signing your finished prints

[brian steinberger]

Do you sign the image or mat? And why?

[paulr]

By contemporary standards, just about anything besides signing the back of the print in pencil looks very amateurish. If you dry mount, then the back of the mat is the place to do it. But most curators are deeply annoyed by dry-mounted prints, unless the're very large and require it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with paulr. I hinge mount, mat, and sign the back of the print in pencil.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I sign and title mine outside the viewing area, but do stamp it just below the image.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This is interesting.

I was thinking about the images I own and who does what. Of those I own, Howard Bond, John Sexton, John Wimberley, Hunt Witherell, Craig Varjibedian, Alan Ross, Craig Lubens and Robert Owens all sign at lower right of the image while Jock Sturges, Keith Carter and Michael Johnson are all signed on back. All artist have either stickers or stamps on the back listing image name, image number (if applicable) and other information about the artist or printing.

As far as I can tell, all are dry mounted except Alan Ross. His is dry mounted to an identical size 2 ply board (16X20 in the case) then corner mounted on a 4 ply board with another window mat of 4 ply board over this. He keeps a nice boarder around his prints for his signature. He signs in pencil and "scruffs" the area for his signature with a pencil earaser so the printing paper will take a signature.

I kind of like the signature visable when the image is viewed, but either way looks ok.

It is interesting to know what others are doing. I have always provided the print number inthe lower left corner of the print ( example 1/25) then signed the lower right corner under the print.

I look forward to seeing what others say, might change my mind on how I am doing it.

[Kirk Gittings]

" But most curators are deeply annoyed by dry-mounted prints, unless the're very large and require it"

I have no idea where you got this idea from. Are you talking about inkjet prints? I have over 150 dry mounted silver prints in museums all over the SW. I show my work to new collectors all the time and no one has ever mentioned this, ever in 30 years. I don't dry mount inkjets, but that is only because I use a very heavy cotton rag paper that doesn't require it. Go to the Weston Gallery in Carmel. 90% of the images are dry mounted.

On dry mounted prints I sign them in pencil, bottom right corner just below the image. On inkjets I sign them the same place but on the paper outside the image.

[paulr]

"I have no idea where you got this idea from."

I got it from curators. But more from conservators, who actually have to face the issues. It's not likely to be a deal breaker, but in general, dry mounting is considered to be more problem than benefet. Museums and corporate collections are likely to have most of the work in flat files most of the time; a dry mounted print takes up more room. It's also not archive-friendly. Mats are generally thought of as protection for the print, which means if they get damaged, they can be easily replaced. A collection would rather, in general, mat work to its own standards and for its own purposes. Even if you used an archival, totally reversible mounting process, who is going to be around to know this and to know just what to do if the mat needs to be replaced in 20 years? A conservator would rather use the materials he or she knows than to trust the judgement and good intentions of some artist.

As far as all those old timers dry mounting their prints, this is because dry mounting was the accepted standard a long time ago. It's changed in the last couple of decades, priamarily because the major collections made their wishes known.

[Jay M. Packer]

Eric,

Bond, Sexton, Wimberly, Witherill, Varjabedian....damn, that is a seriously impressive collection of landscape photographs!

How much do you charge for admission to your living room?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, heck, just come on by!

It has been fun collecting over the years as I have had a chance to get to know several of them which makes the few prints I own a bit more special to me.

I have also enjoyed learning from looking at the prints, I am always amazed at how bad mine are when I look at theirs! :-)

Have a great one.

[Merg Ross]

As to placement of a signature, either in pencil on the front just below the image or on the back is accepted practice. It is really a case of personal preference. For instance, Brett Weston signed his full signature with date in the lower right corner of the mat about 2 1/2 inches from the image.

In my opinion, the most professional presentation is to dry mount the print. All of my prints in museum collections are presented in this manner and I have never been requested to do otherwise. I have seen corner mounted prints in museum exhibits and, archival or not, the prints are seldom flat and are sometimes difficult to view.

[robert_4927]

I have to agree with Paul, the few curators I've spoken with recommend hinge mounting. Since I work in Platinum this has never been an issue for me as a platinum print is never put under that kind of heat stress or subjected to a non-archival substance( at least mine aren't) The curator's exact words were, " a Conservator will cringe at the sound of those two words....dry mount". I intial my prints in the lower right hand corner, out of view. All other info such as series number goes on the back.

[QT Luong]

I sign on the border in the front, with the rationale that some people would like to matte the print
in a way such that the signature would be apparent. However, I sell to the general public rather than to museums and collections (amateurish art buyers, as opposed to curators).

How can you sign in pencil if you use a glossy paper ?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Mounting standards have changed over time, and there is some regional variation. In New York galleries that are selling to collectors, you see a lot less drymounting of new prints than there used to be.

[paulr]

The flipside of all of this is that as standards have changed, they've gotten looser too. It used to be that only certain mediums presented certain ways would be taken seriously. But conservatives and conservators alike have lost that battle. if a curator sees an inkjet print on corrugated metal, welded to a boat anchor, and she likes it, she'll buy. it becomes the conservator's problem after that (one of many problems).

So the larger issue you deal with today is just the impression that you make. People who are members of certain communities at certain levels tend to present things a certain way. If you're at a point in your career where you're fighting for legitemacy with collectors or curators, it can help to do things the way they like and the way they're used to seeing. You might notice that at a certain level, in local gallery/frameshop type places, photographers signing their work in the image area with a gold pen. And at another level, in major museum collections, you'll see more work signed on the back. It's a question of which club you want to be identified with.

It's all subordinate to your vision and the quality of your work, but these little details can add up and influence the impression you make.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

QT,

Well that is a good question.

They way Alan Ross does it is to use an art eraser and lightly rub the area that he will sign. He numbers his prints on the left and signs on the right. The eraser rub is not noticeable and it takes a bit of the gloss off the paper so a pencil can then be used to sign.

Alan's mounting technique can be found on his website (www.alanross.com). He came to his method after working on several of Ansel's older prints where the mount was damaged.

Eric

[Kirk Gittings]

The curator's exact words were, " a Conservator will cringe at the sound of those two words....dry mount".

Paul and Robert,

Our experiemces here are completely opposite. I have sold alot of prints in the last couple of years and I can't tell that anything has changed in regards to DM. Last year I sold a very nice little portfolio to the U of Louisville and also to a major collector there for their print collections, which by the way are almost entirely drymounted. It was never mentioned. This year with a retrospective show coming up I have been dealing with collectors and curators all over the region and it has never ever been mentioned. It has never even been brought up, period ever. I have a potential sale going at the Art Institute of Chicago where I teach. It was never mentioned.

When museums and collectors are approaching me about purchases, if it were important to them, why would they not ask for another form of mounting than dry mounting? I would be happy to give it to them. Dry mounting is a pain in the butt! The only problem-silver prints in a situation where humidity fluctuates will not lay flat without dry mounting. I live in New Mexico and most of my work is sold in this region but not exclusively. I don't think this is a regional thing. Why is our experience with this so different.

[Henry Ambrose]

Another thing about signing in pencil is to be sure you test the very pencil you will use before you sign a real print. I grabbed the wrong pencil once before I learned this. I was very dissappointed by the impression on the print with no "lead" mark in it at all - just an impression in the paper surface. I tried a bunch of pencils on reject prints to find one that marked well. A slight erasure mark will remove the gloss just fine and is is not noticeable under glass as all. But still test the pencil.

As an aside, there is nothing that gives me the creeps as much as a wavy print under glass on a wall. I always wonder why "they" didn't finish their work. I know that it is the current fashion in some circles to not dry mount because its not easily reversed or repaired but I'd rather the print look great for 50 years then fall apart (which it won't) rather than have it look crappy for 100 years and still be hanging there looking crappy. If it looks wonderful unmounted thats great -- but if the print suffers unintended waves and curls then it needs to be mounted in some fashion.

I can understand not mounting a significant historical print that is not mounted when received, but for contempory work it seems the artist/maker is the one who should be making the decision about how to present their work. Not a conservator or curator. If those folks want to be artists then they should get a camera and make themselves some prints mounted and displayed as they please - not impose themselves on others.

[Brian Ellis]

With darkroom prints I leave space between the edge of the overmat and the image so that the mount board is showing in between the edge of the print and the edge of the overmat. I sign in that space, lower right corner. I didn't realize that was considered to be amaeteurish, it's how I was taught by John Sexton. I don't sell nearly as many prints as I'd like to but it's been important to the people I've sold to for the signature to show. With ink jet prints I sign in the same place but since I don't dry mount them I sign on the paper just below the image.

With respect to the dry mount controversy, I thought it was fairly common knowledge and not subject to a lot of dispute that the current thinking among curators was to prefer that prints not be dry mounted, which I've also thought was unfortunate. Ink jet prints lie flat without dry mounting and when hinged to mat board and with an overmat on top I think they look fine without dry mounting. But traditional darkroom prints don't lie perfectly flat without dry mounting and to me they don't look finished unless they're dry mounted. However, if Kirk is dry mounting and selling to curators apparently the thinking isn't as common or universal among curators as I thought.

[paulr]

"I don't think this is a regional thing. Why is our experience with this so different."

I don't know!

My experience is similar to yours in that the subject has not come up when discussing a sale or other acquisition. There are all kinds of things that don't seem to come up, like archival processing, size of the edition, etc. etc.

But in casual conversations I have often heard the preference expressed for unmounted prints.

If what you're doing is working, then by all means, keep doing it.

For my own work, the part of your post that echoes my experience the most is that "dry mounting is a pain in the butt." Given that, and the general preference (even if unstated) for unmounted work these days, I'm very happy to not mount it.

And yes, my work sometimes looks a bit wavy on humid days. I think of it as "organic." However, I print small. My biggest prints are typically 11.5 x 9 inches. For big work, mounting to something solid (at least if the work is to be hung traditionally) seems like the only way to do it.

Henry says the artist is " ... the one who should be making the decision about how to present their work. Not a conservator or curator. If those folks want to be artists then they should get a camera and make themselves some prints mounted and displayed as they please - not impose themselves on others."

It seems like they agree with you. It doesn't sound like too many curators are imposing their ideas on anyone. But they do express a preference. In most cases, they don't consider the mat to be part of the work ... just a protective device ... so the nature of the matting job is not central to their decision to acquire the piece unless there's something unusual about it. The mat does effect how easy their job is, though. And it might effect the impression you make when you show your work to them. These are both things to be aware of.

[robert_4927]

Kirk, The info on dry mounting came from three different sources: Grant Romer, Conservator at the International Museum of Photography at the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York: Susan Kismaric from The Museum of Modern Art in New York City: Miles Barth, Curator of Photography at The International Center of Photography NYC. All claim dry mounting is no longer an acceptable practice and they even prefer corner mounting with the appropiate materials over hinge mounting.

[QT Luong]

Maybe one deciding factor for or against DM would be whether the print would spend most of its life in
a drawer or on a wall.

As for the signature, is there a particular reason why pencil is prefered (as opposed to
fine pigmented archival-grade ink) ?

[james mickelson]

This is an interesting thread. I was involved in this argument last year and when on a photography expedition to the Bay area, I stopped at the Carmel/Monterrey galleries and went to PhotoSF. I looked at the mounts and matting and came to the conclusion that galleries have both. Those prints that were hanging were normally, as far as I could tell, dry mounted. Those that were in portfolios were laying flat, unmounted, with slip paper between them. The color prints like glicee and ink jet were not dry mounted for obvious reasons. Color work on fiber paper were not mounted either because the paper lays fairly flat due to it's very makeup. Same with carbon, salt, cyanotype, van dyke, Pt/Pd, and most other alt process prints which are printed on very high quality papers anyway. The reason FB and RC prints get all wavey is that the emulsion has a different makeup than the paper with different expansion/contraction coefficients so depending on temps and humidity, they will get warped. And that is why most of the silver prints I saw under glass, and the photographers I've met (many of the current crop of contemporary photographers seen in most galleries here in the west) dry mount their prints that are going to galleries to hang. I've been to John Sexton's studio and seen dozens and dozens of prints all ready to go and all dry mounted. I've been to Ray McSaveney's place with dry mounted prints stacked up in every conceivable nook and crannie with dust all over them. I was once over to Morely Baer's house (prior to his passing) and he had his prints all dry mounted and matted. I'd love to see Kirt's studio someday and spend the day looking at his work no matter how it's presented. And as for how someone signs a print or matt, most were signed in some fashion on the front. None that I recall being signed on the print but on the matt. As for the archival isses of the matt vs the print, both are made of rag material and either is subject to damage. If someone has a valuable print, I doubt that you are going to allow anything to happen to it anyway. I once saw a gallery owner in 1000 Oaks here in California who had dozens of original Ansel Adams prints that he had just stacked in a drawer. I know that they were probably, from the vintage of the printing, work prints or those you could buy pre 70's but still, I'd have given my eye teeth for any one of them and treated it like gold. He was rich though. The reason a window matt is used on top of a print is to protect the prints surface from damage in the first place when they are laying flat in a drawer or a portfolio case even with slip paper between them. But then again this is the artists choice and seldom the curators. The conservator has little say in it anyway since they aren't the buyers usually. There is no convention per se that I have seen. But then again I haven't been back east or to Chicago. Maybe they do things differently. I just know I hate the way a print looks hanging when it isn't dry mounted and it's all wavey. It's difficult to see very well. And I've seen hanging prints under just about every lighting imaginable. Just mount it the way you want it, damn the torpedoesand full speed ahead. Go make images. Love to meet you someday Kirt. I've seen some of your images hanging. Santa Fe and I'll-be-quirky. I'd love to see you have a show here in San Diego like the Bellows Gallery or MoPA.

[paulr]

This is a bit off topic, but has anyone had issues with 100% rag museum board attracting little bugs? A long time ago I used nothing but rag board and started finding these little mites in my portfolio cases and drawers. they were usually dead by the time i found them, often squished between prints (nasty). This happened in Colorado and in Rhode Island.

I switched to an acid free, non-rag buffered board (light impressions exeter conservation board) and the bugs never reappeared. Aparently this board is archival as long as you're not using a process that's sensitive to the alkaline buffering agent (like dye transfer).

[Wayne Firth]

paulr

Yes, a friend had the bugs come out of the mats during a show. They showed up inside the frames. He had to remat the prints while the show was in progress.

As far as dry mounting, my experience is like yours. Conservators are very cautious folks and just don't understand the artist. I agree with Henry. They should make their own art and not impose upon others. I was taught to dry mount anything important and I like dry mounted silver and some inkjet. I don't dry mount the alt processes.

Wayne

[Mark Sampson]

I have always drymounted my prints, and signed the mat. The photograph conservator with whom I share a toothbrush rack prefers unmounted prints but says essentially "you're the artist; it's your decision; we just take care of the work". With her guidance I now use the 'archival' mount tissue that can be removed with heat. But recently I sold two prints where I trimmed the borders off the prints, dry-mounted them, signed on the mount board beneath the lower right corner, and cut a "float" mat to go over it. It looked good, the customer liked it, don't know if I'll continue it. One last point- the gallery in NY that has some of my prints has no problems with dry-mounting.