Limited Signed Prints

[dreemes]

Has anyone done a limited number of signed prints? I'm looking to try it with a photo of mine that appeared on the back of a calendar and need some input.
Did you do 8x10 or 11x14? Sig on front or back? Price range? I am looking to give $5 to my VFD for each one to help raise funds (and good marketing of course). Any input greatly appreciated.

[Gordon]

What's the motivation for making it a limited edition ?

Is there some limitation on your ability to reproduce them ?

[simon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

What's the motivation for making it a limited edition ?

Is there some limitation on your ability to reproduce them ?

I'm by no means an art dealer or anything, but it's always been my impression that limited editions, like single editions, of photographs are a trade off you make believing you can see more return on a few copies sold at higher price.

I'd probably print a lot larger than 8x10 if I were going to do something like that.

[kenw]

Rather than a limited edition, why not a single print auctioned?

A silent auction can raise great funds, generate a lot of excitement and "heat of the moment" bidding for a very worthy cause. You could dontate the print, matted and framed nicely, deducting the actual cost on taxes as a donation to the VFD. The VFD keeps all the proceeds, and there's no muss no fuss with dividing it up. And the PR you receive from a "large" donation will outweigh almost any other consideration.

If the pic lends itself to it, consider a poster print. You can do a 24x36 for $15-20, add a $20 frame and start the bidding at $100. (remember: donate your costs!!!)

I think an auction of a single large print will generate more $$ for the VFD, and more PR for you.

I donated a bunch of small matted prints to a church fund raiser, and I realized later that a few larger prints would have done better.

[simon]

Originally Posted by kenw

I donated a bunch of small matted prints to a church fund raiser, and I realized later that a few larger prints would have done better.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

One way to handle this is in this manner:
Print at a minimum size 11" x 14", pencil sign in margin-yes you leave a border on the print- with no # but on the back of the photo you sign again noting that this is X of XX pieces printed at 11"x 14", then have it matted and framed. On the back of the frame you make up a label that states the works name, the year the photo was taken, artist name, the edition size (may not that this is print x of xx) and print size and if you wish a web address (this is not signed).
Now it comes down to the integrity of the artist never to make that print again at that size PERIOD. Now if you look at the classics like Ansel Adams that required work in the dark room to dodge and burn in the print he only signed his works. If you just ran a print off of his negative you would not have the impact that his "prints" truly have.

Since we don't deal with darkrooms to speak of with digital but with PhotoShop and other Programs we pretty much send our finished product off to be printed.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by simon

I'm by no means an art dealer or anything, but it's always been my impression that limited editions, like single editions, of photographs are a trade off you make believing you can see more return on a few copies sold at higher price.

I wonder how many editions of 10 or more ever even reach 10 sales. My vague point was that it used to make sense, when considering a high amount of photographer involvement in the printing/ darkroom process. An 'edition' would be a set of prints that involved some work to make them. They would all be made at that time and often the negative would be destroyed (to generate that pseudo rarity value)

But at least then, it would take the photographer actual time and effort to create each print so there was some finite resource involved.

Now adays all you do is hit 'print'

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

That is a rumour that the negatives were destroyed-they usually were just put away. Really if you were a Stiglitz and say the MOMA had a fire and your work was damaged and they came back to you pleading to make them another copy since the one they had was a one of a kind you probably would pull out the negative and hit the darkroom.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by kenw

If the pic lends itself to it, consider a poster print. You can do a 24x36 for $15-20, add a $20 frame and start the bidding at $100. (remember: donate your costs!!!)
.

The issue you get into really quickly with such cheap printing & framing is the archival quality of the materials. If someone is going to spend more than $50 on a photo they probably expect it not to fade and curl up in a year or so.

Those $20 prints in $20 frames aren't going to last well. The glass isn't going to be UV protecting. The frames are unlikely to be acid free, the prints themselves won't be on archival paper.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Gordon

What's the motivation for making it a limited edition ?

Is there some limitation on your ability to reproduce them ?

I think some buyers probably feel they're getting something "special" by purchasing a limited edition print and will be willing to pay more, and photographers feel justified in charging more for such prints. Whether that makes logical sense is certainly debateable, but who ever said that art-buying was logical. :)

One thing to be aware of is that in many if not most states there is a legal definition of what constitutes a limited edition, so you can't just call it that and sign your name on the back along with an edition number; if you're going to offer limited edition prints make sure you do the homework on what information you're required to provide the customer (usually in the form of a certificate of authenticity, although the exact information required on it can vary from state to state).

I'd like to start selling prints some day (when I feel I have enough images worth selling), and have given some thought to this subject. I do think there is something to be said for trying to differentiate your product from a mass-produced poster-type print/reproduction, so to that end anything you can do to enhance the value of your product is a good idea. My likely approach will be to offer smaller print sizes (say, 11x14 and smaller) as open edition prints on regular luster-type photo paper at fairly cheap prices. But for larger prints I like the idea I've seen used by some photographers of a "special edition"; this isn't a limited edition per se, but is a print made by the photographer on fine art paper, and signed and numbered by the photographer. It's not "limited" since there's no limit on the number that may eventually sell, but customers still feel like they're getting something more than just a poster print (because let's face it if poster prints of Ansel images sell for $30 how much can any of use really expect to charge).

[simon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

I wonder how many editions of 10 or more ever even reach 10 sales. My vague point was that it used to make sense, when considering a high amount of photographer involvement in the printing/ darkroom process. An 'edition' would be a set of prints that involved some work to make them. They would all be made at that time and often the negative would be destroyed (to generate that pseudo rarity value)

But at least then, it would take the photographer actual time and effort to create each print so there was some finite resource involved.

Now adays all you do is hit 'print'

Yeah, I get you, but even in the `old days' it was a choice between multiple prints and one, right? Generating a small number of prints is a false scarcity, but one that worked for some things. I don't know that this aspect has really changed much even though the technology to reproduce is much easier.

Bottom line is, historically people have been willing to pay for limited editions because they believe it means something, and maybe they aren't in the marking for a one-off.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

That is a rumour that the negatives were destroyed-they usually were just put away. Really if you were a Stiglitz and say the MOMA had a fire and your work was damaged and they came back to you pleading to make them another copy since the one they had was a one of a kind you probably would pull out the negative and hit the darkroom.

But at least then it would likely be very different. Someone else mentioned Adams - if you see a variety of prints of his Moonrise over Hernandez shot, developed through his lifetime you see how differently he printed it each time. The sky started out mostly white in the original work prints. it was darkened increasingly as he printed it more and more extremely.

Again, at least those aren't just easily run off, identical duplicates. Limited editions of digital work always seems a bit pointless, particularly when they almost never actually sell the full edition.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

but customers still feel like they're getting something more than just a poster print (because let's face it if poster prints of Ansel images sell for $30 how much can any of use really expect to charge).

His fine art, hand printed gallery quality images sold for the equivalent of $200 in today's money. Should give some pause when pricing your own work too ;)

[simon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

But at least then it would likely be very different. Someone else mentioned Adams - if you see a variety of prints of his Moonrise over Hernandez shot, developed through his lifetime you see how differently he printed it each time. The sky started out mostly white in the original work prints. it was darkened increasingly as he printed it more and more extremely.

Again, at least those aren't just easily run off, identical duplicates. Limited editions of digital work always seems a bit pointless, particularly when they almost never actually sell the full edition.

But that really isn't the point. Other media has had reproductive abilities. There are limited edition series of silkscreens for example, with very little difference between copies. If you *wanted* to make a series where each was slightly different, you could.

I just don't buy your argument that there is a fundamental difference here, I guess.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by simon

Yeah, I get you, but even in the `old days' it was a choice between multiple prints and one, right? Generating a small number of prints is a false scarcity, but one that worked for some things..

it used to be an actual scarcity. Digitally it isn't. All it is now is an attempt at marketing :)

Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork has written and podcasted a lot about the meaningless of limited editions on the photographic art world, in particular for relative unknowns.

From a sales/ marketing perspective you'd be better off trying to saturate the market with your work. Give it away, get it in front of as many people as possible. Then maybe limit the sales.

Adams is so well known because of marketing. His images are everywhere. Then you can sell the few rare special editions. Up until then I think mostly you are kidding yourself. If I did a limited edition of say 20 copies of one of my most popular prints, I'd be lucky to be able to give them away and have all 20 end up hung on a wall, never mind sell all 20 :)