As I commented earlier, according to his biography, Ansel claimed having been convinced to destroy a negative in order to create a "limited addition". The resulting trauma precluded his ever doing it again.
Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I know, none of the great photographers who printed limited > > editions destroyed their negatives. There is something intrinsically > wrong with that notion. The negative or the digital original must > always be preserved. All of my gallery prints are numbered prints of > a > limited edition. They are a far cry from fine art, but buyers want to > > konw that their print is not just one of many. Iif I ever sell the > entire series of an image, which is highly unlikely, I will stop > printing that shot. But I won't destroy the original file or > negative. > My best selling print, by the way, is from film. But I hope that will > > soon change. > Paul > On May 1, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > >> The only ethical way of doing a limited edition is to make your > print > >> run, then destroy the masters. That way your buyers can be at > least > >> assured that any future print has to be a reproduction of one of > the > >> originals, and thus not worth as much. Please note that you can do > a > >> run > >> of 100, sell 10 of them, and still have 90 squirreled away in a > box to > >> sell in the future. > > > > Of course, this does not apply at all to the situation at hand, > where > > there are actual conventions to be obeyed that will not change just > > > because you don't like 'em or think they have problems. Like I > said > > previously, no one in the art community really gives a damn what > the > > PDML comes up with -- they have their way of doing things, and you > can > > either join in or not join in, but standing off to the side and > > telling them how wrong they are will not get you anywhere, and > surely > > will not increase your sales. > > > > -Aaron > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
