Signing prints.

DanielK · May 22, 2004

Is there a right or wrong way to sign prints? I'd like to get everyone elses take on this.

Also, what is a usual print run for your above average to spectacular prints? Do you print the hell out of the spectacular shots in a run of 1500 or do you make it kind of exclusive (and expensive to own) with a run of 15? How does one destroy a digital "negative"?

I've had some experience with paintings and non-photography prints, but never with photographic prints.

All input is very welcome.

Daniel

markc · May 22, 2004

I'm not currently bothering with limited runs. There's a rather humorous, and I think informative, article in the April/May edition of LensWork titled Money Games by Brooks Jensen. I agree with a lot of what he says. I don't see a lot of those price-boosting techniques working until a person has made a name for themselves anyway, and I'm not there yet.

As for signing, on the back with pencil and on the matte seems to be a good choice. I've taken to putting capture and print date on, like "2002-2004".

Bauhaus · May 23, 2004

Our teacher made us sign the year on the left side and our name on the right side, under the print on the front of the matte board.

motcon · May 23, 2004

it's a personal thing, really. i sign the back of board, not the front. i also include a tag with print details and a certificate of authenticity that have my signature. if someone likes my print, they'll keep them, otherwise the next generation will have to see my name on the back when trying to sell it at a yard sale.

DanielK · May 25, 2004

Does anyone else have some input? I'm new to this and could really use some advice.

Daniel

ksmattfish · May 25, 2004

I feel that the signature on the front detracts from the image. Sometimes I can deal with it if it's done in light pencil on the mat. I either sign on the back of the matboard the photo is mounted on, or the back of the photo itself (in pencil), if it's not mounted. Sometimes I sign the board the photo is mounted on if there is going to be an overmat (the signature would be covered by the overmat, but could be seen by lifting the overmat). I like Motcon's idea of including a "certificate" with the details and signature.

Terri and I are trading prints, and she asked me to sign it, so I tried out signing it neatly below the image on the photo itself. I hate it so much that I'm going to reprint and try something else. Sorry, Terri, it'll probably be another week, and you may have to be happy with a certificate of authenticity. :?

DanielK · May 25, 2004

What if you sell or trade the images unmatted?

And do you include the copyright on there somewhere?

Daniel

terri · May 25, 2004

ksmattfish said:
I feel that the signature on the front detracts from the image. Sometimes I can deal with it if it's done in light pencil on the mat. I either sign on the back of the matboard the photo is mounted on, or the back of the photo itself (in pencil), if it's not mounted. Sometimes I sign the board the photo is mounted on if there is going to be an overmat (the signature would be covered by the overmat, but could be seen by lifting the overmat). I like Motcon's idea of including a "certificate" with the details and signature.

Terri and I are trading prints, and she asked me to sign it, so I tried out signing it neatly below the image on the photo itself. I hate it so much that I'm going to reprint and try something else. Sorry, Terri, it'll probably be another week, and you may have to be happy with a certificate of authenticity. :?

Bastard!! Just kidding..... sweetie, consider this: YOU won't have to look at it - I will. And I want my SIGNED Matt Needham print, damn you. :wink:

I want to brag on it.

See, I'm of the thought that - it matters. Putting your name to a piece of your work - it matters. How you do it, where you do it - I agree with Will; it's personal preference. But to just - NOT sign a print, puts it on a level with any old un-named photographer wanna-be who puts out gimmicky plonk in a hotel lobby for a "starving-artist" weekend.....does that make sense?? If you do good work, and you know it's good work....then you attach your name to that piece with pride, damn you.

(And - you SEND THEM to the people who say it matters.) :wink:

Just my humble little opinion.

(Poor Matt - I signed my print, right on the print itself, where you HAVE to see it! bwahahahaha!!!!!!) :twisted:

markc · May 25, 2004

I'm with Terri on that. I personally don't care for it right on the print, but I love having it on the front of the matte. Otherwise it becomes anonymous. I want it somewhere on there. The signature, frame, etc., all become part of the finished piece of art for me.

oriecat · May 25, 2004

Just my opinion! I don't like it when mats are signed. The mat is not the art, it's just a mat. What happens when the owner decides they want to change the mat color or something? Your sig is gone. Sign the art. Either on the mount board, below the print, or on the print itself, as terri did, if it can be done well so it blends well with the print. Or if the print has a white border, then you can sign in the white space, which would be covered by the mat when framed.

ksmattfish · May 25, 2004

terri said:
But to just - NOT sign a print, puts it on a level with any old un-named photographer wanna-be who puts out gimmicky plonk in a hotel lobby for a "starving-artist" weekend.....does that make sense?? If you do good work, and you know it's good work....then you attach your name to that piece with pride, damn you.

I'm going to look the next time I'm at the art museums I frequent, but I don't recall seeing many signed photographs.

I expect people to mount a brass plaque with my name on the wall near my print!

markc · May 25, 2004

Like with any art, I expect there are a lot of different opinions on this. I actually do consider the matte and frame as part of the art. If a buyer wants to change it, that's their choice, but then it's not displayed as I intended it. Someone might think that a certain base looks lousy for a sculpture they bought and change that, or they might splash a little blue on a painting where they think it needs it. They are free to do this, of course, and changing the image itself is a bit more drastic than changing the way it's displayed, but that's where my mind-set is. If someone doesn't like my signature, they can always get a new matte. It's hard to add one that isn't there, though, if you want one.

It doesn't mean you can't sign the print in addition.

Don't mean to sound like I'm trying to convince anyone to change. This is a highly personal choice.

malachite · May 25, 2004

Stealing the idea from a photographer I worked with years ago, I used to use ultra thin vinyl transfers for the lower right of any photos I got to show when I was allowed to put my name direcly on the print. I could get my name on one notebook size sheet 20 times. Black, white, and two shades of grey covered everything. They were sized to work with 11X14's and up (1"X4"). They were just made from scanning the best signature I could come up with so they stayed consistent. Everything else was just printed on an Avery label and stuck on the back for print identification and details.

My goal however is to be so good people stop at my images and say "Wow, that looks like a Michael image. It just has that striking feel. Oh, it's just Art Wolfe, nevermind". [/delusion]

soulfly · May 25, 2004

I know I am no great photographer or anything, but seems to me the only thing you truelly own in this world is your name...So I think it makes a big statement about who you are..if you prefer to be anymous dont sign your work, if you want people to have some respect for your work, you state this is me..and sign it..I always sign the mat, in pencil right edge very small, like this...K. Legg '04 nothing more, nothing less..but, I know who I am...its just a matter of opinion, but thats mine...but, I feel without your signature its a snapshot, with it, its a photograph :wink:

MyOwnPath · May 26, 2004

I sign the matte below the picture on the right, and if the picture has a title, I put it on the left, in pencil. Usually I date it on the back, as that's not as important to me.

Most of the frames I use are from good will/salvation army/thrift stores. It's much cheaper and there's beautiful frames and sometimes mattes for very very cheap. Usually I have to take the former artist's work out (probably bad karma, sorry!) and there is often a name or address on the back of the old art. A couple months ago I pulled out the sketch of a house, and on the back was an address, name, and date...may, 1971. I decided to ship the unframed art back to the artist with a note, but recieved no reply.

Signing is important and, I think, should be visible. Every piece of art in a newspaper, magazine, and most paintings have at least initials by them. How else could anyone recognize your name?
h
--Trav--