[LargeWu]

If there's any difference between printmaking and photography, it's that printmaking requires one to physically print each item. There's a non-trivial amount of manual setup to do, and the process can take days.

Photography can be printed basically on-demand owing to the nature of the medium.

It doesn't mean that limited runs in photography are less valid, though. Once that print is editioned no reputable artist will just print more. (although there are ways around it, like different colorways) It definitely makes the item more "collectible".

[dahart]

Oh definitely, I agree, woodcut and digital art and photos, for example, are all wildly different media. I’d expect a woodcut to cost more than a photo, all else being equal, because it’s more physical - both making the plate, and setting up the print run - and generally closer to fine art.

The economics of the limited edition part is still the same for printmaking though, right? The printmaker could choose to make a single print and then sell the plate, or destroy the plate, and it would be closer to sculpture - a one of a kind piece of art. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are one or two printmakers that do this and can sell a single print at a time for enough money to make a living. But I think it’s more common to do a limited edition run and sell multiple copies, same as photographers, no?

[TylerE]

A lot of modern prints aren't really made like that. They're just run off on (basically) nice commercial inkjets.

Sure that's not exactly fine art, but there's a big market for it, including things like collectors. Virtually all concert posters are printed this way, for instance.