How do you define an edition?
I define a print edition based on print medium and scale. For instance, a 20"x24" color pigment print constitutes the scale and medium that would define a print edition for a particular image. The same photographic image reproduced at a different scale, utilizing a different printing method would potentially constitute a new edition. Bear in mind, the definition of an edition is subjective, but my definition adheres to accepted gallery practices. Each print in an edition is numbered, signed, and embossed, to ensure authenticity.

How many prints are in an edition?
My prints are typically offered in editions of 25 with a reserve of 7 museum proofs and 5 artist's proofs. Only the numbered prints are offered for sale in galleries. Museum proofs are available to museums, public collections, or private collections that have some future public designation in place at the time of purchase. Artist's proofs are typically not available for sale. Artist's proofs allow me to have prints on hand for reference, exhibition, and portfolio use. They may ultimately be given away to friends, family, and associates. In those cases where artist's proofs are no longer in my possession, they may appear in galleries for resale, just as a numbered print may be resold by the original purchaser at some point.

Keeping editions small ensures the purchaser they are acquiring a work of art that is not mass-marketed. It can be treasured as a rare piece that only a few people will own. Small editions are also productive for photographers, like myself, who have no desire to churn out the same image hundreds of times. We are free to focus on new work.

What media are your prints offered in and why?
As a photographer, I work in both color and black/white. My color work is available in the medium of color pigment prints. My black/white work is offered in the medium of quadtone pigment prints. These processes are similar, technically and aesthetically, in that they are both "ink on paper" processes utilizing digital technology. The papers I print on are 100% rag, handmade art papers. Pigment ink prints have longevity ratings commensurate with that of other fine art media including watercolor, drawings, gravure, and traditional photographic processes. (Please reference the statement on longevity later in this section.)

I utilize digital technology for my printing because it allows a greater level of creative control over the final print than traditional processes do. Also, it is the technology most receptive to my particular working methods. I can print with a longer tonal range, at larger scale, on a wider variety of papers than I ever could with traditional processes. In short, I have chosen digital processes for my work because I get aesthetically superior prints with digital. It's really that simple.

Are digital prints truly original prints since they are typically made from scans rather than directly from the film original?
In a word, yes. Digital prints are originals, not reproductions, based on the methods commonly used in the photographic world to distinguish originals from reproductions. While it is true that an image recorded on film, must first be digitized via the scanning process before it can be printed, a digital print is the same number of generations removed from the film original as a traditional gelatin silver print made from an original negative. The term "generation" is used in photography as a means of measuring how close a given image is to the original film image from which it originated. Each time a film image is processed through an optical system, this constitutes a generation. This is an important measure in traditional processes because each time a photograph is replicated in this manner, the original image is degraded. For a traditional photographic print to be considered an "original," it must have been printed directly from the original negative and is therefore only one generation removed from the film on which the image was first recorded.

There are many different types of scanners, but they all serve the same purpose. At a microscopic level, scanners examine the photographic detail in a film image and convert it to digital information that can then be manipulated and optimized on a computer for output (printing) on an ever-widening array of printers. Once the film image is digitized, it never passes through an optical system again. The technology is quite different, but the goal is the same: to produce a large, high quality print from a relatively small piece of film. Whether the print is traditional or digital, the original film image is only processed through a single optical system in either case. Digital printing is merely an alternative to optical enlargement.

Bear in mind, that as with traditional processes not every photographic print is an original, if it's generated from a copy negative, for instance. Neither is a digital print original, if the digital file is generated from the scan of a photographic print or a drawing or painting. In both cases, traditional and digital, if the print is generated from tangible pre-existing artwork, then it is considered a reproduction. An original film image or a digital image file is not traditionally conceived as anything other than an intermediate medium from which to make a print. The print is the intended presentation medium.

Increasingly, print editions launched since 2003 are made directly from digital image files. In other words, they are from digital captures and not film images. The quality is outstanding, and in the case of digital capture, the digital printmaking process is the only practical way to produce prints. These prints are literally the only versions of these images that exist, other than a computer monitor display.

Do digital prints have the same value as traditional prints?
All other things being equal, yes, they should have comparable value. Other authorities may answer this question quite differently, but my view comes from the perspective of a photographer familiar with both traditional and digital processes and whose work is a synthesis of both. There is no inherent superiority of one process over the other. Both involve a lot of machinery that can be temperamental and lacking in the degree of malleability needed at a given instant. Both require comparable levels of skill, patience, and artistic interpretation. Both are capable of achieving results that are either breathtaking or dismal depending upon the skill level of the practitioner.

There is a common misconception that digital imaging is completely non-artisanal. That is to say, a quality result can be achieved at the mere press of a button. . .Anyone can do it. . .There is no real training or skill level involved. . .etc. These opinions are those of individuals who are digitally illiterate and parallel similar opinions expressed in the 19th century that were directed at photography as a whole.

Is there an integrity inherent in the film original that is compromised by the process of digitization?
Sure, if the photographer is seeking to use the enhanced power and control of computer manipulation to alter and disguise the content of the film image. But, the argument of traditional film images having more integrity than digital images because of inherent differences in the process is truly misplaced. For many artists, their work is about manipulating reality. They readily montage images together, solarize prints, obliterate detail they don't want to be present, etc. It was never their artistic intent to capture reality. Why should they be criticized for offering an alternative view of reality? This same logic applies to pictorial effects.

Just bear in mind, the primary reason quality film scanners cost thousands of dollars is that they are designed to do one thing extremely well: capture the entire detail and tonal range inherent in the original film image. This is a trait I attempt to exploit fully whenever I scan film. My workflow in Photoshop is straightforward and descends directly from my years of experience in the traditional darkroom. Nothing about me has changed philosophically as I have incorporated digital technology into my work.

How long will digital prints last?
The longevity of color pigment and quadtone pigment prints can all be measured in decades. This technology is quite new, however. Inksets are evolving in the direction of greater stability and comprehensive testing using accelerated aging techniques is still underway. So, hard and fast promises for resistance to fading, yellowing, staining, etc, are not simple. Generally speaking, the expected longevity of digital prints should be comparable to traditional prints. The best rating for a color photographic print is a 60-year fade resistant life for Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The color pigment inksets I use have attained ratings greater than 100 years. Quadtone pigment inks have even higher longevity ratings than color prints. The generally accepted standard for an archivally-processed gelatin silver print is 100 years.

It should be noted that papers, inks, and humidity resistant UV coatings employed by the photographer are only one side of the equation. I would argue that conservatorship is more significant than any other component in achieving desired longevity. No artwork is more durable than the paper it's printed on and no artwork will last unless it is properly cared for. Proper framing, matting, lighting, and environmental room conditions are vital for artwork to meet or exceed its anticipated life.

Do you make your own prints or are they made for you?
I have a complete digital lab in my studio, equipped with multiple computer workstations; a Scitex scanner; a quadtone carbon pigment printer for black/white; two color pigment printers; a dye-based color printer; a conventional darkroom for film processing; and an array of support equipment based on both traditional and digital technology. In short, I manage every step of the process either by doing the work myself or by directly supervising it. The only exception to this in-house workflow is when the desired output scale exceeds my capabilities. In these cases, I scan the film originals and make color proofs in-house, which are then provided to a digital lab for printing at full scale. I believe in the artisanal concept of the photographer making his/her own prints. When my signature goes on a print it means that the photograph and the print represent my craftsmanship.