The truth about limited editions

"Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at........."

 

Sure. That would be people like Ansel Adams, Brett Weston, Joel Witkin...yeah....I can see what you mean. None of them are/were really very successful.

I don't really understand the argument. Professional photographers need to get paid. One way to set prices is to limit the circulation of prints. People don't have to buy limited editions of prints. The fact that they do proves there is a market and buyers are satisfied by what they are offered. Is there a moral argument that people should give away their work for nothing?

"None of them are/were really very successful."

 

Weren't they? I thought they made a dollar or two. You must tell us why you

think that.

What a new concept! Photographers should put their work out on the market to sell to as

many people as will buy it at the best price they can get. Don't limit the supply. Encourage

excess. That will be a fair and liveable arrangement for everyone. It will inspire the

greatest creative work possible and everyone will be happy.

 

Oh, wait, it's already been done. It's called stock photography.

This article is full of factual errors but is correct about one thing, economics does have a

lot

to do with limited editions.

 

The operating expenses for a decently sized photo gallery in Chelsea, NYC, are about

$30,000--$50,000 per month. This covers staff salaries, rent, public relations, insurance,

shipping costs, framing, utilities, advertising and all the other related expenses required

to keep such a business running. All this must be paid for by one thing-print sales. Since

the gallery takes a 50% commission, the gallery must sell $60,000-$100,000 in

photographs per month to break even.

 

Small editions and the corresponding prices are an economic necessity. This reality not

only makes

limited editions impossible to get rid of, it also sets a high hurdle for photographers

entering the market. You must be able to generate that sort of potential income to merit a

show. If you show and don't sell well, someone else is going to have to pay for it. A lot of

very good work

can't leap that hurdle and therefore isn't exhibited. That's life. It's all a matter of

perspective.

"Small editions and the corresponding prices are an economic necessity. ... That's life. It's all a matter of perspective."</p>

 

 

It is a matter of perspective. High prices are an economic necessity for the art galleries, not the photographer. Remove the middleman and its a different economic paridigm. People don't buy high priced photographs to keep the galleries in business. Aside from artistic interest, people pay top dollar for limited editions photographs because they'll, hopefully, be good investments. This is an over-generalization of course, but the point is that the premium set by a limited edition photograph is only to add value to that particular item. A photograph, unlimited in some manner, will not retain its value by virtue of the laws of econimics.

I'm surprised not to see any support for adopting the book edition system touted at

the end of the article. The idea of doing a second or third edition based on demand makes

perfect sense to me. And if a first edition sells out, a second printing of that edition within

the exhibition cycle works for me as well. Collectors can have their hierarchy of value, and

subsequent editions could be offered at a lower rate to the less-well-off.

 

As I'm just starting to produce prints of my work for sale, I have pondered the numbering/

edition question for a while now. So of course I appreciate the timing of this thread. Now I

wonder what the law says about 'book editioning' art works (particularly in California.)

<i>I just came back today from looking at Bresson print..It was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes Ten Kilo dollares Americanos..but in the title it also admitted it was a "recent print"</i>... and who was making that money?... Henri? I think not. <p>If there is a way to ensure that artists make as much money as possible from their work while they're alive, I'm all for it. Health insurance? Extended Care? A place to live when you're ancient and unable to continue work? There's no retirement plan for artists unless they make one themselves, and if editioning provides one, I say go for it. <p>I'd like to add a stipulation to all my print sales that says I (or my heirs) get a percentage of any subsequent sales of my artwork. I don't get why people can resell artwork for many times more than they paid for it, and yet feel they don't owe some of that to the very person who created it... t

<I>I'd like to add a stipulation to all my print sales that says I (or my heirs) get a

percentage of any subsequent sales of my artwork. I don't get why people can resell

artwork for many times more than they paid for it, and yet feel they don't owe some of

that to the very person who created it...

</I><P>

 

FYI, California's civil code has such provisions, subject to certain conditions, that let's

artists (or their heirs) participate in the escalating value of their work as it is resold. IIRC,

it's 5%, of the resale price, and only applies to sales greater than $1000. Many people are

unaware of this statute.

Disclaimer: This response is only addressing the issue of how to reap the greatest financial benefit of one's hard work. I realize there are other factors at work, as has been pointed out, such as when an artist simply wants to leave certain work behind and limiting editions enables he or she to adopt this type of work ethic.

 

This thread brings up an interesting concept, basic to economics: the concept of price elasticity. Price elasticity of a good is basically the concept that people's buying habits will change based on the price of a good: price it lower and people will buy more, price it higher and people will buy less, to a point. The degree to which the change in price affects people's buying habits is different depending on the good in question, and can be measured quantitatively as the price elasticity of demand. (Technically, it is the quantity demanded that changes, not the demand itself...).

 

What sorts of things make for more or less price elasticity? In other words, what sorts of goods are sensitive to changes in their price? Well, for one thing, goods that are perceived as commodities (i.e. mass produced, unspecialized products) are subject to higher price elasticity, whereas goods that are perceived as collectibles are subject to lower price elasticity. Example, if Peet's raises it?s price on Lattes, many people will likely start going to Starbuck's instead, because Starbuck's coffee is a good enough substitute for Peet's (not for me, personally, but I do have my limit, which helps make the point...). In contrast, you can apparently raise the price of an original Van Gogh to the stratosphere and still find a buyer. Coffee has a relatively higher price elasticity of demand, whereas fine art has a relatively lower price elasticity. Lowering the price of a good with high price elasticity of demand can increase your revenue (because people will buy more of that good), whereas lowering the price of a good with low price elasticity will lower your revenue. In fact, the effect of changes in price on revenue can help define the price elasticity of a good in question, and can help guide future pricing decisions.

 

All this is to say that can be (or at least I suppose it can be) difficult in the art world to judge when your work has passed from the arena of commodity (sorry to use such a crass word) to collectible, and when the pricing and production scheme should shift accordingly to realize the greatest revenue. Who can say? Perhaps the artist, perhaps the gallery owner, perhaps no one really knows without a team of (expensive) experts to advise them. And then, of course, some really well known photographers choose not to edition, and continue to produce and sign work, assured, by their fame, of a continued market (HCB did this, and I'm not necessarily passing judgment here...). The effect of their fame is that the market perceives every print made as a collectible, despite the unlimited nature of the production during the artist's life-time.

 

All this is by way of saying that it may not be an easy question to answer, artists are unfortunately to some degree at the mercy of their gallery representatives to judge the market (and hopefully they do so well so that they stay in business and continue to market your work effectively).

 

All of this may be tangential to the practice of art and photography, but I think it behooves us to try and understand the market forces that have us in their grasp! Thanks for reading such a long post...comments welcome!

if you have already established a reputation as a fine photographer, your work will be collectible and then it would make sense to go limited editions. but, starting out with limited editions simply limits the exposure of your work and you will not achieve the status that warrants putting out a limidted edition. i think you have to do really really good work, create an audience, and then limit your editions. sort of a catch 22.

I think it was just a marketing gimmick some dealer thought up a hundred or so years ago. As silver based photography disappears, so will limited editions....Jim

...people limit their work because they just don't want to make more

than, say, 25 or 6 to 4 images of the same thing

off subject but "25 or 6 to 4" ... love it ;)

I think "mainly greed" is quite right. But we have some kind of greed.

 

For those who rely on photographs to make money,limiting their photographic editions may be a good way to make

more money. There is nothing to reproach.

But I think art is to bring joy to people,if it is really a excellent photo,why not sell it to more people in a

lower price, Is it money making the same?

 

For those who purely love photograph and think it's wrong to do so,just take more excellent photos to prove them

wrong.

 

I personally don't take photos for the intention of making money, the critical thing drives me to take photos is

the desire to pursue beautiful things(like beautiful photos and the precise design of camera<I'm interested in

all machines>) but if the photos can bring me some "side effect" such as money I would be more happy.

 

So just let them limit their edition and we do what we do

In my dream of dreams, the prints of my large scale abstract photography would be printed in editions of one. There was a moment and I

made a photograph at that moment. It can only exist once, therefore only should be printed once (a personal philosophy). The limitation

of printing not only creates demand for higher prices, but also has the potential of heightening the sense of uniqueness and of the

"moment" within photography. Anybody who wants to understand this a bit better should familiarize themselves with Walter Benjamin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction

 

Alas, photography is an easily reproduceable medium and I have a family to help support and that means selling as much as I can -

even after I am long dead- and that means editions, albeit small numbers (do you know what college is going to cost for your

grandchildren?)

HP

"Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you

understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at........."

 

Maybe you should name some names- I'd like to see what somebody, hypothetically, may consider rubbish.

Left out of the basic analysis is what has been called the "Gucci Effect." Many people will buy, say, a Bresson print for $10,000 simply because it costs that much and everyone (or at least people whose opinions are important to the new owner) will hopefully know they paid that much for it. Much of what passes for art and sells for enormously inflated sums is riding just that market. Of course, this effect is most prevalent in the markets for "one off" pieces like paintings or sculpture, as the buyer is reasonably sure there will be only one object so everyone (or at least everyone who is "in the know") will understand the owner spent an obscene amount for the object. The post about the "recent" print of a Bresson going for $10K was very interesting to me, because the ability to duplicate, to some extent, the appearance of a photograph ad infinitum with modern technology would seem to endanger the Gucci Effect in the photography markets.

John Douglas

"the ability to duplicate, to some extent, the appearance of a photograph ad infinitum with modern technology would

seem to endanger the Gucci Effect in the photography markets."

 

I've never seen a reproduction that looks as good as an original print- never.

 

Also- everybody should keep in mind that these prices are fairly just- these are truly talented photographers and their

hard work, usually decades worth, deserves compensation. Anyone who thinks $10,000 for a Cartier-Bresson print is

obscene, obviously doesn't realize that that amount of money is but a drop in the bucket for the collectors paying it- the

appropriate people to buy these works- they usually house them correctly maintaining the integrity of the print and the

work itself.