[pinhole-discussion] editions
Hey Ray, I actually went from photography into printmaking. It happened during grad school [I was 50 then]. Interesting, I am the photo and printmaking 'guy' at our Arts Center. It does seem to me there are a lot of printmakers in this group. Do you think the percentages are higher in pinhole work? Anyhow, it is all a lot of fun and I do think photo and printmaking compliment each other wonderfully. Best wishes, chris --- http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
[pinhole-discussion] editions
Hi Ray, I sure agree with you and your approach. I do think though that there are no 'standards' and the concept of editioning in photography is not as straight forward as it is in printmaking. This means that there is a lot of confusion about it in photography, and I continue to believe that a lot of 'editioning' in photography is done for monetary and not artistic/pratical reasons. Hey, if my prints sell better when they are 'editioned' who am I to blow against the wind!? Best, chris --- http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
[pinhole-discussion] editions
My experience is also with printmaking and photography. The editioning process in printmaking is generally perfectly sensible and straight forward. The darn plate wears out, or something like that. To me, one of the wonderful side effects of photography is that it is a 'democratic medium' and theoretically one can make an almost unlimited number of prints from a negative. In photography, I have found, editioning does not mean that there will be only x number of prints. It means there will only be x number of prints in this particular size, or on this particular paper, or prints made during a full moon, etc. It is totally artificial, arbitrary and seems to be designed only to appease collectors and or galleries. As far as I know, there is not one standard, and the introduction of digital printing has only complicated matters. My take on it is to do it only as a business decision, and not an artistic one. chris --- http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
[pinhole-discussion] editions
Hello Does anyone know anywhere online I can learn about the rules of editioning and pricing prints? Thanks lisa ** Olly Olly Oxen Free **
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
- Original Message - From: "Ray Esposito" To: Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions > > Hi Ray, > > > > I sure agree with you and your approach. I do think though that there > are no 'standards' and the concept of editioning in photography is not > as straight forward as it is in printmaking. > > > > This means that there is a lot of confusion about it in photography, > and I continue to believe that a lot of 'editioning' in photography is > done for monetary and not artistic/pratical reasons. > > > Thank you Cris. > > I agree there are no standards in photography but that might be because > there has been no leadership in this area. Remember, that although > editioning began in ernest around the turn of the century it wasn't > really until the 50's that it took hold to the extent it is used today. > I have a large collection built around printmaking in the 30's and many > are not editioned. > > A major force behind making editioning a standard was the creation of > major workshops in printmaking such a Tamarind. They wrote the "bible" > on the subject and everyone just followed the leader. In photography > you do not have the large cooperative workshops to the extent you do in > printmaking and thus a lack of a strong central driving force for > setting standards. Perhaps having a 1,000 pound litho or etching press > to carry around makes print centers practical whereas anyone can carry a > camera and put a darkroom in the bath. The two disiplines just come > from different backgrounds. > > As an aside, I am amazed at how many who responded to this thread are > actually from printmaking backgrounds. It would be fun to find out how > many members of this forum are basically printmakers and how many > photographers. I think you will find more printmakers crossing over to > photography than photographers crossing over to printmaking. The reason > is simple - printmakers are into photoetch, Toray Plate, Solarplate and > other photo techniques which require them to learn some photo > approaches. I find most photographers have no interest in learning > printmaking. This is one reason why when we decided to build our second > art center for photography we elected to put it right next to the print > center so artists could cross over as they pleased. > > > > Hey, if my prints sell better when they are 'editioned' who am I to > blow against the wind!? > > > I agree > Ray > Such a strong opiniondeserves an alternative to the monitary reason. For purposes of history. A truely vintage print tells of the materials and change in learning by the artist. Editions tell more than that makes them sell. S. Shapiro, Carmel, CA Merry Christmas
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
> Hi Ray, > > I sure agree with you and your approach. I do think though that there are no 'standards' and the concept of editioning in photography is not as straight forward as it is in printmaking. > > This means that there is a lot of confusion about it in photography, and I continue to believe that a lot of 'editioning' in photography is done for monetary and not artistic/pratical reasons. > Thank you Cris. I agree there are no standards in photography but that might be because there has been no leadership in this area. Remember, that although editioning began in ernest around the turn of the century it wasn't really until the 50's that it took hold to the extent it is used today. I have a large collection built around printmaking in the 30's and many are not editioned. A major force behind making editioning a standard was the creation of major workshops in printmaking such a Tamarind. They wrote the "bible" on the subject and everyone just followed the leader. In photography you do not have the large cooperative workshops to the extent you do in printmaking and thus a lack of a strong central driving force for setting standards. Perhaps having a 1,000 pound litho or etching press to carry around makes print centers practical whereas anyone can carry a camera and put a darkroom in the bath. The two disiplines just come from different backgrounds. As an aside, I am amazed at how many who responded to this thread are actually from printmaking backgrounds. It would be fun to find out how many members of this forum are basically printmakers and how many photographers. I think you will find more printmakers crossing over to photography than photographers crossing over to printmaking. The reason is simple - printmakers are into photoetch, Toray Plate, Solarplate and other photo techniques which require them to learn some photo approaches. I find most photographers have no interest in learning printmaking. This is one reason why when we decided to build our second art center for photography we elected to put it right next to the print center so artists could cross over as they pleased. > > Hey, if my prints sell better when they are 'editioned' who am I to blow against the wind!? > I agree Ray
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
Cris - while I do not disagree with your analysis, I think that photographic editioning can be as straight forward as printmaking. I edition my photos exactly like my prints. A bad photo goes into the garbage. I have not decided if a separate edition in a different size is appropriate yet. I am still working on that but do not think I have a problem with it. However, as I wrote earlier, full disclosure is the key. If an artist is out front with the buyer and the buyer has no problem with what the artist is doing then fine. If a photographer does not want to edition but wants to print an unlimited number, that is okay by me and I have no problem with that. Good luck. If however, a photographer editions and pulls editions on more than one size, then as long as that is noted on the disclosure form, that is also okay. For example, if I pull an 11x14 edition of 25 (my usual edition size), and want to pull another edition of 10 at 20x30, as long as that is disclosed, then okay. Simple and straight forward usually works. We can come up with all of the systems and adaptations we want but the bottom line is keeping faith with the buyer. As long as they know what the artist is doing then no one else should have a problem with it. Cheers Ray > My experience is also with printmaking and photography. The editioning > process in printmaking is generally perfectly sensible and straight forward. > The darn plate wears out, or something like that. > > To me, one of the wonderful side effects of photography is that it is a > 'democratic medium' and theoretically one can make an almost unlimited number > of prints from a negative. > > In photography, I have found, editioning does not mean that there will be > only x number of prints. It means there will only be x number of prints in > this particular size, or on this particular paper, or prints made during a > full moon, etc. > > It is totally artificial, arbitrary and seems to be designed only to appease > collectors and or galleries. As far as I know, there is not one standard, > and the introduction of digital printing has only complicated matters. > > My take on it is to do it only as a business decision, and not an artistic > one. > > chris > --- > http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com > > > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account > at http://www.eudoramail.com > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
- Original Message - From: "Lisa Reddig" Subject: [pinhole-discussion] editions > Hello > > Does anyone know anywhere online I can learn about the rules of editioning > and pricing prints? > > Thanks > lisa This is such a direct question regarding a discussion we have had before that I shall enjoy taking time to make ananswer. Editioning is a method of ethical offering that begain with lithography and other such print making. It has been well reveared that the 'best' prints are the first ones off a newly etched plate, while disproved by the lithographer who learns his picture later in the edition; and with respect to the photographer this idea of numbering editions has taken on bizzarre dimensions. My view, based on personal experience in the arena of fine art print making (my mother, whose recently had eight first editions accepted into the Smithonian) and arbitrated with Ansel Adams whose fine art experience is truely unique; and added to by Al Weber, teacher of photograhy enorm . . . To do anything less than make an edition all in one term without a break to make another print in the mean time is pretentious, to say the least. To carefully mark the sequence of the exposure and then of the development is ethical and to be applauded, because it gives us an opportunity to see if your quality varies from print to print. You might personally bcome aware of an inconsistency with every ten to 15 prints, or how much better you get with each print . . . or how they fall off after 38 of 45 prints. Ansel used to number his prints based on the number attempted. His half box of 250 pieces of paper meant he made 125 prints. Some would go into the trash, some to museums and some into a box to be spotted and mounted later. That's what we have available, now, by the way; except for the secondary market. And, he didn't number every edition. But, those he finished of the 125 were then dried, sorted out (some got tossed) and then he chose to sort the best [in his opinion] to the worst. The would be spotted, mounted or boxed and sold in the order they were chosen with edition numbers so assigned. Sometimes, I have numbered my editions according to worst to best, with the first in the edition selling for one price, gradually incresing the price as they sold to make the first purchase sustain an increasing value or support the rareity, becuse I rarely like goingback and making prints after I already printed a picture. I have simply too many great negatives waiting to become pictures. When I do go back and make another eitition, I write the number as a fraction. Above the line is the numbers of each print made in that session, below the line is the numbers of prints total and with a decimal point tell which edition. I have some that are 1- 25/25.2 with numbers 11, 24, and 25 as some of the best in the editions, surprisingly [numbered cronologically] consistent every run. Go figure for youself. I believe it's a matter of personal ethics. Many, many great master photographers number the negative for their filing system and never number the prints. Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
Colin - you make good points. I would like to add another. At Parkhurst Center we require our represented artists and photographers to provide a full disclosure statement for each print or photo. We do not tell them how to edition or if they should or should not edition. That is an artistic decision but being faithful to the public is critical. The disclosure statement is a simple way to do that. They can use their own or use one designed by the center. Ray > I, too, have at least as much experience with > printmaking as with photography. Numbering or not is > entirely a personal choice, it seems to me. What does > seem important is that you do it, if you choose to, in > a way that is consistent and one that simply and > honestly tells the consumer (and reminds you!) about > the size of the edition, rather than in a way that > hides information about it. Print numbering has been > grossly abused by some to make fine art editions > essentially into printed matter--in the sense that the > post office uses the phrase. There's nothing wrong > with making lots of prints (photographic or whatever) > and making unlimited numbers, if that is the choice, > but it should be clear to any potential buyer now and > at any time in the future that that is what you have > done and that is what is being offered. > > Just an opinion. > > Colin > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
I, too, have at least as much experience with printmaking as with photography. Numbering or not is entirely a personal choice, it seems to me. What does seem important is that you do it, if you choose to, in a way that is consistent and one that simply and honestly tells the consumer (and reminds you!) about the size of the edition, rather than in a way that hides information about it. Print numbering has been grossly abused by some to make fine art editions essentially into printed matter--in the sense that the post office uses the phrase. There's nothing wrong with making lots of prints (photographic or whatever) and making unlimited numbers, if that is the choice, but it should be clear to any potential buyer now and at any time in the future that that is what you have done and that is what is being offered. Just an opinion. Colin __ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
Lisa - I agree with Eric. The IFPDA site has a lot of good info on numbering. Like Eric I am basically a printmaker but I use the same system in photography. I see no reason to do otherwise. Most photographers do not number their prints. I do and after the edition is printed, I pull one extra which I call the cancellation print, deface the negative then glue the negative to the print. (Funny thing but this the best seller of the lot.) Having been trained as a printmaker and taught to number, it is a hard habit to break just because I am now taking photographs. I figure that when the edition is done, it is done. Load the camera and move on. To edition or not to edition is the question. I prefer that if you are going to produce fine art prints they should be editioned but do not really get bent out of shape one way or another. In our gallery we have both systems with the majority of photographers not editioning their work and that is fine. It is a personal preference pure and simple. In printmaking however, it is more of a tradition to number editions if the print is an original hand pulled print. The IFPDA nor any other site I know about discusses pricing. You will find that mostly on forums like this one and since this is dedicated to photography I am sure you can get a lot of sound advice. I too would be interested in hearing other views on this subject. Ray > Lisa Reddig writes: > > Does anyone know anywhere online I can learn about the rules of editioning > > and pricing prints? > > A good overview of how it works in printmaking is at > > http://www.artline.com/associations/ifpda/text/whatisprint.html > > in the last section called Numbering and Other Inscriptions. i would be > curious to read a discussion of how this differs from what's more > commonly done in photography, as my bias is as a printmaker. > > --Eric > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] editions
Lisa Reddig writes: > Does anyone know anywhere online I can learn about the rules of editioning > and pricing prints? A good overview of how it works in printmaking is at http://www.artline.com/associations/ifpda/text/whatisprint.html in the last section called Numbering and Other Inscriptions. i would be curious to read a discussion of how this differs from what's more commonly done in photography, as my bias is as a printmaker. --Eric
