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.