Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Make that then I'm guessing other materials than carbon to make pigments from many of which being metal oxides but in other cases just plain powdered metals. On 4/10/13 8:56 AM, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier at usjet.net> wrote: > Carbon is a metal? > > > On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> Its just that EDITIONS in the graphics print making sense was not simply a >> term which had dollar signs all over it. It came out of the process >> itself. >> A stone or silkscreen or metal plate was only good for so many images as >> it >> simply for oblivious reasons wore away and the image would get softer. >> Early on in the edition is where you wanted to be. And those would cost >> more. And for good reason as they'd be sharper. >> The edition was defined by how many images one could produce from the >> printing medium. A stone could make a lot more than a sheet of starched >> silk. Or a potato cut in half. >> It was for obvious reasons the stone would be broken when you were done >> printing with it. It had gotten past the point where it would produce >> prints >> to your liking. And you'd want any more prints made from it to be done by >> you or your people with the money going into your bank account not some >> guy >> you never met in the year 2525. >> >> Photography by nature on the other hand is not about that. >> Photography never wears out; a negative or slide or digital file can by >> nature produce as many images as you'd want. Millions. Billions. You can >> stack them up past the Empire state building to the moon. >> >> And chances are next year or next decade when you return to that neg or >> file >> the prints you'd make would look even better as the software and hardware >> and people wear get better in time. As we are in the middle of burgeoning >> image making technology we photographers. We've gone quickly from dye to >> pigment to carbon and who knows what will be shooting out of those inkjets >> next year? I'm guessing other metals than carbon. And the papers are >> getting >> fabulous being made of Bamboo and returning to traditional Japanese and >> German paper making processes from hundreds of years ago mainly for the >> use >> of water color people. >> >> The idea of retiring a neg came out of desperate attempts to establish >> earlier on photographs as a viable thing for gallery owners to make money >> on. Why buy Pepper #6 for huge bucks if the artist is still alive cranking >> them out? Or his son is? >> I feel for the gallery owner who needs the latest BMW M or collector who >> needs his body of collected work to keep their value but the medium itself >> is just not about that. >> Ansel was firmly against and and he in his writings on the issue certainly >> convinced me. >> I find destroying a neg to be an ultimate tragedy. And an insult against >> the >> photographic process. And I'm not going to proceed in that direction. >> All I can so is what I'd do. I cant speak for anyone else. >> I've found at the AIPAD show last week seeing top work from the top 80 >> photo >> galleries a hell of a lot of limited editions. And I find such forced >> business practices disheartening. I never thought it would get this big >> when >> I first started seeing it I thought it was an unfortunate fad done by >> second >> rate greedy business people. Not its quite accepted. >> I will never succumb to it in my own work practices. And I'm not the only >> one. >> >> >> On 4/9/13 12:17 PM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: >>> >>>> But now, when we work entirely in digital, when any number of copies >>>> can be >>>> made at very small cost, does having a limited edition make any sense at >>>> all? >>>> Would you destroy an original RAW file (for example) to guarantee that >>>> you'd >>>> done a limited edition? >>>> >>>> I'm left with a bad feeling. Maybe he wants a new M? >>>> >>>> Anyway, am I off base here? What are your thoughts? >>> >>> There are, and always have been, many different levels of "print making." >>> As in every area of commerce integrity comes into play. >>> The integrity of the artist/printmaker? the printer? the publisher? the >>> agent/dealers? all. >>> >>> The actual process whether darkroom, inkjet, lithograph, woodcut, >>> intaglio, >>> or >>> silkscreen; >>> whether printed with an ink roller and a spoon or on some sort of press; >>> or >>> any other technique is not the main issue. >>> >>> The terms: "Limited Edition" and "First Edition" have meaning; a >>> history; a >>> tradition; >>> and deserve to be used honorably to preserves the integrity of all >>> involved >>> in >>> the production, distribution and sale of the editions. >>> >>> Limited Editions require numbers to establish the stated "limits." >>> First (and subsequent) Editions require notations establishing their >>> numerical >>> sequence. >>> It also helps to have an artist's signature on the print - establishing >>> it >>> as >>> "author ized." >>> >>> My read of the Eggleston judgement makes perfect sense within the >>> tradition >>> of >>> Limited and Sequential Editions. >>> Had Eggleston pulled a Second Limited Edition of Dye Transfer Prints at >>> exactly the same size, paper, etc. >>> One would have to question the integrity of that decision - and its >>> effect >>> on >>> the "market value" of the Original Edition. >>> This New Edition of much larger prints on different paper, using an >>> altogether >>> different printing process, should have little to no effect on the >>> "market >>> value" of the Original Dye Transfer Edition. In all likelihood this New >>> Edition will probably enhance the value of the Original Edition (in ways >>> similar to the ever increasing value of a First Edition - over subsequent >>> editions of our most prized authors). Since that Original Edition this >>> artist >>> has advanced in reputation and historical stature; with concomitant >>> growth >>> in >>> his base of collectors. The more people collecting Eggleston - the more >>> valuable each Dye Transfer Print in that Original Limited Edition - >>> supply >>> and >>> demand. >>> >>> The misunderstanding seems to rest in the assumption that a "Limited >>> Edition" >>> means that One and only one Limited Edition will ever be published >>> from any given Negative, Plate, Block, Stone, Screen, etc. >>> >>> While that may very well be the case; there have always been exceptions. >>> The history of a plate, wood block, lithographic stone and/or negative >>> can >>> be >>> longer than the artist's life. >>> Sometimes even within the artist's lifetime changes are made to the plate >>> with >>> new prints being made, with new dates and new edition numbers. >>> see: <http://www.chicagoappraisers.com/rembrandt-history.html> >>> >>> Bottom line: Documentation, Provenance, Signatures, Integrity of Artist, >>> Printmaker, Printer, Publisher, Imprimatur, Dealer, Agent, Museum, >>> Collector >>> will determine the monetary and historical value of any particular >>> artifact >>> - >>> whether a unique one-off or some sort of multiple. >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark William Rabiner >> Photography >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/