selling fine art prints

[howard smith]

[font color=\'#000000\']Raoul, I must agree that numbering prints is an ego trip for most photographers.  I have a huge stack of "1 of 1" prints and they are not worth more or rarer because of it.  They are simply prints I have made for myself and I only need one.  (They aren't actually numbered, but merely "one of a kind.")

I have some numbered lithos and sometimes wonder how many other "238 of 500" are out there.  I'll never know or really care.

A photographer whose name I don't recall dry mounted the negative to the back of the print to prove it is the only or last or for sure a limited edition.  Doesn't work so well with digital.[/font]

[gryffyn]

[font color=\'#000000\']I'd find a new matt and frame shop if I were you.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I find some logic in their argument.  I haven't seen any limited edition prints (as opposed to photographs) signed on the matte.  I believe Robert Bateman (to use a well known example) only signs the prints.

Why should fine art photography be any different?[/font]

[Scott_H]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Your kidding, right?

I'd find a new matt and frame shop if I were you.

The shop I deal with has always been very helpful, and that is the spirit the advice was given in.  I may be switching purely because of geography.  Which is extremely unfortunate; I know it is going to be difficult finding someone I enjoy working with as much.[/font]

[rickster]

[font color=\'#000000\']1. If you're going to sign it at all, sign it on the back.
2. I think limited editions are a marketing gimmick.  You got a file and a printer, you can print thousands.
3. Just my opinion.[/font]

[jeffreybehr]

[font color=\'#000000\']Been asked and answered before, but...

I sign on the front below the image, on the right.  On the left I write the title and print number.  I use a black Pilot Precise V5 Rolling Ball pen.  I mat my images with about a 1/2" 'show' on 3 sides and 3/4" on the bottom, signature edge.

My editions are limited to 200 prints--nothing bashful about me!--and I'm up to #8 on my most-popular image, Black Tree, created on Mr. Reichmann's fall-colors workshop in 2001.

This is NOT a way to make money!  Said another way, a good way to make a small fortune in fotografy is to start with a large one.[/font]

[gmitchel]

[font color=\'#000000\']I sign on the front of the image in the white border and on the matte. If someone wants to reframe it they still have a signed print.


This way when I become the Ansel Adams of the 1Ds their art will retain it's value;-)[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I do as Jack. I sign in the margin and on the mat. I use fine art papers, so I sell matted prints. The coating is too fragile to put them in tubes. I have to print them from the back of the printer on a flat path.

I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.

Also, I give them two signed and numbered certificates. One is attached to the back of the foam core board. The other is loose, so they can attach it to the back of their framing packet.

My grandfather told me to always give the customer a little more than they expect.

Cheers,

Mitch[/font]

[Bill Ozanne]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Store it in an online database.

Right, as a customer I want to spend my time following up with the photographer...letting him know whenever I move.  I would never do that, especially if my name is going to be part of an online database with my address.

I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.

Sounds like unlimited liability.  A nice idea but the last thing I want ten years down the road is somebody harrassing me for a new picture[/font]

[leonvick]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Whose lifetime?

Seriously: Why not sign on the surface of the print with an indelible ink? Who started the convention that a photograph should not be signed in the same manner as a painting or drawing, or even a cartoon?

I use a fine, gold or silver metallic gel roller-ball in the lower right or left corner. Why not?
 
And why date it adjacent to the signature, as opposed to elsewhere, if at all? Is the value of the art dependent on when it was done?[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']The prints I sign and date, the date and signature are together in one of the bottom corners, which one depends on where it will be the least distraction to the image.[/font]

[phila]

[font color=\'#000000\']As a bit of info, I have a Horst print (bought several years ago). The print has a very subtle embossed signature on the white border, bottom right. It also has the title of the photo and his signature, in pencil, on the reverse.

This has always seemed to me to be the best combination. Obviously (assuming the margin falls within the printer's printable area) a Photoshop semi-transparent/embossed signature would be a suitable replacement if a physical embossing was too much hassle.

See: www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_54/essay.html for ideas.

For my part I think the limited edition concept is very much a marketing tool of limited worth. I don't think many of the 'greats' worked that way (even if it was last century!).[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']I haven't seen any limited edition prints (as opposed to photographs) signed on the matte.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I've see numerous limited edition phoptos and other artwork signed and numbered on the mat. But they were likely matted by the artist/photographer.[/font]