Would making only one print increase value of photography?

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hi to all, and thanks for the great discussion. I think that it's a bit of a mixed bag, myself. I do agree with the thought of "what if I wanted to print that scene different later?" It would limit creativity. But then, that isn't true to the philosophy of "getting it right the first time" either. (Shooting slides this is pretty much a must.) Arguments for both ways, for sure!
I can also see the "monetary value" increase that only one print would create. However, I can't really figure out how that would increase the market for a photographer's work - i.e. you've got to be able to reproduce those photos in such a way that many people see them, want them, and then of course, purchase! :-)

Well, I'm not a pro photog by any means; I've sold a few prints here and there to friends, given away lots to family, but never tried to make anything at it. I was just curious what the general consensus was on that author's line from the book, because it did pique my interest.

You know, I was thinking about the digital aspect on this too...and I guess what I don't like is the inherent inequality of the market for photographers (from my perspective only, of course). For example, someone who just pushed the "print button" for the 100th time, could potentially get the same cash value for his/her print as someone who seriously labored in the darkroom for a one-off print. Maybe that's apples to oranges, but I was thinking there must be some way to get the general public to see the difference and value the one print higher.
Or...maybe not...it IS the general public. And I suppose, the market place rewards based on the end product, not necessarily how hard a person/company worked to get that end product! :-) hehe
Thanks for the discussion!
Jed

[markbarendt]

There's a photographer from Ireland that, when he retires a negative has a bonfire to destroy the negs. I personally think it's just a marketing ploy.
...
Again, I believe the edition game is just that, a scam to artificially increase the price(income to) of an individual.

I don't understand what your point is. Should various marketing methods not be allowed or is it that this one doesn't work or ... ?

If you are selling anything, it requires some marketing, and by my estimation all marketing is a ploy. Frilly words, nice frames and mats, advertising, showing in a nice gallery, having fancy web-site, blah, blah, blah...

That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

If you are trying to sell something for significantly more than the value of the paper it's printed on, then a significant amount of hype will be needed.

OK now, Adams, Weston, Brassai, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Lange, Bernhard, Man Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen, Brandt, Sudek, Sheeler Didn't limit the # of prints made from an individual negative and it didn't hurt them any. I do believe there were limits on the number of portfolios that they made.

Mass printing for these guys was also tougher, they couldn't just hit the print button.

[Joe Lipka]

Ansel Adams most famous photograph is "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico." This photograph was printed more than any other of his photographs. Photography is not painting. If you have a great image, people will want to own it. Why not print them and sell them to people that want to buy them?

For the "single negative, unique print" crowd, offer yourself as a "commission photographer." Offer to create photographic art on commission, providing your patron with one negative and one print to be theirs and theirs alone. That way, you and your patron can flaunt your uniqueness to the art world.

Better yet, consider the "virtual photograph." Ask your patron to pay you not to make a photograph, but only to tell him/her what you are going to photograph and how it will look. That would be the most valuable photograph of them all. Unique, unseen and unknown. It would have an infinitely large value. I haven't quite figured out the logistics of it yet, but I do think it's a great way to go.

[Shangheye]

You know, I was thinking about the digital aspect on this too...and I guess what I don't like is the inherent inequality of the market for photographers (from my perspective only, of course). For example, someone who just pushed the "print button" for the 100th time, could potentially get the same cash value for his/her print as someone who seriously labored in the darkroom for a one-off print. Maybe that's apples to oranges, but I was thinking there must be some way to get the general public to see the difference and value the one print higher.
Or...maybe not...it IS the general public. And I suppose, the market place rewards based on the end product, not necessarily how hard a person/company worked to get that end product! :-) hehe
Thanks for the discussion!
Jed

On tis point I have a story to tell. I have a customer who visited my home to review my portfolio and he came with a budget. Given the budget, I offered that for 35 Euros more he could receive a hand printed signed, dated and numbered (not limited edition...see below) print. But he came with a budget. As an alternative he was offered a staight digital print signed, but not dated or numbered for the price he quoted. The reality is as a photographer I made the same amount of money (I saved the time in the darkroom, which I cost in to my sales), and he got what he wanted to pay for.

What I am trying to say is some people buy photographic images, not only because they like the photograph, but because they are either genuine collectors or have an affinity for the art medium itself. Others just want a nice photograph at a reasonable price. I differentiate these by what comes with the print...i.e. Analugue hand printed prints come with all the provenance to show I did the printing with my own hands.

I don't do limited editions, I prefer to approach the issue through the eyes of differentiation. I am offering prints produced by me, and I make sure they have a number and a date, so that the buyer knows how many are already sold...if he sees one that says #1242...he would duly be concerned it is mass produced etc. and I would not blame him if he fealt he wanted to choose a different print (then again he may like it enough to buy #1243...it's his/her choice). I keep a record of the print numbers so that I know what the following number is.

Limited editions are a marketing tool...ask yourself this....

What makes an AA photograph printed by him so valuable?....not that it was limited (they were not....)...but that HE printed it. I tink that matters to people buying my art, and it has been commented on often that becasue I hand print (and no print is exactly identical) and make it an issue in my marketing, I am seen as closer to painting than my digital competition.

Hold on to your negs.

K

[rthomas]

Better yet, consider the "virtual photograph." Ask your patron to pay you not to make a photograph, but only to tell him/her what you are going to photograph and how it will look. That would be the most valuable photograph of them all. Unique, unseen and unknown. It would have an infinitely large value. I haven't quite figured out the logistics of it yet, but I do think it's a great way to go.

That... would be quite a trick.

[jeffreyg]

Paintings and portraits were mentioned as "single prints". How about hand-coated photographic processes such as platinum/palladium especially when the brush strokes of the emulsion coating show as opposed to a masked border? Although the actual image may be very much identical the brush strokes won't (unless you've invented a robot to perform that task.)

[Jedidiah Smith]

Kal,
I really enjoyed what you had to say about that, and thanks for sharing a "story from the trenches" of selling a photograph. That inspires me a little. Differentiation at the price level by the artist can teach the consumer the difference between the analog and digital print. This will take time, of course, but I believe it will work.
Jed

[Ken Nadvornick]

Even though I use closed-loop enlarging and developing timers, I've never been able to make identical prints from the same negative - even back-to-back.

My dodging and burning tools (my hands, primarily) never find *exactly* the same spots. Or remain for *exactly* the same durations. Especially during complicated negatives.

Processing solutions can be slightly different from session to session. Or be slightly different from the beginning and end of a single session.

Paper characteristics change - albeit only slightly - from batch to batch. Paper also ages over time.

And I also age over time. My idea of what looks best often evolves as well.

It's safe to say that *none* of my prints from the same negative ever look the same.

Ken

[Ian Leake]

The monetary value of art is more a function of how many people want to possess the artwork than how many copies are in existence.

The artistic value of an artwork is more a function of its content (what it reveals and how it engages with people) than the number of copies made. To an extent the artistic value of an artwork drives its monetary value, but only because it's likely that more people will want to own it.

Which "value" is important to you?

There's another thing of value, which may be more important than both the "values" I've mentioned. Sharing your work with someone who appreciates it enriches both of your lives, and this has value (to me anyway). The more great prints you make then the more people can share in this enrichment. If you're very lucky then these enriched people will become so many in number that demand for your work will rise and people will want to pay more for your prints.

Happy Christmas!

[df cardwell]

While I can think of photographers whom I wished had only made one print,
this really has never been an issue. Photography has never, and will never, attain the prices of painting
unless in the case of some added value to a collector. A Stieglitz, or vintage Edw. Weston, prices for the scarcity and 'collectability' which exceed the lifetime income of either artist.

No vintage photogapher ever lived above the poverty level on the sales of the pictures alone, however many copies they made.

An interesting conversation between Adams and Paul Strand on pricing one's work, can be found in Adams' Letters. Ansel felt that he could keep the price affordable by making a large edition, and through selling editions could make a living. Strand disagreed, and felt the price for a real photograph should be much higher. Both agreed the lie of infinite repeatability to be ridiculous. Like a gravure stone which erodes and places an inherent finity on an edition of prints, the photographer wears out producing many prints. Adams likened the process of making prints from a single negative, to no surprise, to a musician's performance of a piece of music over a long career. Adams' own work is a good example. While a collector might prefer the rarity of an early print, Adam's himself looked at his evolution as an artist and felt his later prints to be superior to the early; the courage of an older artist, and understanding, make a clear and strong statement without the fuzzie-headed prettiness of youth.

Strand took a different approach than Adam's in making editions, he mastered gravure and produced, early on, images which a working man could afford.

We have a wonderful opportunity in our time, if we had but a vision that could justify it, of making extremely high quality inkjet editions that can be sold to normal people, not Foundations. No inkjet can match a first rate photographic print, although they are the equal of a second rate photograph, especially of a second rate photographer.

Here the digital revolution has done us all a favor. If we cannot produce a photographic print that is superior to a pricey inkjet, we need to reconsider our ambitions. For many of us, myself included, making only a single print of an image would be doing Photography a favor. But I gave up pretensions of 'art' long ago, and am perfectly happy to make good, but not great, prints for my family and friends. The only people who ever buy my pictures are customers for whom I make the picture in the first place. Thank goodness for them !