Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?  (Read 4686 times)

leeonmaui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2017, 08:04:36 PM »

I have been in the fine art business for 20 years.
I have handled both limited edition prints and original works of art.

Each limited edition you release should be accompanied by a disclosure, many publisher make a certificate of authenticity to satisfy this need, as long as the leagally required information is included in the certificate, this would normally be ok. Selling limited editions is some states require a disclousre, this is to protect the buyer and to fully express and inform them of what they are purchasing. Some states do not.
At any rate publishers us various methods to define the body or run of an edition.
Changing the limited edition run from 50 to 10 or any other amount is not something that would be considered normal or proffesional.
Issuing a fancy card stock letter to the collectors that bought a signed and numbered x/50 which has now been conveted to a x/10 or x/5 or x/1000 or whatever is most likely illegal in the context of a courtroom.
It would be ok to run a small edition of artist proofs and release this as AP x/10 or whatever (generally 10% of a print run can be reserved as artists proofs, but there is no fixed amount)

Youre really better of just continuing the edition of 50 and moving on.

If you want to test the waters on a limited edition, it is far better to release a small body of artists proofs say ten pieces labeled AP 1/10- AP 10/10 then there is no harm done to the regular edition or your collectors or your reputation as a publisher.
You could then release a regular edition in almost any size you wanted.
A typical disclosure includes this information:
Title
Artist name
Size of the print
Media
Printed at
Printed on
Year released
Clarification of signature IE: hand signed by the artist, and where it is signed, front back left right corner etc
Numbering of the edition
Number of artist proofs
Number or printers proofs
Number of HC
Number of other designated pieces
Total number of pieces in the edition
Whether any other editions of this piece exist and what they were
Whether the piece has been used in any format such as licensed matirials or advertising or promotional print matter for the artist.
Address of the publisher
The required information is fairly inclusive and legally binding.


At any rate, thats my take on it.
Logged

Deardorff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2017, 05:18:20 PM »

I believe what you want to do is fine. Contact previous buyers and let them know their 1/50 will remain One of Ten as you will not be printing past the 10. No problem with numbering and the certificate can be included with the prints sold.

Many reasons to quit printing an edition. Fatigue, health, just plain tired of printing the darned thing. Whatever it is you have no obligation to print the full 50 and handling it this way only makes sense - as long as you don't go back later and decide to pring 40 more once the image suddenly gets hot in the market.

Or, you can keep the 1/50 and just quit printing more after the first ten and say nothing. A certificate/letter on the numbering compared to the total printed makes sense. If nothing else keeping the same numbering and not finishing while keeping quiet leaves you the option of re-interpretation of the image later to finish the edition. If Ansel Adams had printed Moonrise as a limited edition would we have ever seen the stark and graphic dark sky editions he printed as he progressed with the image over the years?

Worst case would be to become another Thomas Kinkade where a "limited edition" can be more than 33,000 prints. Every size, surface treatment, etc he would put as a "limited edition" and number accordingly. A scam on the purchasers as your 18 x 33 print was an edition while your neighbors 17x32 was another "edition".

What you are looking at is much more honest.
Logged

leeonmaui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2017, 04:06:23 AM »

Aloha,
No no no,
Deardroff is completely wrong!
When you release an image in a limited edition format, you are bound to that release.

You can re- release more prints in different format, one that could be reasonably discerned as different by a lay person, re releasing an image in a different size or media is an example...
But simply changing the numbering and informing your collectors that you have done this is at best dumb and at worst illegal.

Anyway the simplest thing to do is just only print what is called for in the original numbering scheme and move on with it...
Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2017, 10:11:28 PM »

Printing hundreds of prints before you even know if the public will agree with your opinion regarding desirability would be incredibly expensive, and then storing perhaps thousands of prints ... not sure how you would do that.
Completely agree. Silly economics in a digital world.
The famous Australian photographer Ken Duncan produces limited editions but customers can buy any size. If they decide that they want a bigger size later then they can return the edition they have which is then destroyed. So printing a mass of the same size to possibly deteriorate is just bad business.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Landscape, Portrait, Product Photography - Sydney, Australia

Stephen Ray

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2017, 02:37:26 AM »

Maybe consider the following scenario…

Photographer decides upon a particular image for a print product to offer in a limited edition of 1000 and begins the process of proofing production prints in their various sizes of 50cm, 100cm, and 150cm. These become genuine artist proofs and there may be many, say 50.

1) Photographer orders approx 1000 50cm prints (less the number of earlier artist proofs) which conveniently fit on 3 rolls of 50 inch FujiFlex from the photo lab. Photographer receives a tremendous cost saving benefit due to economy of scale. 

2) Photographer devotes time to sign and number ALL the prints while they are still on the roll(s). (Good time to also host a “release party” for the occasion.)

3) Photographer stores the rolls in a safe place and declares there now exists a signed and numbered bona fide limited edition. Photographer may go to such length to get the edition notarized and insured.

4) When a so-called “collector” purchases a size larger than the 50cm, the original 50cm with a particular number is destroyed and a new, larger print is produced and is signed and numbered accordingly accompanied with a C.O.A. I know some collectors request or demand particular edition numbers in a particular size and sometimes with a personalized C.O.A. and often with particular framing. In the meantime, many of the readily available 50cm prints are flying off the shelves of the gallery(s) and website due to their relatively low price of “collectible” acquisition and the convenience of packaging which is rolled in a custom tube ready for a shopping bag or shipping service. 

The 3 rolls of material was about the least costly of this photographer’s investment. An extravagant C.O.A. with a holographic component and required legalities, marketing efforts, gallery display space, frames, packaging, etc., could easily cost much more than the print itself. The print is only a certain part of the limited edition “product.” 

Therefore, I believe it is feasible for a photographer to invest in as little as a single roll of premium material and print an entire, carefully conceived limited edition by themselves in various sizes and be done with the print production. Meanwhile, be ready to move on to the next prospective image venture and learn from any previous merchandising dance.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, having a true, signed-by-the-artist edition could be considered money in the bank for the artist’s company and / or heirs in the event of the artist’s death. If printing one-offs to fulfill an edition, where would the artist’s signature now come from? A photoshopped signature could be a legal mark but would the print have the same perceived value as one with an original signature by the artist?

IMO, it’s never been easier or cheaper to produce A LOT of very good prints.
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1342
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2017, 12:45:56 PM »

Interesting that some of you seem to think just because you decide to have a LE of 1,000 prints that you need to print all 1,000 of them  at one time.

With the digital printing process, you only need to print what ever you sell. Unlike the old days of offset lithography where all 1,000 HAD to be printed at the same time, this isn't necessary with todays technology.

The file doesn't degrade so the 1,000th print is the same quality as the first print.
You can still have a LE quantity of 1,000 but only need to print as the need arises.

In the old days, you used to say" It's a million seller!!! I have a million of  'em in the cellar!!! :o :o


As to the OP, personally, i don't think it is a good idea to change the size of the LE. All this does is to teach you not to be so optimistic about how good your work is and not put overly large numbers to it. Plus, it sends the message to your customers that you aren't as popular as you or they thought you are.

"Sorry, I overnumbered the edition and have only sold 15 out of 100 in the last 5 years so now i'm just going to lower that pesky number so what is out there is worth more!!"

Yeah, not really helping your image.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2017, 07:21:14 PM »

The file doesn't degrade so the 1,000th print is the same quality as the first print.
You can still have a LE quantity of 1,000 but only need to print as the need arises.

That certainly works for me as I produce a file. The issue seems to be for a lot of people that they don't actually have a file. They print out of Lightroom or Photoshop or something and through particular nuances the prints are perhaps not the same.

I did take on board what Stephen Ray said about the legacy value of the reproduced prints, but would still print as required, especially if the limit is large.

Print processes are constantly improving is one reason.
In answer to the question though, i think re-limiting is a bad idea.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 07:24:45 PM by BobShaw »
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Landscape, Portrait, Product Photography - Sydney, Australia

Stephen Ray

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2017, 11:16:12 PM »

Quote
The file doesn't degrade so the 1,000th print is the same quality as the first print.

Not necessarily true.

If the photographer artist choses to produce one-offs over time to eventually get to 1000, what happens when the print paper company decides to cease production of the media at print number 100/1000 or the print machine manufacturer changes ink formulations or the printing person makes a serious mistake when using color management or rip/print settings or the print provider is altogether changed at some point? The digital file is somewhat tantamount to printing plates but try taking plates to a different press and pressman at a different time in the future.

A pet peeve of mine – Some photographer artists seem to want to “improve” the file over time. Imaging the Beatles deciding to tweak the mix of Sgt. Pepper every few vinyl disks as they rolled off the assembly line. First, George Martin and the record company wouldn’t have it. Second, the original release of the album would not be considered as the edition. It would be considered as individual editions of the tweaks. Yes, the individual tweaks could be highly collectable someday but what is one’s current or future level of “likes?”

The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition over a single duration.

I used the edition number of 1000 because I personally know of only one landscape photographer who successfully issues and sells works of 1000 in fairly large sizes. IMO, a more realistic limited edition number for a landscape photographer with limited exposure would be from 16 to 32 prints in a large size and even that could be a tough sell but the work could, possibly, be truly collectable. With more exposure, the artist’s editions could grow.

To be sure, the business models are all over the map and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason as to what becomes a hit or miss.

Again, the print itself is probably the least expense of the product.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1578
    • 500px
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2017, 06:18:50 AM »

Here's another way of looking at it: the point of limited editions in photography is to produce artificial scarcity, but scarcity is always relative to demand. The point is to sell the idea "this will one day be valuable because more people will want one than there are to go around."

By re-limiting the edition, you are announcing to the world that in fact, at the moment, not so many people want one.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 617
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2017, 08:57:52 AM »

This thread has taught me one thing -- don't pay attention to limited editions as evidently, from some of the comments posted here, there should be no expectation that the photographer will/should adhere to the limitations as advertised.

If it sells well, the photographer can always just change the size slightly and redo the "Limited Edition".  Sort of an unlimited Limited Edition.  ???

If it does not sell well, the photograph can always lower the number of the limitation to make the non-selling product appear to be more rare.  "congratulations on being one of the few people to buy my photograph.  I am lowering the number of the editions to match the lower demand so we can both feel better about the low sales.  Instead of selling 1/10th of my editions, by the use of math and whiteout I can now claim that I sold 90% of my editions.  But please continue to consider my photograph a good investment. "   ;D

I don't think that was the original intent behind Limited Editions. I thought the intent behind Limited Editions was to control the supply independent of the demand. If as the demand increases, the supply increases, it ain't no Limited Edition any more.

Maybe in the digital world the term Limited Edition is obsolete?  Especially if it is now printed on demand. As previously pointed out there may be no difference between print 1 and print 10,000.

An educational thread to be sure.  I will make sure to look thrice the next time I see a limited edition even if it is numbered.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
    • waynefox.com
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2017, 11:14:57 PM »

All limited editions should be accompanied by a non ambiguous statement in writing regarding the exact terms of the edition. It should explicitly state what the edition consists of including sizes and number, finishes etc. And in fact the edition should be truly limited in nature in some manner which offers some value to the buyer. (whether perceived or real is another discussion) Good practice also suggests keeping a record of what has been sold to provide solid provenance of the limited nature of the work.

Certainly there are many flexible items, i.e. whether the edition is limited to a single size prints with the option to produce another edition of different sizes, whether the edition is limited to a single production technique with additional editions from other techniques etc.  However all of these "conditions" dilute the concept and I would think most buyers would see through it.  There have been a couple of big time law suits because photographers produced work using different techniques that were dismissed in court.  I'm not sure what the original terms of the edition were, but even though the photographers "won" the legal suit, their ethics are pretty questionable.

I think most simply limit the number of prints regardless of size or finish to a preset number, which makes it quite clear to the buyer what they are getting.

One pretty grey area is excluding smaller prints and other uses such as in books etc.  I think many exclude these items,  as long as the terms are stated clearly the buyer certainly was informed.

I believe most photographers who create limited edition work honor their conditions.  Of course, most are never sold out. Many create limited editions because they are trying to get into art festivals and most art festivals require it.

As I said before, limited editions are a creation of the overall art market.  Photographers are just trying to play in the same playground

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1074
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2017, 10:37:58 PM »

Here's a shaggy dog story about perceived value.  It might not seem as though it has relevance to this discussion, but I think it does.

My brother once had a very nice redwood dog house he no longer needed.  He put it out in front of his home with a sign that said, "Free redwood dog house."  It sat there for a couple of weeks, no takers.  So, he went out and put a sign on it that said, "Redwood dog house, $200.00."  The next morning it was gone.  Someone had stolen it.

Why not leave the edition at 50 and raise the price anyway.  The perceived value goes up with the increased price.  The previous buyers got a bargain.  You have no issue to deal with.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Deardorff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
Re: Re-Limiting a Limited Edition?
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2017, 12:09:59 PM »

Since you have already started, do you know who purchased the first few prints? (if not - why not?)

Contact those purchasers and provide each with a certificate stating the 1/50 has been revised and their image is now 1/9(or your new number).

Then hold to that number and include the explanation and certificate with each of the nine you produce.

If the image suddenly takes off in value don't go back on your modified number of prints.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up