Selling prints - Limited Editions or not etc?

[sar-photo]

I am having an exhibition type thing in late May and am busy printing loads of images for it. My uncertainty is around limited editions and pricing (of course!).

My current thinking is to offer 3 sizes of prints (the sizes are the image size, not the paper size)...

7”x7” – unlimited – around £20 each
10”x10” – limited to 50 prints + 5 artists proofs – around £50 each
14”x14” – limited to 50 prints + 5 artists proofs – around £80 each

Are limited editions the way to go? Should the price go up as the edition sells (if it sells!)? Or am I being too precious about my images?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!!

Cheers
Simon

[wblanchard]

I will let the others chime in on the pricing structures, however Im very excited for your exhibition. Wall to wall cat images? I really enjoyed your cat photographs.

[Robburrito]

Here is a great article about editioning of photo prints, recommends against it:

http://artshowphoto.com/pages/whatsizetheedition.htm

[CameraQuest]

Variables in the photo print marketplace include the photog's reputation, location they are being sold (country, city, high end gallery, low end gallery, restaurant wall, internet), perceived target audience (high end collectors, the art crowd, tourists, anyone at all, etc), and all aspects of the prints themselves, including but not limited to size, medium, archival life, who made them, signed or not, numbered or not, etc. The same perfect print waiting for tourists on a restaurant wall in Croatia will likely bring a much higher price in wall in a New York gallery.

I personally believe prints can be marketed at higher prices if the photog makes it clear to the buyer that they were printed by the photog themselves via traditional analog printing media (along with a statement of same). This viewpoint has been debated in another RFF thread.

Real world, you are going to have to find out what works for YOU, in YOUR marketplace. What works for you may not work at all for someone else in their marketplace. Potentially limited edition prints can work out quite well, but a lot depends upon your own marketplace and how well it is all done.

Stephen

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Limited editions don't benefit the photographer at all. It only benefits dealers after you die because they can say "this is rare it was a limited edition" and charge more for it. The thing is, any print you make will be rare even if you make a million of them. There are 6 billion people in the world so only a handfull can ever own one of your prints no matter how many you make. Limited editions hurt your earnings while you live because if it sells out, you're income is over.

[Al Kaplan]

I agree with Chris. You should only be so lucky as to sell 25 prints of one image! As for pricing, it's a limited market. Not all that many people buy photographic prints as art and "Silver Gelatin Print by the Photographer" does add value. It might not be a "limited edition" but at least the buyer knows that there's no way possible that it could be one of 10,000. If people like your work then prices in the $350 to $500 range won't scare people. If you priced them at $50 each you wouldn't sell enough more prints to even make the same amount of money.

[Chris101]

Number your prints but don't limit the prints. That way when you die famous they WILL be limited, and your heirs will get rich.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Number your prints but don't limit the prints. That way when you die famous they WILL be limited, and your heirs will get rich.

You can't do it that way. On editioned prints, you have to write the number as a fraction, such as 30/200. The first number is the print's number, the second is the total number in the edition. So, 30/200 is the 30th print in an edition of 200. Numbering photos is stupid. The whole purpose of numbering comes from graphic printmaking disciplines such as etching and lithography. The pressure from the press damages the plate over time, reducing the quality of each successive print. Thus, the early ones will be better than later ones. The purpose of numbering is to differentiate that. Photos are identical, the negative does not degrade during printing, so there is no quality difference between the first and last made, as long as the same materials were used.

[colker]

Limited editions are the way to go. It shows maturity.
your prices are obscenely low.
art is never cheap.

[colker]

Limited editions don't benefit the photographer at all. It only benefits dealers after you die because they can say "this is rare it was a limited edition" and charge more for it. The thing is, any print you make will be rare even if you make a million of them. There are 6 billion people in the world so only a handfull can ever own one of your prints no matter how many you make. Limited editions hurt your earnings while you live because if it sells out, you're income is over.

i heard of some photographers who do second and third limited editions. like Nan Goldin.. though i never understood exactly how that works.
no dealer or gallery will sell any print that isn't numbered w/ a limited edition.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

i heard of some photographers who do second and third limited editions. like Nan Goldin.. though i never understood exactly how that works.
no dealer or gallery will sell any print that isn't numbered w/ a limited edition.

I've sold numerous prints through commercial galleries and art museum sales galleries and have never once ever numbered or editioned a print. Maybe it is different in Brazil, but in the USA editions are not needed to sell in galleries.

As for doing second and third limited editions, that's just disingenuous and if people accept it it just shows how silly much of the art world is.

[colker]

I've sold numerous prints through commercial galleries and art museum sales galleries and have never once ever numbered or editioned a print. Maybe it is different in Brazil, but in the USA editions are not needed to sell in galleries.

As for doing second and third limited editions, that's just disingenuous and if people accept it it just shows how silly much of the art world is.

the art world is not only silly but wrong in many aspects.
i can't sell a photograph here unless it's signed, titled and numbered.
i can do different editions though: a different size w/ different title on a different paper for example makes for another edition. a different technique: like a poster for example, non gelation silver. or ink jet. these differences make for a different edition.
it's up to the photographer to show some coherence. after all when you are being paid you mus give some certainty to the buyer.
i have no problem w/ numbered editions. i just make it a number i ma confortable w/. i have made mistakes though: i have sold a work i believe it's important as a single print edition! i was broke and a friend payed a good price on it, a colector. i thought i should make it something special.
it's good when there is a limit. when you know there is only a certain number of opportunities. it's healthy.

[colker]

You just print a different size -- or whatever you want to make a second edition.

All this talk about editions is ridiculous, unless you are famous, or have a major gallery behind you.

Sell whatever you can! Your prices are kind of low. I would limit to one size and make it a bit more. There is really no such thing as an artist proof in a photo print. Although the artist may hold back prints.

They have sold mine, and I just say they are unlimited editions.

ridiculous? 350 grand for a photograph.. is that ridiculous? i rather be ridiculous. i would love be THAT ridiculous.

[antiquark]

If you print a bunch all at once, for economic (or other) reasons, it sort of makes sense to label the batch "first edition 1..n", then the next batch "second edition", etc.

Also, editions still have meaning beyond obsolete printing technology. Perhaps your newer editions have improved color balance, or are touched up better, cropped better, or something like that.

It will make some buyers happy, and the rest won't care. Why not make people happy? :)

[35mmdelux]

Are limited editions the way to go? Should the price go up as the edition sells (if it sells!)? Or am I being too precious about my images?

Many years ago I read that there were no such things as "special editions." More of a marketing ploy, artists simply made them up as they went along. I believe this. Now if your tore up the neg. that is another story.

"I personally believe prints can be marketed at higher prices if the photog makes it clear to the buyer that they were printed by the photog themselves via traditional analog printing media (along with a statement of same). "

I agree with the premise. For example, a machine made rug might cost a few hundred $. Now take a handcrafted rug from Persia...need I say more? No comparision.

[amateriat]

I think both Chris and Fred crystalize the matter quite well. I went back and forth for a little while about this while working on my first one-person show late last year, but quickly decided that, being a nobody on the exhibit circuit, doing a "limited" print run was basically playing mind games with myself. I actually ended up selling a few prints regardless, which was good enough for me (inkjet prints, and signed, for the record).


- Barrett

[colker]

Many years ago I read that there were no such things as "special editions." More of a marketing ploy, artists simply made them up as they went along. I believe this. Now if your tore up the neg. that is another story.

"I personally believe prints can be marketed at higher prices if the photog makes it clear to the buyer that they were printed by the photog themselves via traditional analog printing media (along with a statement of same). "

I agree with the premise. For example, a machine made rug might cost a few hundred $. Now take a handcrafted rug from Persia...need I say more? No comparision.

you are wrong. there is significant market for art photography these days. edition numbers are respected by both photgrapher and dealer.. that's how people work, sell, make a living.
not a marketing ploy.
now you may think it's wrong etc... it's your opinion and you are entitled bla bla bla. not fact though.

[amateriat]

you are wrong. there is significant market for art photography these days. edition numbers are respected by both photgrapher and dealer.. that's how people work, sell, make a living.
not a marketing ploy.
now you may think it's wrong etc... it's your opinion and you are entitled bla bla bla. not fact though.
I think it's less a matter of "right versus wrong" than it is an attempt at an honest conversation about why "limited editions" exist in photography, when there is no intrinsic (i.e., production-related) reason for it to exist.

Roburrito's link to Brooks Jansen's piece on the issue is quite enlightening. If you have a name that carries enough clout, of course, you can presumably do whatever you want, and for whatever stated purpose, but the Profit Imperative looms large here (which, by the way, I'm not knocking). The work itself should carry a value going way beyond the matter of its scarcity.


- Barrett

[colker]

I think it's less a matter of "right versus wrong" than it is an attempt at an honest conversation about why "limited editions" exist in photography, when there is no intrinsic (i.e., production-related) reason for it to exist.

Roburrito's link to Brooks Jansen's piece on the issue is quite enlightening. If you have a name that carries enough clout, of course, you can presumably do whatever you want, and for whatever stated purpose, but the Profit Imperative looms large here (which, by the way, I'm not knocking). The work itself should carry a value going way beyond the matter of its scarcity.


- Barrett


it's a matter of knowing what you are talking about.
even if you don't have a name, the gallery does. it's a business transaction between the gallery and the buyer. galleries take 50% of sales.
so it's BS to climb on a high horse and say it's a marketing ploy or compare silver prints enlarged by a photographer w/ persian rugs. it's ignorance and arrogance mixed together.
photographers are not necessarily the best printers of their work. silver prints are not the only way to print. many a good photographer will scan and inkjet on cotton paper. it has nothing to do w/ rugs.
an edition w/ limited numbers is a necessity of the maerket. deal w/ it. if you can sell w/out it, fine. it's not a matter of opinion but circumstance, part of the business of selling photographs. if one is "against" it, it's just opinion. everybody has opinions but the question is about facts around selling and buying photographic work.

[colker]

I have been around the art biz for a long time. It has more or less passed me by, while some of my friends have made millions, the vast majority have remained teachers or carpenters (or whatever). I still work for an art magazine, and firmly believe there is no clear path to how to make money as an artist, as there is no clear path to being successful in life.

I have had success, but that success has often surprised me.

My advice to artists, now that I have become downright old, take every opportunity to show that comes to you, and belong to a community of artists. Don't worry about how much you sell, or editions, or how you print, those things will take care of themselves when the time is right. Show your work, show your work, show your work.

good comment. a lot of it comes as rules, which in fact don't alter your vision or your work. the edition numbers is an example of those rules. no big deal.
the elusive, hardest part is becoming attractive to curator's eyes. they define to colectors what needs to be bought. price is no object.
it's senseless, brutal.. curators have too much power in their hands. there are too many artists. it's all very confusing.
i have a miserable time w/ curators and i keep going.. my bet is in making beautifull images. something curators can't control: beauty.

[amateriat]

Colker,

Haven't even got a horse, let alone a particularly high one. But I don't think it's particularly arrogant of me (or others) to point out that the "limited" thing doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it did a handful of generations back. If it works for a particular artist, I have no issue with that: more power to her/him, in fact. But it's not a formula for anything right now. Brett Weston made a spectacle of burning his negatives to make the point that he really meant it regarding his editions being "limited." I thought he was bonkers, but that's just me.

This isn't just a problem with photography, but for anyone whose creative output relies on mechanical and/or digital reproduction. Rather than being a burden, i believe this situation throws the emphasis back to where it should be: on the work itself, not its relative scarcity.

But, please remember, this is merely my opinion, nothing more or less.


- Barrett

[colker]

Colker,

Haven't even got a horse, let alone a particularly high one. But I don't think it's particularly arrogant of me (or others) to point out that the "limited" thing doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it did a handful of generations back. If it works for a particular artist, I have no truck with that: more power to her/him, in fact. But it's not a formula for anything right now. Brett Weston made a spectacle of burning his negatives to make the point that he really meant it regarding his editions being "limited." I thought he was bonkers, but that's just me.

This isn't just a problem with photography, but for anyone whose creative output relies on mechanical and/or digital reproduction. Rather than being a burden, i believe this situation throws the emphasis back to where it should be: on the work itself, not its relative scarcity.

But, please remember, this is merely my opinion, nothing more or less.


- Barrett

my comment was on d lux(?) reply. not yours. i specifically used his words "marketing ploy".
an edition is a very simple concept. you say you will print and sign 10 and that's what you will do.
it's like being truthfull.
that's all.
a limited edition is the same as it ever was on the art market.
you may think it's right or it's wrong but that's how it is.
you can tell the gallery you have no limit to your printing. if they buy it, fine.
maybe you will become famous for doing it different. who knows?

[amateriat]

my comment was on d lux(?) reply. not yours. i specifically used his words "marketing ploy".
an edition is a very simple concept. you say you will print and sign 10 and that's what you will do.
it's like being truthfull.
that's all.
a limited edition is the same as it ever was on the art market.
you may think it's right or it's wrong but that's how it is.
you can tell the gallery you have no limit to your printing. if they buy it, fine.
maybe you will become famous for doing it different. who knows?
Ah. Got it. :)

I think the gallery scene is a bit of a land mine right now. Between outside economic forces (of course, it's fair to ask: when has it been otherwise?), and the current peculiarities of the art market itself, I think it's harder to get one's bearings than ever.

Being the master of your work, you have to do what you think works best for you. I'm with you about the nuttiness/capriciousness of the current art scene, although it can be argues that this has been going on for quite a while, with only certain pockets of more-sober sensibilities lurking away from the limelight. (Fred, am I full of hot air here?)

I definitely grok your frustration. Wish I had a sensible answer that went beyond the usual ranting.


- Barrett

[colker]

Ah. Got it. :)

I think the gallery scene is a bit of a land mine right now. Between outside economic forces (of course, it's fair to ask: when has it been otherwise?), and the current peculiarities of the art market itself, I think it's harder to get one's bearings than ever.

Being the master of your work, you have to do what you think works best for you. I'm with you about the nuttiness/capriciousness of the current art scene, although it can be argues that this has been going on for quite a while, with only certain pockets of more-sober sensibilities lurking away from the limelight. (Fred, am I full of hot air here?)

I definitely grok your frustration. Wish I had a sensible answer that went beyond the usual ranting.


- Barrett

the crazy thing is: when you grab a sothebys or christies catalogue on the photo market you see a Kertesz sold for 4 grand and someone you never heard selling for 200 grand.
it's a business w/ little to do w/ the importance of the artists in culture or anything.

[jeff laitila]

The decision really depends on your client base. If they are the type with extremely deep pockets then limited editions can be the way to go, but it is still a very dangerous path to travel since you are putting a finite cap on how much YOU can make from a single image.

I also wrestled with this question, and I decided to not issue limited editions. It has worked out very well for me, but your mileage may vary.

If you do decide to go that route make sure you raise your prices, considerably. I have prints that I have sold hundreds of copies of, and I could have lost a lot of money if I had been selling as limited editions.

[eli griggs]

Instead of not numbering or limiting an edition, I suggest you simply print smaller, dated 'Open Editions' and signify that by adding an "O.E." after the print number, ie, 3/12 O.E., date, title and signature or some such variation.

Always be up-front with buyers and keep a detailed log of each run or 'edition' to include number of prints and any variation from the first, such as print and sheet size, paper used, toning, etc.

Artificially limiting the number of prints from a negative seems to me to be a short sighted practice that only benefits the gallery owners and after they've moved on to promoting other artists you have lost any future income from that negative for no worthwhile reason.