Photoshop World returns to the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

“You’ve never seen a training camp like this! Photoshop World is the only Photoshop and digital photography conference designed to put you at the top of your game with fast and furious classes from the world’s leading experts. Photoshop World is where Photoshop users go to learn hard and play even harder! Get the Latest PSW News”

The instructors list reads like a who’s who of the Photoshop power users community – Barker, Cross, Davis, DiVitale, Eismann, Kelby, Koslowki, Kost, Margulis, McClelland, Rodney, Schewe, Tapp, Versace, Wilmore and many more. Then there’s the roster of photographers gone digital Maisel, McNally, Petersen, Resnicki, Ziser and more. The folks at NAPP run a first-rate show with real hospitality for their members. They really care about their members. And they deliver! It’s a great show!

I’ll be there. Here are my sessions.
Friday 10/2
7 pm        The Art of Digital
Saturday 10/3
11 am      Enhancing Color to Create A Signature Style
1 pm        Drawing With Light – 21st Century Dodging & Burning

Check out the full schedule of classes here.

Should you limit your editions? It depends. It depends on you. It depends on your level of productivity. It depends on your age. It depends on the kind of work you produce. It depends on the market you’re targeting. It depends on your representatives and how long you expect to be working with them. It depends on how quickly you’d like to see results. It depends on many things.

There’s no clear consensus or set of practices on whether and how you should limit your editions. Ultimately, it’s a personal choice. Make it an informed one. Think long and hard about it. Then act. Undecided? Wait. Keep your editions open. You can always limit later, when you develop a clear desire or identify a clear need to do so.

An edition structure is considered part of the terms of sale. Honor it. If you limit your editions, don’t widen the edition number after initial sales. You may even further limit an edition after it’s issued but while this would increase the value of previous sales it is rarely done, largely because of the complexity of accurate labeling and record keeping. You can adopt different edition structures for different images or at different points in your career; this makes describing edition structures more complex and may confuse consumers leading to loss of sales. You can always raise prices after issuing an edition; how quickly and how much is unclear as it’s determined by increasing demand for an artist’s work; but it’s hoped for by artist, dealer, and collector alike.

The bottom line is that whatever you do, do it with an eye to protecting and increasing the value of your collectors’ purchases. If you do this, the value and market for your work will increase.

There are many pros to limiting editions. It quickly escalates price. It generates broad-based interest in an artist’s entire body of work, directing attention away from top sellers to other works and to new works. It limits the amount of time spent producing the same image, directing the attention of the artist and their representatives alike to the production of new work. (More prolific artist’s benefit more from limiting their editions than less prolific ones.) It appeals to customers who will only buy art in limited editions.

There are many cons to limiting editions. It limits the audience who may appreciate an image. It prevents an artist from enjoying sales of an image at escalated prices as their career matures. (These benefits are enjoyed only on the secondary market. Though higher secondary market prices may help escalate the value of new work.) It prevents the improvement of print quality as an artist’s vision matures or as technology advances. (This can include producing prints with greater longevity or items that can hold their value for a longer time.) It restricts the artist’s ability to gift or trade their work, perhaps to a colleague or a significant collection. For better and for worse, limiting editions limits future options.

Read more in the current issue of Photoshop User magazine.
Learn more in my seminars.
Learn more in my workshops.


It’s often called metamerism, but the correct term is metameric failure.
Metameric failure is the tendency of an object to change appearance under different light sources. Different light sources, even of the same color temperature, are often comprised of differing amounts of spectral frequencies (i.e. red or blue frequencies). Some objects change appearance more quickly than others; they are more highly metameric. This is true when comparing dye-based inks with pigmented inks. As pigments are made of irregular particles, they tend to refract (reflect and bend) light more strongly than uniform dye globules. The most current ink technology coats pigment particles in resin to reduce this effect. Additionally, some color pigments, typically the most saturated ones, are more prone to metamerism. By separating the file differently and using more of the less metameric ink to reproduce an image, the print’s appearance stability is increased. This is particularly important when reproducing neutrals, as small shifts in hue are quickly detected in these colors.
How can you evaluate metameric failure? Make two prints of the same image (preferably containing significant neutrals) and compare them side by side in different light sources.
What can you do to reduce metameric failure? Use the latest inksets (such as Epson’s Ultrachrome K3) and drivers (with the latest separation routines). And, when practical, standardize the light your prints are viewed under. Can metamerism be completely eliminated? No. Everything is metameric. But metameric failure in prints can be reduced to the point where it is no longer significant.

Read the rest of this article in the current issue of Photoshop User.
Learn more in my workshops.


Subscribe

Get the RSS Feed  

Subscribe by Email