Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Signature on Prints  (Read 1778 times)
BHoll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« on: March 20, 2014, 06:27:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What do you guys think is a good way to sign photographic prints?
I'm selling limited edition prints in 3 options: C-Type prints (unframed and framed), inkjet prints on Hahnemühle paper, or C-Type mounted on Aluminium Dibond. I always include a Ceritificate of Authenticity with my name embossed within the certificate. Then again, some careless people may misplace the certificate at some point. And of course I want people to remember my name as a photographer Wink

With fine art prints, there's always the argument of archival quality – so I feel I'm a bit in a dilemma, particularly with C-Types, because they can't be signed with anything but a waterproof pen... which probably is not archival resistant.

I was thinking about purchasing some wafer seals for my embossing machine, so I can stick them on the back of the print / frame etc.... Then again: the glue may not be archival resistant.
Or am I worrying too much?
The wafer seals may really be the best solution – and they also add to the perceived value of a print.

How do you guys do your signature on prints?

« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 06:30:18 AM by BHoll » Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2014, 07:17:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I sign the mat with a pencil. 
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2014, 07:28:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I sign the mat with a pencil. 

...resulting in an unsigned print.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2014, 07:33:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Pencil for art papers. Archival quality pens for glossy prints.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3381



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2014, 07:36:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Offbeat suggestion but how about using paint? Not gloss/emulsion, but artist's paint.
They need to sign their canvases and that can be long lasting.

Also you could staple seals to back of print, though do so in an area that will be hidden by frame/mat.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BHoll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2014, 08:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Offbeat suggestion but how about using paint? Not gloss/emulsion, but artist's paint.
They need to sign their canvases and that can be long lasting.

You mean paint on the front / on top of the photograph? Not sure about that....

I like the idea of archival pen. Did some research and found the Pigma Sakura line of pigmented ink pens.

Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2014, 11:41:47 AM »
ReplyReply

...resulting in an unsigned print.

Hmm. It was good enough for Ansel Adams, but not for you? Do you actually mar the image with your signature? Or perhaps sign in a margin of unused paper
Logged

~ CB
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2014, 12:26:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm. It was good enough for Ansel Adams, but not for you? Do you actually mar the image with your signature? Or perhaps sign in a margin of unused paper

If you, I, Ansel Adams or Uncle Tom Cobley sign on the mat then it results in a signed mat.

I sign on the border which results in a signed print.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 12:42:55 PM by KLaban » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3381



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2014, 02:53:12 PM »
ReplyReply

You mean paint on the front / on top of the photograph? Not sure about that....
I meant the border. But it's up to you and what style suits your pics.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1903



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2014, 06:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Or am I worrying too much?

IMO, yes.

I make prints to high archival standards and provide a signature on the mat and/or a signed certificate affixed to the back of the frame. If someone takes the certificate off and loses it, that's their issue. And to be honest, I ask myself, in 20-30 years what's the chance that a single soul will give a fiddler's fart if a print is a "real" Peter Aitken (as if someone will be making counterfeits, LOL). I think that's just hubris.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2014, 04:01:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Why worry at all when it's so easy to get it right?

Logged

PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1903



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2014, 07:51:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Why worry at all when it's so easy to get it right?



Precisely. I've got it "right" (at least for me) and I don't worry.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2014, 07:56:03 AM »
ReplyReply

If you want a signed mat then sign the mat.
If you want a signed certificate then sign the certificate.
If you want a signed print then sign the print.

No worries.
Logged

HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2014, 09:13:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The only way to really prove the authenticity of the print is to embed a chip into the paper that includes all the meta data.  Otherwise your print is probably a rip off or unauthentic.  Even the embossed certificate could be a rip off - be careful out there. Sorry I couldn't resist. 

People sign prints differently.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2014, 10:05:42 AM »
ReplyReply

The only way to really prove the authenticity of the print is to embed a chip into the paper that includes all the meta data.  Otherwise your print is probably a rip off or unauthentic.  Even the embossed certificate could be a rip off - be careful out there. Sorry I couldn't resist

People sign prints differently.

Nor should you, and you're right, signatures can be forged.

This topic comes up time and again.

I come from a fine art background where the convention is originals (oils, watercolours etc.) are signed on the image and multiples (litho, screen, photographic prints etc.) are signed on the border together with edition details and title where applicable. That's the convention. A signed print needs to have a signature in order for it to be recognised as being signed.

Simples  Wink
Logged

HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2014, 10:15:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Ideally you should sign the print itself.  I'm just being a cynic.  I know as artists that we need to create value to our work, but with digital technology all this talk about editions and so forth is kind of contrived.  But then again I'm a terrible sales person and that is why I stay in the classroom as a teacher.  Speaking of art, today my 5th and 6th graders will paint in the style of cubism.  This work will be original first addition work that parents will keep for ever! 
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6235



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2014, 10:47:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Keith. I also think both the idea of the "authenticity" of a photographic print and the idea of "editioning" a series of photographic prints are absurd. What matters in a photograph is what's in the photograph, not whether or not it's a copy or what its number is in a series. I realize there's a "fine art" market that has created a whole world of artificial "value" by pumping up the preciousness of photographic prints, but in the greater scheme of things it's ridiculous. Yes, if you've gained some notice as an artist, signing a print adds value to the print by implying that you made the print, but sometimes that implication is wrong. After the very beginning of his career Cartier-Bresson's photographs were printed by Voja Mitrovic, but Henri signed them, so his signature simply meant he accepted the print as satisfactory.

Oh, and the idea of signing the mat is absurd. It's easy to change a mat.
Logged

Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2014, 01:04:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not arrogant enough to believe my prints have any value other than what is attached buy the buyer themselves - I certainly have no value as 'collectable'.  So I sign mine on the mat purely as an identification of authorship and hopefully a bit of self promotion. It's in pencil so the owner can erase it if they wish.  Others may have reasons to want their name permanently attached to the image itself.

Jim
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6235



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2014, 01:34:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, somewhere down the line there may be people who've bought your stuff and have some very valuable mats.
Logged

Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2014, 03:17:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, somewhere down the line there may be people who've bought your stuff and have some very valuable mats.

Ha - yes, they may re-use the mats when they are sick of the pictures!  I do believe in re-cycling....
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad