The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

limited print edtions?

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Don't agree with it to be honest. In this day and age when there is a perception that all you have to do is hit print as many times as you like, when Alain is telling us exactly what software he used to 'optimised' the image, I'm sorry but it hardly has the 'feel' of fine art.

Adams didn't need editions not with his reputation, more to the point the limitation caused by his passing on has increased the value of the prints he did make by a huge factor which somewhat gives the lie to the idea that limiting an edition doesn't increase value even with the most famous photographers.

Most of all, I've never heard of mass produced fine art and I doubt I'd buy it if it existed. The perception of photography as fine art is tenous enough already, especially outside of the US, without allowing the perception that you could and might print off thousands of the things...
 

AreBee

Member
Agree with the link. Here is another.

Photographers imposing limited editions in this day and age has nothing to do with the reason editions originally were limited, and everything to do with making money from gullible customers. It's a scam, pure and simple, and one from which the photographer ultimately loses the most.
 

JSRockit

New member
Most of all, I've never heard of mass produced fine art and I doubt I'd buy it if it existed. The perception of photography as fine art is tenous enough already, especially outside of the US, without allowing the perception that you could and might print off thousands of the things...
So, the only ART in photography is in the print? And here I thought the basics of photography were framing and content. I'll take a shitty print of a great photo over a great print of a shitty photo.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
But I wouldn't buy a bad print period. We're talking about the buying public here and they won't pay unless they perceive value. If you want to sell at higher end prices then you have to create value over and above poster prices. With a painting we are talking about an original. What has photography got to offer? Especially when photographers think that a good picture is enough to create art sales. It isn't. Not by a long stretch. You have to market value. Quality, exclusivity, etc, etc. Otherwise all you have is stock photography for poster sales, value, practically nil.
 

drofnad

Member
But I wouldn't buy a bad print period.
Would you take down (and discard) your Moonrise, Hernandez if all the neighbors had one?

You have to market value. Quality, exclusivity, etc, etc. Otherwise all you have is stock photography for poster sales, value, practically nil.
What an interesting contrast with another art form, music!

-drofnad
 
Top