Topic: The Numbering Affair (Read 18758 times)

alainbriot · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2011, 02:15:06 pm »

"
That's why I gave the example of photographers who have multiple retail galleries. A gallery in a Las Vegas major casino is not a modest investment..."

To me real financial success is net worth, not having a gallery on the LV Strip or elsewhere. I have a close friend who has a gallery in Scottsdale, AZ, in the heart of the art district and who is in financial distress. His 'investment' is killing him...

feppe · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2011, 02:25:06 pm »

Quote from: luong on March 01, 2011, 02:04:51 pm

That's why I gave the example of photographers who have multiple retail galleries. A gallery in a Las Vegas major casino is not a modest investment...

Agree with Alain: just because you have a storefront doesn't necessarily mean you are financially successful. The artist could be paying a sizable portion of his income in rent and interest, there could be a rich patron covering the costs, etc.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #22 on:** March 01, 2011, 02:49:19 pm »

Quote from: feppe on March 01, 2011, 02:25:06 pm

Agree with Alain: just because you have a storefront doesn't necessarily mean you are financially successful. The artist could be paying a sizable portion of his income in rent and interest, there could be a rich patron covering the costs, etc.

This is now becoming a semantic hairsplitting. The artists loung named are known to have multi-million annual revenues. For the purpose of this discussion, what really matters is that the public was ready and happy to fork out those millions for their photographs, not how they (the artists) decided to spend/invest them.

feppe · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2011, 03:07:15 pm »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 01, 2011, 02:49:19 pm

This is now becoming a semantic hairsplitting. The artists loung named are known to have multi-million annual revenues. For the purpose of this discussion, what really matters is that the public was ready and happy to fork out those millions for their photographs, not how they (the artists) decided to spend/invest them.

This would be the first forum thread in the history of the internet to stay on topic

Agreed, though.

BFoto · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2011, 05:52:22 pm »

Quote from: luong on March 01, 2011, 02:04:51 pm

That's why I gave the example of photographers who have multiple retail galleries. A gallery in a Las Vegas major casino is not a modest investment...

Nor are the other ones he has in Soho, Key West etc.

John R Smith · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:20:46 am »

My comment above still stands. How would you guarantee to a potential purchaser and your gallery that there will only ever be (say) 50 prints of a given photograph? If it were film, you could I suppose destroy the negative (what sacrilege!) - but who amongst us would? If it were a digital file, would you delete every copy of it from every hard drive and backup that you had?

Remembering that, unlike film negatives, with an edited TIFF anyone can print exact replicas of your picture long after you are dead and gone.

John

Christoph C. Feldhaim · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2011, 04:50:18 am »

Suggestion:
Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$

luong · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2011, 04:01:04 pm »

Most everything in the photography business, esp. dealing with an artist is based on trust. In general, if you buy from an artist, you tend to respect him as a person. By the way, trust goes both ways: when a photographer sells a print, he trusts the seller not to use it to make un-authorized reproductions. Similarly, when he licenses an image, he trusts the licensee not to exceed the agreed usage limits, as there is no practical way to check (although see http://bit.ly/dUGPvZ).

Audii-Dudii · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:07:56 pm »

Quote from: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 02, 2011, 04:50:18 am

Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$

There was a photographer at the last "First Friday" event I attended (a street art fair that runs on the first friday night of each month) who was doing exactly that, except he was charging only $45 for his prints instead of $100,000 and his film was 35mm rather than 4x5 or 8x10.

BFoto · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:34:28 pm »

Quote from: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 02, 2011, 04:50:18 am

Suggestion:
Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$

Now we're talking....!

LesPalenik · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:52:10 pm »

Quote

Quote from: Christoph C. Feldhaim on Today at 03:50:18 AM
Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$

There was a photographer at the last "First Friday" event I attended (a street art fair that runs on the first friday night of each month) who was doing exactly that, except he was charging only $45 for his prints instead of $100,000 and his film was 35mm rather than 4x5 or 8x10.

and not so long ago, the same art critics got upset about Taliban destroying ancient statues and old artefacts. The dogmas and stupidity don't know borders.

On the other hand, if he was indeed selling original art prints for $45, all evidence better be destroyed.

wolfnowl · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:32:59 am »

I had a film lab scratch one of my Kodachrome slides once... almost pulled the clerk right over the counter! And to think I could have gotten a lot of money for it... oh well!

Mike.

Mike Sellers · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:47:20 am »

I know a photographer who had a gallery in Sedona and his rent was $5,000 a month. That is alot of print sales to just break even. Think your images would sell in these numbers?
Mike

alainbriot · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:00:47 pm »

That's a pretty standard cost for gallery rent in high traffic areas in Arizona. To that you have to add insurance, utilities, fees, etc. Basically you are looking at 70k a year or more just to pay for the location and break even. If you have employees you need to add their salary, health care, retirement, etc.

How many prints you need to sell depends on your pricing. The lower the price, the more prints you need to sell and vice versa.

The operational costs assotiated with having a gallery can become a liability very quickly, especially in a receding economy. The rotation of galleries that open and close within a few years (usually 1 or 2 yrs) is quite high.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2011, 03:06:04 pm »

Quote

That's a pretty standard cost for gallery rent in high traffic areas in Arizona. To that you have to add insurance, utilities, fees, etc. Basically you are looking at 70k a year or more just to pay for the location and break even. If you have employees you need to add their salary, health care, retirement, etc.

Even if you can't afford the employees, it's still cost of your time, and missed photographing opportunities.
And after a year or so in standing at the counter and waiting for customers, you start to realize that photographing kids at Walmart could be actually more fun and much more profitable.

alainbriot · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2011, 03:23:32 pm »

Les,

I agree 100%. That's why I opted for a home gallery. It works very well for me, in addition to my website, and keep my time available for other activities.

Rob C · « **Reply #36 on:** March 04, 2011, 03:55:29 am »

I must confess to not not knowing the figures, but the best-looking setup I ever came across was in Sarlat, France.

There, in a ground-level gallery in the heart of the tourist town, there is/was a photographer called Francis Annet who sold his own books, prints (both framed and loose) of landscapes of the Périgord. Over several drives through the country in different years we bought some books and I still have two framed pics up on the bedroom wall. The place was always busy; the work was very pleasing.

Nice way to fly: your own boss and no direct clients; but is that any easier, I wonder? Perhaps not, in that in exchange for one client who knows what he wants and tells you before you shoot, you get zillions who know what they like when they see it...

Rob C

Robcat · « **Reply #37 on:** March 04, 2011, 12:30:43 pm »

A Q for the group. Presuming one has already begun numbering prints of certain images, one is obviously morally bound not to sell any more signed prints of that image. Is it similarly improper to sell additional unsigned (and of course unnumbered) copies, say to a corporate client for decorative purposes? My first thought would be no, but I'm not sure. What are folks doing?
Rob P

John R Smith · « **Reply #38 on:** March 04, 2011, 12:34:11 pm »

My feeling is that a limited edition is just that - limited. You might make personal copies for yourself perhaps, but certainly none for sale. In printmaking in the art world, the block is usually destroyed at the end of the run.

John

luong · « **Reply #39 on:** March 06, 2011, 02:45:46 pm »

Quote from: Robcat on March 04, 2011, 12:30:43 pm

A Q for the group. Presuming one has already begun numbering prints of certain images, one is obviously morally bound not to sell any more signed prints of that image. Is it similarly improper to sell additional unsigned (and of course unnumbered) copies, say to a corporate client for decorative purposes? My first thought would be no, but I'm not sure. What are folks doing?
Rob P

If I remember an exchange on this forum, when Alain Briot transitioned from limited editions to unlimited, he had no such qualms, as he felt that the limited edition prints became even more limited.

As far as I am concerned, I think it is OK to license an image for decor or reproduction but not to produce prints in addition to your edition.

Author Topic: The Numbering Affair (Read 18758 times)