According to Margit Erb: "A reproduction is a photograph of a photograph. It could mean a poster or a reproduction in a book. But NEVER one of the prints made from the original negative. It is very important in photography, as it is in other art fields, that the provenience be explained upon the sale. We explain exactly where the print came from."

Those who insist that photographic prints should be produced in limited editions propose a different form of restriction. It would be good to remember the origins of the 'tradition' of editioning photographs. Helen Wright says: "Limiting editions came into being from the dealers when they first started selling photographs in the 1970's. They [photographers] had all graduated with degrees in photography. Life Magazine and Look Magazine had folded and what were they to do, they were photojournalists. They would show their stuff to the dealers who had also just begun selling photographs. The dealers said that in order for us to sell your work, you have to make limited editions so we can ask for more money. So there we are, it's as simple as that."

Ms Erb adds: "As for limited editions, the older prints are not editioned because Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen or any of the other photographers from that period weren't editioning. Modern photographs would have more monetary value if they were in editions, but that wouldn't make them any less of an original photograph. EDITIONING IS A MARKETING TOOL that contemporary photographers started doing as early as the 1970's to basically make their prints more rare. It has nothing to do with originality. There are photographers like William Klein, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Gordon Parks, that were printing in the 1950's and are still selling prints today, that don't edition. Yet Cartier-Bresson's photographs continue to increase in price and break auction records despite the fact that they're not editioned."

Another restriction that is discussed is whether or not a photographer should be required to print their own photographs. Kim Bourus says: "Magnum sells 'Collectors Prints' which are first generation prints, made from the original negative. Included are scans that are printed on a Lambda where the photographer oversees the process to make sure they are 100% the way they want. The photographer has ultimate control over what the image looks like. Both processes fit the Magnum definition of an original photograph and a 'Collectors Print.' The fact that the photographers themselves are not doing the actual printing, in fact some of the photographers have never printed, doesn't devalue the print as it still fulfills the requirement of the 'Collectors Print' as being the best it could possibly be."

Conclusion
More changes are on the way. Digital technology has radically changed how photographers can print their images. No longer must a photographer go into a darkroom and work with noxious chemistry. For the photographer skilled in Photoshop, the darkroom now consists of a computer, a monitor and in some cases a printer. The digital files produced can either be printed on an archival ink jet printer or taken to a service bureau and outputted on a digital printer such as the Light Jet.

Photography has always been a medium of multiple originals. If photographers choose to edition their photographs, that is a marketing decision that they should be free to make. And finally, no matter what method of output they choose, the critical thing is whether they, as artists, are completely satisfied with the presentation of their vision? Be suspicious of those who, due to their own personal agendas, demand restrictions on photographers.