Vince Lupo
Whatever
Just wanted to get the thoughts from photogs here regarding numbering of your matted/framed photos for exhibit and possible sale. Reason I ask is that I just submitted three photos for consideration in a juried exhibition (various media, not just photography). The 'rules' stipulate that ".....all photographs and hand-pulled prints must be numbered." Personally, I don't number my photos, but I can see how the public and galleries might consider it to be important, particularly if they plan on buying/selling the piece. I can see if it's something like a lithograph or an engraving/etching, as the plates have a certain lifespan, but a digital file? A negative? Seems like an artificial construct to me (at least as far as photography goes), unless I plan on destroying the negative or corrupting/deleting the digital file.
So what do you do? Is there a happy medium that can be achieved? I'm sure I could say 'well I'm only going to print a certain number of 8"x10"s, then a certain number of 11"x14"s, or a certain number on Epson paper, then a certain number on Ilford paper etc.', but that seems a bit cheeky to me.
Thoughts?
So what do you do? Is there a happy medium that can be achieved? I'm sure I could say 'well I'm only going to print a certain number of 8"x10"s, then a certain number of 11"x14"s, or a certain number on Epson paper, then a certain number on Ilford paper etc.', but that seems a bit cheeky to me.
Thoughts?
Ranchu
Veteran
They might just want an ID number, rather than 1 of X?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
No, they want a 1 of X type numbering. The person at the gallery explained that 'customers want to know what they're getting', hence the numbering. Still doesn't make any sense to me - I think it's completely artificial. Next they'll be wanting a COA!
DNG
Film Friendly
also, numbering, indicates a limited edition... and no more will be made.
That can effect value...
I had 1/2xx Gorman lithos of "Jennette" 1982, and about 10 years later, Gorman made more, slightly different than the 1st run of consumer litho's,
the 1982 run lost value after he made a 2nd run.
EDIT, should add he also 10 1/1 - 1/10 Museum Quality Litho's that held their value...about 8x more than the consumer quality.
That can effect value...
I had 1/2xx Gorman lithos of "Jennette" 1982, and about 10 years later, Gorman made more, slightly different than the 1st run of consumer litho's,
the 1982 run lost value after he made a 2nd run.
EDIT, should add he also 10 1/1 - 1/10 Museum Quality Litho's that held their value...about 8x more than the consumer quality.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I can see that for a litho, engraving or in printmaking -- the stone/plate would have a certain 'lifespan' in terms of the number of copies that can be made. But for a negative/digital file, there is no degradation as you make more copies. There may be subtle differences from print to print, but neither the digital file nor the negative is adversely affected.
If a photo were to be a true 'limited edition', then I'd have to destroy the negative or corrupt/delete the digital file. Don't think I'd want to be doing that.
If a photo were to be a true 'limited edition', then I'd have to destroy the negative or corrupt/delete the digital file. Don't think I'd want to be doing that.