signing ones work...

[Jim Walczak]

Howdy Folks,
Another quicky question here...is it considered "acceptable" to sign one's own photography work? I know when I post my pics on the web I like to have my signature with the little copyright symbol on them so that people will know the work is copyrighted, but for pictures that I am going to print and (hopefully) sell at this upcoming gallery, I'm not sure if I should be putting the signature on them or not(?). If these were paintings and not photographs, then clearly I would be signing them...and I do consider them to be art (at least thats the aproach I'm taking for the moment), however I've noticed that whenever I've seen photographs displayed at various places (like restaurants and such) that they're usually not signed. I know if I were doing the work for someone else...say wedding pictures for example, then the answer would clearly be -NO- (usually a simple business card will surfice), but this isn't the case with these pictures...again they're to be displayed in a gallery, for sale, as my "artistic" work. Clearly this is something of a moral dilema...I'm proud of my work and would like my efforts acknowledged beyond that of nameless pictures so that maybe with time (ok, maybe with -a lot- of time! LOL!) my work might some day be associated with my name....which I think is the dream of many of us; to be remembered along with people like Ansel Adams. In the "old" days of film photography it was difficult at best to actually get a signature on a photograph (without of course simply taking a pen and signing it!) but with the modern day of digital photography, this is no longer an issue and it's no effort at all for me to "personalize" my work, so whats the "pro" rule of thumb here?

As always, I'm grateful for your sharing of your collective wisdom and experience!

Bright Blessings,
Jim

 

[Sharkbait]

When I make prints for someone else that are going to be framed and displayed (as opposed to a sheet of wallets or something), I usually sign the back of them. If it's something I'm displaying in my own home or a photo I'm framing and matting myself, I sign and date the mat. Dunno if it's 'acceptable' or not, but people seem to enjoy having that 'limited edition' / 'signed' art thing.

 

[TwistMyArm]

Another quicky question here...is it considered "acceptable" to sign one's I've noticed that whenever I've seen photographs displayed at various places (like restaurants and such) that they're usually not signed.

Have you ever walked away asking yourself "I wonder who the photographer was"? I don’t' know why an artist wouldn't want his name on a photo. If you get your art out there then wouldn't it make sense to have your name out there as well? Those photos could very well just be framed stock prints.

with the modern day of digital photography, this is no longer an issue and it's no effort at all for me to "personalize" my work, so what’s the "pro" rule of thumb here?

I wouldn't use photo shop to personalize a print that you plan to display. I think if you're viewing a website it's ok to see the big © along with your name, but the last thing I'd care to see on a print at a gallery would be someone’s name in Times New Roman. If you have a digital pen that could work though.

Anyway I'm not a pro and I've never shown any work at a gallery, but I think that it's a good thing to sign your work. I often give framed prints as gifts however and I always sign the print itself with a gel pen. Sometimes I will only sign the matt though (only if I think a signature on the print will take away from the photo itself). If I sign the matt I make sure I initial or sign the back of the prints also just incase the matt and frame are ever changed.
As Shark mentioned people like to see signed work. I think it gives people the impression that it's worth more.