Ethics and Limited Editions (?)

COLLETTE RIDGEWAY

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

I've been printing my work in limited editions (of 15 and 35)for some
time on Ilfochrome. To me, a limited edition of 35 means just that...35
prints of a given size...PERIOD! It doesn't mean, to me, 35 16x20 prints
and then 35, or some other number of different size prints when that
original edition sells out. I also don't try to sell "proof prints" or
"artist's prints". (I'm not even sure what "artists prints" are!)

Anyway...I am now about to start producing a portfolio of limited edition
black & white prints. Of course, I will be printing on fiber paper.
Here is my problem...

I would like to send some big (20x24) *RC* prints to the dealers that
currently handle my color work. I'm thinking of printing somewhere between
and 11x14 and a 16x20 on a 20x24 sheet of paper leaving BIG borders and
running some text (my name) accross the bottom (similar to a fine-art
poster).

I'd probably like to send a few of these to friends too.

If I do this...is it ethical to promote a limited edition of X number
of fiber prints when there are a few RC promo prints floating around?
Does anyone see this as a problem? If so, I suppose I can punch a whole in
the RC poster print (over the image). I guess I could also burn something
onto the RC image.(Such as: Not Archival or ??? Any ideas?)

Any thoughts on this stuff would be greatly appreciated.

Scott
(borrowing my wife's account)

John G. Walter

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

It sure wouldn't bother me...!!!!

the way I see it a lot of what you are selling in your "limited edition" is
the fibre print itself. What would the difference be, between an RC
promotional print and a reproduction in a magazine or a catalog for
example????

I have my doubts, personally, about the validity of so-called "limited
editions" anyway. I read recently an interesting article on the subject.
I'll try and find it and pass on the insights. The photographer was pretty
much anti-LE....and he had some good reasons why.

As an art buyer, I have been mostly buying original watercolors.
Recently, I visited a favorite's gallery, planning on acquiring another
original piece. I was so stunned by a beautiful IRIS print of an original
watercolor, I purchased it instead. It was a limited edition (of 75), but
it doesn't bother me that there is an original out there, or other types of
prints (serigraphs, etc.) or lithos or whatever.

COLLETTE RIDGEWAY <crid...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote in article
<6a5g6i$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...

Rob Gray

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

to

John G. Walter wrote:
>
snip

> I read recently an interesting article on the subject.
> I'll try and find it and pass on the insights. The photographer was pretty
> much anti-LE....and he had some good reasons why.

snip

I too remember reading such an article, I think it might have been a
"Vestal at Large" column in Photo Tech mag. The gist of the article
seemed to be that, in general, because non-limited prints are only done
to order whereas an edition tends to be entirely printed in one go,
there ends up actually being less of non-limited prints produced than
limited prints. An interesting paradox if it is true.

Regards
Rob
--
----------------------------------------------------
Rob Gray, Landscape Photographer Extraordinaire :-)
PO Box 785, FYSHWICK ACT 2906, Australia
ph:+61 (2) 6294 3186 fax:+61 (2) 6294 3187
j...@ozemail.com.au
------ "Don't dream it, be it" Frank-n-furter ------

John G. Walter

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

to

That is the article I am thinking of... (still haven't located it)

It is a paradox, but I wonder if the part of an edition being printed all
at once is true.

I purchased a silk-screen print a few years ago in an edition of 160. I
recall the artist saying that he produced all of the prints at onetime and
stored them until sold. I can imagine this to be the case since the
production of these prints is quite laborious since each had about 80
separate colored inks, each requiring a lot of prep work.

But in another case, I purchase last year n Iris print of a watercolor in
an edition of 75. the artist told me that he had the prints made in
batches of 15, mostly because of the cost of producing the prints.

On two other photographs that I purchased recently I need to find out more
detail. One was a 16X20 print in an edition of 350 and the other was an
"Artists Proof" I can't imagine that the artist produced 350 16X20 prints
and is storing them for what will probably be 15 years that it takes to
sell them all.

And with regards to "artist proofs" I have a number of them. they are
actually new work that the artist is testing on potential customers at his
shows. Depending on how fast they sell would determine the size of an
edition. Potentially, artist proofs could be the most valuable of all,
since prices go up as editions move towards sell-out.

Rob Gray <j...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<34C740...@ozemail.com.au>...

Norman Strand~

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

to

Some thing I have noticed is that when painters make limited edition lithographs
they often make 750 or 1000 or even more prints but when a photographer makes a
limited edition it is often 15 or 25 prints or so. Some photographers make
prints from a paticular negative untill they are sick and tired of doing it and
still they have not made as many prints as what some painters would make
lithographs. I seem to remember that Ansel Adams only made about 800 prints of
moonrise over hernandes, one of his more popular photographs.

It seems that many photographers do not have a great deal of depth is their
portfolios of photographs that will sell well for hanging on the wall as art,
so it would be better for them to milk the ones that sell for as long as they
can.

Norman Strand
this is not the opinion of intel corp.
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226

John G. Walter

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

to

Could be because a fine photographic print is a much more difficult,
involved process than the more mechanical reproduction of a lithograph (to
some degree).

I don't know, but I doubt that Ansel Adams printed all 800 of his
"moonrise" photos in one session. More than likely (and somebody out there
probably knows this), they were produced over a period of time in batches.
In fact some may have not been printed by Adams at all.

Stnglsgrn

unread,

Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98

to

The prints that you call lithographs are not lithographs they are offset
repoductions make by a printing company not the artists. They have no value on
the art market except to the artists and galleries that sell them. There is no
resale market for them although the dealers will tell you differently. They
are not original works of art.
A Lithograph is made by an artist and is generly limited to a hundred or so
prints as are photographs.