Prior to 2016, I sold my images in a variety of edition sizes, ranging from no more than fifty to as few as three.

I felt that an edition size of fifty was on the small side. But I knew that an edition size of three was extremely small — and rare. Indeed, very few photographers limited their images to just three prints. That’s understandable, of course. Photographers want to maximize their profits and selling fifty images — as in my case — was an excellent way to leverage a single capture in the marketplace.

Still, I always grappled with what a reasonable “limited edition” size should be. Did 2,000 copies of a single image stretch the bounds of what could reasonably be considered limited? I thought it did. How about 1,000? That, too, seemed very large for a limited edition. I eventually settled on fifty as my largest edition size; I didn’t think it was too large and it still allowed me to recoup my image-acquisition costs and make a few dollars along the way. As such, from 2013 to 2015 I confined my edition sizes to no more than fifty.

By the end of 2015, however, I began reevaluating my business model insofar as edition size was concerned. As I surveyed the ever-changing fine-art photography market, I came to the conclusion that edition sizes had crept downward during that 2013-2015 period — even if the change was small. To wit: in 2013 an edition size of fifty was legitimately small on a relative basis. By the end of 2015, though, some photographers (though not a majority) were offering edition sizes that were comparable to mine.

With that backdrop in mind, I tried to figure out what changes or tweaks, if any, I wanted to make in 2016. I knew that I would continue to print on the same medium, using the same format I had always employed, so this change would only concern the number of prints I issued in each edition. The reality is that there are a lot of amazing photographers in this industry. But, thankfully, it’s not a zero-sum game where winner takes all. There is plenty of room for everyone to do well, even if a healthy number of people believe otherwise. Do fantastic work, take care of your clients and their needs, market your work and yourself properly, and there is a good chance that you’ll succeed.

Anyhow, at the beginning of 2016, I made the decision to sell just a single print of any image I captured. From that moment forward, every image that I captured would be sold just once. I knew that I was leaving money on the table but I also knew that, if I priced my single image properly, I would do just fine. After all, I have a large portfolio and I stay busy in the field, capturing a lot of saleable work throughout the year. Moreover, I also knew that collectors of my work would appreciate the exclusivity of owning the only copy of an image I captured.

After giving it some serious thought, I made the decision to adopt a single-image edition size. My images couldn’t be more rare. My edition sizes couldn’t be any smaller. And my clients, who I appreciate more than anything, love the idea of being the only owner of a particular image.

Meanwhile, in addition to reducing my edition size to one, I also decided to cut the dealer out of the equation. Rather than selling my work through galleries and dealers, which is the only model I had known, I decided to sell directly to collectors. As such, I was able to eliminate costs from the price of my images. While it was not unusual to price images at $10,000 in the gallery, I could substantially reduce the cost to collectors if I was selling direct to them. After giving it some thought, cutting the gallery and dealer out was an excellent choice.

If you’re interested in buying one of my images, you can reach me via my contact page here.