Mark,
I am on the cusp of taking my photography business to the next level. One of the things holding me back is this issue. The most prominent show in the area requires editions; I don’t have limited editions and don’t number my prints. There are two things holding me back from doing so: 1) I don’t want to, and 2) my processing and printing skills are not good enough to fix a stake in the ground and keep an image unchanged for an edition. I am at Wayne’s “artist’s proof” stage.
I presume these organizations require limited edition’s because they still associate it with a higher quality, or at least higher value product. That will be a tough perception to dispel.
Just one question: are you sure this is a trend? I mean, it is becoming more prevalent with time? Your post implies this did not used to be the case, “So what was once a marketing choice... is no longer being left up to the photographer...”
Dave
Mark, my friend, I don't see what the issue is. You (we) are still free to limit our editions or not. You (we) just can't use other people's marketing venues, e.g., art fairs, salons, galleries etc., that require limiting, but have our own or choose those that don't require limiting.
As for "unique" prints, you can always limit/number them as 1/1, even if canvas.
It is undeniable perception that scarcity is linked to higher value. You'd have to fight that human perception first, then tackle salons and art fairs.
It is undeniable perception that scarcity is linked to higher value. You'd have to fight that human perception first, then tackle salons and art fairs.
Mark,
I think what you're seeing is puffery deployed to the advantage of high-margin marketing by creating scarcity in a medium that by its very technical nature is the antithesis of scarcity. There's nothing new about this. Take the 19th and 20th century world of "original lithographs" - how often have you seen it stated that "said litho is number x of an edition of X, where after the stones were destroyed". Those galleries and institutions aren't charities - they're in it for the snob appeal and the money because they have a clientele that will pay big bucks for the allure of uniqueness, let's make no mistake about it. People who don't want to play that game will have to sell their stuff in ways that don't encounter such constraints. There's nothing illegal about it - as far as I know at least on this continent they have the right to define the kind of product they'll carry.
If you sell a number of prints of a photograph as a “limited edition,” should you be allowed to later reprint that photo in a different size, format, or medium and then sell the new pieces as a new edition? Apparently the US legal system believes the answer is “yes.”
My work regularly sells for 5 and 6 figures.
.............
I do take issue at being lectured regarding art world business practice,
Mark L
Mark,
Now, speaking objectively, are you disagreeing with my diagnosis that especially in the light of unlimited repeatability of excellent prints created with digital media, the phenomenon you remarked on is being driven by an effort to enforce scarcity in order to sustain high value. Or am I being too cynical?
Mark
I think it is worth noting that limiting one's edition today does not prevent new editions in the future, when new, better techniques become available, as the recent Eggleston court case proved:
https://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/
...the phenomenon you remarked on is being driven by an effort to enforce scarcity in order to sustain high value. Or am I being too cynical?
Not cynical at all. That is a simple truth. There is no other reason for limited editions, other than that. Alain Briot got it wrong, in my humble opinion: it has nothing to do with "if signed and numbered, the prints must be better, if they are better, they are more valuable." It is not about being "better" or quality, it is about scarcity. Of course, there has to be quality to begin with, you can't just limit crap and expect it to be seen as valuable.
I keep hearing another argument, that digital, thanks to its ability to print practically unlimited amounts, make limited editions obsolete. I see it quite the opposite: precisely because of the possibility to have a gazillion copies (Ikea, anyone?), limiting it, even if artificially, makes perfect sense. We humans are hardwired to crave something unique. From mating partners ("till death do us part"), to pieces of art. Uniqueness and scarcity is why an original painting is worth millions, and a practically indistinguishable forgery of the same only pennies. Anyone with a lady in their life must have experienced it at least once: when two ladies appear in the same dress at an event, chances are one (or both) will go home to change. Or it is going to be a tabloid fodder the next day.
Now, if you are already famous, there is different way to enforce scarcity: high price. As in Ansel Adam's case. I once walked into a gallery in Jackson Hole, to find AA's "Moon over Hernandez" selling for $100K. It doesn't have to be limited, any buyer knows there aren't that many people in the world who would pay that much.
I had this discussion with Jerry Uelsman about 15 years ago. He has probably sold more prints than any of the world famous art photographers I've ever met.. He said he doesn't believe in limited editions and he doesn't want any gallery telling him when and who he can sell a print to . He thinks it is unnatural for photography to do it. And this is a guy who may use 4 or 5 enlargers to make one single print and they are super complicated to make consistently, but he does it. Whenever he feels like making a print and selling it he does. It hasn't stopped the big galleries from selling his work and making good money on it.
I answer the question, you're not losing any rights. You may lose some avenues of sales/marketing, but that's not a right.
The market will demand what the market demands - you can supply or not, as you see fit. The question is a bit like Kodak complaining that digital will remove their rights to sell film.
I keep hearing another argument, that digital, thanks to its ability to print practically unlimited amounts, make limited editions obsolete. I see it quite the opposite: precisely because of the possibility to have a gazillion copies (Ikea, anyone?), limiting it, even if artificially, makes perfect sense. We humans are hardwired to crave something unique.
With that French and Californian examples, I see where you are coming from, Mark.
It certainly is a controversial issue, eliciting strong opinions on both sides. One of my curses in life has always been my inclination to "audiatur at altera pars" (listen to the other side). That is, even if I take a certain position (or seem to), I can still see the value in the opposing one.
I've been limiting my prints for sale because art fairs required so. But I would rather not. Not (only) because of some intellectual position on the matter, but because my other curse in life: being lazy. It is such a nightmare to keep track of what I printed, sold, in which size, did I change post-processing in the meantime, etc.
Vive la edition ouverte!
(Did I get my non-existent French right?) :)
This is such a critical part of the discussion, and why I asked my question to Mark about the trend. On the one hand, digital makes the "edition" part of limited editions obsolete. On the other hand, digital makes the "limited" part of limited editions more relevant (at least to some in the market).
The approach I like the best is the "pricing based on sales" approach Alain highlighted (thanks for that Mark). As sales of a specific print increase, raise the price and let the price limit the number of prints. It doesn't solve the problem of getting accepted into shows that require LE's, but that just becomes a business decision.
Alexandre's comment about the French market is creepy.
:(
Dave
Is the real problem that photographers don't have a voice in the salons and art fairs organizations?
.........
Alexandre's comment about the French market is creepy.
:(
Dave
Well, seen from a North American perspective it is creepy, but seen from a European, and specifically French perspective, perhaps not so much. You need to remember that in many cases those countries are on the whole much more "regulation-intensive", if I can put it that way, than we are, and their societies are accustomed to this fact of life - though there are growing forces against this kind of structured approach. As it is, craft guilds, artist guilds, etc. have great influence in respect of market structure, qualifications and participation over there. Different cultures. It doesn't mean that such structures and rules have a high risk of being replicated at a governmental or industry-wide level over here, but at the same time all those who disagree with this kind of approach need to be vigilant, so Mark L.'s admonition against complacency is good advice.
True, we’re not losing any rights at this point, but laws become enacted and suddenly rights become trampled.
A response to an article about:
Limited Edition Photographs (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/04/limited-edition-photographs.html)
Alexandre Buisse: "Talk about being bullied: in France, where I am a pro, it is a legal requirement to edition your prints to 25 copies or less if you want to be considered an 'artist,' which comes with all sorts of benefits and drawbacks, like the ability to license a photograph to a client. If you refuse to, that makes you a craftsman, you have a higher sales tax, and you're only allowed to shoot weddings and sell images as physical objects to the general public. I wish I was kidding."
And now several states are requiring certificates of authenticity, this being specifically legislated in California.
Once legislation begins and regulations become imposed, photographers lose the right to do things as they have always done them. One could argue that it wasn’t a right to begin with, but constitutionalists would definitely argue the point.
I view the issue as a slippery slope, one that could end up in diminishment or disappearance of photographer’s rights.
Good luck turning those laws back once they’ve been passed.
Mark
The approach I like the best is the "pricing based on sales" approach Alain highlighted (thanks for that Mark). As sales of a specific print increase, raise the price and let the price limit the number of prints. It doesn't solve the problem of getting accepted into shows that require LE's, but that just becomes a business decision.As I mentioned in the other thread, I've tried to figure out a way to effectively use this model for a few years now. The challenge to me is finding a way to explain it during a sales discussion without the customers eyes glazing over.
I guess in France they use that rule for VAT BTW MWSt tax differences. like it is here. We have a difference of 6 and 21% but the description is so vague for what was art in graphics and photography that different regions and smart tax advisers can get away with 6% where other studios or artists can not do the same. As it is also tricky when the tax control afterwards decides it falls in the higher category, I stopped using the low tax years ago for silkscreen productions. While at my place the artist actually painted/drew the color separation by hand on textured films etc, no original existed and I only did the printing part after we both made the color proofs, I could not persuade the tax office here in town to allow the low %. As an example; in another province the guy who got a 6% certificate had an original made by the artist, the printer created the separations by hand himself (left hand by his actual statement, he being right handed so not adding his touché to the piece, worst BS I have encountered) and printed the edition. The last color run nearly finished, the Paris based artist arrived at the airport and signed the prints at the end of the dryer. If it had been correct the printer should have signed the prints in my opinion.
With that ruling galleries started to use another route for the money coming in. The artist became the one in the middle to keep VAT low but the percentage that went to the gallery remained the same. More of the risks transferred to the artist. What today goes on I do not know, I found it messy in total.
Dutch rules (in Dutch) for this:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/btw/tarieven_en_vrijstellingen/goederen_6_btw/kunst_verzamelvoorwerpen_antiek/kunstvoorwerpen/
Artist craft guilds should not meddle in this either in my opinion.
I still like the idea that prices go up with say 50% after every 5 prints made. Open ended edition. Without restrictions on the size of the print or on the interpretation of the image. And that described well as information to the potential buyers of art.
Limited print runs caused by wear of the print plates etc are a fable too. Wood engravings in box wood can stand way more print runs than limited editions suggest. Steel faced etching plates allow lots of prints too. Burned in litho images on stone the same. In the past it was not that different, artist's could rework an intaglio plate if it was worn down. In best case that was described in the sale, often not.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
I think it is worth noting that limiting one's edition today does not prevent new editions in the future, when new, better techniques become available, as the recent Eggleston court case proved:read about this some time ago. unfortunate. seems very unethical.
https://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/
I recently had a conversation with Mark Segal about this subject of wear of the prints. Actually, don't Ukiyo-e woodblock carvings (the techniques coming from China) pre-date stone carving?
I know a little about Ukiyo-e and I am aware that master craftsmen used razor sharp block planes to sweeten the carvings when they began to get blurry with extremely thin, light cuts. So I never really thought about the stone plate issue being potentially the same thing as you have indicated. So we here, an example of how traditional views on subjects can just pass on down when in fact the are as you said "fables".
Ugh - 6% vs. 21%? That sucks. I can't imagine having to try to justify a work of art and then be denied by local authorities.
We have a lot of freedoms in America, which for artists. is very much a safe haven.
Mark
The examples of French regulation mentioned on this forum are why the Brits are trying to escape the European Union. Too much regulation at too great a cost. (Much mixing of opinion and fact in the accompanying discussions, and a bit too much revealing of success in my humble opinion).
The examples of French regulation mentioned on this forum are why the Brits are trying to escape the European Union. Too much regulation at too great a cost. (Much mixing of opinion and fact in the accompanying discussions, and a bit too much revealing of success in my humble opinion).
I showed in gallery in Ketcham, Idaho that specialized in Ansel Adams prints among many others.Mark, absolutely we would not sell them!!! One of my neighbors did by a print of Aspen trees from Harry Lunn back in 1980 and it was wonderful to look at. You can still get some of the Yosemite special edition prints for about $300 but they are newly printed from the original negatives following Adams directions for the prints. They are only available in 8x10 size but are nice none the less. I have one of the Merced River prints in my dining room!
I could have had any for deep discounts at that time.
Never thought about what an opportunity it was. And now, too late.
If we had bought them back then, we would probably not sell them now, however, right?
Thanks Alan-
Mark
As mentioned here, Ansel Adams not only did not believe in numbered editions, but continued to tweak his interpretation of many images throughout his life. In some cases, his reinterpretation of an image was inspired by the availability of a new technology (most often a paper type). By the end of his life, he was printing primarily on Oriental Seagull in a variety of grades, and he was more satisfied with the prints of his earlier work on the Seagull than he was on papers available when he made the negative. If he had editioned the print when first made, his preferred interpretation would never have become available.
A modern-day example might be a photographer who first printed a particular image on an Epson 7600, on Premium Luster. It may have been the best available printer and paper at the time (the image needed a semi-gloss surface, and it was before the availability of the present barytas, platines and the like). Should an artificial edition number prevent us from seeing the same image processed somewhat differently and printed on Canson Platine using a Canon Pro-2000 with a much wider gamut than the decade-old Epson? Isn't this the digital-age version of saying "I printed this on Brovira, the best paper I could find at the time, but I much prefer what I can do with it on Seagull that became available 20 years later"?
Dan
If the photographer change the size of the print isn't it possible to call it a new different series? Or he can present it differently. Something like the following table. He can add an extra size and introduce a new series:There are many ways this is done. Some set sizes and limits on sizes as the example. Most just limit the total number of pieces that can be produced from a given image. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_(printmaking)) some states have laws which set minimum standards that must be met in certification and disclosure of limited edition work. The article is probably referencing "print making" in the original concept where it was only possible to produce larger runs of prints, as there was no technology at the time to produce them any other way. As I mentioned earlier, nearly all artists today producing prints now(be it reproduction of various art mediums or photography) are using inkjet technology and produce them in smaller batches or even individually as they are sold.
http://www.thomasstanworth.com/print-prices/ (http://www.thomasstanworth.com/print-prices/)
It looks as if limited, numbered editions is "de riguere" in the high-end gallery/print market, if the Paris Photo Show is valid evidence to judge from. I was there the week before last and for every gallery exhibiting there, the prints or portfolios were numbered editions, with a wide but generally high price range; prices for some particularly rare stuff being VERY high. (On top of the intrinsic value of the work - i.e. what collectors are willing to pay - I can imagine that booth costs in the Grand Palais are astronomical, not to speak of shipping, set-up and value of time costs; so overheads galore). Apart from books and the obviously rare but unnumbered pieces of yesteryear, there was simply nothing not-numbered/limited to buy there. Another oddity I noticed is that using the technically correct expression "inkjet" to define a print's technical origin seems to be commercially inadequate. They are often called "archival pigment prints". After quizzing a few dealers about the technology underlying this puffery, it turns out the prints were made on an Epson 9900 or some such, using Ultrachrome inks. Yes, I had to tease it out of them, but truth be told dear reader, you and I are likely making "archival pigment prints" routinely. :-)
"Inkjet" doesn't sell :). I also have a difficulty convincing people that the Canon PRO-1000 is a top of the line printer for exhibition work. I believe it's the small size of the machine and that it's not expensive. Doesn't look too serious. I'll have to buy a dummy not working big roll printer just for that.Yup - that's the issue.
I think it is worth noting that limiting one's edition today does not prevent new editions in the future, when new, better techniques become available, as the recent Eggleston court case proved:
https://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/
The main issue with "inkjet" seems to be that it covers a wide range of inks, printers, etc. Dye, dye-sublimation, pigment, solvent, and so on.What? Dye sub isn't ink jet but my first cotone printer was (Kodak XL-7700), long, long before my Epson 1200 which is an ink jet.
"Inkjet" doesn't sell :). I also have a difficulty convincing people that the Canon PRO-1000 is a top of the line printer for exhibition work. I believe it's the small size of the machine and that it's not expensive. Doesn't look too serious. I'll have to buy a dummy not working big roll printer just for that.Seriously? Top photographers who spent their lives using photographic processes like Bill Henson and Ken Duncan all use ink jet printers now. It is not the fact that it is an ink jet printer that stops a work from selling. Why do potential customers even know what type of printer it was done on unless you tell them?
What? Dye sub isn't ink jet but my first cotone printer was (Kodak XL-7700), long, long before my Epson 1200 which is an ink jet.
Giclée is a BS marketing term when associated with ink jet prints! Like still having an AOL/Earthlink email address? :P
Giclee just means ink jet. It may be a BS marketing term but so is a badge on a BMW. If it works for you then use it.
Dye sub is delivered by inkjet more commonly than as a contone printer, printing onto transfer substrate and the sublimated onto the final substrate (whether it's a coffee mug, or a sheet of metal, clothing, or whatever).OK, gotta ya. Vastly different (and newer) dye sub photo printer.
I had an interesting discussion with a floor person in a Peter Lik gallery in Vegas.odd. Lik marketing brags about prints made on Fuji Crystal Archive Flex paper. I’ve never heard of a Lik being produced by inkjet.
After listening to a long pitch on the benefits of "Giclee", I said, "So, an inkjet print?" She wouldn't answer.
As far as the the word giclee, it was coined in 1991 when the process and equipment was far different, using an Iris printer.Study the history of using an Iris as a 'fine art' printer, by Mac Holbert and Graham Nash. They both started Nash Editions in 1990 using an Iris, they had an employee later start his own competitive ink jet printing facility and make up the term giclee as a marketing 'trick' that has stuck in the minds of the marketing susceptible since then.
The Iris prints were adopted by artists for reproductions much earlier than it caught on with photographers, so maybe that’s why in the larger art market it’s so common but why many photographers avoid the word.It was used in Prepress for proofing or for proofing high end retouch work, then after being viewed, it was thrown away. You could lick the color off the print!
"Giclée is the Häagen Dazs of printing...."Not too fair to Häagen Dazs :o
(Gleaned from a cursory internet search - unknown attribution, meaning some guy said that)
yes, when introduced in 85, the main use of the Iris was for prepress. But by the early 90’s several of the original problems were “solved”, and by the mid 90’s several similar printers were being built and marketed, and it became popular with some artists to print their reproductions since they could do them as needed rather than all at once ( a big expense which sometimes took years to recoup). It was during this time the term giclee became popular to indicate something other than a traditional inkjet print, which were pretty cheap and had even worse longevity issues.Thanks in massive part to Holbert and Nash. Who never used the term and despise the term Giclée applied to ink jet prints. Out of respect to both printing pioneers, so do I.
........
Unfortunately , despite it’s stupidity, the use of the word is commonplace enough that it’s not going to go away anytime soon.
At the Paris Photo show the week before last - and recall this is a prestigious, high-end international event - I hardly saw the word "Giclee" used at all. The prevalent expression for an inkjet print was "Pigment Archival Print". Maybe the "Giclee" fixation is starting to pass into history - re printing photographs.
Maybe the "Giclee" fixation is starting to pass into history - re printing photographs.
Not the market that Mark S was part of in Paris. ;D
Mark, my friend, I don't see what the issue is. You (we) are still free to limit our editions or not. You (we) just can't use other people's marketing venues, e.g., art fairs, salons, galleries etc., that require limiting, but have our own or choose those that don't require limiting.+1
As for "unique" prints, you can always limit/number them as 1/1, even if canvas.
It is undeniable perception that scarcity is linked to higher value. You'd have to fight that human perception first, then tackle salons and art fairs.
It is...which is often hastened when you explain to somebody who mentions "Giclée" that it's French slang for ejaculate (you know, from a penis), they tend to back off using the stupid term.
And actually, it was Jack Duganne who worked for Graham Nash and with Mac Holbert that coined the term–which both Nash and Holbert hated. It was Jack's feeble attempt to make ink jet printing sound glamorous than it actually is....is you use the term around serious artists and collectors, expect to hear snickering behind your back.
I coined the term Giclée back in 1989 and used it to describe a print for an
artist who was having her first show of ink jet prints done on an IRIS
printer.
Jack Duganne
Quite a thread to read at a single slouch, though I did get up once to go pee.
At the end of it all, there's (to me) an unavoidable conclusion to be drawn, which I suppose is a logical place to draw a conclusion. Simply: it shows photography is really just a bastard child within the arts. It can't have the value of a painting, a sculpture, a drawing or any other unique creation because of its obvious advantage/disadvantage of infinite reproducibility.
That's it's enormous Achillean heel; short of destroying or, better yet, preserving the original negative in a block of plastic for all the world to see, it can never overcome that drawback. Which makes yet one more reason why digital originals have even less credibility - or would have, were I to want to collect. And even then, how would I know how many prints had really been made before the funeral in Perspex?
Frankly, buying a photographic print as anything other than temporary decoration strikes me as decidedly odd. Collecting, at silly prices, is just, well, silly. Investment it may be, for a few, but it strikes me as a very chancy place to put money I don't have. If I did have it, rest assured it would never ride on a photographic print from anyone.
So there you have it: a conclusion at the beginning, and an old photographer fading gently out into his own vignettte.
Rob
Weren't the original Iris printers based on dye inks? If so, those Giclee prints made in eighties and nineties might be beginning to fade by now. May be that's why people are now flocking to the Archival Pigment Print term.