Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

From: Tom Ferguson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/05/04-04:35:47 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Here you open up a whole different conversation: pre versus post
visualization. I'm mostly in agreement with you.

I think I only have one image that I've released to the galleries in
two versions (11x14 silver or 4x5 platinum) and in that case the
edition of 25 was for the combination, only 25 prints will be made
(about 8 silver and 12 platinum so far). So I can make 5 more, silver
or platinum, according to what is requested. I was conflicted when I
shot the image, so had two sets of negs with two sets of development,
and ended up liking both.

Other than a rare case as above, I too always know the process before
the shutter is fired. Just how I (and my poor brain) work.

On Monday, July 5, 2004, at 03:23 PM, Joe Smigiel wrote:

> I am of the opinion as a photographer that one should create an image
> with a specific medium in mind. In my work, I can't envision having an
> image created and printed in silver gelatin that would work as a
> platinum print.
> I might use an intermediate step to arrive at an image (e.g., shoot a
> 35mm film negative or digital image file which *could* be printed as a
> silver or inkjet print, and I might proof it in that medium) but I try
> to have the final print image/medium in mind when I make the exposure.
> Otherwise, I'd manipulate the image to such a degree, for example in
> gum, so that it bears only a minimum resemblance to a previous print in
> a different medium.
> To me, there are reasons to make a platinum vs. silverprint vs.
> gumprint, and value to a collector ain't one of them.
> But then, I don't sell much either. :)
> Joe
>>>> 07/05/04 5:25 PM >>>
> As a collector if I buy a photograph that says 5/45, I expect 45
> photographs to be sold of that IMAGE. Period! Now, if the photographer
> marks the back of the mat "5/45 of silver gelatin prints, other
> editions may be released in different media", then I'm a happy
> collector and know what I've bought. If the photographer has an edition
> of 45 without disclaimers, has sold 25 silver gelatin prints, and then
> discovers platinum: I would have no problem with him/her making some or
> all of the remaining 20 prints in platinum. But, to start another
> edition of 45 in another media (platinum) is, to me, lying to the
> collectors.
> I will admit that both as a collector and as an artist I'm well on the
> conservative side of this discussion.
> Another very valid option is to not limit your work. I own two (of the
> list's own) Dan Burkholder platinum prints. I have more prints than
> wall space, so right now they are in storage. The "Ferguson Gallery" is
> currently showing Bresson and Bravo :-)
> But, if I remember correctly, Dan marks his with a number only (I own
> print #12 for example). In other words, I bought the 12th print Dan
> made of that image, but he didn't promise to limit the edition in
> number or media (the print is marked 12, not 12/45). There may someday
> be a print #33,333,333 of my platinum image made in Dan's new favorite
> (ink over platinum). I knew that buying the print, so all is fair and
> upfront. Actually I "think" Dan's price raises every so many prints, so
> the 33 millionth print sold might be *^&%^$ pricey!
> I'll point out that neither Bresson or Bravo had limited editions (or
> at least my prints aren't).
> <SNIO>

> --------------
Tom Ferguson
Received on Mon Jul 5 16:37:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:10 AM Z CST