Limited Edition

[jimf]

What is the range that photographers are using when they refer to "Limited Edition"? Just looking for ballpark guidance here.

Pretend that you do an initial batch of prints, say 30 prints, that go to galleries and/or other storefronts/outlets. Maybe you've have already sold 5, ie, you have 30 out on display and you have sold 5. 
Now, you get an order from the internet or another location, I assume you would number the next print 36, even though many of the previous prints haven't been sold?
Are limited editions by size or by photo?

Is there an article of do's and don'ts for limited edition printing that anyone would like to recommend?

[Christopher]

I have a few approaches, one is pretty special and only for a very small selection of images.

10 prints
Size option is: Full or half (For example 40x60 and 20x30)
price is the same. Full and half
only framed

A different approach is

50 prints
many different size options (10wide, 14 wide, 20 wirde, 30 wide, 40 wide)
Price is the same
framed and unframed, price goes up after the first 25 are sold and again when there are only 10 left.


There are many more options and I think it depends a lot on how much you want/can charge and how many prints you want to sell.

[martinreed22]

Fair question. I would hope for transparency. As a customer, I would like to know before purchase how many prints you mean by Limited Edition. I would then not expect more prints than that to reach the market. Ever.

cheers, martin

[neile]

I personally much prefer how Brooks Jensen does this. Go to http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm and scroll down to About Editions and Numbering.

Neil

[RFPhotography]

http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts88-Numbering%20prints.html

http://guytal.com/wordpress/2010/10/non-traditional-answers-part-ii-pricing-and-editioning/

http://rf-photography.ca/2009/06/to-edition-or-not-to-edition/

[langier]

There's always the Bev Doolittle approach of a "limited" edition of 25,000 to 50,000;-)

[jimf]

Wow, thanks for the suggestions and linked articles.  Reading through some of the linked articles reinforces my original gut impulse which was, don't worry about the limited editions.  Print and mat on archival paper  and present the images as art, not numbered prints.  Hope people will buy them because the image moves them give them top quality in materials.

I'm just getting going with my ip8300 and my first set of 6-12 images.  While this subject isn't on the top of my list to figure out today, it something that I've thought about from time to time during the last few weeks.
I'll keep reading, but I'm liking the idea of not limiting my prints.  Maybe keep track of versions and prints of each one, but that may be it.

Thanks again and I look forward to reading others idea, especially as "to edition or not".

[JeffKohn]

I think if you're selling in upper-tier galleries that cater to serious collectors, small limited editions seem to be the way to go. Small being somewhere in the neighborhood 5-20 prints, and not 'cheating' by offering a different editions of the same image in slightly different sizes or presentations. High-end collectors look to limited editions because in theory the scarcity of the prints should increase their value over time. So anything you do to increase the number of prints you can sell just defeats that purpose. If you're going to do limited editions, do it right and don't be disingenuous about what you're actually offering.

But again, I think this approach only makes sense at the higher end of the market. If you have the name recognition among collectors and can get 5-figure sale prices for your prints, that's great. For most of us, that's just not realistic; and I don't think limiting editions does the photographer any good if your prints are priced at several hundred dollars. It's not going to substantially raise the market value of your prints, but it does mean missing out on potential income if a popular image manages to sell out.

Limiting to 1000, 500,  or even 100 prints strikes me as more than a little silly, unless you're famous and have your own chain of galleries (eg Mangelsen, Lik, etc). Not only are the chances of a relatively unknown photographer selling out such a large edition unlikely, but such  large editions just aren't going to appeal to collectors who are buying with appreciation in mind.

For me personally, I know I'm not going to get into high-end galleries, and accept that serious collectors buying art as investment are not going to be interested in my work. That's fine by me, I'm more than happy selling prints to regular folks who just like the image and think it would look nice hanging on the wall in their home. So my prices reflect the market I expect to sell to. I do sign & number the prints, and include a certificate of authenticity, because I think that helps set them apart from a mass-produced poster or Costo mini-lab print. But I just don't see how limited editions would do me any good, nor does it matter to the market I'm selling to.

[feppe]

Scarcity (limited supply) generally improves value, and truly limited editions have artificially low supply, so one can ask for higher prices as long as there's demand for it. The potential revenue and profit is also limited.

On the other hand, selling open ended editions at lower prices will likely command lower prices and margins, but there's practically no limit to how many one can sell.

From the business perspective limited editions can be used to increase prices (margins) when the level of demand is limited and known.

[Ronny Nilsen]

I have the same view on this as Brooks Jensen and Alain Brio. I have documentet my view on the matter her:
About Print Editions.

Ronny

[JeffKohn]

Another reason I don't think limited editions are worthwhile in the lower- to mid-priced market is that the term has become watered down to the point of being meaningless. When everything from music CD's to video games to dish soap (?!) is marketed as 'limited edition', I think most consumers see the term as being little more than a transparent marketing gimmick.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Another reason I don't think limited editions are worthwhile in the lower- to mid-priced market is that the term has become watered down to the point of being meaningless. When everything from music CD's to video games to dish soap (?!) is marketed as 'limited edition', I think most consumers see the term as being little more than a transparent marketing gimmick.

This gives me an idea. I usually don't give my photos titles, so in a show they are often labeled "Untitled." So, in the spirit of modern marketing, I was thinking maybe of calling one of my photos "Limited Edition." Then, if i sell a big bunch of them and get tired of that photo, I can switch the name to a different photo and start over! 

Eric

[Ronny Nilsen]

Another reason I don't think limited editions are worthwhile in the lower- to mid-priced market is that the term has become watered down to the point of being meaningless. When everything from music CD's to video games to dish soap (?!) is marketed as 'limited edition', I think most consumers see the term as being little more than a transparent marketing gimmick.

I even have limited edition diapers for my daughter. 

One should realize that for photographs, limited edition is only a marketing scheme. Nothing wrong with that, or trying to make as much as possible of an image, but it is only marketing. Has nothing to do with art or the quality of the photograph sold.

Ronny

[Alan Goldhammer]

I don't think Ansel Adams ever did limited editions of his prints in the true sense of the word.  I know that there is a group of the Yosemite images that are still being printed and sold (albeit without his signature and at a very good price; we have the Merced River Cliffs Autumn print hanging in our dining room).  I think all the negatives are in storage at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona. I don't know if prints can be made from them.  As others have stated, this is largely a marketing scheme and I'm sure that anyone who is doing this as a vocation (as opposed to an avocation) wants as many sales as possible.

Alan

[Ernst Dinkla]

There is a kind of reward for everyone in the system Christopher Burkett uses, no print limitation but increasing prices with every new run. He is not the only one who does that as I understand it.

The early buyer pays the lower price and could be rewarded with a price increase in time but at least he can buy a print he likes for a decent price and it doesn't have to be a plan for speculation. The artist gets a correct price for what the image does in the market, even later on. Whether that is an objective system of valuation is another question but the artist keeps control on the price, not the collector, the auction house or the art critic. Or a collaboration of the last three. Of course the artist can join a scheme like that but it will not wipe out the early buyer's reward. The system could give a wider spread to a good image than possible with limited editions and take out some absurdities in the art market. To me it looks like a good policy for young artists. Create more images to increase your chances, make the rules clear to the buyers on what the price increases are and stick to the rules. I think it doesn't exclude the freedom to develop the image more in time like Brooks Jensen rightfully advocates.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[RFPhotography]

Alain Briot advocates something similar.  Not on a specific print basis but on a general basis.  He recommends increasing pricing once or twice a year by a given percentage.  This price increase is supposed to reflect the photographer's growing reputation and skill level over time.  If a photographer had a particularly hot image then pricing for that image could probably be adjusted separately if desired.