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.