via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Recently, I read a post where someone said they hand-sign prints and number them. I have been required to do this for a print that I had for sale. However, original art (which is what every photograph that is printed is) is not numbered. My husband, a painter, never numbers anything. So, by numbering the print, it is being suggested that the print is not original, but is a copy of an original, which I object to. What is your take on this? Also, when hand-signing, I hate my signature; the computer signature is so much nicer. Anyone else have this issue and what to do?

ggttc Loc: TN

The original use of numbering a print is to let the buyer know that a limited number will be made available.

1/500 indicates that only 500 will be sold. Artists generally do this to improve the market value of the reproductions.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Thanks and I do know this. But normally only "prints" are numbered, not originals, and all photographers create original work each time they print, it's the nature of photography. It's been a debate for decades and will continue on I know.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Everyone of my prints are an original. They are made from the same negative, film or digital. If I feel a certain image is of value, I'll limit the number of prints I'll make from that image, sign and number them. I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that a numbered print is a copy of an original.
--Bob

cmc65

You cannot have an "original " if it's not printed. Other than that it's simply data on your computer. Is the data on your computer what you consider " original"?

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Bob, that is not my conclusion, it is how art has been for many years. An original is copied, however it's done (in one of several ways), and then copies of the original are produced on a press and then they are hand numbered by the artist. The copy sells for less than the original piece of art. The print market is designed to provide art for people who cannot afford the higher prices of original art. I believe as you do for my photographs, each one is an original, so that is why I object to numbering them as 1/of some number. I think there needs to be a different socially accepted practice for photographs. I understand that for you, numbering the originals means you will only print that many originals.

BebuLamar

If it's a print I would sign it by hand. I don't like computerized signature.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

So, in art, for many, many years an original has been considered to be something the artist has "hand created" and is one of a kind, the print market, based on copying the original, provided more access to art for all as the print cost less than the original piece. I am not saying this, this is how the art market has been and remains today. Photographs have always been different and it seems that the art market does not really know how to consider them at times. If you were to print out your original and then copy it on a copy machine, which I've done for a piece of art at times, then the copy machine copy would be the copy and your original would be what you printed out on your printer. I agree that photographs are original art and that each one I print out is original art and that is why I don't like numbering them as the connotation of numbering is that they are not original art. If we only printed one photograph and then trashed the image that would be considered equal to an original piece of painted art and then we could get a better price for our art in general.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

When you print a photograph it is a print. When an artist prints a print from whichever print form they are using (wood block, metal, rubber, etc...), the print is from the original work just as a photograph is from the original image (negative, file, etc...) I do not understand your confusion on this point.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

So, photographs are a print and not originals? Isn't that what you are saying? I think the word "print" means two different things in the photography/art world. My print is always an original, kind of an oxymoron I guess. A print from my husband's art is a copy of his original, my print is an original, not a copy.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

When an artist use a carved block to create a print, the original work is the block. The print is made from that block. When a photographer captures an image, it is captured on film or digitally. The negative or digital file is then used in producing a print.

In photography they have always been called "prints." That has never been a point of contention as far as I know.

Producing a limited edition print is the same in both photography and the rest of the art world. In some cases, print makers even make a show of destroying the "original" medium to guarantee no additional prints will be made.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I can understand that as painting and sculpture, etc. However, in the photographic film world, every print is an original. They may be close in appearance, but each it slightly different. In the digital world, the final image after processing is equivalent to the negative. Prints are made from that image. They also may appear identical, but will vary in imperceptible ways. Still, either way, I'm only making a limited number of prints from the one negative. They are not copies, as each is done from the original negative/image.

My conclusion is that if I sign and number a print it is one of so many. There won't be anymore produced from that negative/image. That adds intrinsic value to each print. The print is not a copy of another print, it's an original.
--Bob

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

When a print maker presses a print, the print is not a copy of another print, it's also an original. It is coming right off the block (or other print medium) just as each photographic print is coming off the negative or file.

You are not making a distinction without a difference. You are making a distinction without a distinction.

In both cases an original is being produced from a medium, which, potentially, could make unlimited prints.

lsupremo Loc: Palm Desert, CA

Yesterday I was discussing this with a photography art shop owner and told her I had the "original" signed print made by Ruth Bernhard in 1946, and asked did this ambiance Increase the value of this really original print? She said "Probably not unless I could prove it ".

So I read this as, unless you can somehow "prove" it, maybe by both signing and marking prints like 1/50 makes that one the "original"??

Frank

lsupremo Loc: Palm Desert, CA

Yesterday I was discussing this with a photography art shop owner and told her I had the "original" signed print made by Ruth Bernhard in 1946, and asked did this ambiance Increase the value of this really original print? She said "Probably not unless I could prove it ".

So I read this as, unless you can somehow "prove" it, maybe by both signing and marking prints like 1/50 makes that one the "original"??

Frank