Here is a philosophical question, Is there an obligation to produce multiple copies of prints simply because We can? I guess what I am saying is that I will not print more than one copy of a Photograph, unless I am going to print it differently, ( thereby making it a different photo.) My Rationale? Michaelangelo only did one David, Van Gogh only did one Church At Auvers. Why should Photography be any different? I find it very annoying that at most exhibitions each photo is accompanied By a quantification: "Some Photo" 3/20. I think that each photo should only have one final version - each photo has it's own identity, and should not be reproduced en masse, complete with minor imperfectons, changing the flavour of that Photo. I reckon that the only reprint of a photo should take place is that of a totally new approach. Does anyone else agree, disagree, have any thoughts whatsoever?

-- Huw Crosby (crosby@magna.com.au), March 07, 2000

Answers

I typically only print one or two images that are the same, preferring to experiment with different papers, developers, toners, and printing techniques to produce truly unique prints. But there is money to be made in "limited edition" prints. The Texas photographer Keith Carter makes 50 prints of any given negative--the price goes up as the number of remaining prints dwindle. However, even Carter's prints are not all perfectly identical. I don't know that there is a right or wrong here--one of photography's salient features is its reproduceability. But, obviously, if one's art ever becomes collectible the unique prints will be the most sought-after.

-- (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), March 08, 2000.

I guess this touches quite a couple of aspects:

1) When you make money with your photos, the temptation is great to sell a few copies of a print instead of just one print, because you will rarely be paid as much for a photograph as for a painting. This may of course be so because it is possible to make more than one print from the negative. You might try to counteract this by asking a higher price for your photo and destroy the negative, but personally, I would not do that (see below). In that sense, the inscription that you find annoying is a matter of honesty: The photographer states that this print is one out of a limited series rather than a unique print or a print in an "unlimited" series. I think it also comes from the tradition of earlier non-photographic printing methods.

2) Is there an obligation to make more than one copy? I am not a professional photographer. I often photograph kids, for example when I bring my daughter to her ballet school and have the time to stay to watch. When I did this for the first time, I did it just for myself , intending to keep those photos for my daughter to show to her kids (provided she wants to do so). It chanced that some parents who knew (and liked) some of my other work noticed I was shooting and asked me if they could have photos of their kids, too. In that case, I feel obliged to make more than one copy of the prints because other people like to have good photos of their kids, too.

3) I never met Michelangelo in person, but from what I heard of most of the artists at that time, I guess that if there had been an easy means of producing copies, they would have sold those, too. BTW, there are currently two copies of the David in Florence, Italy, and the original is presented in the museum, this, of course, only to protect the original while still giving tourists the opportunity to see the statue at its original place (which, however, was not a parking lot at the time the David was erected there), and one further copy in front of the Palazzo Vecchio.

4) Why should photography be different? Because it is. Each medium has its own way of expressing the artists feelings/intentions, etc. Photography usually involves a negative of which multiple prints can easily be made. That is a fact.

But why make a religion out of it? I am quite happy to have the opportunity to make more than one copy of a print. As long as I do not promise anybody a unique print of which no further copies exist, or will ever be made, what is the problem. The possibility of creating copies has often been used as an argument to show that photography is not a form of art. I don't think this is a valid argument. Nowadays we can copy almost everything to a degree of precision defying any human perception. Does that mean there is no art any more?

BTW are you so consequent as to destroy your negatives after printing?

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), March 08, 2000.

Huw, I'm afraid I can't agree with that attitude in the slightest. As Ansel Adams aptly described it, the print is simply a "performance" of each negatives "score", and I see no reason to limit the number of performances to one; even though each perfomance may be slightly different from the last. Can I ask if you would destroy your negatives after printing them as well?

Where I would agree with you, is in having a distaste of limited edition prints, but my stance would be not to limit editions at all. It wouldn't worry me one bit that the print in front of me wasn't unique. After all, who is to say that Michaelangelo or Van Gogh wouldn't have made multiple copies if they easily could? Actually, come to think of it, Michaelangelo's David exists in several different forms, and Cezanne painted the same scene over and over again.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying smacks of Artistic snobbery to me. I've always been of the opinion that one of the greatest strengths of photography is its reproducibility. Photography has been the single biggest democratiser of Art in history, not only allowing easy access to artistic works of the past and present, but allowing nearly everyone a chance to create their own.

Being precious about photography simply demeans its power, and robs it of its rightful place as the artform of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, and anyone who would argue that it isn't an artform needs to open both their eyes and their minds.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), March 08, 2000.

Gulp! I can't believe that I've almost identically duplicated Thomas's post, which wasn't there when I started to compose mine. Spooky co-incidence considering the subject of this thread.

I'm tempted to say "great minds think alike", but humility forbids. };^)

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), March 08, 2000.

As clear as mud...

I guess I wasn't too clear - I have no problem with printing different versions of the same negative - it's just these so called limited edition prints that one sees everywhere. Perhaps it is Artistic snobbery, but I have no problem with that either. Originality is what I see as important, and printing twenty or fifty copies of the same tree in a field smacks of pure commercialism. I know that in a couple of previous posts the idea of the Photographer as "Artist" and "Art" as a concept has been ridiculed, but I would rather be driven by an artistic principle than by the desire to have as many saleable copies of the same picture as possible.

Telling a different story with a negative and each subsequent reprint is a different kettle of fish. Darkening the sky, or bleaching the grass, or focusing or defocusing areas of the print to change to mood, or the feel of the photo is great, all well and good. which is, to a some extent, what Cezanne et al were attempting, to represent the right story from a subject.

Sorry to end this here, but I'm due for a meeting in two minutes, I will complete this post at a later time.

-- huw Crosby (crosby@magna.com.au), March 13, 2000.

With apologies to Guy Clark:

There ain't no money in snobbery
That's what sets the artist free
I've had all the freedom I can stand

Just what is wrong with selling more than one copy of a print? Paying the bills beats the hell out of being a starving artist.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), March 14, 2000.

printing twenty or fifty copies of the same tree in a field smacks of pure commercialism.

That's what I'd call a damn good photograph of a tree in a field and I'd try my best to do it as often as possible!

I suppose your meeting wasn't to formulate a business plan as a fine art photographer, was it?

Don't quit yer day job... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 27, 2000.