Paragon is changing its rules on limited editions of photographs. Paragon’s website now states:
“Each image must be signed and numbered with editions being inclusive of all sizes and not to exceed 250 prints in the edition.”
On Zapp, you can still find their old rule under their Greater Charlotte Festival, where no mention is made of limited editions. For their Sarasota Festival, they state a less onerous version of the new rule: “All images are to be editioned with editions of each image not to exceed 250.” But on their website, all listings have the new wording I quoted above.
It appears that the website version of their new rule is what they intend to use for all festivals, and they just haven’t updated all of their Zapp listings yet to match that rule. The version of the rule listed on Zapp for the Sarasota Festival was probably an in-between version in the evolution toward the new rule.
Comments
Robert, I print mine on heavy 8.5 x 11 paper and for framed pieces I laminate them and put them on the back of the picture using double sided tape. The people who care about limited editions are impressed and the people who don't are often pleasantly surprised. For unframed prints I slip them into the clear bag in the back.
How could you not understand my point, RM? I clarified something that was mentioned upthread with first hand experience.
Not sure what point you are making Barries. Seems just a rambling reminiscence. Could you distill it down to your point(s) as pertains to the original posting?
Ansel Adams also produced slip cased portfolios which included about 16 images each in editions of about 200 each. He printed all of the prints and the editions at one time and then offered them for sale.
I know about this because I used to teach photography at Arkansas Arts Center and the curator of the Arkansas Decorative Arts Museum owned one of Adams's early portfolios and used to let me present it to my classes. What a cool experience and memory. I don't remember which specific portfolio it was (no. III?), but it had to be from about 1960. Adams marketed these through Sierra Club. Many are worth six figures now. My friend paid half the cost of it and he had a friend go in with him and pay the other half, and when his friend decided the next year that he really didn't want to be part owner, my friend paid the other fellow and claimed full ownership of it.
By the way, my friend also had a collection of original Edward Weston and Paul Strand work. He owned all the Aperture quarterlies from the beginning. You know, the magazine started by a group of art photogs in 1952 (including Adams) and first edited by Minor White? Very cool stuff, indeed. I would house-sit for my friend and read all his books and stuff, and look at the real photography, of course. One of his books had a personal note and autograph in it from Strand wherein he thanked my friend for bringing Strand's work to Florida for the first time (in an exhibition). WOOHOO!
Thanks, Alison. I'll use this as a sort of template and change the wording, but I see the content that is needed. BTW, is the COA done on letter paper or is a larger gummed label adequate?
Nice response, Alison. Thank you for such great detailed information.
Here's a copy of my COA for one of my framed panos Robert:
This certifies that the print “Fire Canopy” is an authentic, limited edition print made from an original photograph by Alison Thomas and signed / numbered by the artist on the border of the print. This 8 ½” x 35” print is number 6 out of an edition size of 150. Furthermore, there are five artist proofs and five donation prints in this edition. This edition covers all prints made from this photograph of a size 6 x10 or greater.
This photograph is printed on Red River Aurora White Fine Art paper using Epson brand pigment inks. It is matted using 100% cotton rag mats and framed with a Nielson frame and Tru Vue UV resistant glass. These materials are industry accepted to be the finest materials available for printing and framing fine art. This print was meticulously matched to the original photograph to attain a print that faithfully captures the essence of the original. To properly care for your investment in fine art, never display in strong ultraviolet radiation, such as direct sunlight. If this work is not provided framed or if it is reframed it should be framed and displayed under glass or acrylic with a mat to protect the image surface from the environment. Do not frame directly under glass or acrylic without some means, such as a mat, to keep the print from coming in direct contact with the surface. With proper care and handling, your print will last for generations to come.
The sole copyright of the original photograph is retained by the artist. Any unauthorized reproduction is in violation of U.S. copyright law.
All information and statements contained herein are true and correct.
Artist's signature ____________________________________
I do put a lower limit on the size but that was back when I sold notecards, which I quickly found to negatively impact sales of the larger prints. Every once in a while I find a customer that cares about the edition size and number but for the most part they don't. I do find that limiting the number I print keeps me creating new work. I've never sold out an edition but I have a few images that are in my "artist 401K" with just a few left.
Some of you may know that I am also a fine art photographer and have been for over 20 years. As my business expanded and I was picked up by more and more galleries with open editions and posters being offered, it was imperative that myself as a business or brand, I understood the boundaries, limitations and legality of what I did. The issue in our industry is consistency – which does not exist as rules vary from show to show.
Our Paragons rules were written between myself and Ron Mellott. Our show guidelines have been established specifically for our events. The impetus for any change in our event rules reflects growth and clarity. So when there is change it is drawn from our experience and put in place for clarity.
Please note I have a show next weekend and this will be my last posting on this thread for now. If there is something to respond to I will do so on my return.
So to everyone with a show – travel safe, good sales and great weather!
Bill
Bill: If this is the way the game is played, then that's how it is. If someone can point the way to a sample COA then that would be appreciated. It will be a PITA to pull flip bin pieces and number the things and attach a COA to the backside. I have my doubts all that effort will gain much in sales as the bulk of the work I do seems to be destined for the decorative value rather than the fine art investment value. That's not to say I don't put aesthetic values and thought into the work, but the buyers seem to be talking more of how the colors pop or work with their decor.
Ron: I believe Adams did work as you suggest, and have read of how he reinterpreted negatives in the printing process years later. I've seen copies of his printing notes, which in some cases are quite extensive covering a couple of detailed pages. The sidebar on this is funny considering some patrons turn up their noses at the idea of "manipulated prints".
An edition of 250, even in mixed sizes, would be a lifetime supply for me in many cases. The only work I have that would approach that number is a series I did back in 1991 that was satirical humor using GI Joe and Barbie figures. Those were printed in letter size and market value was right at $20. Price them higher and sales dropped. Price them lower and sales didn't change. A few of the pieces, 3 out of 14, approach that number, but it is frankly ridiculous to place an end limit on work that sells for so little. If they were going for a much higher value, and an implied scarcity would bump up value, then I would be the first to start numbering the little devils.
As another aside on this, I've heard stories where someone, generally a photographer, will crop the image a little differently to create a new edition. I suppose it meets the criteria for the law on this. It was far easier when I used to do cyanotypes, van Dyke brown prints, gum bichromates, and xerographic transfers as those were essentially monoprint processes where I could run ten pieces with six of the ten succeeding and not a one of the six would be identical.
Bill: What was your motivation for changing the rules? Were there complaints? If so, by whom?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next