Thoughts On Signing and Numbering Art Prints
I often get questions about the signing and numbering of photography prints. As with any art work, piece of music or writing, the author adds his signature as a way of identification and as a stamp of completion and approval. I sign and number all my prints. At some point I might offer non-numbered, open edition prints, but at this point all my prints are part of limited editions. I generally sign and number prints on the white border below the print with an acid free, archival ink pen. I sign on the lower right and number on the lower left. I sign close to the print edge so that a collector can choose to have it matted with the signature showing or so that the matte covers up the signature. Some photographers sign directly on the printed surface like a painter, and I have done this at times, but prefer not to write on the print itself. If I, myself, am having the framing done for a show or for a client I also sign and number the matte with a pencil in addition to signing the print itself. When I number the print I write it as a ratio of the print number over the total number in the edition. i.e. - 15/200.
In the darkroom days when an image was mastered from film an entire edition of prints was often produced all at the same time. So, by definition, the edition actually was limited. In these days of digital imaging we can create an infinite number of prints of varying sizes from our digital “master” whenever we please, so thier isn’t a functional reason to limit the number of prints. However, art buyers still value limited edition prints becasue they know they are purchasing something that hasn’t been mass produced and will continue to be a somewhat rare and collectible item. Deciding how to establish edition size can be tricky and will be different from one photographer to another. If editions are limited to only 10 prints this will increase perceived value, but will also strictly limit the photographer’s ability to create income from the photo over the course of his career. On the other hand, an edition of 1,000 prints is large enough to decrease the value of each print in collector’s eyes. Most photographers I know have limited editions between 50 and 200. Some also apply other rules to their limited editions. Some photographers have a sliding price scale so that the print price goes up as more of them sell. In theory, this encourages more early sales while the price is lower and then increases the price as the print gains popularity. Other photographers will reserve the first five or ten prints in an edition for gallery shows and special clients, or just to archive for the future.
It is important to carefully set edition numbers. Once an edition number is set it can’t change later. It is important to find a number small enough to be considered limited but which does not remove the image from the photographer’s portfolio too early in his career. It is also important to specify if the edition includes all print sizes or if each sizes constitues a separate edition.
To date, all my prints are in editions of 200 total, so no more than 200 of any image will be produced regardless of print size. At this point in my career none of my editions are in danger of selling out, which is good because I plan on selling them for many years to come.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Hi Sean,
Your work is extraordinary & exquisite. I can’t say this with authority for photographers, but I believe in the age of digital prints limited editions should be passe for many reasons.
I advise visual artists on getting their originals into the print market and to facilitate that effort wrote a book titled, How to Profit from the Art Print Market. I also blog at http://www.artprintissues.com on the subject.
My rationale for coming out against limited edition digital prints is multi-fold. First, why should visual artists have to resort to limiting the number of images they sell when as you point out an endless supply is available? None of the other arts limit sales of reproductions of their work. The Rolling Stones don’t stop selling CDs at 100,000 copies, Martin Scorsese doesn’t limit the numer of people who can view his films, a play in a Broadway theatre will run for years and then or simultaneously tour for years.
You know there are certain images that get legs and outsell others by a huge margin. This despite there are similar images from the same artist or photographer available. Some prints just have a magical intrinsic quality to them that cannot be reproduced easily or at all. When you put a limit on how many of those can be sold, you take a risk that you could effectively take a pay cut on earnings that could be reaped in some cases for years.
Limited editions in the print market are a vestige of the past when either technological or financial means caused a believable limit on the prints. Any consumer wiith a color ink jet printer realiizes there are no such limitations on digital prints. So, who are we kidding with them? Everyone realiizes limited edition digital prints are a contrived marketing gimmick. So, why do it?
Why not continue to sell prints in unlimited fashion. There is no reason to stop signing them or even numbering them. Just sign with a convention you choose such as 1/oe where oe = open edition or 1/unl for unlimited or 1/SB for your intials. This still gives the collector the assurance the artist saw, touched and approved the print.
There is no established convention for open edition printing. I think one will come about eventually when the notion of limited edition digital prints firmly takes hold. In the meantime, I think as long as an artist publishes the numbering conventiion used and adheres to it, there are no problems. Plus, you avoid having to stay up on the legalities on COAs for limited editions. Currrently, 14 states have laws on the books regarding this.
Finally, in this day where so many items can be personalized, why not be positioned to give your collectors the print size that suits their needs? I realize artists have to take a leap of faith that their galleries and collectors will continue to follow them if they change to open signed numbered editions. But, if the work is strong enough and the marketing and education executed properly, then I believe it can be done to the benefit of the artist and the consumer.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Barney,
Thanks for your comments and insights regarding limited edition art prints. They are well informed and clearly stated. Your experience and knowledge in this area far exceeds my own but many of the points you bring up reflect much of my own thinking on the issue, however I have come to a differing conclusion in regard to photographs.
I wrote my post in response to inquiries from other photographers about how I sign and number prints, and decided to include some of my own thoughts on why I number prints as well. In large part, I tend to agree with your arguments regarding limited edition reproductions of original two dimensional art work. However, as you point out, I’m not sure that those arguments apply equally to photography.
With two dimensional art forms other than photography there exists an original piece of work. This original is the ultimate limited edition of one, and commands a much higher price than any subsequent reproduction. In this case I can see that there might not be a need to artificially limit the number and kind of reproductions that follow. The artist has presumably received a fair price for the original piece. Unlimited sales of reproductions, especially if it “gets legs”, could go on generating income indefinitely and would only serve to enhance the artist’s notoriety and popularity and raise the ceiling for prices of future works without lowering the value of the original.
Photography is different, however. I could argue that in many instances a comparable amount of energy, technique, experience and artistic vision might go into creating a fine art photograph as would be spent on a painting. The original “master files” of my photos are housed in my digital archival system, but there never exists one true original printed piece. Each print I produce is an identical original, and this is the key difference. I often see original paintings by relatively unknown artists with price tags starting in the several thousands and on up. Original works by the masters can fetch millions. Yet, even the best known photographers get only a fraction of those prices for their photographs. An original painting is worth more than a printed reproduction for two reasons. One is that only one original of a painting will ever exist, and two is that the original painting is in every way superior to a reproduction. It embodies the personal, mental and physical presence of the artist. Conversely, all photographs are both originals and reproductions at the same time. I don’t argue that each print I make should hold the same value as an original painting. But, I do think that each photographic print should have more value than a mere reproduction of a painting since there is no difference in quality or the amount of personal contact I, the artist, has had with it. In order to help create value in my original photographs, logic tells me that it helps to limit, although artificially, how many I will print and offer to the public. In this way I enter into a special agreement with those who purchase my art that what they own is something exclusive, one of a select few. Without placing a limit on how many original prints will exist, what is to distinguish them from a high quality poster? I can sell my photographs for several hundred dollars apiece, but never a poster. Following your reasoning, I should set my sites on selling the original limited edition and unlimited prints and posters of the same image.
I am most familiar with the top contemporary nature photographers (Art Wolfe, David Middleton, Tom Mangleson, Galen Rowell) , and all of them offer at least some of their prints as limited editions. Limited edition photographs, although an artificial construct in this age, command higher prices than unlimited editions.
Here are some questions that have been in my mind for some time that you might be able to answer for me. Even with the creation of a limited edition, isn’t it still possible to publish second and even third editions if the first edition sells out? I know this happens with books and various kinds of printed artwork, so why not photographs? Also, can’t a print exist in both a limited edition and an open edition or even a poster, simultaneously? I know that some of my favorite photographers have published prints available in a variety of formats all at once…limited edition, open edition, poster, calendar, book, greeting card, etc. Galen Rowell’s “Rainbow Over the Potala” has been available in mass produced books, calendars and posters for tens of dollars, while one of the few remaining limited prints recently sold at auction for many thousand dollars. If this is the case, a sold out limited edition would not preclude the ongoing sales of other published editions of the same image as long as each edition is identified for what it is.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Optimum Technology, Inc….
Thank you for your post!…