tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553701592418423830.post9055644429087582636..comments2024-03-29T03:10:51.809-04:00Comments on The Southern Photographer: William Eggleston is off the HookJohn N. Wall/Photographerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18254481230305150899noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553701592418423830.post-91107906536295591562013-04-03T12:23:39.877-04:002013-04-03T12:23:39.877-04:00I think that Sobel is missing a major opportunity ...I think that Sobel is missing a major opportunity here to define his dye-transfer prints as the "real," the "original" Eggleston prints, the ones that made Eggleston's reputation as the creator of color fine art photography, and the new digital series as in some sense reproductions of them. <br /><br />That should give him the market appeal to hold up the value of his prints.<br /><br />I've heard Brooks Jensen on the matter of "limited editions" as well, and think the idea of numbering editions as well as prints within each edition makes sense. <br /><br />Eggleston was in effect declaring a new edition of his prints, whether he said so formally or not. <br /><br />He changed size AND method of production, so this guy lost his court case because Eggleston was clearly not producing new dye transfer prints from the original negatives, not extending production of the same series beyond his original limited number of prints. <br /><br />But the whole thing is complicated because the digital scanning and printing process was not even dreamed of when Eggleston made his dye-transfer prints. Technology changed, and the means of production AND the market changed along with it. <br /><br />Except, of course, the idea of limiting the size of an edition of photographic prints is itself pretty meaningless and is entirely a marketing strategy. And that was true even before the advent of digital printing. <br /><br />In the world of engravings and lithographs, one can make it meaningful because the quality of the print source can deteriorate over time. The plate or stone is often destroyed after the predetermined print run.<br /><br />But I don't know too many photographers who destroy the image source when the print run is done. John N. Wall/Photographerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18254481230305150899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553701592418423830.post-26875107183868192342013-04-02T15:54:59.730-04:002013-04-02T15:54:59.730-04:00Well, I must say that regardless of what the judge...Well, I must say that regardless of what the judge/law says, I think what Eggleston did was ethically wrong. My friend Gerald and I have over the years had an ongoing discussion about all things photography, and so of course the 'limited edition' subject came up many times. I think we finally arrived at a very elegant solution to this by saying that we should follow the example of the book-publishing world and make 1st, 2nd and etc. editions. <br />Mike Johnston over at The Online Photographer explores the subject and comes up with the same conclusion. Brooks Jensen was probably the first one to suggest this approach.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com