Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There was one painter (sorry, the name escapes me), who was notorious for sneaking a small palette into museums hanging his work so he could add a second thought or two. As far as really limited, Cole Weston's son would make a photo and dry-mount the negative on the back of the mat board. Cole thought it was crazy. He was at the other end, cranking out large Cibachromes from his 8x10 transparencies. Regarding AA, I would be glad to accept a Moonrise of any generation, original, clouds gone, crosses not intensified, whatever, even if un-numbered. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Bob Adler Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:41 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"? 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 _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information