Digital BW, The Print

Hi.
When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
Yoelis.

This subject has been beat to death on at least a couple of forums.  The answers you will get will likely be all over the board.  
   
  *********
  

yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@...> wrote:
          Hi.
When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
Yoelis.



         


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>    
>   *********
>   
> 
> yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@...> wrote:
>           Hi.
> When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
> Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> Yoelis.
> 
> -

After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually kill 
the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.

John

> 
>          
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

best idea I've heard here in a while. I mean really, how much more to we really need from 
some of these people!
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:

>
> >    
> >   *********
> >   
> > 
> > yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@> wrote:
> >           Hi.
> > When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
> > Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> > Yoelis.
> > 
> > -
> 
> After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually kill 
> the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > 
> >          
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Limited edition inkjet prints? I consider that a bit of an oxymoron, 
so you're not gonna get rid of too many of us that way! (G)

Steve Karafyllakis


>
> best idea I've heard here in a while. I mean really, how much more 
to we really need from 
> some of these people!
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > >    
> > >   *********
> > >   
> > > 
> > > yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@> wrote:
> > >           Hi.
> > > When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original 
file?
> > > Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> > > Yoelis.
> > > 
> > > -
> > 
> > After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually 
kill 

> > the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >          
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Payment in full within the agreed time frame : ), then shoot'em  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited Edition.

 

best idea I've heard here in a while. I mean really, how much more to we
really need from 
some of these people!
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
>
> > 
> > *********
> > 
> > 
> > yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@> wrote:
> > Hi.
> > When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
> > Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> > Yoelis.
> > 
> > -
> 
> After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually kill 
> the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

yeah, now there's a severely limited edition, their checks!
To answer the original post, I don't destroy the original, as I very well may "forget" that 
first limited edition and have to do another limited edition.

The reality is, everyone does whatever they want. These destruction rituals always seem a 
bit much to me though, so... artistic...

Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> 
wrote:

>
> Payment in full within the agreed time frame : ), then shoot'em  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Boley
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited Edition.
> 
>  
> 
> best idea I've heard here in a while. I mean really, how much more to we
> really need from 
> some of these people!
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > > *********
> > > 
> > > 
> > > yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@> wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
> > > Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> > > Yoelis.
> > > 
> > > -
> > 
> > After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually kill 
> > the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Tyler et al...

A few galleries request that I destroy the original negative,
not just the original digital file.

I refuse to deal with these galleries, where their preconceived
notions and Precambrian attitude, imply that this action will
add value to my original work.  Occasionally, a few arrogant
directors are stunned by my choice of expletives...

Artists control the value of their finished work with their
own craftsmanship, talent and passion.  Galleries are
simply a vehicle, and a few vehicles have flat tires.

Patrons, that admire your work, will find you...

jim k



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There will be, if not already upon us, a self limiting aspect to ink jet
printing; the age of the equipment used to make it. I can still easily print
images captured on film from the 20's  with my old omega enlarger, but try
duplicating an ink jet print made 5 years ago, and things start to get dicey
quickly. As for making them all at once and then trashing the file?  That
too may be made moot by simply hanging onto them. Migration of image
information forward will be a constant problem for the digital artist and
printer. A quick look back at dying technologies of Zip drives, floppies,
and early  CDs that lose their information will start haunting printers and
photographers soon enough. 

 

Live for today, print for tomorrow, and raise a glass to 2006! Happy new
year! 

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:18 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited Edition.

 

yeah, now there's a severely limited edition, their checks!
To answer the original post, I don't destroy the original, as I very well
may "forget" that 
first limited edition and have to do another limited edition.

The reality is, everyone does whatever they want. These destruction rituals
always seem a 
bit much to me though, so... artistic...

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> 
wrote:
>
> Payment in full within the agreed time frame : ), then shoot'em 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen. <http://e.neilsen.home.att.net> home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenp <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> hotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Boley
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited Edition.
> 
> 
> 
> best idea I've heard here in a while. I mean really, how much more to we
> really need from 
> some of these people!
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou <mailto:eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, "john
dean" <deanwork2003@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > > *********
> > > 
> > > 
> > > yoelisd2003 <yoelisd2003@> wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?
> > > Thank you. And Happy NEW YEAR.
> > > Yoelis.
> > > 
> > > -
> > 
> > After completing my limited edition inkjet portfolios I usually kill 
> > the artist. That way I'll be done with and can move on.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 12/31/2006 11:19:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
tyler@... writes:
The reality is, everyone does whatever they want. These destruction rituals 
always seem a 
bit much to me though, so... artistic...

Tyler


And so suitable to those who are independently wealthy.

Richard (Brooklyn)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

Yes, a gallery can often feel as if they are some kind of director/editor. A
local small town that boasts a lot of artists is being held hostage by the
gallery owners.

gar

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of jim
kitchen
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:06 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited Edition.


Dear Tyler et al...

A few galleries request that I destroy the original negative,
not just the original digital file.

I refuse to deal with these galleries, where their preconceived
notions and Precambrian attitude, imply that this action will
add value to my original work.  Occasionally, a few arrogant
directors are stunned by my choice of expletives...

Artists control the value of their finished work with their
own craftsmanship, talent and passion.  Galleries are
simply a vehicle, and a few vehicles have flat tires.

Patrons, that admire your work, will find you...

jim k



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

In my experience the way this thing works is that a limited number of 
prints OF A PARTICULAR SIZE and MEDIA constitue an edition. 
Photographers as different as Ansel Adams and Jan Groover and many 
many others have been successful selling different editions of the 
same work in different sizes and media.

So, in effect if you change either the dimension of the work or the 
inks or, even the type of paper used, you could have a totally new 
edition. And, there is also the attempt to rarify a print by putting 
something like drawing or bees wax on the surface.. There is no law 
governing this. I always leave it up to the gallery since this is 
their responsibilty and what they get paid for, not mine, as I see it. 
Personally as a photographer I would never "destroy" anything. I 
always thought it silly that Bret Weston burned all his negatives in a 
big ceremony. I guess he did that so Cole wouldn't try to print them ;-
). 

In the virtual world we live in, any copy of a file is an idential 
copy so who is to say that many copies don't exist in the 
photographers basement or a safe deposit vault. Is someone going to go 
in there with a warrant and search for all existing files on all cds 
and hard drives? However, limiting a set of a particular size and 
media philosophically is perfectly fine for me if that is what they 
agree on to do for economic reasons. We all need to make money. Many 
collectors do want to know how many copies of something will exist 
before laying out cash for a body of work. But I don't think this 
responsibility should be dumped in the printers lap. That is between 
the artist and his or her gallery or sales representitive and it 
should be clearly written up and signed by all parties as a contract.  
And, I don't want that job. 

John

As a painter (artist) I don't make reproduction of the same Artwork. I fink in the case of the photography, if you print limited edition (in my case only 3) why you need to save the original file and for what purpose. I understand the people who buy a original art pay for the quality and exclusivity.
Yoelis.
jim kitchen <jim.kitchen@...> wrote:           Dear Tyler et al...

A few galleries request that I destroy the original negative,
not just the original digital file.

I refuse to deal with these galleries, where their preconceived
notions and Precambrian attitude, imply that this action will
add value to my original work. Occasionally, a few arrogant
directors are stunned by my choice of expletives...

Artists control the value of their finished work with their
own craftsmanship, talent and passion. Galleries are
simply a vehicle, and a few vehicles have flat tires.

Patrons, that admire your work, will find you...

jim k

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



         

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually Jim, I have some sensitivity to the issue as I have grappled with it as well. I don't 
mean to make light of it.
It's a shame that people whose primary expertise is sales, have any control over the 
situation at all. If you are "known" and there is demand for your work, you can do what you 
want and the galleries will take it and sell it anyway. If you are unknown with little or no 
demand for your work, these people can exert some control over your appraoch to the 
problem. You have no choice but to be open to their concerns or walk away with another 
possible oportunity crossed off the list.
I'm less optomistic than you that patrons will find you, but I agree that your last comments 
are how we must proceeed.

John, that was a good one, I don't want Cole printing my work either <G>.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, jim kitchen <jim.kitchen@...> 
wrote:

>
> Dear Tyler et al...
> 
> A few galleries request that I destroy the original negative,
> not just the original digital file.
> 
> I refuse to deal with these galleries, where their preconceived
> notions and Precambrian attitude, imply that this action will
> add value to my original work.  Occasionally, a few arrogant
> directors are stunned by my choice of expletives...
> 
> Artists control the value of their finished work with their
> own craftsmanship, talent and passion.  Galleries are
> simply a vehicle, and a few vehicles have flat tires.
> 
> Patrons, that admire your work, will find you...
> 
> jim k
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Tyler,

I do appreciate your sensitivity to this subject, and I cannot
summarily dismiss regional attitudes to this subject, because
it is an age-old question that photographic artists seem to be
continually embroiled with and confronted with, when
compared to the singularity of a water colour, oil painting and,
or any other unified medium. My images are not singularities.

I empathize with gifted younger or gifted older first time
photographic artists that might be enticed by an art director¹s
advice to create value added significance to the original by
destroying the original source of the information, such as
the negative, but the decision to complete the task will be
theirs as the artist, and their choice should always be based
upon their own beliefs.

Economics will always filter into the equation for the artist,
whether the determinant factor is imposed by the gallery or
not, and although I try to comprehend the gallery¹s logic for
adding a perceived value, it does not sit well with me because
of the abruptness and finality of that event. My choice to
preserve and protect my originals is just that, it is my own
choice and a choice I seem to enjoy. It is also a discussion
that will probably persist until the end of time too, now that
the digital environment is so firmly entrenched, and where
the quality of digital output rivals or surpasses traditional
methods, every day.

As John would say, we live in a virtual world, but I would
add we live in a virtual world with a profound depth of
digital waste, promoted by several economic models.

Gifted artists, such as yourself, will survive...

jim k






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello & Happy New Year to All,
   
   
  Just when I thought it was safe the "Limited Edition" question has returned:-)
   
  I'm a photographer/visual artist first(mono printing/mixed media), curator and have been a gallery ower and instructor. I believe that 'LE's" should be one size only, no AP's and when the last image in the edition is printed the files/negatives should be canceled/destroy. I  do Open Ed's and LE's bodies of  work. To decide to make an image a LE is done after much thought. My early editions ranged from 200-100. My editions as of  2006  range from 50/25/10/5-1 depending on the image and the process, I also incorporate mixed media/found objects into some of my work. 
   
  This works for me, my galleries and my collectors. I have no problems destroying the file/negative. A lot of my work is created from multiple negatives and reworked in PS so
  the original negatives could be reused in a new image but seldom happens. I always retain a few numbered images from the edition for my personal collection and since I print digitaly I print the edition as it is sold. 
   
  The paper I use my change, I may have to switch printers/ink during the run of the edition.  Since the editions are small and I print 5-10 prints at a time depending on demand printer/paper/ink changes are not a problem. I also explain to clients that just because it's digital doesn't mean the first print and the last print in the edition will be exact perfect matches. It's like making hand pulled prints.Temperture, roller pressure, humidity, ink ratios and the paper all contribute to the final look of the image. 
   
  I always give the gallery a set of prints from a single printing session. When that set is sold I give them another set so there is a consistent look to the images.
   
  I do LE's because I like to keep making new work and yes the rarity does help in the pricing. But the bottom line is a buyer has to like my work whether it's Open Ed/LE and whether they are a serious collector or just someone looking to decorate there living or work space.
   
  Peace & Good Luck,
  Sa'longo Lee
  http://salongosart.com
  http://kronosart.com
  http://salongolee.com
   
   
   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 10:12 PM +0000 12/30/06, yoelisd2003 wrote:

>When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?


Yep.


Just like Ansel killed the neg. of that church-moonrise thingie.*


NOT.


Anyone who destroys original source is an idiot.


If history proves the original source useless then there was simply a 
waste of space by saving it.

If the photograph becomes esthetically, or historically, important 
then saving it's earliest and most complete reproduction is an 
essential act.


99.99% of us won't raise an eyebrow when our work is seen x years in 
the future.

That doesn't mean that the remaining 0.01% shouldn't preserve their 
original negatives/files for future technological advances.

Reproduction technology is progressing at an almost asymptotic pace. 
I think that within ten years we will be able to make prints that 
make today's look as comparatively primitive as those made from '80s 
dot-matrixes.


-=-Dennis



*(Though I heard he hated it by the time he died. He'd printed it so 
often -- and printing it was a bear -- that he felt like he was on a 
printing production-line with it and all the other photos people 
wanted...)




















.

> Hi.
> When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original 
file?

Yoelis,

Well I see that there are more an enough replies to this post! One of 
the reasons I guess is that the question of how to sell prints is 
based to two points of view that can be at odds with on another. The 
first is from the tradition of how printmakers sell their work. And 
the other is how art dealers want to sell the artist's work. 

Here are two sources that will be of help in making your decision 
with how to move forward. the first is "World Printmakers", 
http://www.worldprintmakers.com. This is a great site based in Spain 
about all things associated with printmaking. From a glossary of 
terms and business models, to the latest technologies and several 
thought provoking articles about the role and life of the artist.

The other site you should check out is Lenswork, 
http://www.lenswork.com. Lenswork is also a bi-monthly photography 
magazine published by Brooks Jensen. The site has gone through a 
major re-vamp over the last year that includes "new media" in 
communicating photographic/artistic ideas. Brooks Jensen's point of 
view is an unique and brave approach to the "commence" of art, check 
it out at, http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm. The 
interesting thing about Jensen is that he admits being dragged into 
the "digital world" scratching and screaming! But once there, it was 
pretty cool, and because his heart was true, he was able to adapt 
his vision to the "new" technologies. But that's the nature of 
photography, technology that is always changing.

In the end, you should choose an approach that best suits your needs 
in preserving the value of your work in a world of art which is 
grounded in commerce.

Jarvis Grant
Washington, DC

> ... Reproduction technology is progressing ...

While I hesitate to lengthen this thread, the above factor was a significant
one in convincing me to avoid the limited edition (usually fiction).  (I at
first had experimented with an overly complex "market split" -- relatively
cheap, non-limited EEM prints and more expensive, limited acid free ones.  I
think I was the only one who understood what was going on, so it was a waste
of time.)

Other factors I've heard that probably apply to me as well are that most
will never reach the "limit" they set.  As such, they may be (theoretically)
decreasing the value of their work.

I've read that there is no correlation between limited edition photos and
price.

My buyers seem to not care a bit about whether the editions are limited or
not.  Then again, most of my buyers are not sophisticated collectors.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello,  I know that this is slightly off topic.
   
  
Why would an artist be an idiot for destroying the original file of the LE?. Print makers do it all the time after the edition is printed and there peers don't feel they're idiots. Photographers are in a sense print makers, instead of metal, wood or stone plates we use film or digital capture and traditional or digital output. I personally believe if you want to go back and reprint an image with new technology that's fine. Then don't make it a LE. Print open editions and tweak it all you want as new papers and inks come about. I give a lot of thought to making a image a LE. Yes, I'm limiting the income from that image because of low number available, but I'm selling to collectors who pay for that rarity. Also I'm always creating new images.   
  
There is a possibility that certain images in our files may become historically/culturally important in the passage of time. I have images from when I did dance, performance photography and photojournalism. These images may have historical/cultural value and may go to a museum or educational institution in the future. Hopefully before I die.  I avoid using images from these files to create LE images. That is not to say that some of these images may not be incorporated into a collage, mixed media piece or used in a exhibition and sold as Open Edition pieces. In any case these negatives/digital files are stored for that possibility.   
  
Most of the work on the festival circuit is decorative art, that is landscapes, still lifes,   
abstracts and etc. That is not to say that those images could not have historical/cultural value in the future. But even though these images are unique and we've put in a lot of time and effort; a lot of these images will wind up in a yard sale in 10-20 years as the buyers move, die or redecorate. I believe that if the festival wants a certain percentage of the work in the booth to be originals or LE's that's fine, I can work with that. I've done shows where all the either 25% of the work or all the work has to be originals or LE's. As I said on another forum, we all have images in our inventory that haven't ever sold or we're hesitant about. Make them LE's and use them for the shows that request that some of work has to be LE's. They might sell out.   
   
  
Photographers are the only artists who have issues about Limited Edition images. We're always trying to find a way around LE requirements for festivals. We want to change the size, use a different paper, a different ink, tone it or do a alternative process, crop it differently. Yes, there is no law per say about LE's. But even the US Copy Right Office states that a LE is limited to less than 5 copies or 300 or less if numbered and the individual author is owner of the copyright. Some state like NY do have statues about LE's.   
   "Laws Passed in 14 States 

Currently 14 states statutes require print disclosure information to appear on all COA. This means that anyone who intends to sell limited edition prints on a national basis must conform to these disclosure statutes. Even states which have not passed specific statutes could still prosecute publishers and artists who market their prints in a manner which would deceive the public. They could do so under the general police powers of the state or under a variety of consumer protection statutes. 

Many of the state statutes require the same information while other state laws require additional information. It is not surprising that there are probably as many COA's as there are publishers. All created with the best intentions…Albeit non-conforming."
 
  See full 2002 article: http://apa.pmai.org/standards.html
  
 
  
  
The bottom line LE is just that a unique image that is printed in one size in a limited number and will not be printed again in anyform. Print makers do this with no issues originally because the plates where hand engraved/itched and degraded after a number of impressions where pulled. The damaged plate was then canceled/destroyed. Even with the new printing technologies used in printmaking and photography allow us to make unlimited exact copies. It doesn't change what a LE print is. Serious collectors are knowledgeable about the technology and my experience has been if you say your image is a LE of 100. They expect it to be that and will pay for that assurance. I know of artists who have been sued because they reissued a image in new size and larger edition or made an Open Edition a LE. One case was mentioned in Art Business News several years ago.    
  
Well enough, it's 2007 and  as photographers/artists we are going use the creative and marketing tools that will bring us personal, creative and financial satisfaction.   
  
   
   
Posted by: "Dennis W. Manasco" dmanasco@...   dmanasco   
     Tue Jan 2, 2007 1:59 am (PST)   At 10:12 PM +0000 12/30/06, yoelisd2003 wrote:

>When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original file?

Yep.

Just like Ansel killed the neg. of that church-moonrise thingie.*

NOT.

Anyone who destroys original source is an idiot.

If history proves the original source useless then there was simply a 
waste of space by saving it.

If the photograph becomes esthetically, or historically, important 
then saving it's earliest and most complete reproduction is an 
essential act.

99.99% of us won't raise an eyebrow when our work is seen x years in 
the future.

That doesn't mean that the remaining 0.01% shouldn't preserve their 
original negatives/files for future technological advances.

Reproduction technology is progressing at an almost asymptotic pace. 
I think that within ten years we will be able to make prints that 
make today's look as comparatively primitive as those made from '80s 
dot-matrixes.

-=-Dennis

*(Though I heard he hated it by the time he died. He'd printed it so 
often -- and printing it was a bear -- that he felt like he was on a 
printing production-line with it and all the other photos people 
wanted...)




Peace,
Sálongo Lee
Photographer
<http://salongolee.com>
 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You might even want to revise that estimate by several orders of
magnitude. It's kinda low ;)

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis W.
Manasco" <dmanasco@...> wrote:

> 
> 99.99% of us won't raise an eyebrow when our work is seen x years in 
> the future.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the remaining 0.01% shouldn't preserve their 
> original negatives/files for future technological advances.
> 
> Reproduction technology is progressing at an almost asymptotic pace. 
> I think that within ten years we will be able to make prints that 
> make today's look as comparatively primitive as those made from '80s 
> dot-matrixes.
> 
> 
> -=-Dennis
> 
>

salongo lee wrote:
> Hello,  I know that this is slightly off topic.
>    
>   
> Why would an artist be an idiot for destroying the original file of the LE?. Print makers do it all the time after the edition is printed and there peers don't feel they're idiots. 
Print makers do this typically because the master is "used up." For 
example, the wax is worn down and they aren't getting a good impression 
any longer. In other words, there is no point in saving the master since 
one can no longer make quality prints from it. In the case of stone 
lithography, the stones could be scraped, resurfaced, and reused, which 
saved the printer a fair amount of money.

Artists' proofs were just that - proof that the printing process was 
making acceptable quality prints. The edition ran as long as prints of 
acceptable quality could be made -- that is, prints that matched the 
artist's proof were still being made.

None of this -- NONE OF THIS -- translates to photography. The master 
isn't worn out, neither can the master be scraped and reused (unless you 
are using glass plates ;-). The size of an edition isn't set by the 
durability of the plates and the skills of the printmaker, but instead 
is a number pulled out of the air by a marketeer.

Now I'm not going to say that anyone is an idiot. If someone wants to 
limit  printing for whatever reason, one should feel free to do so. If 
someone wants to destroy their film, again, they should feel free to do 
so. But one must understand when one does it, one is making an arbitrary 
choice. No one can argue that "it's tradition" or "we've always done it 
this way" because it isn't, and we haven't.
--
Bruce Watson

I going to destroy the original file after i print the last one. I feel if I destroy the original file I pouting dramatic on my work and this is a real art, not commercial like sell picture frame in wall-mar.
  Yoelis.
Jarvis Grant <jarvo@...> wrote: 
          > Hi.
> When you print limited edition photos, you destroy the original 
file?

Yoelis,

Well I see that there are more an enough replies to this post! One of 
the reasons I guess is that the question of how to sell prints is 
based to two points of view that can be at odds with on another. The 
first is from the tradition of how printmakers sell their work. And 
the other is how art dealers want to sell the artist's work. 

Here are two sources that will be of help in making your decision 
with how to move forward. the first is "World Printmakers", 
http://www.worldprintmakers.com. This is a great site based in Spain 
about all things associated with printmaking. From a glossary of 
terms and business models, to the latest technologies and several 
thought provoking articles about the role and life of the artist.

The other site you should check out is Lenswork, 
http://www.lenswork.com. Lenswork is also a bi-monthly photography 
magazine published by Brooks Jensen. The site has gone through a 
major re-vamp over the last year that includes "new media" in 
communicating photographic/artistic ideas. Brooks Jensen's point of 
view is an unique and brave approach to the "commence" of art, check 
it out at, http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm. The 
interesting thing about Jensen is that he admits being dragged into 
the "digital world" scratching and screaming! But once there, it was 
pretty cool, and because his heart was true, he was able to adapt 
his vision to the "new" technologies. But that's the nature of 
photography, technology that is always changing.

In the end, you should choose an approach that best suits your needs 
in preserving the value of your work in a world of art which is 
grounded in commerce.

Jarvis Grant
Washington, DC



         

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jarvis Grant"
<jarvo@...> wrote:
> Brooks Jensen's point of view is an unique and brave approach to the
"commence" of art, check 
> it out at, http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm. The 
> interesting thing about Jensen is that he admits being dragged into 
> the "digital world" scratching and screaming! But once there, it was 
> pretty cool, and because his heart was true, he was able to adapt 
> his vision to the "new" technologies. But that's the nature of 
> photography, technology that is always changing.
> 
> In the end, you should choose an approach that best suits your needs 
> in preserving the value of your work in a world of art which is 
> grounded in commerce.
> 
> Jarvis Grant
> Washington, DC
>
Dear Jarvis,
Read your post and followed links to your site.  I love your work, and
will peruse your site since I have added it to my  bookmarks.  We can
discuss more about the philosophy of commerce in art as soon as I can
manage to generate more commerce.  In the interim, the information I
have been able to garner from this group and its experts has helped me
develop [and continue to develop] my own sense of how to create prints
to be comfortable with.  
I have been enamored of Brooks Jensen and LensWork for the past few
years.  So much so that he encouraged my moving into the realm of
'fine art photographer'.  Your  link to his site should be
http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm [without the
period].  He is an impassioned artist and guru for the rest of the us
meandering in the digital world.  His offer on the LensWork Extended
CD and on his website to participate by creating and forwarding a
portfolio was, in fact, rewarded by having mine included on the most
recent CD #67 - New York Cityscapes. This honor, as well as another
when I was chosen for 2 images in the B&W portfolio special issue,
helped me cement my choice to start a website and continue an attempt
at marketing.  Like you, I have chosen FolioLink to host my site:
http://www.omages.com and have been quite pleased with the venue. 
The difficulty I have decided about the topic of limited editions is
twofold.  Firstly, the website host FolioLink's e-commerce setup asks
us to fill in the number of prints available etc., and is probably
just a cookie cutter approach to appeal to a mass audience.  
But the other point that I would like to make concerns the creation of
an edition in the first place.  Mention has been made of changing the
sizes and papers and inks and even printers, but really the image is
the unique form of the art and just how many exactly the same prints
can one really generate for each image in a body of a photographer's
work?  Is each variation another edition? 

Hope this is not too confusing to the rest of the group.
Thanks,
Alan
omages.com

At 2:07 PM -0800 1/2/07, Yoelis Diaz wrote:

>I going to destroy the original file after i print the last one.
>
>I feel if I destroy the original file I pouting dramatic on my work 
>and this is a real art


I never could figure out how to pout dramatic on my work.

That image always made me giddy and nauseous.

I hope it's not an essential aspect of "real art"...


-=- Dennis



































.

‘Limited Edition ‘is interesting to see the difference view of the same   topic.
  My concern is how we are affected by the technology. In my case I use the photography like a medium to express my self, and sometimes I am intimidated by the competition to make better picture using new technology.
     I want to put this question. Concept Vs Very high quality of the picture. 
  To me is simple I choose concept. The result of the photography is important, but I want to make people fink, nut only look and relax in front of one picture. If your are a commercial photography and you want to impress your costumer is fine, But for artist is very important the concept and the social matter.
  Yoelis.
   


ajberky <alanberkson@...> wrote:          --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jarvis Grant"
<jarvo@...> wrote:
> Brooks Jensen's point of view is an unique and brave approach to the
"commence" of art, check 
> it out at, http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm. The 
> interesting thing about Jensen is that he admits being dragged into 
> the "digital world" scratching and screaming! But once there, it was 
> pretty cool, and because his heart was true, he was able to adapt 
> his vision to the "new" technologies. But that's the nature of 
> photography, technology that is always changing.
> 
> In the end, you should choose an approach that best suits your needs 
> in preserving the value of your work in a world of art which is 
> grounded in commerce.
> 
> Jarvis Grant
> Washington, DC
>
Dear Jarvis,
Read your post and followed links to your site. I love your work, and
will peruse your site since I have added it to my bookmarks. We can
discuss more about the philosophy of commerce in art as soon as I can
manage to generate more commerce. In the interim, the information I
have been able to garner from this group and its experts has helped me
develop [and continue to develop] my own sense of how to create prints
to be comfortable with. 
I have been enamored of Brooks Jensen and LensWork for the past few
years. So much so that he encouraged my moving into the realm of
'fine art photographer'. Your link to his site should be
http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm [without the
period]. He is an impassioned artist and guru for the rest of the us
meandering in the digital world. His offer on the LensWork Extended
CD and on his website to participate by creating and forwarding a
portfolio was, in fact, rewarded by having mine included on the most
recent CD #67 - New York Cityscapes. This honor, as well as another
when I was chosen for 2 images in the B&W portfolio special issue,
helped me cement my choice to start a website and continue an attempt
at marketing. Like you, I have chosen FolioLink to host my site:
http://www.omages.com and have been quite pleased with the venue. 
The difficulty I have decided about the topic of limited editions is
twofold. Firstly, the website host FolioLink's e-commerce setup asks
us to fill in the number of prints available etc., and is probably
just a cookie cutter approach to appeal to a mass audience. 
But the other point that I would like to make concerns the creation of
an edition in the first place. Mention has been made of changing the
sizes and papers and inks and even printers, but really the image is
the unique form of the art and just how many exactly the same prints
can one really generate for each image in a body of a photographer's
work? Is each variation another edition? 

Hope this is not too confusing to the rest of the group.
Thanks,
Alan
omages.com



         

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Yoelis.
 Don't think you are alone in that feeling. It is very easy to be
caught up in the technology and end up forever chasing a "will 'o' the
wisp" with no hope of catching it. It takes a lot of effort to subdue
the impulse for constant equipment upgrading, and even more to
overcome the feeling that you can't measure up without using whatever
the latest gear is.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Yoelis Diaz
<yoelisd2003@...> wrote:

>   My concern is how we are affected by the technology. In my case I
use the photography like a medium to express my self, and sometimes I
am intimidated by the competition to make better picture using new
technology.

If you take a look at what is listed and or hanging in the major
galleries of the world it would seem that most agree with your choice
of execution of concept as apposed to technical execution. It is nice
if both are present but IMHO neither is an essential requirement of
the other.  

>      I want to put this question. Concept Vs Very high quality of
the picture. 
>   To me is simple I choose concept. The result of the photography is
important, but I want to make people fink, nut only look and relax in
front of one picture. If your are a commercial photography and you
want to impress your costumer is fine, But for artist is very
important the concept and the social matter.
>   Yoelis.


Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> It is very easy to be
> caught up in the technology and end up forever chasing a "will 'o' the
> wisp" with no hope of catching it. It takes a lot of effort to subdue
> the impulse for constant equipment upgrading, and even more to
> overcome the feeling that you can't measure up without using whatever
> the latest gear is.
> 

> Regards
> Duane
>
Duane,
The technology changes for multiple reasons.  Some of it has to do
with marketing new products, and other needs to be met include new
ways try to match analog looking prints.  There are those who believe
that inkjet technology is a world to itself and analog is passe.  Some
artists like to copy or incorporate other art into their own, some
seek new media.  As an artist you must do what is primary in your
philosophy - be it art for art's sake or art for commerce, or both. In
any event, this forum exists to air out ideas referencing the
technology of the digital black and white print, so use what you have,
or chase the newest and use this forum to learn what's available.  It
seems that many of the regular contributors have different workflows,
and they all seem happy.
Keep making art and printing it!
Regards,
Alan Berkson
http:www.omages.com