I’ve been avoiding the Internet lately, but only because I’m fairly busy with a few other things. Mainly, I’m trying to get a few prints together for the upcoming San Diego Fair (you know, prints — those jpegs on that paper stuff). There’s a photo competition and all entries have to be submitted IN PRINT — no online submissions. So I entered 4 photos and they have to be dropped off on May 13th. This is turning out to be an expensive (and time consuming) little adventure. 4 photo entries are going to cost me just over $400 — and I’m not even sure if they’ll be “good enough” to show at the fair (I know, this is crazy).
Regardless of the outcome, I’ll have four very nice images mounted for exhibition and ready to sell. I spent my Saturday printing 3 digital photos with Oscar, pricing out mounts and mats with a local San Diego framer, buying more materials for the darkroom, and printing my 4th photo in the darkroom.
All in all, everything is coming together nicely and I’m excited to see the four prints in their final state. I’ll post more about the process and the outcome when it all comes together. And here are the photos I’m entering:
At the beginning of April, I announced a special offer to the readers of Epic Edits — A selection of silver-gelatin prints from my darkroom for $25 each. The results of this offer? I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I had a grand total of 4 takers.
Don’t get me wrong — I completely appreciate the 4 sales I did receive! Definitely better than none! But I can’t help but be disappointed with the relatively low number of sales compared to the amount of work I put into the offer.
THE WORK I PUT IN
Even before announcing the print offer, I had to pick out 10 of my b/w film photos based on what I thought other people might want to buy. Choosing a small selection of photos for anything is tough, especially if they’re your own photos. After a day or two of contemplating, I finally settled on a selection of images from my personal favorites and the favorites of others based on Flickr stats (comments, views, favorites, etc).
Also before offering the prints for sale, I wanted to make sure I could actually print them. I’ve encountered a small number of photos that I couldn’t print in the darkroom with my current level of experience, so I was going to be sure that I could produce a quality print for each of my selected photos. Each of the 10 photos took about 1 to 2 hours of work in the darkroom, so probably 15 hours of my time.
Then, I wanted to show the actual prints to prospective buyers, so I scanned them in and posted them on Flickr. This way, people could see the crop and tonal range on the print rather than the film scan. Between scanning, processing (to match the look of the real print), and posting, this ate up probably another 3 to 5 hours of my time.
And finally we have the blog post with all the individual PayPal purchase buttons — tack on another 2 or 3 hours.
So in total, I spent about 20 to 25 hours of prep-time just to offer the prints for sale. Add on an additional 3 hours for the 8 prints I made for the 4 buyers (they all bought in the first 3 days and got a 2nd print for free). In the end, I probably put in 25 hours of work. Fair enough? Just follow me, I’m going somewhere with all of this.
So 4 buyers paid $25 for prints. That’s $100 in my pocket. Now (for each purchase) subtract $1 for the PayPal transaction, $1 for packaging, $2 for materials (paper and chemicals), and an average of $5 for shipping. That leaves me with $16 per purchase, or $64 total.
OUTCOME ==> $64 / 25 hours = $2.50/hr
Not exactly my idea of “raking it in”. So needless to say, I probably won’t be offering up darkroom prints at this price again — it’s just not worth my time to spend so much energy for so little return. Again, let me repeat that I’m totally grateful for the 4 people who did purchase prints — it’s a great feeling to have somebody actually pay you for your efforts.
The moral of the story: Selling prints is hard work. Expect anything between disappointment and excitement. But whatever your experience, enjoy it. I’m pretty happy I did all this work, because now I’ve got 10 good-looking prints to hang on my walls.
After spending countless hours in the darkroom over the last few months, I’ve come to a point where I’m ready to offer up a few prints at a discount. I’ve learned a lot of new things and I’ve experimented on a fair amount of prints. At this point, I’m comfortable making a good looking print from most of my shots (there are a few that I still can’t get totally right).
Taking a look back at my film shots, I’ve picked out 10 photos for this print offer. These 10 either did well on Flickr (lots of interest in the comments), or they’re a personal favorite of mine. In any case, I tried to choose a good mix of genres and subjects — so hopefully you can find something you like.
I’ll be taking orders for this special offer for 2 weeks — so the cutoff is around April 17, 2009. This is a one-time offer for these particular prints, though I may or may not do something like this again in the future with different prints.
As an extra-special offer, I’ll throw in a second print of your choice at no additional cost — but only for the first 3 days! So if you want two prints for the price of one, get your order in by April 4, 2009. Just purchase one print and I’ll email you asking for your second selection (they can be two different prints). UPDATE: The 2 for 1 deal is over, but you can still get single prints!
ABOUT THE PRINTS
Again, all of these prints are produced in the darkroom using an optical enlarger with high quality lenses. These are not digital prints from film or print scans — I’ll be creating each one by hand using the old analog techniques.
The paper measures 8″ x 10″ and the prints have a 3/16″ border all around. This leaves about 7-5/8″ x 9-5/8″ of actual print, and most 8×10 frames are 7-1/2″ x 9-1/2″ so they should fit perfectly without showing border. The square prints measure 8″ x 8″.
The photos are printed on Ilford MGIV Deluxe RC Pearl Finish paper, so they have a little bit of shine to them while being a bit more scratch resistant than glossy paper. Though the paper is not archival quality fibre paper, I would expect these prints to last many years without signs of aging.
The prints are not signed, and they are not limited editions. If that’s what you’re looking for, you can still get one at regular price any time — but I may do a similar special offer for discounted signed prints in the near future.
PRINT SELECTIONS – $25 EACH
What you see below is pretty much what you’ll get — these are actually print scans and I tried to match the tones as close as possible. That said, the prints still look different… but in a good way.
To purchase, just click the button next to the print and you’ll be whisked away to PayPal for the transaction. Once that payment goes through, I’ll email you with a confirmation. I’ll ship to anywhere in the world at no extra cost. If you guys have any questions, just let me know in the comments.
UPDATE: The print offer has officially passed. If you would still like a print from the images below, please contact me directly.
“A Dreary World”
“Metal and Glass”
“It’s Lonely Out Here”
“Big White Boxes”
“What Lies Beyond”
NOTE: Feed readers may not be able to display the purchase buttons — please visit the website to order prints.
The third and final Epic Edits Birthday giveaway ended a few weeks back, and I’m finally getting around to publicly announcing the winners. This birthday gift was for 3 analog prints from my darkroom, and the winners were allowed to choose from any of my film shots.
So here are the winners and their choice of prints.
These are NOT the prints I’m offering, the photo above is just for illustration purposes. Winners of the raffle get to pick ANY photo of mine to be printed.
So… I’ve been wasting spending a lot of time in the darkroom over the last few months, and I think it’s appropriate that I offer up some prints for a birthday present. Here’s the deal — I’ll give out three 8×10 black and white prints, the winners get to choose the photo… any photo. These aren’t pre-printed, so I’ll make the prints once I pick the winners and they choose the photo they’d like. And the catch? Well, the prints won’t be signed and they’re printed on resin coated paper rather than fiber paper.
What’s all that mean? They’re basically just decoration photos — they’re not worth much from a collector standpoint. I’ve already decided that I won’t sign anything but fiber paper. It doesn’t mean that the prints won’t look good or last quite a while. It just means that they’re not signed, limited, and guaranteed to last longer than you. So if you’re up for a free decoration print, feel free to browse my stuff on Flickr:
Take your pick, anything goes… except for photos of my family and stuff. The b/w photos will look pretty close to what you see on Flickr. The green xpro photos tend to turn out pretty cool too — really high contrast. I didn’t include regular color film in the links because it doesn’t turn out well when printed in b/w.
TO ENTER THE RAFFLE…
Just leave a comment on this post and let me know you’d like a print of your choice. Worldwide raffle entries are welcome. I’ll choose the three random winners in one week from this post date.
And I’d appreciate hearing from you which print you might like to have. This type of feedback is useful to me so I can better understand what people are interested in. And if you’re looking for a signed limited print… I just might offer up one of those in another post… who knows?
I’ve got an enlarger and a whole mess of film, so it’s about time that I start making black & white prints. This is something I’ve been anxious to do since I started shooting film earlier this year. The problem is that I’ve only got the enlarger and none of the other items necessary to make a print.
After pricing things out, I’ve determined that it will cost about $300 to have a fully stocked darkroom (aka the kids bathroom). That’s a chunk of change that I can’t fully justify quite yet, so I’ve devised a plan that could make it possible — but it all depends on you guys.
I’m considering offering black & white prints (silver gelatin process using traditional darkroom methods) at a seriously low price for a very limited time. My hope is that I can raise enough money to cover the cost of the darkroom supplies and maybe a little extra so I can buy film developing supplies too.
$100 for a 16 x 20 or 11 x 14 print, signed and limited
The price includes shipping, to any location (I’m assuming that the average cost of shipping will be less than $10). If I go ahead and do this, I’ll probably take orders for a month or two at the rates listed above. After that point, only signed prints will be available at the typical $300+ range (because they are limited prints, typically 30 to 50). So…
And as always, feel free to comment on this little experiment before I decide to pull the trigger.
I mentioned a while back that Jim Goldstein was running a project that required participants to acquire artwork from other photographers. The deadline is today (November 2, 2008), and I’ve managed to pick up a few pieces for this project.
Not only did I acquire a few new pieces of art, I also found a long-term project for myself. In the course of this project, I determined that I’d like to start a collection of prints from photographers I associate with. For this collection, I’ll be gathering only black & white prints (preferably signed by the artist), all framed and matted in a similar fashion.
So here are the items I’ve acquired for Jim’s project…
CHASE JARVIS BOOK
Chase is one of the more “popular” photographers that I follow, and I’ve had some limited interaction with him in the past. He’s extremely good at what he does in his profession, but I admire him more as an artist than a commercial photographer. It was just plain luck that he released his first photo book during the course of this project, so naturally, I bought a copy. It’s a great book, filled with amazing photos.
Bryan is a photographer who is very close to me. We’ve been hanging out and shooting together occasionally over the last year or so. His enthusiasm for photography is nothing less than inspiring. When he approached me about doing a print swap, I was all for it (in fact, I had planned on asking him to do a print swap). I had a hard time choosing just one photo from Bryan, but I knew that I wanted it to be a photo from the subways because this topic really reminds me of him. I ended up choosing the photo above, and it looks great on paper.
For the print swap, Bryan requested one of my paraglider shots — Wide Open. I had it printed up at my local printer, signed it, and delivered it to him on our recent Venice Beach photowalk.
I approached the photographers from the Fine Art Photoblog about doing a print swap for the project and Cody jumped right in. Cody has been a great friend to lean on during the startup of the photoblog, but we’ve kept in touch for things other than that over the course of the last year. He’s a great landscape photographer, and his photos do the Great Northwest much justice. Again, I had a very hard time choosing a photo from Cody, but I finally decided on the one shown above. It has a very simple elegance that I just adore. The swap hasn’t happened yet, because we both still need to have the prints made.
And for this print swap, Cody requested that I choose one of mine for him. This is a daunting task, but I believe that I’ve chosen something he’ll like — It’s Lonely Out Here. This one is an equally simple photo, but with a subject matter that represents my current location. It’s a film photo, so I’ll be printing this one for him with my recently acquired enlarger (thanks to my Dad).
I meant to do more of these after I posted my first photo on eBay, but I completely lost track of things. So I finally found some time to post four new photos to eBay. These ones are posted a bit differently than the first one — there’s a low starting bid plus an unknown reserve amount. What reserve did I use? I guess you’ll have to place a bid to find out.
The photos will be printed, signed, and numbered by me (only one of each will be sold through eBay). This will be the only time these particular photos are offered via eBay — after this, the regular price will go back to the $500 neighborhood. So if you’ve had your eye on these photos, now’s the time to move on them!
Wow, I didn’t expect such a heated conversation to spring from the previous article titled “What Exactly is a Limited Edition Print?“. In that article, I pulled information from my own experiences and learnings to offer up a definition of “Limited Edition” as it pertains to fine art photography today.
Several of the readers offered up their own interpretations and some disputed my explanations. These comments and questions caused me to dig deeper and deeper until I came to the conclusion that a follow-up article was needed. So just as with the previous article, this article is an open discussion. Below you will find new information and perspectives on this topic of limited edition photography.
One commentator really got into the discussion and forced me to rethink some things. The entire discussion is worth a read on the previous article, but here are some key points made by Janne.
Any “Limited edition print” which isn’t actually _limited_ is basically fraud in my view. That includes doing more copies of the same image that aren’t signed; whether different size or not signed is beside the point; just call it “signed edition” or “signed print” if you want to be honest. And “limited” does imply a _small_ number of prints; below a thousand, certainly. Destroying the negative afterwards sounds like a good idea – that is the order of the day for other media that produce limited prints after all (stones are broken; copper plates repolished)
I mean, according to those definitions above there is actually nothing limiting any of you. You can run off numbered prints under your direct supervision in the millions; just rent some time on a newspaper press. And if that is not enough you seem to argue that a slight size difference, or a somewhat different crop, or just not put your signature on it makes it suddenly “not count”.
There’s two points to having a limited print: one is that the buyer knows there really is a _limited_ number of images out there. The other is the concept of the artist actually limiting themselves, and not selling all they could do, in preference of creating a smaller number of pieces with individuality.
(via email) Thinking about it one more time, what I’m really objecting to is simply the language. “limited print” has a pretty specific meaning in other graphical arts; what you want to do is completely legitimate and valuable, but uses a different term. It is needlessly confusing to appropiate a term in a neighbouring field and changing its intended meaning. People may legitimately become confused about what you mean, and feel they have been deceived as a result of this.
I’m really grateful for the discussions held with Janne, and I always enjoy academic arguments that cause me to learn new things a see new perspectives.
Niels Henriksen brought up the fact that there are several US states which have legal definitions of limited edition prints.
If I remember correctly within the USA there are legal rules to define what is constitutes and limited edition print. While I don’t have the ruling in front of me, I should try and dig it up again, Limited edition prints means that the artists will only produce x number of prints. They do not need to be signed or numbered, but this is ordinarily the practice. Therefore you would not able to sign and number x prints and then sell more unsigned if I am correct. There is provision when producing limited edition prints to have a very small number that will be used a promo pieces and they are identified as such. As a follow up, there are 14 states, I don’t know which ones that have legal definitions of limited edition prints.
I dug around a little more and I saw this reference to the 14 states with legal definitions, but the articles were outdated and links were broken. I have yet to see this actual source, but I’m sure something along these lines exists.
I’m no lawyer and I have a terrible time trying to navigate the law books. If there are any law savvy readers out there, I’m sure we’d all appreciate some clarification or reference to these things.
So bottom line: if you live in a state that clearly defines the term “Limited Edition” with regards to artistic prints, that’s going to be your guide. I’ll post more on this if I ever get my hands on the references to the state laws.
One thing that became apparent during the conversations in the previous post was that some of us were arguing about the language being used rather than the intent. So let’s take a look at the terms “limited” and “edition” in hopes that we can gain some insight.
LIMITED indicates something that is small in range or scope. This one is pretty straight forward, just meaning that there is a finite number of things in question.
EDITION refers to a collection of prints from the same original and usually printed at the same time. So if you print 50 images all at once, those 50 images are part of the same edition. If you print 30 more at a later time (and maybe at a different size or on a different medium) that would be considered another edition not part of the first edition. Wikipedia for more information.
So when we combine “Limited” and “Edition” it implies that a small set number of prints were made from the original at the same time and of the same size, implying that no further prints will be produced.
Limited editions are a byproduct of historic printmaking techniques. Prior to modern photography, artists were limited to a range of printmaking techniques to create multiple reproductions of an art piece. These techniques typically included a plate of some sort that was used to create impressions on the final medium (and most of these techniques are still used today for creating prints). These plates were physically incapable of lasting indefinitely and many were only capable of producing a small number of prints before deteriorating past a usable state. The prints derived from these plates were also usually created at the same time because of the process involved to do so — it just wasn’t as feasible to create one at a time based on demand.
And so limited editions were not a marketing ploy to impose scarcity or something that the artist chose to do. It was a burden of necessity based on the technology. The artist would make their prints, number them, and possibly sign them. And that was the end of that.
Here is just one type of printmaking that uses acid to etch a copper plate.
As technology advanced, so did art. There came a point when printmaking techniques were no longer physically limiting on the number of prints that could be derived from an original — specifically with photography (especially with digital photography).
As the technology allowed for near infinite reproduction of prints, artists began to impose limits on their works as a means of creating scarcity and increasing value. Numbering the multiples provides an indication of scarcity and signatures have become a typical means of identifying the origin of the work while implying that the print is truly from the artist.
So in the most strict sense of the term “Limited Edition” as it applies to fine art photography, prints would need to be produced as an edition (all at once) and no further prints would be produced. To ensure this limit is maintained, the original should probably be destroyed.
Digital technology only clouds the topic because exact replicas of the original can be produced with very little effort. Even scaled digital reproductions of the original bring question as to whether a print derived from that image can truly be called a limited edition. If I print a 3×5 from one of my Flickr photos that was run as a limited edition, did I just create a second edition? And does that break the promise of the first edition?
I truly don’t care if what I’m producing is called a “Limited Edition”, a “Signed Print”, a “Limited Signed Print”, a “Special Edition”, etc. The implications of the formal terminology aren’t what interests me, so much as the intent of the works I’m creating.Niels Henriksen also made a statement to this that really makes sense to me.
I believe as an artist, unless there are legal definitions within your jurisdiction, it is important to clearly define your use of limited editions and any other prints runs you might be making for different sizes, posts cards, unsigned etc.
In order to avoid confusion or disputes with potential buyers, I’ll have to be more careful about the terminology I used to describe my artwork. Clearly, in the digital age things are not so cut and dry as they once were. Again, Janne provided some useful insights to this.
(via email) In a larger context, of course, the whole idea of a “limited print” is a rather bad fit for this medium, as you point out in a later reply.
Doing a limited print run is simply trying to create an artificial scarcity, and it’s not clear that anybody at all stands to benefit. I have seen the idea floated of an “artistic back catalogue”, where visual artists simply keep their images available, running new prints according to demand, in much the same way as musicians today can keep their entire back catalogue available for the occasional buyer, and as we can (though regrettably still do not) keep books similarly available on a permanent basis.
Trying to go the “expensive and rare” route with copyable media greatly risks backlash, with many potential customers electing to either do an illegal copy, or just search the net for a free image of the subject they’re interested in. Most buyers of prints are after all as interested in the subject matter as in that specific image and composition, and there isn’t a notable spot on the planet today not well represented by photographs of every caliber, many legally available for free.
Once again, I call on the rest of you to offer up your thoughts on this topic. I’m particularly interested in continuing the discussion about “Limited Editions”, but I’m also curious about how modern photographic printmaking should be handled by today’s artists and how they should label their work. And yet again, I use the words from Janne to get this discussion started.
(via email) It may simply be that regardless of any definition of “limited”, the viable business approach for most photographers is the same as for musicians, graphical designers and other such groups: If you can’t vault into superstardom, your best bet is to create a full body of work and make it available easily and inexpensively. Then rely on the accumulated orders over the entire catalogue and on the secondary services you can offer to create a steady income; rather than trying to create a few breakaway hits.
UPDATE: As a result of the discussions from this post, I’ve written a follow-up article that addresses more perspectives on this topic. Please visit A Closer Look at Limited Editions for further reading.
A few posts back, I mentioned that I put one of my “limited edition” prints up for auction on eBay. In the comments of this post, Stephen Gray asked a very good question:
One thing that always confuses me, however, is the use of the term “limited” or “limited edition” in the digital age. There’s really no actual limiting factor when dealing with digital photos and printing. I mean, even a good negative can be scanned and then reproduced in large numbers. So how do we as photographers define this? What are our responsibilities or requirements when using such terms? (I’ll be honest, not understand this–along with a severe lack of time due to a show I’m currently working on–was a big factor that kept me from submitting to the recent Fine Art Photoblog call for entries.)
As a consumer, if I’m buying something that’s touted as “limited”, then it comes with the expectation that what I’m buying will remain scarce. After 30, you’ll not sell this photo again or is there some other caveat involved?
To be honest, I was asking the same types of questions only a few months ago. Lucky for me, I work with highly talented individuals on the Fine Art Photoblog who could lend me some pointers on the topic. And to be perfectly clear, the material in this article is based on opinion and personal experience. I don’t believe there exists an official handbook or set of rules for “limited edition” photos. Take it with a grain of salt and offer up your own thoughts if your opinion is different.
And no, the photos shown on this post aren’t necessarily limited edition prints — they’re just “prints” of some sort.
Let’s start with the formal source and see what the Wikipedia has to say about the topic of Limited Editions. Here’s an excerpt from the topic of the Special Edition as it relates to the artistic medium.
Limited editions have been standard in printmaking from the nineteenth century onwards. There is a genuine need for the concept here, as many traditional printmaking techniques can only produce a limited number of top-quality impressions, as copies of prints are known. This can be as few as ten or twenty for a technique like drypoint, but more commonly would be in the hundreds or thousands. But here as in other fields, the use of the concept has become largely driven by marketing imperatives, and has been misused in parts of the market. In particular, lithographic, photogravure, rotogravure, and computer reproductions of prints, derived from photographs of an original print, which are most unlikely to have any investment value, are often issued in limited editions implying that they will have such value. These need to be distinguished from the original artist’s print, carefully produced directly from his work in whatever the printmaking medium is, and printed under his supervision.
So to sum that up: driven by marketing imperatives, produced directly from the artist’s work (film or digital file), and produced under the supervision of the artist or directly by the artist.
I treat mine differently than some people, but there’s no definitive way to do this. I sell my prints at whatever size the customer wants and it counts as 1-of-X in the edition length…as long as it’s signed and numbered. I don’t usually go below 12×18″ for mine, but it’s up to you. Anything purchased that does not have my signature is not considered part of the limited edition, but some folks believe that only producing a set number is what creates the value of the print. Ansel Adams’ estate would argue against this point, though, as you can go buy poster prints of his work for a couple hundred dollars, but his originals or prints from his negatives usually start about $10K. So, I sell ‘art’ pieces, and I sell ‘signed’ pieces…the signed ones are what matter to me…the others are for hobbyists and over-the-couchers.
So to sum that up: any size counts as part of the limited edition, must be signed and numbered, and reproductions are okay too and don’t detract from the value of the limited edition.
Again, like Cody said, there are a lot of interpretations of this. I’ve known a lot of people that do editions in one size only and that’s all they print, others that do a limited edition in one size and print others indefinitely, and those that do editions in all sizes, as in 50 in 11×14, 50 in 16×20 and so on. There is also a school of thought that believes that after the edition is printed the negative (or the digital file as it were) should be destroyed. If you ask me, thats ludicrous.
So to sum that up: there are a lot of interpretations of this topic and many are acceptable, and destroying the original negative or digital file after the limited edition is over is not necessary.
Since doing my original research on this topic, I’ve come to define the idea of Limited Editions to suit my own needs. You can also catch me at the Fine Art Photoblog or at the PhotoNetCast.
I think I have to agree with both Cody and Joe in their thoughts on this. I consider a limited edition print to require a signature and number at a minimum. The print should be produced directly by the artist, or under direct supervision of the artist (such as working with a professional print maker). Any size is okay with me (but no smaller than 12″ at the longest dimension), and any size counts as part of the same limited edition. Reprints, such as those from ImageKind, are perfectly fine during or after the limited edition and they shouldn’t devalue the signed prints. Limited edition prints are collectible pieces of art and their value should increase over time.
So to sum that up: need a signature and number, produced by the artist, sizes don’t matter much, and reprints are okay.
SO TO SUM THAT UP…
Like I said before, there are no hard set rules on this topic. But after doing a little research and talking with some experienced photographers/artists, I think we can say the following about Limited Edition prints:
Produced directly from the artist’s original work (film or file).
Produced directly by the artist or under direct supervision.
Limited to some pre-defined number of prints.
Signed and numbered (X of N) by the artist.
Sizing of prints is up to the artist.
Unsigned reprints are acceptable and don’t devalue the limited edition.
The original work doesn’t need to be destroyed at the end.
What other rules or guidelines do you have for Limited Edition prints? Do you disagree with anything here? Have you found other resources that address this topic? Leave some comments and discuss!
UPDATE: As a result of the discussions from this post, I’ve written a follow-up article that addresses more perspectives on this topic. Please visit A Closer Look at Limited Editions for further reading.