Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: LesPalenik on February 28, 2011, 08:03:09 am
-
Alan raised an interesting question and cleared many misconceptions on the subject. Although this is a highly contraversial topic, I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions. He certainly has the numbers and expertise to back it up.
Limited editions in the photography print market do not serve the buyer, and definitely not the artist. I remember the days when some bestselling photographers published limited editions in 5,000 or 25,000 print runs, and some of them even in multiple sizes. The large print runs were produced lithographically and small editions by an enlarger in photo labs. It was a very different market then. In the new print-on-demand world, and many thousands of artists selling their prints, the sales numbers will be primarily determined by a sound marketing approach, the image impact and by the printing/paper/canvass quality. Not by numbers on the back. And it's really hard to predict which pieces will sell and which not.
In my experience, I never got the impression that many buyers care or notice the numbers on the print. Usually, it's more about the ego of the budding photographer and misguided marketing strategy.
Just keep it simple for yourself and prospective customers, and keep your options open.
-
Alain Briot's article is stimulating, and his point about the relationship between limited editions and developing printing technology is well taken. I have a slightly different view of the usefulness of limited editions (as distinct from merely numbered ones). Opting for a limited print run is not so much an attempt on the part of the artist to give the print spurious value but rather a strategy to guarantee a reasonable minimum sales price. In my limited experience, galleries and their clients like to know that copies of their photos are not being cranked out on demand indefinitely. They require at least a modicum of exclusivity and it's that that they're partly paying for.
-
Alain's mention that the drivers of the limited edition phenomena are not necessarily the photographers themselves is very true in my experience. Gallery owners and shows have been the driver for my getting into numbered editions, albeit with very little enthusiasm. I got the "we only will handle limited edition prints" rap from several places I wanted to get my work into. The gallery owners' logic was, their wall space is limited and costly, and they want each square inch to produce the maximum return. Limited edition prints give them a justification for a big markup over non-limited or numbered editions. More than one referred to non-limited prints as "posters". Still, that's better for photographers than those gallery owners who, upon doing the return on square inches math decide to only carry paintings and non-photographic prints, which support a much higher price.
Admittedly, all this is moot if you're A Name in photography. I'm not. There are some places that my decision to do editions of 25 - trying to be realistic about how many of a print I might ever sell - still didn't meet the acceptance standard. Many galleries in NY want editions of 6 or 10, no more. (Those also tend to be "wet photographic process only" places, besides.) I feel like editions of 25 are realistic for my work - I sold out several images back when I was devoting a lot of time to cultivating the gallery relationships, which kind of reinforced that for me. Did that make me feel those were my best images? Nope. But it did make me feel like I had to lock down my process for printing images - no improvements as I learn new skills or get better printers allowed, because that would, to me, make the notion of an edition a complete fiction. (Everybody draws their own lines in the sand - you may not agree with me on that.)
Having numbered editions impacted pricing of my non-numbered edition work, however. I tried for a bit to "have it both ways" and sell numbered but non-limited prints in places where I could. I got pretty direct feedback from a number of buyers who'd seen my work in more than one location that my non-limited edition work was not as good as the limited... funny since I've sold more than 25 of a lot more prints than I sold out of in the limited editions. It raised an unpleasant issue of inconsistency in pricing, though, and I'm a seller - I have to entice and please buyers.
My day job got heavy for awhile and I'd cut back on cultivating galleries, and have been out of the market altogether for awhile. I'm about to get back focused on printing and selling again, and Alain's writings have given me food for thought. I've read other similar analyses, some recent (including one on Black Star's blog) another published as an essay a few years ago. I'm not sure where I'm going to end up.
-
The idea that I would only print, say, 25 of one of my best pictures, and then never print another copy of it, seems completely ridiculous to me. How would I guarantee this? Destroy the negative? Delete all copies of the RAW and TIFF files (from every backup medium as well as my PC hard drive)? The whole point of photography, as opposed to painting, is that it is reproducible in quantity, just like any other sort of print making. And the whole point of being a photographer is that we grow and change, and come back to work which we may have made many years before with a new vision.
John
-
I think I read somewhere that Jeff Wall makes only one or two copies of each major print.
The whole question of limited editions or non-limited editions is a little silly for persons who are essentially unknown in the art world. The widest possible dissemination would make more sense at the beginning, and my sense of the art world is that dissemination won't be very wide anyway. Then, after one becomes somewhat known -- probably through books, rather than through galleries -- it might be more useful to start limiting the editions, to maximize return. (Even photographers like to be well paid, if that's an option.)
If I were going to try to become a known photographer, I'd forget the whole idea of trying to sell enough prints to support myself. I know enough photographers, who are really good, to know that this just doesn't work very well. Rather, I'd work very hard at a day job, while putting together the best possible portfolio on a coherent subject. I would then make a book out of it, paying for the book myself. I would then advertise the book on small (cheap) photo forums aimed at art photographers, selling at cost, and I'd also send (for free) copies to targeted museums and critics, hoping to get notices. If the photos are good enough, this could work for you.
The question then becomes, where do I get the money/time to do all of this? The answer is, work harder. Take another job. One key personal aspect of successful art photographers is that for some period of time, early in their careers, and often late in their careers, they don't have a life. People who insist on having a life are probably not going to be particularly successful in these kinds of endeavors.
JC
-
I think those question are not relevant before one reach a certain recognition.
In painting, the norm is that on a serie there is an exclusivity from the gallerie (if serious). But in practise the painters are also selling at home in a discret manner.
It's true that any plastic intervention on a photograph makes it immediatly a unique peice. Alain point it right. I did that in fine arts, I was using resine on huge photo prints and colored with pigments. You could not reproduce that twice. The photographs where suddenly doubled, tripled, the price on the market just because of that. (on that times, photography was very little considered yet, they almost fire me in fine arts because I was too much photographic orientated; a peice from a world wide master was affordable, unthinkable for a painting from a such a master, now it's finally accepted as a major art in the vendors sphere)
The format, size matters a lot too.
Then, think that what has a lot of value, probably more than the numbers, is the process. More the process uses complicated tech, heavy structures or whatever that can not be acheived by snappers, it will have a strong value on the marketplace.
-
A great example of clever marketing is Peter Lik.
Would you pay a million for this image?
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/01/13/australian-landscape-photographer-peter-lik-sells-photo-for-1-million/
-
Great article, Alain. The same issue crops up of course with 'limited edition' art prints. While one may have originated from a single film or digital image and the other from a painting, the idea is that the lithograph, giclee, etc. can be 'mass produced' and the artist (for whatever reason) choose not to do so. Never really thought of it as a 'marketing ploy' but it is. Having said that, I still remember, back a few years ago, seeing a 'limited edition' print from a famous artist with an edition of 26,000. What's limited about that?
Mike.
-
Marketing plays a much more important role in an artist's career than many would like to believe, at least since after WW2. I don't know of a successful artist past that time who became successful and wasn't a master marketer. As you go up the list of successful artists, you find that a higher and higher level of marketing skills accompanies their success.
That being said one doesn't have to number to be successful. It's just one choice amongst many, and definitely not the most important one.
-
I understand that "one of America's best selling fine art landscape photographers" is a comment from Michael, not from Alain, but I would be interested to know what criteria were used to justify it (and therefore lend credibility to Alain's opinion about numbering). Because when I look at the photographers in the same nature/scenic space whom I think are the most demonstrably successful at selling prints, such Peter Lik (of course), Tom Mangelsen, Ken Duncan, Rodney Lough, they *all* limit their editions.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why one should extend one's arms out, with the palms facing each other. I'd hoped for a dénouement but it failed to arrive.
Aaah... I shall never understand marketing.
Rob C
-
Marketing plays a much more important role in an artist's career than many would like to believe, at least since after WW2. I don't know of a successful artist past that time who became successful and wasn't a master marketer. As you go up the list of successful artists, you find that a higher and higher level of marketing skills accompanies their success.
That being said one doesn't have to number to be successful. It's just one choice amongst many, and definitely not the most important one.
Alain, the question I think isn't whether numbering is or is not "the most important" factor in successful marketing. I prefer to look at this challenge as being a combination of necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, first you need a product that people are willing to buy. Then a whole bunch of other stuff comes in to complete the "marketing package". Seen from the mind of a professional economist who also happens to be a photographer, a collector of fine books, etc., I look upon this issue with all the professional deformities of my background - why I put it on the table here.
Looking at what drives economic behaviour, including consumption of almost anything, it boils down to base human instincts, and that is what marketing leverages. Limiting editions creates scarcity - that's the purpose, because scarcity is a condition which ignites two base human instincts: (i) on the buyer side, people like to own things that are somehow unique and very few other people have (yes, completely irrational, but whoever said humans are completely rational), and (ii) on the seller side, having invested the time and money to create a marketable product, sellers want high and rapid payback; remember, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and a dollar five years from now. They generate this rush to spend by inciting fear of unavailability and competition for acquisition amongst potential purchasers. That's also why the galleries like this; indeed insist upon it, because they know how important it is to cater to these base human instincts for turning a dollar and staying in business.
In these conditions, limited editions will remain part of the marketing scene for good reasons. Nor am I convinced that it's a potential hinderence to the photographer going forward. I think in a high percentage of cases, photographers and their public keep moving forward - new editions, new series, change of tastes and artistic interests - not too often one would miss a lot not being able to resell the same image reworked ten years from now, unless for special reasons of historical or archival interest. I think this is especially the case these days, when digital reproduction technology has pretty much matured, and quality improvement will be very slow and incremental, rather than path-breaking to any obvious extent.
-
Hi Mark,
I agree with what you say. I also think you'll enjoy reading my upcoming book on marketing :). By the way we just finished the layout and we are completing the final editing.
Regarding numbering, like in many aspects of life, doing what the majority does rarely brings success. Look at home mortgages. I never had a mortgage (but own several houses outright) and was told I was 'anti-American' because I refuse to get in debt to buy things (I pay cash, I'd rather get the interest than pay it). Now that the bottom fell out people tell me I was smart to do so ... There's many ways of being successful.
The same applies to numbering vs not numbering. There's an audience who wants numbered prints and are willing to pay higher prices for it. And there's an audience who considers numbering a scheme and are willing to pay higher prices for non-numbered fine art prints. If you do a survey of fine art photographers, dead and alive, you'll find out that there are some who fall into both categories. You'll also find out that at the very top of the scale, not just of income but of collectability, reputation, credibility and overall artistic value, are photographers who do not, or did not, number.
-
Alain, yes I think all that is factually correct. I'm only explaining why I think numbering, or some such "scheme" as you aptly put it, to induce scarcity, is here to stay. And coming from an obviously successful practitioner of effective marketing, I have no doubt your forthcoming book will be of great interest. :-)
Mortgages of course is a whole other talk-show. As an example of what can be better or worse at different times, it's an interesting proposition. The propensity to incur personal debt on this continent is quite striking compared to most parts of the world. Here again, base instincts at work: eat your cake and have it. What could be better? But life is so full of "what ifs", isn't it. Suppose you had borrowed some of the capital for your houses at an interest rate well below what you could have earned investing the freed-up cash in higher-earning enterprises? Arguably, you would have emerged even better off, regardless of the systemic defects which underlay this crisis! Then again, you could have lost all the money you invested and still been in debt. Consequences are a function of risks and probabilities. I too come from the school of "the less debt the better", so who am I to talk. Cheers, Mark
-
Hi Mark,
Yes, there's different ways any financial decision can go, and certainly, like you, I am quite conservative when it comes to debt. However, another factor is that I am in a profession ('artist' for lack of a better word) in which income fluctuates greatly. And in this type of situation, getting in debt can spell very serious financial trouble. So one of the decisions I made very early on was to structure my financial life so as to minimize my financial exposure. Of course I could not predict the recession but regardless it is the approach I recommend to artists when it come to financial planning.
-
You'll also find out that at the very top of the scale, not just of income but of collectability, reputation, credibility and overall artistic value, are photographers who do not, or did not, number.
While the statement is correct (technically it just takes two photographers for it to be true) it misses the fact that the vast majority of work currently found in high-end galleries is in limited editions. Don't just take my word for it. Look at http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/ who doesn't hide anything about the monetary aspects (prices, edition numbers, etc...). Their surveys are limited to NYC, but does anyone doubt that's NYC is the center of the photography world at the top ?
-
Hi Mark,
Yes, there's different ways any financial decision can go, and certainly, like you, I am quite conservative when it comes to debt. However, another factor is that I am in a profession ('artist' for lack of a better word) in which income fluctuates greatly. And in this type of situation, getting in debt can spell very serious financial trouble. So one of the decisions I made very early on was to structure my financial life so as to minimize my financial exposure. Of course I could not predict the recession but regardless it is the approach I recommend to artists when it come to financial planning.
Very sensible.
-
I see three main factors in the decision for limiting editions: marketing, logistical, and financial. The fact that one can produce practically unlimited number of identical prints with today's technology is irrelevant: limiting editions is an accepted practice, and even desired or required in some circles as pointed out in the article.
Because when I look at the photographers in the same nature/scenic space whom I think are the most demonstrably successful at selling prints, such Peter Lik (of course), Tom Mangelsen, Ken Duncan, Rodney Lough, they *all* limit their editions.
Although it's hard to say which photographers truly are financially successful since anyone can make a very professional-looking website for a modest investment, majority of the ones that are most well-known outside of photographer-circles do indeed limit and number their editions.
Since Alain claims that it is mostly a marketing decision - and I agree - it would follow that limiting editions is a prudent marketing decision given the evidence. I'm sure it's not the most important one, but there seems to be strong correlation with limiting editions and superstar success.
Logistically John Camp's view makes most sense: sell all you can when you have fewer customers, and limit editions when you would need to hire (too many) assistants to serve the needs of a growing clientele and/or would need to cheapen quality.
I wouldn't know how well printing volume scales, but my understanding from reading several of Alain's articles and elsewhere it's clear that keeping top notch quality in printing, matting, packing and mailing can become a full-time job very quickly. In these cases artificially limiting editions makes perfect sense from the logistical point-of-view alone. Tiered pricing as proposed by Alain could also be a solution.
Financially limiting editions is for those who have a small market segment or niche. If you have only a limited number of buyers, you have to make your margins from fewer units. Artificial scarcity allows one to ask for higher prices. I'm sure that fine art buying customers are relatively affluent, so they can also afford to pay higher prices - so asking for "too little" money from them would leave money on the table. And limited editions themselves as a marketing tool can attract such a crowd.
For those who sell whatever is in vogue and a much larger and/or unsophisticated market (saccharine HDR, kittens in ballerina dresses and pugs playing cards, etc.), the decision to limit or not limit editions is probably more about marketing and logistical points discussed above.
Finally, limiting editions doesn't make sense for the star(t/v)ing artist. For the vast majority of artists obscurity is the greatest threat, especially in these days of commodized photography and low barriers to entry to even high-quality output. Of course, and as Alain argued, one can create limited editions so large that they will never be met.
-
...saccharine HDR...
Love it! The term, that is.
-
Although it's hard to say which photographers truly are financially successful since anyone can make a very professional-looking website for a modest investment,
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...
-
"
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P
Agreed, though.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 $$
:P
-
Most everything in the photography business, esp. dealing with an artist is based on trust. In general, if you buy from an artist, you tend to respect him as a person. By the way, trust goes both ways: when a photographer sells a print, he trusts the seller not to use it to make un-authorized reproductions. Similarly, when he licenses an image, he trusts the licensee not to exceed the agreed usage limits, as there is no practical way to check (although see http://bit.ly/dUGPvZ).
-
Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$
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.
-
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 $$
:P
Now we're talking....!
-
Quote from: Christoph C. Feldhaim on Today at 03:50:18 AM
Make one 4x5" or 8x10" negative, one print, scratch the negative and and glue it on to the backside of the print.
Charge 100.000 $$
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
This has been done for years in the art print market. There'll be 100 copies or whatever that are printed on very fine paper, hand signed and numbered, with authentication certificates and certifications that the plates or stones were destroyed. However, then there can be thousands of posters sold. The artists I know who follow this model say that the signing and certification (or lack thereof), process of printing, and quality of the paper used make the distinction clear.
That said, what you can do without some consequences is very much linked to your fame (or perhaps notoriety with all the connotations).
There was a huge scandal years ago when it was discovered that Dali was pushing the boundaries on this - he'd signed a huge amount of blank paper for pay, so that signed prints could continue to be sold well after he was gone. There's now a cottage industry in distinguishing between properly pulled and signed Dali prints and improper ones. They're equally surreal on your wall, but unequal in value in the eyes of the market.
-
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 the prints are otherwise the same aside from the lack of numbering, I think that would be wrong. After all the whole point of limited editions is scarcity. If a bunch of identical but un-numbered prints became available on the market, do you really think the limited edition prints would hold their value just because they're numbered? I don't.
Now if the prints are otherwise different: different size, different output type (lightjet versus cotton rag inkjet, etc), then you would probably be OK. After all lots of photographers who offer limited editions do so in different sizes (which I think is a bit of a cheat, but it's fairly common).
-
"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"
Let's say it is a limited edition and it is sold out, a corporate client could get my own copy of the limited edition for decorative purposes. Which would be part of the Limited Edition, but not sold.
-
When photographs are not hung on your wall but instead projected or displayed, what happens to numbering?
Or is numbering simply incompatible with selling an electronic copy of your work?
In which case, is numbering destined to become irrelevant to photography - or at least confined to a smaller and smaller portion of the market?
-
The problem with numbering electronic copies of photographs is there's no way to guarantee that no extra copies will be made. Certainly, the photographer can use the same approach as with prints such as certificate of authenticity, even placing a number on the image shown on the screen (which would mean adding this number to each image individually and burning each cd/dvd or writing the file to any other media individually) and so on. However, because the same file can be easily edited and copied, the proliferation of duplicates is impossible to control. Technology may change this later on, making delivery of limited electronic copies controllable, but right now this is a real challenge.
-
What if you don't buy the picture but rather the right to display it?
What if the display in your lounge room connects to some gallery webserver and presents that webserver with a certificate that you bought as being representative of that display's right to retrieve and display it?
What if we assume that the security of the model has integrity with respect to enforcing how many times and for how long it can be displayed is good enough to deliver that?
In terms of software, the above can be done - including getting the final solution into a small box.
What software can't do and what I believe hardware cannot currently do is provide something affordable that goes up on the wall and displays an 80MP picture with 80,000,000 pixels (and not 2k or 4k resolution) and 16 bits of colour depth per R/G/B channel.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go off and write this up in more detail for a patent...
-
What if you don't buy the picture but rather the right to display it?
What if the display in your lounge room connects to some gallery webserver and presents that webserver with a certificate that you bought as being representative of that display's right to retrieve and display it?
That's more or less what GalleryPlayer was: Start-up delivers fine art to flat-panel and plasma TV screens (http://www.seattlepi.com/business/142166_rgb01.html)
But AFAIK they eventually went out of business.
(P.S. — I can't help but note the irony in photographers complaining about copy protection on software but wanting copy protection on photographs....)
-
IMHO, the technology to display a picture in a manner that approaches the resolution and size required by fine art does not yet exist.
Let me explain why...
If you look at Wikipedia's List of displays by pixel density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density) then you can see that we're starting to approach the point where really small displays (iPhone 4) are at 300PPI (does 1PPI = 1DPI?)
Once you've got a 80MP screen at 300DPI, then you've got to display the image.
If you consult Wikipedia's HDMI Version Table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison), it's rather obvious that even HDMI is a long way away, as HDMI 1.4 can only drive 1080p at 16bit colour depth. 80MP would require 40 times that.
So not only do we need displays that currently do not exist, but also a mechanism to display the picture that does not yet exist.
... so if you were to attempt to do the "electronic fine art" today, you're either stuck with really small pictures or really bad detail. On top of that, you've got to attract quality artists to make their work only available via that mechanism (this is an instance of "The Numbering Affair") too in order to give it some kind of extra value above just displaying someone's flickr feed. Until the display problem is solved, I can't see the artist problem being solved.
There's something else that I forgot: upon reading the story about the attempt at delivering this back in 2003, the impression that I got was that the company did not understand enough about art purchasing. For example, when you buy and place a piece of art, it is to fit a particular place in the environment in which it is on display so you do not want that changing every 5 minutes, hours or days (or perhaps even months!) Whether it is at home or the office or a gallery makes no difference.
-
IMHO, the technology to display a picture in a manner that approaches the resolution and size required by fine art does not yet exist.
Let me explain why...
If you look at Wikipedia's List of displays by pixel density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density) then you can see that we're starting to approach the point where really small displays (iPhone 4) are at 300PPI (does 1PPI = 1DPI?)
Once you've got a 80MP screen at 300DPI, then you've got to display the image.
If you consult Wikipedia's HDMI Version Table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison), it's rather obvious that even HDMI is a long way away, as HDMI 1.4 can only drive 1080p at 16bit colour depth. 80MP would require 40 times that.
So not only do we need displays that currently do not exist, but also a mechanism to display the picture that does not yet exist.
... so if you were to attempt to do the "electronic fine art" today, you're either stuck with really small pictures or really bad detail. On top of that, you've got to attract quality artists to make their work only available via that mechanism too in order to give it some kind of extra value above just displaying someone's flickr feed. Until the display problem is solved, I can't see the artist problem being solved.
Bandwidth is not an issue: it would be no problem displaying a static picture on a screen delivered through HDMI (or wifi or bluetooth). Moving an 80MP panorama to the display would take quite a while over bt, but you have to only do it once (assuming the display has enough memory).
I doubt the future of fine art digitally displayed prints is in power-hungry LCD/LED tech. My bet is on colored flexible e-paper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8y-_vaf6iY) sold in sheets, up to wallpaper size and beyond. The tech is in its infancy, but we'll have affordable, reflective 300dpi color e-paper sooner or later. And later it will surpass paper prints in image quality by all quantifiable measurements. It will be the analog vs digital photography discussion all over again :)
There was a thread about this a while back.
-
Bandwidth is not an issue: it would be no problem displaying a static picture on a screen delivered through HDMI (or wifi or bluetooth). Moving an 80MP panorama to the display would take quite a while over bt, but you have to only do it once (assuming the display has enough memory).
I doubt the future of fine art digitally displayed prints is in power-hungry LCD/LED tech. My bet is on colored flexible e-paper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8y-_vaf6iY) sold in sheets, up to wallpaper size and beyond. The tech is in its infancy, but we'll have affordable, reflective 300dpi color e-paper sooner or later. And later it will surpass paper prints in image quality by all quantifiable measurements. It will be the analog vs digital photography discussion all over again :)
Yup, I've no doubt that what you describe is right but it's not there yet.
Oh, and btw, I'd contend that a printed picture on a modern printer is a digital output, not analogue, as the decisions that the printer makes are all based on 1's and 0's from the computer :)
-
The discussion continues...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/limited-editions.html
Note the featured comment too.
Respected voices...