[Leica] How do limited edition digital prints work?

[jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols)]

Thanks, George, for pointing out the details that I never considered.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at mac.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] How do limited edition digital prints work?


>
> On Dec 21, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Bridge wrote:
>
>> Not that I'm in any way likely to create a limited edition set of digital 
>> prints but can someone explain the rules?
>>
>> If you make a series of images from an original digital frame, are you 
>> from then on forbidden from revisiting that frame again? It would seem to 
>> me that you would be, but I just wanted to be sure.
>>
>> Thanks for any answers. If this is too off-topic I apologize.
>
> I'd think it helpful to consider the art print tradition
> from which the Limited Edition concept originated.
>
> Long before photographic prints
> prints were made from:
> engraved metal plates
> etched metal plates
> lithographic stones
> and
> carved wood blocks.
>
> The print processes required the prints were the same size as the plates, 
> stones and blocks.
> As the plates, stones and blocks were developed by the artist/printmaker
> they pulled "artists proofs" to see how the work was progressing.
> The artists proofs were generally numbered with roman numerals.
> Once the artist/printmaker had considered the plate, stone or block 
> complete
> An edition would be pulled.
> The edition was finite and numbered as 1/100 through 100/100
> (or whatever other number the edition may be)
> The numbering offered a number of advantages.
> One could monitor how the plates, stones or blocks were affected by the 
> print process.
> (edges were softened in copper, other soft metal and certain woods, wood 
> grain would fill in, etc.)
> One could also monitor the hand inking process of the plates, stones and 
> blocks.
>
> When photography (and serigraphy, and photo-lithography, etc.) came along
> things changed - it became much easier to produce "unlimited editions."
> The "art market" required "limited editions" - not the handmade process 
> itself.
> Edition sizes "made by the artist/photographer" were limited only by the 
> artists time;G
> not by the negative degrading with every "pull."
>
> This has all been debated for a long time - should a negative be 
> destroyed?
> to preserve the "value of the limited edition?"
>
> Also consider:
> prints (limited or unlimited) made by and signed by artist.
> prints (limited or unlimited) made by others and signed by artist
> prints (limited or unlimited) made by others and unsigned
>
> It's all a bit of a conceit - though with some validity.
> If we all simply pulled one print which we thought to be the best possible 
> rendition of any particular file and then destroyed the original digital 
> file - obviously that would make that print extremely "rare." If on the 
> other hand we made 1,000 of them - well - not so rare.
>
> Who cares?
> Galleries, museums, collectors and photographers who serve or seek to 
> serve those "markets."
> How does one insure that no additional prints will ever flood "the market" 
> during one's lifetime? or after one's death? Written contracts, promises 
> and/or most assuredly - file (negative) destruction.
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>