Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: rogan on October 27, 2017, 01:16:27 pm
-
Anyone have any leads on a reference on how to write one of these? Searched online and they are all over the place. Thanks
-
What is being certified as authentic? By whom? An authentic what?
Presumably (based on the forum) you're trying to come up with something you can put on your prints so that potential buyers will know that they're really yours, and not copies or forgeries. For that, IMO what is said is far less important than that something is affixed or included that cannot practicably be copied, forged, or transferred. At the lower end, maybe have your name or logo made into a metal embosser, when you can use to create a patter in the border outside the printed area. You could also register a copyright on the name / logo / pattern. Stepping up from that, maybe you could have your name or logo made into holograms that could be put on a thin film and then affixed to the paper in some way that they could not be readily removed from the paper and transferred to other paper.
You could also do things like serial-number prints, keep records of to whom each serial number was sold, and offer to track subsequent transfers in a database, so that you could a chain of ownership / custody to anyone with questions.
As for what to say? If you want text in addition to your or your business's name and/or logo, how about something simple like, 'I certify that this is a Rogues Gallery pigment print of a Jonathan Rogue original photograph,' and then just sign it? You could print that on it, get the embosser (or even a rubber stamp, if you can find good enough ink), or whatever--and then sign it with a pencil or archival pen.
-
Anyone have any leads on a reference on how to write one of these? Searched online and they are all over the place. Thanks
I think Ansel Adams just signed his prints and that was all the authenticity one needed. Do you need anything more than that? If so, why?
-
There was something on the news here recently about people producing artwork on vellum and keeping a small piece of the stuff so that DNA analysis could later prove the work was genuine. Overkill, perhaps.
Jeremy
-
There was something on the news here recently about people producing artwork on vellum and keeping a small piece of the stuff so that DNA analysis could later prove the work was genuine. Overkill, perhaps.
Jeremy
Going along this line, blue a plucked hair (if you have one) to the photo for surefire identification. ;D
-
We should all be so lucky as to have someone worried about the authenticity of our prints. :D
-
I think the OP is talking about a certificate that the print is done with fade resistant ink and quality paper, thus will last a minimum length of time without apparent fading. A warranty of sorts?
John
-
I always sent along a sheet of paper that has the title of the print, where it was taken, the date, the paper it is printed on, the printer and ink set (Epson 3880 with pigment inks) and a brief description on how to frame it (use archival materials). If one is offering limited edition prints (I'm not so presumptuous to even offer those) these can be signed on the print which is what is done with some other types of art work such as lithographs or an accompanying document such as the one I sent along. I believe Hahnemuhle offers a certificate of authenticity: https://www.hahnemuehle.com/en/digital-fineart/certificate-of-authenticity.html but that's the only one I've ever come across.
-
A CoA is fairly standard in the art world, especially for limited edition prints. You could ask they same question about why they bother? The ones that I've seen don't mention the print's archival properties. I think they're mostly done to document the precise conditions of the limited edition, since there are often a number of artist's proofs as well in circulation. Perhaps also the date that the print was made, since not all prints in an edition are necessarily produced at the same time.
I've occasionally done limited editions, and given the expectations created by print makers, I generally offer a CoA in such circumstances. In the case of photo prints, it can be helpful to document the extent of the limitation, as photographers generally reserve the rights to reproduction of the image in other forms, sizes etc. I'd also include the sort of information that Alan indicated. Why bother? Partly expectations and partly to cover myself when other reproductions are around.
I don't like limited editions either, but I sense that there's a lot of pressure in the photo-art market to produce them. I overheard a conversation in a gallery recently, in which a prominent member of the local photo-art community said that she had always wanted to buy a print by the photographer whose exhibition they were viewing, and now that he/she had produced a limited edition, she would. I was a little stunned, and had to restrain myself from asking why? If you like a photo print and want to support the artist, why not just buy it? Do you really think that the photographer is going to sell out the edition and by limiting it you're getting something more valuable? That's most unlikely, unless the size of the edition of very small or the photographer very famous, or a great self-marketer (e.g. Peter Lik). It's most unlikely that you'd get anything like you're money back were you to try and sell your print in the secondary market, except in the case of very famous prints / photographers. End of rant.
-
Anyone have any leads on a reference on how to write one of these? Searched online and they are all over the place. Thanks
If it is about counterfeit there are all kinds of high tech solutions now. I suggest that the artist should make a fingerprint using his own blood at the back of the print. A bit of protection spray over it or a piece of tape. One of the print shop owner can be added to it and to make it more complicated the last can use the artist's blood for his fingerprint and the other way around. By the time the prints fetch big money a DNA test will be the least expensive method to verify the origin of the print. No need for expensive third solutions.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
By the time the prints fetch big money a DNA test will be the least expensive method to verify the origin of the print. No need for expensive third solutions.
I just spit on my prints. Unfortunately, so do all potential customers... >8-(
-
Anyone have any leads on a reference on how to write one of these? Searched online and they are all over the place. Thanks
I created a COA I send out with my framed prints. It's pretty simple and contains a thumbnail of the print, when, where, and how the image was taken and then the kind of paper and the inksets used to print it, etc. I make a brief statement about the archival quality of the materials and prints. I then sign and date them with the limited edition number. I also have a rubber stamp 'seal' which is pressed onto the COA.
I'm okay with making limited edition prints as it helps me keep track of how many prints I've made. I don't think any of my prints will be sold at auction or to an art gallery so I'm not worrying much about that. But, many of the art shows on the art circuit require that photographers sell limited editions, so I do.
Patrick
-
I just spit on my prints. Unfortunately, so do all potential customers... >8-(
Literally laughing out loud :D
-
In my view "certificate of authenticity" is coming from the same mindset as "giclee." It's attempting to hide the reality that the buyer is purchasing a copy as opposed to the original painting. All photos are prints, so the situation is different for us. I usually have a "print information" paper on the back of my framed prints or in the shrink wrap with those that are sold without a frame. It simply tells the purchaser the title, location, limit or not and definition of the limit (close to another popular fraud in the art business), and other potentially useful information, such as inkset (which is of interest to some as I mix my own carbon B&W inks).
The reality is, however, that the vast majority of people who buy my prints are simply interested in the image. None of the other information or limits matter.
FWIW,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
The reality is, however, that the vast majority of people who buy my prints are simply interested in the image. None of the other information or limits matter.
Exactly. And hopefully the most satisfying reason for purchase for both the photographer and the customer.
This is the same strategy as the telcos use to cause your data allotment to evaporate each month: "Artificial Scarcity"
-
In my view "certificate of authenticity" is coming from the same mindset as "giclee." It's attempting to hide the reality that the buyer is purchasing a copy as opposed to the original painting.
The concept of limited edition most likely evolved at time when the standard reproduction for artists was with lithography, which by nature can be produced as "editions" since you typically had to print at least 1000 at a time. Despite the fact it is an artificial limit, in todays gallery and art markets the concept of limited editions still remains as a means to imply additional value. Whether we agree with that or not, it's a very common practice and there are many very successful photographers and artists who use the concept. Many art shows require the work to be limited edition, this isn't just a requirement for photographers but for all artists.
The term giclee originated as a way to distinguish high quality inkjet prints from standard consumer grade inkjet prints back in a time when there was indeed a substantial difference between the two. The technology used to produce a "giclee" was far different than a typical inkjet printer at the time. The term stuck and despite the fact it doesn't seem to have much relevance today, it is still widely used throughout the art world as a way to communicate the print is not a lithograph, and is produced from a high end/better than consumer grade device.
To me the term giclee has always been a little odd, but I'll admit when marketing or selling ones work the term does have some use in that it still is interpreted to mean a professional or higher in quality inkjet print. There are many buyers out there that have come across this term and understand it. Those that haven't find the definition somewhat meaningful. Despite how much I dislike the term, I've given up trying to explain to customers that a giclee is a marketing word for inkjet print (which to most people they relate to the little printer they have in their house). It's easier just to use the term, and offer a brief explanation if necessary.
Regarding COA's, I think it's pretty much what you want to do. Offering information about the technology used is quite common, and if the work is limited, a concise unambiguous statement regarding the limit. The key is that you stick to what you say. If you place a limit on prints from an image, you need to state what the limit is and if there are any exceptions to the limit. For example when you say limit of 10, does that mean 10 in that size, or 10 in all sizes. While a few major court cases have failed to rule for buyers in recent years, to me there is some personal integrity involved.
-
Great idea Ernst . I'm going to stamp all my work with blood from now on. Fingerprint in blood. I'm bonified.
The "certificate crap does sound a lot like the giclee certification that was around 15 years ago.
It's Epson that started all this nonsense with pigment prints many years ago and now Hahnemühle is doing it. We have a Hahnemühle certified giclee lab in town that claims they are one of " only a few in the country". I'm serious they say one of about 7 🙂 Now that bonified.
But what we really have is a COA lab that is using OBA Hahnemühle media. But , he'll, it's authentic. And if you are really loyal they might even give you a plastic gold ribbon stamp with their corporate logo on it.
If it is about counterfeit there are all kinds of high tech solutions now. I suggest that the artist should make a fingerprint using his own blood at the back of the print. A bit of protection spray over it or a piece of tape. One of the print shop owner can be added to it and to make it more complicated the last can use the artist's blood for his fingerprint and the other way around. By the time the prints fetch big money a DNA test will be the least expensive method to verify the origin of the print. No need for expensive third solutions.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Despite the fact it is an artificial limit, in todays gallery and art markets the concept of limited editions still remains as a means to imply additional value. ... Many art shows require the work to be limited edition, this isn't just a requirement for photographers but for all artists.
It seems to be taken as a sign that you're 'serious', which I find disappointing. Brooks Jensen has written about the folly of this approach for most photography, but if you try and run his arguments to the wider art community, they look at you like you're from Mars.
If you place a limit on prints from an image, you need to state what the limit is and if there are any exceptions to the limit. For example when you say limit of 10, does that mean 10 in that size, or 10 in all sizes.
Precisely. This is where photography differs from say print making (i.e. from a plate). The concept of a limited edition of a photo is more complex, and if you offer one you need to be very clear.
-
Of the thousands of prints I've made and sold of my wife's art, not one buyer was interested about how they were made. As someone above noted, if you start to explain, their eyes wander off, glaze over a bit and they quickly say thank you and go.
That probably says we sell to a pretty unsophisticated market but it meant that I didn't need a certificate of any sort. The only extra paper was when a few wanted a receipt for a business purchase.
-
That probably says we sell to a pretty unsophisticated market but it meant that I didn't need a certificate of any sort.
I think in the case of the art-business world, the lunatics are clearly running the asylum... so "sophisticated" can have completely different meaning from the view of tradition vs reality. However if you want the money, you give the buyer what s/he wants, no?
(BTW, "giclée" in French just means "squirted". My central heating furnace has a gicleur, as do automotive carburetors, and apparently it has a certain usage in pornography. If that helps you to giggle at the whole thing :) )
-
We quickly realized that to be in any way successful earning income we had to become aware of selling techniques. In fact I'd say the art of selling is the most important aspect of the whole art business. Producing a digital file, and printing it well, can be repeated until the finished product is acceptable.
A customer will cut and run at any stage of their decision process and never be seen again. We found no benefit in trying to engage them with production talk. They, on the other hand, wanted to talk endlessly about other things. We let all those discussions run their course.
-
I refuse to be a part of the "editions" scam. Even if an individual created an "edition" of 100 pieces, normally they don't actually print those 100 pieces, indexically, at the same time, with the same batch of paper on the same printer, with the same ink, under the same circumstances. This is very rare. The idea mostly is to "hold open" the edition for a specific number of prints to be made from a single image, as we all know. Once anything changes in the equation of making prints using all the variables that make up our systems, the edition, for all intents and purposes changes. The prints vary.
My solution is to label my prints as "A/P" (artist's proof). And I justify this by knowing/saying that the prints vary from one to another because of the changes in those variables intentionally or unintentionally, and I reserve the right to revisit the original image to rework it, to print it on other substrates, printers or other means.
I won't be held hostage to a system that dictates such implied constraint and confines. I sell my work based on the originality of each individual print that shares a commonality with other images that have come before it based on that one in-camera capture which evolves over time with the addition of tools and techniques, enabling the image to take on a life of its own.
To play into the editions scam is to give up artistic freedom, or to dishonestly represent that all images in the series will be of exact, unerring standards.
I simply state that I reserve the right to grow as an artist and photographer and explain my position and views on the subject. For the most part, people nod their heads in agreement when they consider what is at stake, particular when I explain that an A/P is far more valuable than any signed, numbered edition print implying indexicality.
Blood and fingerprints? Hmmmm, there are a host of bodily fluids which would also work, apparently.
I'll just stick with what the Japanese potter said about not signing his pots when asked how they would be able to tell the difference from fakes:
"What they do that is good will be attributed to me. What I do that is bad will be attributed to them." Shoji Hamada
-
or to dishonestly represent that all images in the series will be of exact, unerring standards.
I don't think this is true. I know, for example, that the most recent Nano Lopez Nanimal that I bought, which is a limited edition bronze, will have slight variations because of the hand creation and processing of each item. They all come from the same mould made from the same original clay work, but the final finishing can never be identical and there's no expectation that it should be. Each one is individually numbered and the very nature of the construction process means they're not going to be all done under exactly the same conditions - it just takes too long. There are a finite number in existence. It adds to the value, but makes it far more accessible than paying for a unique item (which I also do at times).
There are three levels - none of which are scams or dishonest in anyway.
Unique
Limited Edition
Unlimited Copies
The value of each decreases at each level due to supply/demand.
Since by its very nature a digital image is a file which is frequently replicated, it's unlike a negative in being unique. Prints, though, can be, or they can be limited, or they can be unlimited. It's all entirely valid and every artist can provide whatever they choose.
-
I don't think this is true. I know, for example, that the most recent Nano Lopez Nanimal that I bought, which is a limited edition bronze, will have slight variations because of the hand creation and processing of each item. They all come from the same mould made from the same original clay work, but the final finishing can never be identical and there's no expectation that it should be. Each one is individually numbered and the very nature of the construction process means they're not going to be all done under exactly the same conditions - it just takes too long. There are a finite number in existence. It adds to the value, but makes it far more accessible than paying for a unique item (which I also do at times).
There are three levels - none of which are scams or dishonest in anyway.
Unique
Limited Edition
Unlimited Copies
The value of each decreases at each level due to supply/demand.
Since by its very nature a digital image is a file which is frequently replicated, it's unlike a negative in being unique. Prints, though, can be, or they can be limited, or they can be unlimited. It's all entirely valid and every artist can provide whatever they choose.
Phil, I wasn't talking about bronzes. If purchased from a reputable gallery or foundry for that matter - it's a different story. I stand by my position regarding my view of "editions" with digital prints, however. We all have different perspectives depending on what market level is being discussed. Agreed - every artist must make their own choices - I have made mine.
Mark
-
Phil, I wasn't talking about bronzes. If purchased from a reputable gallery or foundry for that matter - it's a different story. I stand by my position regarding my view of "editions" with digital prints, however. We all have different perspectives depending on what market level is being discussed. Agreed - every artist must make their own choices - I have made mine.
Mark
We certainly all have the right to make our own choices and have our own opinions, but calling it a scam implies you feel those of us who do limited editions are being dishonest. The term even implies criminal intent.
I see no dishonesty, nor do I see a need to produce all at the same time. Limited edition can be stated to mean whatever you want, as long as you state it clearly, unambiguously, and you stick to it. The sculptor usually limits an edition to the number of pieces that can be produced from a single mold of the original before it wears to the point the art is comprised. The fact the artist chooses not to make a second mold and continue to produce the reproductions is their decision and whether that weighs into the buyers purchase decision or whether it adds value to the product might be debatable, but really isn't that relevant, it's just how it is.
For a long time now painters have been in the same position as photographers, and the original concept of limited editions being based on having to print a large number pretty much disappeared. But they continue to sell limited editions because they choose to, and if their buyers continue to purchase based on those terms, so be it.
If I choose to offer an image and I tell customers that I will only make "x" number of those images, whether I make them all at the same time or not doesn't really matter. Whether I choose to create this "artificial" limit really doesn't matter, whether it's a marketing strategy or not doesn't really matter. To me what really matters is I live up to the agreement I have with my buyer.
-
Of the thousands of prints I've made and sold of my wife's art, not one buyer was interested about how they were made. As someone above noted, if you start to explain, their eyes wander off, glaze over a bit and they quickly say thank you and go.
That probably says we sell to a pretty unsophisticated market but it meant that I didn't need a certificate of any sort. The only extra paper was when a few wanted a receipt for a business purchase.
We quickly realized that to be in any way successful earning income we had to become aware of selling techniques. In fact I'd say the art of selling is the most important aspect of the whole art business. Producing a digital file, and printing it well, can be repeated until the finished product is acceptable.
A customer will cut and run at any stage of their decision process and never be seen again. We found no benefit in trying to engage them with production talk. They, on the other hand, wanted to talk endlessly about other things. We let all those discussions run their course.
This is some really, really good advice.
Sharon
-
I still like the concept where the first 10 go for an affordable price, the next 10 for twice the price etc. No limit other than demand and a bonus for the first buyers. If the prints increase in value on the market then this pricing system sets a limit on auction prices and the artist and first time buyers are both rewarded for taking risks while speculation is kept at bay. There are some that use this system as I understand it.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
We certainly all have the right to make our own choices and have our own opinions, but calling it a scam implies you feel those of us who do limited editions are being dishonest. The term even implies criminal intent.
Brooks Jenson of Lenswork fame observes that for many (most?) photographers, sales are rare and it is unlikely that a limited edition will sell out unless the edition is very small. He argues that in such circumstances it is misleading and deceptive (perhaps self-deceptive) to limit an edition, since it implies that you expect to sell out the edition. He argues for numbered open editions. For a lot of photographers I think this makes sense. Perhaps not for those who sell a lot and/or who want recognition in the wider art market.
-
We certainly all have the right to make our own choices and have our own opinions, but calling it a scam implies you feel those of us who do limited editions are being dishonest. The term even implies criminal intent.
I see no dishonesty, nor do I see a need to produce all at the same time. Limited edition can be stated to mean whatever you want, as long as you state it clearly, unambiguously, and you stick to it. The sculptor usually limits an edition to the number of pieces that can be produced from a single mold of the original before it wears to the point the art is comprised. The fact the artist chooses not to make a second mold and continue to produce the reproductions is their decision and whether that weighs into the buyers purchase decision or whether it adds value to the product might be debatable, but really isn't that relevant, it's just how it is.
For a long time now painters have been in the same position as photographers, and the original concept of limited editions being based on having to print a large number pretty much disappeared. But they continue to sell limited editions because they choose to, and if their buyers continue to purchase based on those terms, so be it.
If I choose to offer an image and I tell customers that I will only make "x" number of those images, whether I make them all at the same time or not doesn't really matter. Whether I choose to create this "artificial" limit really doesn't matter, whether it's a marketing strategy or not doesn't really matter. To me what really matters is I live up to the agreement I have with my buyer.
In this case, “scam” is a figure of speech Wayne. It does not help to try to assign blame for my perspective which you disagree with. I have no problem with how you view the concept or how you conduct your business, for certainly, that is none of my business and I wouldn’t presume anything otherwise. How any and all photographers approach their work in terms of sales is secondary to artistry or mastery of craft, so it doesn’t phase me one way or another how anyone either subscribes to that system or chooses not to. I’m actually surprised you seemed to take that so personally. Do what you want, think what you want, say what you want. And I will too. And I for sure wouldn’t hold it against you for having a different view than I do.
There were a few points I was making that are valid which you did not address, which I assume means you discount my entire arguement. Again that is fine.
To be more clear, I would have to say that I believe this particular mode of sales tool is less than transparent, and as I discussed, does not take into consideration the growth and evolution that some of us experience due to acquisition of tools, skills, insight, and ongoing attempts to master the art and craft of photography and printing. That is why I believe that if one does an edition, far better to print all in the edition and close it, rather than having extremely uneven output over a 20 year period of selling the same image because technology (et al), has changed significantly. And again, your mileage may and probably does vary. Surely you can see that there are two sides of the very same coin; those who view this system as a way of selling efficiently, or any number of legitimate reasons that photographers decide to control their work that way, and then conversely there are market manipulators who use the system of editions to gain leverage, or control over buyers, auction houses, and in some cases photographers.
So, with all due respect, I believe everyone does need to assess their needs and make decisions about where they stand in this regard. I respect your position, and wish you the best with it. Think what you will in regard to my stance; I have made my decision and for now, will adhere to it unless something such as hypocrisy changes my mind.
Good luck, sir, I sincerely wish you well.
Mark
-
Hahnemühle is doing this to sell more media and try to position themselves as a premier media manufacturer with a history of being concerned about quality issues. I have no problem with that and would possibly do the same if I were in their position.
That is a different situation from the concept of "editioning" a body of work. Of course this concept started with etchings and lithos where the plate or stone deteriorated over time. So the art print was finite and limited. It doesn't make much sense in an era of print on demand, where "open editions" rule the gallery world, or not. Thing is, our inks and media and coatings and ownership change from year to year in many cases, quite unlike in Rembrandt's time in the 16th century when this idea really took off. But we are talking about art in the age of mechanical reproduction and this includes conventional analogue photography as well. It's not a new discussion. I've seen well respected photo historians with opposite views on the topic of "editioning" a photo at all. I believe Ansel Adams position on this was to edition portfolios but not single prints. Same is true of many great photographers.and that is my strategy.
I do limited edition portfolios for clients where they pay to have the edition done all at once with all the same materials and printer workflow and include hand made portfolio cases, little sheet, etc. . To me that makes perfect sense . And because they are digital pigment prints does not mean a project can't be unique and finite. In that case it is the responsibility of the artist and or his gallery to not cheapen the project by cranking out more similar prints later in the game. But "open editions" does seem very close to being a scam to me. the whole mechanism has gotten so sloppy that I see photographer write the Edition number on the print while they are signing it with no previous thought as to why they are doing that number, who will be printing them in the future, or how the editions of other works in a same or similar series will be numbered.
quote author=Mark Lindquist link=topic=121241.msg1009187#msg1009187 date=1509769564]
In this case, “scam” is a figure of speech Wayne. It does not help to try to assign blame for my perspective which you disagree with. I have no problem with how you view the concept or how you conduct your business, for certainly, that is none of my business and I wouldn’t presume anything otherwise. How any and all photographers approach their work in terms of sales is secondary to artistry or mastery of craft, so it doesn’t phase me one way or another how anyone either subscribes to that system or chooses not to. I’m actually surprised you seemed to take that so personally. Do what you want, think what you want, say what you want. And I will too. And I for sure wouldn’t hold it against you for having a different view than I do.
There were a few points I was making that are valid which you did not address, which I assume means you discount my entire arguement. Again that is fine.
To be more clear, I would have to say that I believe this particular mode of sales tool is less than transparent, and as I discussed, does not take into consideration the growth and evolution that some of us experience due to acquisition of tools, skills, insight, and ongoing attempts to master the art and craft of photography and printing. That is why I believe that if one does an edition, far better to print all in the edition and close it, rather than having extremely uneven output over a 20 year period of selling the same image because technology (et al), has changed significantly. And again, your mileage may and probably does vary. Surely you can see that there are two sides of the very same coin; those who view this system as a way of selling efficiently, or any number of legitimate reasons that photographers decide to control their work that way, and then conversely there are market manipulators who use the system of editions to gain leverage, or control over buyers, auction houses, and in some cases photographers.
So, with all due respect, I believe everyone does need to assess their needs and make decisions about where they stand in this regard. I respect your position, and wish you the best with it. Think what you will in regard to my stance; I have made my decision and for now, will adhere to it unless something such as hypocrisy changes my mind.
Good luck, sir, I sincerely wish you well.
Mark
[/quote]
-
In this case, “scam” is a figure of speech Wayne. It does not help to try to assign blame for my perspective which you disagree with. I have no problem with how you view the concept or how you conduct your business, for certainly, that is none of my business and I wouldn’t presume anything otherwise. How any and all photographers approach their work in terms of sales is secondary to artistry or mastery of craft, so it doesn’t phase me one way or another how anyone either subscribes to that system or chooses not to. I’m actually surprised you seemed to take that so personally. Do what you want, think what you want, say what you want. And I will too. And I for sure wouldn’t hold it against you for having a different view than I do.
There were a few points I was making that are valid which you did not address, which I assume means you discount my entire arguement. Again that is fine.
To be more clear, I would have to say that I believe this particular mode of sales tool is less than transparent, and as I discussed, does not take into consideration the growth and evolution that some of us experience due to acquisition of tools, skills, insight, and ongoing attempts to master the art and craft of photography and printing. That is why I believe that if one does an edition, far better to print all in the edition and close it, rather than having extremely uneven output over a 20 year period of selling the same image because technology (et al), has changed significantly. And again, your mileage may and probably does vary. Surely you can see that there are two sides of the very same coin; those who view this system as a way of selling efficiently, or any number of legitimate reasons that photographers decide to control their work that way, and then conversely there are market manipulators who use the system of editions to gain leverage, or control over buyers, auction houses, and in some cases photographers.
So, with all due respect, I believe everyone does need to assess their needs and make decisions about where they stand in this regard. I respect your position, and wish you the best with it. Think what you will in regard to my stance; I have made my decision and for now, will adhere to it unless something such as hypocrisy changes my mind.
Good luck, sir, I sincerely wish you well.
Mark
I strive very hard to avoid being antagonistic or argumentative in online forums. I see far too many discussions get out of hand and things said that would never be said face to face in a discussion. Usually I check out of discussions when I'm afraid of coming across this way, I certainly don't want to be misinterpreted, but thought I might make a few points.
First while you call your use of the word "scam" a figure of speech, I've never seen that word used in any manner other than a very disparaging way and never seen it used in any context other than the viewpoint of describing someone who is intentionally being dishonest or deceitful in an effort to take advantage. The choice of the word and your comments clearly indicated your strong opinion of the issue, thus my statement. Certainly I understand that often we might use words that perhaps convey a stronger sentiment than intended, especially in an online forum where, but certainly you can see where they could easily be construed in the manner that I felt.
Regarding my not addressing the points you made, I just didn't take the time to discuss them. whether I discount them or not has no bearing on the discussion, and while they are valid to you, perhaps others don't share your point of view and thus they aren't valid to them. The idea that an edition is from a single printing and all pieces are identically produced at the same time morphed a couple of decades ago into it's current use in the art community to a more general meaning that only a limited number of reproductions of a piece will be made, upon which point no more will be produced. I don't think many artists produce work like that anymore, with todays technology they produce as they are sold. The term to most might be interpreted to say each piece is an edition, and there is a limit to the total editions that can be made.
I'm just saying that's how it is, it's not a photography thing. Unfortunately to your point, this has been the focus of a couple of major cases where the photographer used "new technology" to produce a new edition from old film or transparencies to exceed their original sold out edition. To me this was unethical, (although unfortunately the court ruled in the photographers favor).
As it stands now, in the broad art community/market (of which we photographers really are a pretty small part) a limited edition is a common and expected practice, and simply means placing a limit on how many reproductions will be made. those limits run the gamut. Most, like me, simply say that after I produce x number of prints/pieces from a specific file, no matter the size or on what media, no more will be produced. Doesn't matter if some are on metal, some on canvas, some acrylic facemounts, or some on fine art paper. Doesn't matter if all are 27x54, or if I make 6 different sizes. After x number, no more. Others specify in the CoA many parameters, such as size limits, for example only x number will be produced of x sizes. I do see see some that are ambiguous saying things such as only x number will be produced of any individual size, but don't actually list the sizes allowed. There your point of transparency becomes very valid, because I could produce x number 20x24's, then produce the same number 20.5x24.5, and so on and so on, meaning that in reality there isn't much of a limit. However, even in this case I think the photographer offers some specific sizes on the sales page and intends to limit it to those sizes. They just didn't write their CoA very well.
As far as transparency, I'm not sure what else could be done. A clear, unambigious statement to the buyer as to what the work is limited to seems pretty transparent.
I know many in this forum struggle with this concept. It seems to pollute something we are passionate about. I myself have struggled with it for years. Same with the word giclee. I hate it. I hate saying it, I hate using it. But the practice is so common that most buyers who can afford to buy the work are familiar with both the concept of the limited editions as well as "giclee" prints, so I don't really ever have to discuss what limited edition means, and just using the word giclee is easier than trying to explain how stupid it is and what it means.
Now that I have my own gallery, I continue to struggle with it. In my case, I chose to offer some of my work in limited editions, but the majority of my work is offered in open editions. The pieces that are limited edition are approximately 30% more simply because their ability to provide revenue may end at some point in time.
But the reality is pretty simple. The concept of limited edition works is standard procedure throughout the art marketing community. In a typical art festival, photographers are limited to only 10-15% of the total spaces available so we're pretty much a slice of a much bigger pie.
It's just how it is. If you want to play in their pool, you play by their rules.
-
I still like the concept where the first 10 go for an affordable price, the next 10 for twice the price etc. No limit other than demand and a bonus for the first buyers. If the prints increase in value on the market then this pricing system sets a limit on auction prices and the artist and first time buyers are both rewarded for taking risks while speculation is kept at bay. There are some that use this system as I understand it.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
For years I've tried to figure out a way to use a concept similar to this. My idea was that each print was an edition, and the price would increase a specific amount for each edition. As the number of pieces sold the "limit" would eventually be set because of the price/value. If indeed someone wanted to exceed the "limit", no problem because early buyers benefitted. The value proposition as prints sold would be clearly defined.
But I've never figured out a way to do it. How do I create on online sales system which would account for it without having literally dozens of price lists to account for the the available options. How do I explain it easily to customers without their eyes glazing over and checking out. How do I communicate the concept on the piece? Anyway, I've just never found a comfortable way to use the concept.
But I really like it, so I haven't given up. Someday I'm going to figure out a way to try it.
-
Wayne,
You have made your position and your views clear, (thanks for taking the time and making the effort to do that). I could have used the word imbroglio rather than scam, or whatever, but I do see imposing “artificial scarcity” as inherently manipulative, as many other photographers who share my views do.
I agree that online discussions are inherently easily misunderstood, and in face to face dialog, often issues of disagreement are handled in different ways.
So we have differing viewpoints, or more precisely, we each subscribe to differing beliefs about the subject of signed, numbered, limited editions. I understand how deeply invested you are in this (as are many, many others), and I wish you well with your useage of the system, however you define it, and I respect your sincerity and position regarding your decisions.
I feel there is no point in discussing it further as it is apparent we both have differing perspectives which insofar as online conversations go, we both likely think we understand each others views.
Agreed, it is not an issue easily to be solved, and I agree with your assessment of the term “Giclee”.
Thanks again for your effort to clarify your points, I appreciate that you didn’t just back away from our conversation.
Best,
Mark
-
For years I've tried to figure out a way to use a concept similar to this. My idea was that each print was an edition, and the price would increase a specific amount for each edition. As the number of pieces sold the "limit" would eventually be set because of the price/value. If indeed someone wanted to exceed the "limit", no problem because early buyers benefited. The value proposition as prints sold would be clearly defined.
But I've never figured out a way to do it. How do I create on online sales system which would account for it without having literally dozens of price lists to account for the the available options. How do I explain it easily to customers without their eyes glazing over and checking out. How do I communicate the concept on the piece? Anyway, I've just never found a comfortable way to use the concept.
But I really like it, so I haven't given up. Someday I'm going to figure out a way to try it.
Wayne:
You can use some sort of compounding formula with a fixed incremental appreciation for each edition/print. For example, say you decide your next print should be 10% more than the previous one. Starting with the first print priced at say 1 unit, the next one would be 1.10 and the next 1.21 and so on. For 10% increment, the price will double approximately 8 prints. For 5% increments, it will double every 15 prints.
As the price increase is slow in the beginning, the early buyers are rewarded amply as their prints value goes up rapidly later if the image becomes popular by the miracle of compounding, yet each new buyer is paying only incrementally higher than the previous one. You can even put a calculator next to the print to show where the price will be as more prints are sold. The total number of editions are limitless, yet limited because the price will become too big at some point for your customer. Of course, by publishing your pricing scheme, you are locked in to fulfill it even if the circumstances change.
:Niranjan
-
Wayne:
You can use some sort of compounding formula with a fixed incremental appreciation for each edition/print. For example, say you decide your next print should be 10% more than the previous one. Starting with the first print priced at say 1 unit, the next one would be 1.10 and the next 1.21 and so on. For 10% increment, the price will double approximately 8 prints. For 5% increments, it will double every 15 prints.
As the price increase is slow in the beginning, the early buyers are rewarded amply as their prints value goes up rapidly later if the image becomes popular by the miracle of compounding, yet each new buyer is paying only incrementally higher than the previous one. You can even put a calculator next to the print to show where the price will be as more prints are sold. The total number of editions are limitless, yet limited because the price will become too big at some point for your customer. Of course, by publishing your pricing scheme, you are locked in to fulfill it even if the circumstances change.
:Niranjan
It's not a pricing scheme that is challenging, it's being able to communicate it and use it as an effective marketing tool that I find challenging. I feel it's something that you have to make enough effort to explain and try to "sell" the customer on the sales process itself gets side tracked and you lose the customer. The price discussion becomes something more than a simple this is how much it costs.
-
The only issue with the proposed scaling of price, is that it assumes that someone will pay that higher price. If they don't, you'll never sell it and the previously communicated price pressure will have been misleading.
If you have a limited edition and it's popular and you are down to the last few, you can probably raise the price, but having it set to raise could be problematic unless you're an established artist and you know that the earlier prices are genuine discounts on the market price.
-
For us, a good sale was a quick one. It was customers who went on and on about how they were good friends with The Duke of Bedford, or always got an invite to The Goodwood Speedweek or they have an amazing camera or their daughter is at The Royal Academy. The worst ones drone on ending up with stories about their dog.
My wife and I recognized that a lot of people don't have anyone at home and just love to talk when they find listener. We never did have the time to develop a spiel like Mark's, although I do recall a similar conversation the last time we bought a car. ;D