Juan, The subject of your post reminds me of an Ansel Adam story related in one of his books. It, of course, was negative related and in order to guarantee the image be a limited addition, agonized greatly over destroying the negative. He finally 'forced' himself to destroy it by punching it full of holes with a check canceling punch. Said he never got over it and never considered doing it again. I've never thought I'd be at a point, personally, where it would be done. I've furnished images for limited sale wherein the seller requested they be signed and numbered. Felt sort of like an unspoken marketing 'ploy'.
Jack --- Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a > limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit > silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, > printing digitally. > > 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 > > -- > Juan Buhler > Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com > Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
