
You should add an email address to your profile.
I don't do limited editions. I think they are wrongly applied to photography and mostly used as an attempt to artificially increase perceived value. But that's just my personal opinion...