In a message dated 4/30/2006 8:53:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add "value" to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content.
I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j ======= I always figured, if I even get to the level of mixing artwork and photography and producing something, I'd go with limited edition prints. It is definitely the way to go. The way to make money. Buyers want to know that they are buying something rather "rare." That, in other words, there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of copies run off. (They are also willing to pay more that way.) It applies especially well to artwork (silk screens and things, although not that many do silk screens anymore), but I am not sure how well it applies to photography. And, yes, digital seems to make it rather silly. But not completely silly. Having a master doesn't mean that one literally makes a continuous series of a bunch of prints. And prints are the product as far as most people are concerned, not the master. Personally, if I ever do this, I meant to research it. I think there are loopholes so that one can do a reprint say in the future, say 20 years later, if it is necessary. Forms and legalities. Ways to reassure people this is a limited edition (of 25-50-whatever). Guaranteed by the artist. But that the artist still retains all rights to the master. And that there is a loophole for further reprints if necessary (shows, museums, etc.) There must be someplace on the Net that details how to do this legally. It's a good idea, in other words. It's the way the art world (and maybe the photography world) work. For good reasons, when you think about it. Marnie aka Doe
