Why limited editions are not worth the paper they are printed on

text©Adam Butler

There many commonly-held misconceptions about limited edition prints and their relative value, and therefore I shall try to clear them up here, beginning with a little history.

My academic training in art history, and the knowledge gained from working for many years in the most prestigious Old Masters galleries in London, and in close collaboration in building up the online gallery of the leading old master print dealers and experts the Salamon Gallery from Milan (www.printsonweb.com) as well as writing the best-selling "The Art Book" for Phaidon Press, have given me the knowledge and expertise to speak with authority on the subject.

Printmaking (closely related to Gutenberg's invention of moving type for printing books) began as a concept at the beginning of the 15th century when artists applied black ink to carved wood blocks and pressed them against paper, thus making a "print". When the wood block was lost, thrown away, or ruined through wear, the print then by default became "limited" as no more prints could be made, however they never thought of them being in "limited editions".

During the age of the great Renaissance print-makers of the mid-15th and 16th centuries, artists including Martin Schongauer, Dürer, Mantegna and Parmigianino and later perhaps the greatest - Rembrandt - began to develop a far more refined method of printmaking using copper plates upon which they would carve with a burin (engravings) or using acids (aquatints or etchings). In the process of carving them, they would make prints to see how the work was coming along as it is hard to tell from the copper plate itself. Thus was born the "artists proof". In most cases, these were discarded.

When the copper plate was ready, prints were made. Although lasting much longer than wood, the copper plates would eventually (after about 50-100 prints) wear thin under the great pressure put onto them during the printing process onto the paper. The plates would then either be discarded (in rare instances kept for posterity) or re-carved in order to have enough depth to the furrows to be able to hold ink and make an impression when printed. Thus the print would be in its "second state", as in most cases the artist (or even sometimes a follower) would make slight changes to the original carving on the plate. Many printmakers would go through this cycle several times, therefore there will be prints described as being the third or fourth (or more) "state". The original state is normally (but not exclusively) considered to be the most valuable.

Eventually the plate would become totally worn out and no more prints could be made. Thus the print would be "limited" as no more could be produced. However, and crucially, never were any numbers inscribed on any print. Therefore we don't know exactly how many were made, other than counting all the ones that still exist today. The main difference between printmaking and painting was that prints were a reproducible medium and as many as were physically possible were made. They were then sold and disseminated throughout Europe.

In northern Europe from the late 15th century onwards, printmaking developed exponentially, and it soon became not only a way of distributing images but an art form in itself. In Italy, fewer artists were interested in printmaking until the 16th century, until the work of the great northern masters such as Dürer began circulating and being collected in Italy, and those who did tended to do so only experimentally, producing only a few prints from each plate (one would now say that they were producing "limited editions"). It can be hypothesized that in the late 15th century, the interest and evolution of printmaking grew in northern Europe entirely due to the fact that artists were making as many prints as possible from plates, and it remained an insignificant art form in Italy as there they produced only very small print runs (only seven prints remain of one of Mantegna's best efforts in the genre).

Photographers (and to a lesser extent artists who produce lithographs or serigraphs of their images) today have developed this idea of producing "limited edition" prints solely for the purpose of making them more rare, therefore more valuable, and therefore to boost the price. However, and this is an important point, there is no technical or qualitative difference whatsoever in any print which is made today, either a photograph or any other print. Limited editions are therefore only "limited" because the artist chooses to make them so.

However, in the case of photography, prints do not reproduce a work of art as, for example, an artists' lithograph would do, as in the case of the contemporary artist Jack Vettriano who sells lithographs in editions of 250 or more of some of his famous oil paintings. Crucially, photographs are the work of art. Photographs are conceived, and made, as a reproducible art form, and any deliberate "limit" to the number of prints made from each negative is totally arbitrary and artificial. As a consequence, there is no standard. Whether or not each individual image has a greater value is purely subjective, and bears no relation to the value of the quality of the image.

In other words, a photograph in an unlimited edition by a great master even if printed over 1,300 times (such as Ansel Adam's Moonrise over Hernandez) is always going to be worth a lot more, both as an image as well as in monetary terms, than an image printed in a limited edition of say 8 prints by an unknown Joe Bloggs; and whether Adams' iconic photograph would be worth more if he only printed 1000 or 100 or 50 is useless speculation. It has great value because it is a great image; which he just happened to want to share with as many friends and collectors as would want to order the print.

I firmly believe that, just as in printmaking in Italy in the 15th century, restricting the number of prints made from each original plate or negative, might be a way in specific instances to increase the cost to the collector of any print of an established photographer (the "rarity" factor), but also depresses the photography market and constricts the development and evolution of the art form of photography as a whole.

The two towering, iconic figures of photography today - Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson - who between them defined what photography was and established parameters of skill, talent, style and possibility within the medium as well as setting standards of technical brilliance and ability, have done as much as anyone to evolve photography to the level it is today, as an art form worthy of the attention of great museums and collections. Yet they both never restricted the production of prints of their photographs.

Group f64 of which Ansel Adams was a founding member had as a central tenet the "multiplicity" of photography. Unlimited copies, according to them, gave strength to their images.

Adams and Cartier-Bresson never produced prints in limited editions. Collectors the world over could, when they were still active, order from these great masters prints at affordable prices.

They firmly believed that photography's great asset was that it is a reproducible medium, and they wanted to disseminate their great images as much as possible (just as the dissemination of engravings by Dürer in the 15th century not only helped establish his fame, but also established and evolved the art form of printmaking as a whole).

Perhaps if either Adams or Cartier-Bresson had decided to limit their print runs, much fewer people would have had access to the great beauty and power of their images, their skill and talent would have been much less noticed, and their fame which has been further spread by countless exhibitions, books and magazines, would not have pushed forward the evolution of the art form of photography.

They saw no reason to produce "limited editions".

Yet today, so many gallery owners insist on limited editions. Probably as a consequence of this (in my opinion mistaken and misguided) concept, many collectors also now enquire about the "print run" before buying - as if it increased the quality of the work.

To get around this, many photographers have resorted to a number of cunning tricks. Firstly, they produce a number of "artists’ proofs" which are also sold sometimes up to 5 in a limited edition of 10. That's 50% extra prints of a supposedly strictly "limited" number. Also, a photographer might declare an edition of say 20, but when that's run out he or she might start a new run of 20"strictly limited" prints in a slightly different size. And then again in yet another size. And when all sizes permutations are exhausted, they may print them in a different medium (ie bromide prints or cyanotypes or anything else) as does famed Italian photographer Franco Fontana, sometimes in unlimited editions!

Therefore, beware of a photographer declaring a "limited edition" of say 20 as there might well be many, many more to come.

Another point is also very valid. A photographer such as David Bailey might decide that he will want to produce a "limited edition" of say 50 examples of a particular image. Assuming that Bailey is (as I am sure he is) an honourable fellow, he might decide to have the negative permanently damaged or dispose of it or permanently archive it so that no further images can ever be made from it. Therefore 50 images (plus a few of the ubiquitous "artists' proofs") will be made, as he has the wealth to commission someone to produce for him 50 of the expensive platinum prints he likes, and he has the market demand to sell them all.

However, a less successful photographer might not be able to produce 50 prints in one go for economic reasons. He or she might declare an open edition (un-numbered - or "unlimited"), and print them solely upon request. If collectors only buy a few and no more orders arrive, if the photographer should lose or damage the negative, or just get bored with the image and not print any more - then there might only be 2 or 3 examples of an unlimited print run in existence. Can one then say that an "unlimited" or open edition is therefore always less rare than a "limited edition"? Of course not!

Therefore "limited editions" are no proof of the elusive "rarity" factor which in any case can only increase (or keep high) a photographers' work in very few instances - and serves mostly as a way for famous photographers to squeeze even more money from their print sales to collectors. Vintage prints (printed around the time the photograph was taken) might be more valuable to collectors in the future than prints made much later from the same negative (even though Ansel Adam's vehemently disagreed with this and thought his later prints were much better), but this importantly has very little to do with limited editions or any numbering system. In fact, some of Adams' greatest prints are those printed many years after the original shot was taken - (eg. Moonrise over Hernandez) which would not even have existed had Adams' limited his print runs!).

Many photographers print particular images in strictly limited runs in order to increase dramatically the price as the edition sells out. The late (and lamented) Bob Carlos Clarke's recent exhibition (2004) at Eyestorm in London had his large format prints starting at a set price for the first 5 sales which then almost doubles with each sale of the limited edition of 9. (These were also images that have been sold beforehand and elsewhere in an entirely different set of limited editions!) If it's hanging on a wall, or stored in a bank vault, nobody now or in the future will ever be able to tell any difference (there isn't) between an early number of Bob's print run and a later one - but although the first might have cost £3,000, the last might be £12,000. In an auction in 50 years' time - assuming Bob's work is still sought after then - there will almost certainly be no difference in the sale price either might achieve. Which is therefore the best investment for the collector? Is it fair to charge significantly more for an identical image sold at the same time (or just a short time later)? Logical argument would indicate not, but limited editions allow - and actively encourage - this to happen.

In practical terms, very few photographers are ever going to attain the high level of fame or recognition that any of the great names mentioned above have achieved. Many even established photographers with their work in National Museums and with important galleries selling their work (such as Jerry N. Uelsmann) have admitted that they could not have survived as photographers if they had declared limited editions - as throughout their career they saw that the same few images are the ones that have kept on selling again and again. They might all be looking for other work if they had unwittingly decided to arbitrarily "limit" their sale or constricted the market demand for them.

text©Adam Butler

Please note that this article cannot be reproduced in full or in part without my prior consent and full copyright remains with Adam Butler of all the content.

The views held and expressed here are entirely my own and of course I am open to discussing them with anyone who might want to put forward an intelligent or constructive argument. Please feel free to email me with your comments and if if interesting I might reproduce them here on this page.

Read more:-
Read an article by Brooks Jensen, the editor of LensWork magazine.