[Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"?

[rgacpa at gmail.com (Bob Adler)]

My understanding is that Adams ever numbered his prints. I think his 
reasoning was, correctly IMO, that each print was improved upon over time. 

If I were to ever be able to sell enough I don't think I would sell editions 
( though I have done that once or twice as you know Adam). Each time I print 
an image again I find something I missed or have learned something new to 
apply (including software upgrades that allow better processing). 

So I think limiteds are just a marketing scam...
Just my thinking, as requested!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 8, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Adam Bridge <abridge at mac.com> wrote:

> I read this article over on Digital Photography Review about William 
> Eggleston's issuance of a large-format (44 x 60) ink-jet print set of a 
> previous limited edition dye transfer print (11 x 17).
> 
> He was sued by a collector who claimed that the new prints reduced the 
> value of his dye transfer prints which were "limited edition."
> 
> The judge found that Eggleston had created an "essentially different" work 
> from the same transparency and so was within his rights.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with this and I've wrestled in my own mind about what 
> constitutes a "limited edition" in a digital world. I think we've talked 
> about it here.
> 
> I have a Robert Bateman lithograph that was produced in limited edition. 
> Now he sells the same print but as an inkjet print. My lithograph is worth 
> (given the current market) an order of magnitude more than the inkjet 
> print . . . but I have this strange feeling. If I owned the original oil 
> that Bateman produced I wouldn't feel this way: he could only make one of 
> these - at least not without a host of Chinese "starving" (perhaps 
> literally) artists doing duplicates.
> 
> I understand that many of Ansel's prints weren't made directly by Ansel 
> but by those under his supervision. But they were not mass produced. I 
> have the feeling that for every print that made it out of the darkroom 
> there were many "failures." Maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think Ansel 
> claimed to do limited editions although I could be completely wrong on 
> this.
> 
> 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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information