Are Limited Editions a Dealbreaker?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Parker on November 2, 2011 at 5:28pm

Depends on what shows you aspire to do. Many of the top shows list it as a requirement, and some enforce the rule. Peoria, for example, came around and asked photographers to remove items from displays that were prohibited in the rules.

You sign an agreement when you apply for a show that you will abide by the rules. If your personal ethics disallow limited editions, and you feel strongly that you will not number your prints, then perhaps you should not apply to shows that require them.

That said, many other photographers flaunt this rule as well. Few shows actually check to see that prints are numbered or editioned. If you are comfortable with breaking that rule, go ahead and apply. But be prepared to back up your ethics should you be questioned at a show. Your choice.

Permalink Reply by David Kachel on November 2, 2011 at 5:45pm

I do number all my signed prints. They are just not limited. I do the limiting by raising the price as a print becomes more popular.

Permalink Reply by Blaine Owens on November 2, 2011 at 5:58pm

What do the high end shows require as a maximum number for limited editions? If I market an edition of  10,000 is that considered a limited edition?

Permalink Reply by Jim Parker on November 2, 2011 at 6:51pm

Generally 250 in all sizes. 10,000 is not really limited, is it? If you sell 10,000 of any one image, will you let me know? I want to follow in your footsteps!

Permalink Reply by Fred Fischer on November 2, 2011 at 6:05pm

Try dating them. As I rarely make more than 5 of any image a year, I never limit any prints. I will make prints on demand but they will be dated. AFA shows go they need to loosen up.

 

Permalink Reply by David Kachel on November 2, 2011 at 6:11pm

My prints are already dated and numbered.

Permalink Reply by Blaine Owens on November 2, 2011 at 7:11pm

The only limit to my print production is when consumers stop wanting them. I have never numbered or marketed them as limited editions. I mentioned 10,000 only as a means to satisfy a requirement for entering a show without restricting possible future sales.

As for 250, I have never sold that many in any one size.

Permalink Reply by S Brian Berkun on November 3, 2011 at 12:41am

It's a vanity issue as far as photography goes, and as far as I'm concerned.  Collectors sometimes want to know that there aren't 10,000 of one image out there but I don't believe that Ansel Adams ever limited his editions and he did okay! Although he did a neat marketing trick when he put out the word that he would no longer be making prints BUT, he WAS taking orders for prints!

All told, I do number my prints, if anyone asks (which they rarely have, I usually have to educate them). As for "limited" when I get tired of an image, or it ceases to sell, it's limited and I haven't had to sell 10,000 or even 250 for that matter, even though I would like to!

My two cents worth...I don't think they are a deal breaker either way unless you are working with "Snooty Gallery". Numbering came about originally with lithography and silk screens where there is actual physical degradation of the original over time so...the edition was limited to what the media could bare. As far as negatives are concerned, and for that matter digital media now-a-days, as long as the negative was well cared for there was no need to "limit" how many you made. And why shouldn't photographers make as many as they want to? The numbering of photography came about later and was probably pushed by the same kind of thinking that created the word "Serigraph" (and the invented "Giclee"…but that’s another story!) to distinguish it from "common" silk screen or other types of printing which were associated with commercial applications but which are technically NO different.