The truth about limited editions

Slight correction to the URL: http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm

When you were first talking about limitied editions I was thinking about limited edition cameras and such instead of prints...espicalily with the part about greed...ANYHOW. I don't really have much to say about this topic but this paragraph from the article does resonate with me:

"There is only one reason to limit the number of photographs
made from a negative and this is becausewe all know that
artwork and photography are subject to the laws of economics,
the most important of which is supply and demand.
An edition is limited so as to limit the supply
and push the price higher. There is no other reason to do it."

"Greed" - sounds pretty preachy to me.

Maybe the starving artists are hungry; and need actual food; bought with this "greed"; ie actual cash.

I like his idea about just numbering the print, without limiting the edition, that makes good sense to me.

From my darkroom and printshop experience I'd call a honest and natural limitation good. This would mean "1/67 '04" which would say I got 67 pleasant prints out of the box of paper of a discontinued brand, which I happened to have at home, until my developer was empty or whatever and I don't know if I ever like to print this negative again and I certainly wouldn't like to chain myself to the look I got out this year. Agreeing with others: artificial limitations are bullshit. But damn, if you are an artist, behave as one and especially do what YOU like, but only IF you likle. If the audience wants your picture ask your manager to hire some labrat; surely your own work should be more valuable and rare. I'm fed up with limited editions of whatever offered as a extra rip off anywhere. But I see no faulty behavior in just documenting somebodys work.

because there is no degradation of the print with successive printings, unlike with etchings etc, doesn't it seem like an affectation?

Limiting an edition of prints is a device used by some artists or galleries to raise the price of their product. If collectors see that say a Michael Kenna edition is near selling out, they will pay a higher price for the print. The gallery and artist know that as an edition sells out the price on the secondary market (the already collected prints) is going to rise anyhow. Once Michael or any artist finishes producing that print, the price will raise anyway. Some artists continue to produce prints of an image no matter how many they have made and some stop making prints of images they made but no longer are interested in making further prints. Some cal it creative marketing and others understand that certain artists want to produce new work and leave the old behind them. Limiting obviously works for some artists. I would love to get certain images for my collection but the prices are so high or the image on the open market so rare, I can forget it. Try to find an Ansel Adams, "Trailer Park Children." Ain't nowhere, no how. After lkooking for years, there are none around. Lots of Ruth Bernhard images around right now. You'ld better hurry though. I hope she lives to be 110 but when she does leave us, you can forget being able to buy any of her more collected images.

I think this guy makes a pretty impressive argument. The "limited Edition" concept came across my mind when I first hit the gallery circuit a few months ago. I didnt have enough information to go either way. I was just grateful that anyone would want to hang my prints in their home. I have yet to number any of the prints i've sold.

Anyone concerned about limiting their photographic editions has probably not really considered the the real reasons behind their motivations.

Why do you assume that they're self-deluded rather than savvy about marketing? If I can make $300 per print rather than $30 per print, I'll take the five seconds to draw a few little numbers on the back of the print or on the mat. If you think that makes me greedy, then give yourself a great big pat on the back for having such altruistic standards (regarding what other people should be doing)--doesn't bother me a bit. I don't really feel a moral obligation to provide an unlimited supply of what is quite obviously a luxury item.

the word greed sounds somewhat out of place in the artist community where making a sale is an event in itself.

Again: I'm against limits. - But it would cause me a headache if somebody would call me: "I saw your picture called "blabla" at somwhere big $$ for a copy..." and in the end would complain: No, at least 75% discount; I'm missing the purple cast... Who am I to reproduce last decades mistakes until the end of my life? That's why I'd number every printing session.

If I'm going to plunk down some serious dough for an Original Ansel Adams, I would like to know that he print is limited and my investment will be protected. If I don't care to pony up the the money for the limited edition picture, I'll get a cheaper unlimited copy. As all art has in intrinsic value attached, I don't see why this is an unsound business practice. I like to save the word "greed" for nice companies in the insurance business.

I just came back today from looking at Bresson print..It was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes Ten Kilo dollares Americanos..but in the title it also admitted it was a "recent print"

was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes

It's all about making a living. You command the highest price you can get for your labours. It's a commercial world, that's what it's all about.

Ask the poverty stricken.

I once read a story about a Cuban gentleman who was very good at rolling hand made cigars. Some very kind folk helped him out of a aeroplane without a parachute. His product became very exclusive, and the kind folks made lots of money.

Unfortunately, i cannot verify the authenticity of the story. And on health reasons would not like to.

This post starts off with a strong pejorative; damning art's connection to commerce. Matt makes it sound as if there is an evil cabal at work. Art and money have always been connected. What's the problem?

Now galleries, both photography and "fine art" employ an interesting way to sell "editions". As prints are purchased, leaving fewer remaining images, the prices rise. So, print #25-of-25 costs more than #1-of-25; even though it's the same picture.

There has always been a premium on 'rarity'. Even if it's manufactured. Within mechanical limitations, Grant Wood or Picasso, could have made endless prints from their stones and screens, but they didn't. Again, so what? Most artists hope to make money from their endevors.

If someone has a salable image and wants to make endless prints, that's OK. But if someone wants to limit the availablity of their work, why is that greed?

Agree with Jake. Some screen printers destroy the screens after a limited run and move on to the next thing. Art for arts sake. Not many photographers chop up the negs or blow away the files tho;-)

Hmmm, altought some of the logic also applies to the opposite. How about Rubens and his "art factory" that churned out copies of his work by apprentices, or Dali, in the end just putting out crap and making a living with it? In one case (Rubens)it certainly was the artist's own greed, but also his excellent business sense. In the other case (Dali)it appeared to be manipulation of a sickly elderly person.

"why is that greed?"

Or as 10cc memorably put it: 'Art for arts sake, Money for God's sake!'

:-)))

Why is wanting to make the best living from your photography greedy? I don't see the sense in letting the laws of supply and demand give you a meagre income.

Most photographers who think they are going to increase their print sale income by limiting editions are probably deluding themselves. Unless you are a famous and collectable photographer, buyers are likely paying for the decorative, not the collectable value of the print. Except for these famous, collectable phtographers, the "supply/demand" ratio is probably determined by the supply and demand of photography of a given type, rather than of a particular image. And, if you do produce the rare image that is sufficiently good and unique to sell more than a reasonable edition limit, you've lost those additional sales by limiting the number you can sell.

This is an interesting discussion, and article by Brooks Jensen, one that many photographers, including myself, have agonized over. Having gone through the whole gallery and editioning process some might find my thoughts on the topic of interest.

When I started selling my prints through galleries there was a lot of advice offered by the gallery directors to change from my philosophy of numbered, but unlimited editions, to a limited edition. To be honest I had no idea of how many saleable images I would be able to produce so I was hesitant to possibly limit, or even end, my income. This is not an issue based on greed but on simple economics and survival, no income, no photography.

As I have gotten more confident that I will be producing images for quite a while to come, I became less fearful of limiting my edition size. Ultimately I settled on an edition size of 100 which is composed of sub editions consisting of 3 sizes. This is still considered a huge edition and as my body of work grows I am considering making the edition smaller still. Editions are made shorter all the time, usually because the artist dies or loses interest in producing the same image, and most collectors would prefer that an edition be shortened, of course this only after they have already made their purchase. An edition however can never be enlarged. Shortening the edition on my part is not for the purpose of jacking up the price of the editions, although they probably would increase in price, but because one can get tired of printing the same images over and over and having to maintain an ever increasing catalog and inventory of prints. I think that like many photographers my favorite work is usually my newest work and as the older pieces become established, due to higher visiblity over time, they can overshadow and supress the newer work.

Another problem with having an unlimited edition, or even a large edition, is that there are many highly respected galleries that will not want to carry your work if the edition is too large. This happened to me with a very highly regarded gallery in europe. They wanted me to drop my edition size from 100 to 30, they said that they would represent me with the smaller, and higher priced edition, but not with the larger edition which was priced appropriately for the edition size. I disagreed and we parted ways. Was it greed on their part or just smart marketing? Clearly to many in the general public a print selling for $5000 is perceived as better than a print selling for $1000, and 1 out of 30 has more value than 1 of a 100. Is this a fictional or perceived value, of course it is. However if a perceived value becomes the common belief, and people act on that belief, perception or not, it becomes reality. For the photographer, making the same total income from an image that you had to only produce 30 prints of versus 100 means that you now have gained the time to produce 70 other prints from other negatives. Ultimately a greater diversity of your work will be made available. Printing, spotting ,matting and mounting 70 prints is no small thing, and if you have 50 images in your catalog that's 3500 fewer finished pieces to produce. That time saved means a lot more time shooting.

As was mentioned my Brooks Jensen, if a photographer does not limit his edition he makes his work available to many who could not otherwise afford to purchase them. There is truth to that. However for the established artist there are other ways in which your work can be mass produced and sold far more affordably to the public. Many photographers, myself included, have their work available as posters. Personally even though I have made several images available to poster publishers, I am still uncertain if it ultimately is in my best interest to so. I have concerns about the perception among collectors that they can get an original for one price and a poster for far far less. I have further concerns about the confusion generated by poster galleries and fine art galleries both selling "prints". Then again there is a satisfaction that one gets from having others appreciate your work and ultimately living with it, be it a poster or silver print, that goes far beyong any kind of monetary compensation, so I guess that is the personal benefit that comes with the risks.

Ultimately it's a call that each photographer must make for his/her self, one dependant on their needs, time and philosophy.

Maybe Brooks Jensen should just make unlimited editions of free prints - then he won't have to waste so much energy on angst filled ponderings.

Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at.........

"Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at........."

Sure. That would be people like Ansel Adams, Brett Weston, Joel Witkin...yeah....I can see what you mean. None of them are/were really very successful.

I don't really understand the argument. Professional photographers need to get paid. One way to set prices is to limit the circulation of prints. People don't have to buy limited editions of prints. The fact that they do proves there is a market and buyers are satisfied by what they are offered. Is there a moral argument that people should give away their work for nothing?

"None of them are/were really very successful."

Weren't they? I thought they made a dollar or two. You must tell us why you think that.

What a new concept! Photographers should put their work out on the market to sell to as many people as will buy it at the best price they can get. Don't limit the supply. Encourage excess. That will be a fair and liveable arrangement for everyone. It will inspire the greatest creative work possible and everyone will be happy.

Oh, wait, it's already been done. It's called stock photography.

This article is full of factual errors but is correct about one thing, economics does have a lot to do with limited editions.

The operating expenses for a decently sized photo gallery in Chelsea, NYC, are about $30,000--$50,000 per month. This covers staff salaries, rent, public relations, insurance, shipping costs, framing, utilities, advertising and all the other related expenses required to keep such a business running. All this must be paid for by one thing-print sales. Since the gallery takes a 50% commission, the gallery must sell $60,000-$100,000 in photographs per month to break even.

Small editions and the corresponding prices are an economic necessity. This reality not only makes limited editions impossible to get rid of, it also sets a high hurdle for photographers entering the market. You must be able to generate that sort of potential income to merit a show. If you show and don't sell well, someone else is going to have to pay for it. A lot of very good work can't leap that hurdle and therefore isn't exhibited. That's life. It's all a matter of perspective.

"Small editions and the corresponding prices are an economic necessity. ... That's life. It's all a matter of perspective."

I'm surprised not to see any support for adopting the book edition system touted at the end of the article. The idea of doing a second or third edition based on demand makes perfect sense to me. And if a first edition sells out, a second printing of that edition within the exhibition cycle works for me as well. Collectors can have their hierarchy of value, and subsequent editions could be offered at a lower rate to the less-well-off.

As I'm just starting to produce prints of my work for sale, I have pondered the numbering/ edition question for a while now. So of course I appreciate the timing of this thread. Now I wonder what the law says about 'book editioning' art works (particularly in California.)

I just came back today from looking at Bresson print..It was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes Ten Kilo dollares Americanos..but in the title it also admitted it was a "recent print"... and who was making that money?... Henri? I think not.

If there is a way to ensure that artists make as much money as possible from their work while they're alive, I'm all for it. Health insurance? Extended Care? A place to live when you're ancient and unable to continue work? There's no retirement plan for artists unless they make one themselves, and if editioning provides one, I say go for it.

I'd like to add a stipulation to all my print sales that says I (or my heirs) get a percentage of any subsequent sales of my artwork. I don't get why people can resell artwork for many times more than they paid for it, and yet feel they don't owe some of that to the very person who created it... t

I'd like to add a stipulation to all my print sales that says I (or my heirs) get a percentage of any subsequent sales of my artwork. I don't get why people can resell artwork for many times more than they paid for it, and yet feel they don't owe some of that to the very person who created it...

FYI, California's civil code has such provisions, subject to certain conditions, that let's artists (or their heirs) participate in the escalating value of their work as it is resold. IIRC, it's 5%, of the resale price, and only applies to sales greater than $1000. Many people are unaware of this statute.

Disclaimer: This response is only addressing the issue of how to reap the greatest financial benefit of one's hard work. I realize there are other factors at work, as has been pointed out, such as when an artist simply wants to leave certain work behind and limiting editions enables he or she to adopt this type of work ethic.

This thread brings up an interesting concept, basic to economics: the concept of price elasticity. Price elasticity of a good is basically the concept that people's buying habits will change based on the price of a good: price it lower and people will buy more, price it higher and people will buy less, to a point. The degree to which the change in price affects people's buying habits is different depending on the good in question, and can be measured quantitatively as the price elasticity of demand. (Technically, it is the quantity demanded that changes, not the demand itself...).

What sorts of things make for more or less price elasticity? In other words, what sorts of goods are sensitive to changes in their price? Well, for one thing, goods that are perceived as commodities (i.e. mass produced, unspecialized products) are subject to higher price elasticity, whereas goods that are perceived as collectibles are subject to lower price elasticity. Example, if Peet's raises it?s price on Lattes, many people will likely start going to Starbuck's instead, because Starbuck's coffee is a good enough substitute for Peet's (not for me, personally, but I do have my limit, which helps make the point...). In contrast, you can apparently raise the price of an original Van Gogh to the stratosphere and still find a buyer. Coffee has a relatively higher price elasticity of demand, whereas fine art has a relatively lower price elasticity. Lowering the price of a good with high price elasticity of demand can increase your revenue (because people will buy more of that good), whereas lowering the price of a good with low price elasticity will lower your revenue. In fact, the effect of changes in price on revenue can help define the price elasticity of a good in question, and can help guide future pricing decisions.

All this is to say that can be (or at least I suppose it can be) difficult in the art world to judge when your work has passed from the arena of commodity (sorry to use such a crass word) to collectible, and when the pricing and production scheme should shift accordingly to realize the greatest revenue. Who can say? Perhaps the artist, perhaps the gallery owner, perhaps no one really knows without a team of (expensive) experts to advise them. And then, of course, some really well known photographers choose not to edition, and continue to produce and sign work, assured, by their fame, of a continued market (HCB did this, and I'm not necessarily passing judgment here...). The effect of their fame is that the market perceives every print made as a collectible, despite the unlimited nature of the production during the artist's life-time.

All this is by way of saying that it may not be an easy question to answer, artists are unfortunately to some degree at the mercy of their gallery representatives to judge the market (and hopefully they do so well so that they stay in business and continue to market your work effectively).

All of this may be tangential to the practice of art and photography, but I think it behooves us to try and understand the market forces that have us in their grasp! Thanks for reading such a long post...comments welcome!

if you have already established a reputation as a fine photographer, your work will be collectible and then it would make sense to go limited editions. but, starting out with limited editions simply limits the exposure of your work and you will not achieve the status that warrants putting out a limidted edition. i think you have to do really really good work, create an audience, and then limit your editions. sort of a catch 22.

I think it was just a marketing gimmick some dealer thought up a hundred or so years ago. As silver based photography disappears, so will limited editions....Jim

...people limit their work because they just don't want to make more than, say, 25 or 6 to 4 images of the same thing

off subject but "25 or 6 to 4" ... love it ;)

I think "mainly greed" is quite right. But we have some kind of greed.

For those who rely on photographs to make money,limiting their photographic editions may be a good way to make more money. There is nothing to reproach. But I think art is to bring joy to people,if it is really a excellent photo,why not sell it to more people in a lower price, Is it money making the same?

For those who purely love photograph and think it's wrong to do so,just take more excellent photos to prove them wrong.

I personally don't take photos for the intention of making money, the critical thing drives me to take photos is the desire to pursue beautiful things(like beautiful photos and the precise design of camera<I'm interested in all machines>) but if the photos can bring me some "side effect" such as money I would be more happy.

So just let them limit their edition and we do what we do

In my dream of dreams, the prints of my large scale abstract photography would be printed in editions of one. There was a moment and I made a photograph at that moment. It can only exist once, therefore only should be printed once (a personal philosophy). The limitation of printing not only creates demand for higher prices, but also has the potential of heightening the sense of uniqueness and of the "moment" within photography. Anybody who wants to understand this a bit better should familiarize themselves with Walter Benjamin: (link)

Alas, photography is an easily reproduceable medium and I have a family to help support and that means selling as much as I can - even after I am long dead- and that means editions, albeit small numbers (do you know what college is going to cost for your grandchildren?)

HP "Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at........."

Maybe you should name some names- I'd like to see what somebody, hypothetically, may consider rubbish.

Left out of the basic analysis is what has been called the "Gucci Effect." Many people will buy, say, a Bresson print for $10,000 simply because it costs that much and everyone (or at least people whose opinions are important to the new owner) will hopefully know they paid that much for it. Much of what passes for art and sells for enormously inflated sums is riding just that market. Of course, this effect is most prevalent in the markets for "one off" pieces like paintings or sculpture, as the buyer is reasonably sure there will be only one object so everyone (or at least everyone who is "in the know") will understand the owner spent an obscene amount for the object. The post about the "recent" print of a Bresson going for $10K was very interesting to me, because the ability to duplicate, to some extent, the appearance of a photograph ad infinitum with modern technology would seem to endanger the Gucci Effect in the photography markets.

John Douglas "the ability to duplicate, to some extent, the appearance of a photograph ad infinitum with modern technology would seem to endanger the Gucci Effect in the photography markets."

I've never seen a reproduction that looks as good as an original print- never.

Also- everybody should keep in mind that these prices are fairly just- these are truly talented photographers and their hard work, usually decades worth, deserves compensation. Anyone who thinks $10,000 for a Cartier-Bresson print is obscene, obviously doesn't realize that that amount of money is but a drop in the bucket for the collectors paying it- the appropriate people to buy these works- they usually house them correctly maintaining the integrity of the print and the work itself.