I too am very sensitive to numbering prints. What I do is number my prints during each print session. In that way, I can tell what to do on the next print, how my developer changes, what corrections I need to make for the next print. If I make prints from the same negative in another session, I use a decimal pint to denote the number in the series. So, my 3/4.2 is the third print of four in the second use of the negative. I have a stamp for the back of my matt when the print is mounted, and from that information marked on the back of my print, I have the information of what developer, paper, negative, negative developer, camera and lens. Sometimes I go back to the print and wonder what to do for a new situation. Then, after I return from photographing, I can count on how the lens performed, what developer to use, what I can expect from the print. What, then gets sold, markings are less a selling point of editions, but the information that translates to the buyer of where my skills lay in terms of what they collect and therein lies the value, based on the print numbering system I have a numbering system for the negative, too; but the colelctor never sees that. Ansel used to make one print to perfection, then from a box of paper make that same print using the entire box. After sorting the 'best' and spotting them, he would sort them in his opinion of best to worst and number them accordingly. The numbering system, typically, depends on sequence after they're printed. I make five in an edition. Edward Weston didn't number his prints, and Kim did an article about his father's log that showed he made prints on demand. His best selling print was the Pepper #40, which he printed 26. Numbering prints should be for your convenience and to let history find the evedence to determine the value of your prints. Steve Shapiro ------------------------------------------------------------ (karl Shah-Jenner) photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu wrote on Sun Jul 6 09:53:50 2003: Darryl asks: > Let's say I create prints from the same original negative in silver gelatin, > platinum, and gum bichromate. Would each of these categories constitute a > different series or should they all be grouped together as one series? Or > should I just count myself lucky if I sell anything and not worry about > numbering the prints? Thanks. You're also more likely to sell prints and in bigger quantities if they are numbered than if not. There's a aura of exclusivity about numbered prints that makes them more desirable to buyers k
