Many collectors of photography have fallen to the misconception that limited edition numbered prints are more valuable than prints that are not numbered. A quick look at the history of fine art photography shows that this is a false assumption easily taken advantage of by manipulative artists. Ansel Adams did not number his photographs. The number of prints available were limited by the time of his death, not by an artificial predetermined number designed to boost sales. The only reason to limit and number available prints is to increase the perceived value.

Here is how Alain Briot, one of the most famous modern landscape photographers, explained it:

“The marketing principle goes like this: reducing the quantity by a measurable amount will allow the photographer to increase the perceived value, and in turn the selling price, by a commensurate amount. In other words: the smaller the edition, the higher the price of each print in this edition. An edition of 10 will allow each print to be priced higher than an edition of 100 which in turn will be priced higher than an edition of 1000, and so on. The respective price of each print is set by the photographer, the gallery, or both. Pricing is no small task, and is often just as challenging as setting the number of an edition.”

In the world of art in general it is extremely uncommon for significantly high numbers of copies to dilute the value of the work. If a collector requires a number to be present on a print as some kind of insurance policy that the photographer will not dilute the value of the print is uneducated in art. If the photographer were able to sell such a high number of prints they would actually be able to make a living selling art!

The photographs that I make and prints I produce are not numbered or limited. I do not make photographs to become famous, nor do I have such an inflated self-pride as to think that I need to limit editions. I simply make photographs to be printed, framed, and enjoyed.