Digital Signatures on Prints

[Jack Brauer]

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of using a digital signature or digital stamp in my prints, instead of hand signing them.

I recently moved to a small town in SW Colorado (far from any big cities), and I've had to rethink my printing strategy... there's nobody around here that has an Epson 9800 (my printer of choice). Also the Colorplak mounting I love to do is far away too. I found a shop in CA that does both for wholesale pricing.

So... I could either:

A) Have the prints shipped here, sign them, then ship them off again to the customer

or B) Put in a digital signature, and have the shop send the prints direct to the customer; saving turnaround time, shipping costs, and gasoline.

I have grown to trust the consistently accurate results from the Epson 9800 (with files from my calibrated monitor), so I'm not overly concerned about not seeing the actual print before delivery to the customer. Is that unprofessional, in your opinion, to not see your print first, even if you're confident in the results?

Is my actual signature that important, vs a digital stamp? (My signature isn't even that pretty to be honest).

Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions.

[matthew blais]

I find it a bit lazy and impersonal. And, to not see what you are shipping off to a customer is again, impersonal and careless IMHO. Since you have already removed the "hands on" aspect of printing yourself, at least sign the work by hand.

P.S. You might try these guys in Ft Collins for printing, as I got the name from James Frank, an owner/photographer gallery in Estes Park a few months ago.

Fine Print, Ft Collins, CO

[Bruce Watson]

A) Have the prints shipped here, sign them, then ship them off again to the customer
This is what you have to do.

What the signature tells the customer is that you, personally, have examined the print and approved of it.

I understand the quest for efficiency. But this isn't about efficiency, it's about quality. Your signature on the print is your certification of the quality of the print.

That you trust in your vendors is admirable. But as a customer, I'm not dealing with your vendors. I don't know or trust your vendors. I'm dealing with you, and only you. You are the guy who has to assure me that the print you want me to buy meets your quality standards. The only way you can do that is to personally inspect the print, and your seal of approval is your hand made signature on that print.

The same applies to any kind of print - including silver, platinum, whatever. The artist's signature on the print is his seal, his guarantee, that the print meets his quality standards.

That signature is the difference between a fine art print and a work print, IMHO.

[Jack Brauer]

VERY good points. If the prints were shipped direct to a customer, and the quality was not top notch, they might not know the difference. I would.

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree with Bruce on this.

[Danny Burk]

IMO the digital signature would be a bad, bad idea. I agree with the good points above, and also...

If I were your customer and receive your print with original signature, my thoughts are "Original work of art. Hand signed by the artist. A piece worthy of fine print prices."

On the other hand, if I receive a print with a digital signature, I'll think to myself "Mass produced. Xerox copy. Poster reproduction. Not worth the price."

All this from a signature. As your customer, I may not know anything about print production processes, digital vs wet printing, or anything else of a technical nature. But I know a real signature from a mechanical reproduction, and that makes all the difference in perceived value of a product.

[David_Senesac]

I only sell rolled unmatted, unframed Lightjet prints. If I used a mat, I'd sign such in the usual ways. I use a discrete digital signature that nearly blends into the image somewhere along the bottom or top edges of my large landscape prints. If someone knows where the signature is, they can easily make out the writing. However without knowing where the signature is, from normal viewing distances, it may take them a bit of time to locate such. And that is preferred unlike someone famous marketing a print and advertizing to the audience that the famous guy made this one. Thus it does not detract from the aesthetic of my prints. Since my prints have whitespace borders to fascillitate customer framing needs, I do sign that part of media after checking the print thoroughly after receiving it from my lab. Thus it shows the customer, I actually checked the media as it has my actual signature. Of course that signature will not then show up in the matted and framed print. Years ago I absolutely hated signing the white mats and worse atop the image areas themselves because invariably a modest percent of those signed would end up looking lame no matter how carefully I practiced my John Hancock beforehand. After spending nearly $100 having a print made, I don't want to take a chance on boogering it up, even if that happens only 5% of the time. Maybe if I ever get famous, I'll soften that attitude but as long as I'm scraping by in peon status, nope. ...David

[Dirk Rösler]

In the old days photographers scratched their names onto the plates and it was printed/enlarged with the image on every print.

[Capocheny]

IMO the digital signature would be a bad, bad idea. I agree with the good points above, and also...

If I were your customer and receive your print with original signature, my thoughts are "Original work of art. Hand signed by the artist. A piece worthy of fine print prices."

On the other hand, if I receive a print with a digital signature, I'll think to myself "Mass produced. Xerox copy. Poster reproduction. Not worth the price."

All this from a signature. As your customer, I may not know anything about print production processes, digital vs wet printing, or anything else of a technical nature. But I know a real signature from a mechanical reproduction, and that makes all the difference in perceived value of a product.


FWIW, I fully agree with both Bruce and Danny on this... skip the electronic signature. My personal preference would be the personal signature as opposed to the digital version. :)

Cheers

[tim atherton]

+ pritns on the front of the print always appear somewhat tacky

[clay harmon]

Does this question strike anyone else as humorous/ironic? IOW, digital printers are plenty good for content, but somehow cheap and inauthentic for the signature?

[photographs42]

Historically, edition prints (photographs, etchings, lithographs, etc.) have been hand signed in PENCIL by the artist. The importance of using a pencil rather than a pen and ink is because the ink of a pen can be very closely matched by a printer, but a pencil signature cannot.

As Bruce correctly points out, your signature is your seal of approval. A signature that is part of a mechanically reproduced print is rather meaningless.

Jerome

[Jim Jones]

Mechanically reproduced signatures aren't new. The Hiroshi Yoshida woodblock prints I bought in Japan in 1967 were titled and signed in what seems to be graphite at a casual look. They were posthumously printed, and signed with an additional woodblock printing. Perhaps even the image blocks were freshly cut from original designs. Although esthetically pleasing, these posthumous prints are worth a fraction of the value of prints actually signed by Yoshida. Images bought only for the pleasure of their appearance do not need signatures of any kind. However, an artist who wants maximum value for the buyer will sign each print. Always personally signing each print will also enhance the integrity of the artist. A photographer with no interest in fame or fortune can ignore signatures.

[paulr]

I agree with Tim that signatures on the front of a print are tacky. It was the norm 70 years ago, when photographers were strongly influenced by a world that thought art=painting. But not anymore. At least not outside the art fair and gallery/frameshop world.

There's a lot of precedent for mechanically produced signatures, signature stamps being applied by an authorized agent, etc... but i tend to agree with those who don't like it in this case. If a print is being sold as original art and not a reproduction, i like to think the artist has at least seen it. If nothing else the signature affirms that the print meets your standards.

And if you sign it by hand, you can sign it on the back, where the signature belongs.

[Michael Gordon]

And if you sign it by hand, you can sign it on the back, where the signature belongs.

And this is in which regulation book, Paul?

[paulr]

And this is in which regulation book, Paul?

no regulation book. just a question of taste. and what camp you want to belong to.

[Ben Crane]

I agree with Tim that signatures on the front of a print are tacky. It was the norm 70 years ago, when photographers were strongly influenced by a world that thought art=painting. But not anymore. At least not outside the art fair and gallery/frameshop world.

I disagree with signatures of the front being associated with photographers who want to make their work look like paintings and and sell them at frame shops and art fairs. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Caponigro, Ruth Bernhard, John Sexton, Arnold Newman, and many others all sign or signed their work on the front. If you prefer to sign on the back then that is your choice, but beware of whose prints you are calling tacky.

[paulr]

... but beware of whose prints you are calling tacky.

it's a question of era. standards change. if i showed up at work dressed the way Rembrandt dressed, i might get a talking to. And yes, I know that people like sexton and caponigro are still alive, but they are not considered contemporary artists. they are famous for bodies of work they created decades ago.

anyway, no one cares what I think is tacky. the question is what does your your market think is tacky. if the question is irrelevent to you, or if you know the people you sell to like things done the way you do it, then you have no worries.

but if you'd like to get taken more seriously than you currently do, one of many things to look at is your presentation. it helps to be aware of the different messages you send with seemingly minor details.

you probably don't want to be the guy strolling through the bronx wearing a red sox hat, because you happen to like the color. you'll get little sympathy from the paramedics.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...signatures in a front are tacky, huh?........ I guess they might look tacky on an ink jet print, but somehow it does not seem to happen with more traditional work. Could it be because of the pride one takes in making a print?....nahh....

[paulr]

i don't know. i haven't stumbled onto one on an inkjet print. in fact the only times i ever see signatures on the fronts of any photographs, it's either vintage work or decorative work.

and i do happen to think it looks tacky, but that's beside the point.

[photographs42]

i don't know. i haven't stumbled onto one on an inkjet print. in fact the only times i ever see signatures on the fronts of any photographs, it's either vintage work or decorative work.

and i do happen to think it looks tacky, but that's beside the point.

This whole discussion started with a question about digital signatures on digital prints. Few papers are double side coated so one has to assume the digital signature would be on the front.

My opinion was, and still is, that a digital signature is worthless. I sign my prints in pencil on the mount just below the print. In my opinion, this looks more professional than simply matting with no hint of who the artist is. If you think this looks tacky, well, just like me, you are entitled to your opinion.

As the cartoon character Maxine said; “Things would be a lot better if I ran the world. Well, for me anyway.”

Jerome :)

[paulr]

Forget my opinion ... the point i'm trying to make is that two opinions count--yours, and (if you're trying to sell work or get it shown or collected) the opinion of the people you show it to.

You know your own opinion. It makes sense to at least find out the other.

[photographs42]

Forget my opinion ... the point i'm trying to make is that two opinions count--yours, and (if you're trying to sell work or get it shown or collected) the opinion of the people you show it to.

You know your own opinion. It makes sense to at least find out the other.

Paul, I guess I don’t really agree with that. Only my opinion counts when it comes to my prints. I am not going to change it for every customer I have.

Jerome :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL.... I can see the argument now.. " I a doing serious work in ink jet, so I dont sign my prints on the front, those who do are tacky and know nothing!"..... isnt digital wonderful?

[paulr]

Paul, I guess I don’t really agree with that. Only my opinion counts when it comes to my prints. I am not going to change it for every customer I have.

Jerome :)

i would hope not! i'm not talking about individual customers, but general markets. there are different art worlds out there, and they have different standards. you're under no obligation to do anything you don't want to ... and if your signature is somehow integral to your work, then i don't think anyone would want you to change it

but if it's just part of presentation, which is usually the case, it should be up for consideration like everything else. if you'd like to get the attention of people who collect work that's usually presented a certain way, and they're not already flocking to you, it might make sense to consider your packaging. it's a bit like dressing for a job interview. most employers won't be hiring you based on your fashion sense, but still, you're not doing yourself any favors by showing up in a clown suit. unless you're interviewing with the circus.

and jorge, on the off chance that you really think any of this signature business has ANYTHING to do with analog vs. digital, i'm sad to report that it doesn't. i'm not having that sleepy conversation with you again at the moment. maybe next time i'm really bored and really, really drunk.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

and jorge, on the off chance that you really think any of this signature business has ANYTHING to do with analog vs. digital, i'm sad to report that it doesn't

Says you, this idea that not only a signature in the front is tacky, but that people will take you more seriously if you dont sign it in the front is just flat out stupid. I dont know what galleries you have been talking to, but they must either be real a$$holes, or they have the "artiste" syndrome. Trust me when I tell you people take me very seriously even when I sign my prints in the front.

As you say, the only people who do not sign their prints on the front are those making ink jet prints..... I dont know what that says, but just think about why painters sign their work, and why would anybody want to sign their prints.

PS..... Did not know you have become the mouth piece for every gallery and collector in the world to be able to "report" to us we are tacky, sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

[paulr]

I dont know what galleries you have been talking to, but they must either be real a$$holes, or they have the "artiste" syndrome.

i'm just telling you what i see in galleries and museums that show contemporary work--in new york, chicago, san francisco, london ...



Trust me when I tell you people take me very seriously even when I sign my prints in the front.

that's great. and if you're doing fine with the market you're trying to sell to, you have no reason to do anything differently


As you say, the only people who do not sign their prints on the front are those making ink jet prints

that's not what i said. i don't see any difference between the habits of people making one kind of print or another. just between the habits of people who sell work to different markets.

anyway, i'm not going to belabor this anymore. no one can tell you where to sign your prints. i'm just suggesting that an informed decision is better than an uninformed one, given the choice.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

anyway, i'm not going to belabor this anymore. no one can tell you where to sign your prints. i'm just suggesting that an informed decision is better than an uninformed one, given the choice.

And what makes you think yours is the informed desicion? Galleries I visited in Houston, Dallas, New York, Lousiana, Montreal and Quebec all shoed work which had overwhelmingly signatures in the front, from both contemporary as well as stablished photographers. I have purchased prints that come both ways.

If your opinion is that signatures in front are "tacky"...good for you, but to pretend you know better by telling someone he "will be taking more seriously" is not only arrogant but foolish. I doubt very much any curator told you signatures in front are tacky, mostr likely some a$$hole said it was amateurish and you fell for it......

[paulr]

Andbut to pretend you know better by telling someone he "will be taking more seriously" is not only arrogant but foolish.

let me you'd like me clarify even more: it can help you to be taken more seriously in certain markets. not others.

there are galleries even in new york where you'll find contemporary photographs with signatures on the front. you'll probably find some that were done in gold pen, and that are in brightly colored mats, and gold leaf frames, and printed on fake canvas, and that are pictures of the sun setting behind the brooklyn bridge.

but you you'll find few of those in the galleries that are the real destinations in the city--the ones that people looking to advance their careers hope to be represented by.

anyway, sounds like you've done your research, your decision is informed, you know what you want to do. 'nuff said. if everyone did that, they'd have the question resolved for themselves.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

let me you'd like me clarify even more: it can help you to be taken more seriously in certain markets. not others.

Why? You say that those who sign their prints on the front are only those who show work in the gallery/frame shops, you are very mistaken. You seem to think that the better galleries only show prints without signature, you again are very mistaken. You are not more informed than anybody here and I doubt gallery collectors come to you for an opinion on where the signature should be, so for you to say that "certain markets" which I assume you are implying the better galleries is once again arrogant and not really true. Get off your high horse and stop pretending you know more about gallery representation than many here.

If Kirk Gittings, Brian Kosoff, or some of the other participants in this forum who do have great gallery representation wrote this I might be inclined to listen to what they say. Then again I am sure they would never put it as you do.......

[QT Luong]

Back to the original topic, the primary goal of a signature, esp. on a digital print, is to add some personal touch to a product that is otherwise a mechanical reproduction. If the signature is a reproduction, this defeats the purpose.

However, I must point out that the photographer's perception of the importance of the signature is often exagerated. Many customers would probably accept unsigned prints.

For "decorative" prints, it makes sense that the signature is on the front. Who prefers to hang a print on a wall without signature ? Everything that is hung on the wall (as opposed to stored in a drawer) is decorative, like the Misrach prints that are in a cafe in Berkeley.

As for "camps", for the division that matters the most between is those who manage to make a living out of their photography and those who don't.

[Oren Grad]

Who prefers to hang a print on a wall without signature ?

I do.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Who prefers to hang a print on a wall without signature ?

I dont care one way or the other, I have prints I have purchased that come both ways, but the overwhelming mayority are signed.


As for "camps", for the division that matters the most between is those who manage to make a living out of their photography and those who don't.

Would you consider Dan Burkholder someone who makes a living out of his photography? I do, and he signs his prints on the front.

How about Les McLean? same thing.

Lets see, how about someone from this forum who is very good, Dan Smith. Same thing!

I bet I can come up with more people famous or not who do sign on the front than not.

[QT Luong]

If you sign the print in the border on front, those who prefer to display without the signature can matte over it. If you sign on the back, there is no way to display with signature.

[QT Luong]

Would you consider Dan Burkholder someone who makes a living out of his photography? I do, and he signs his prints on the front.

It's not a subjective appreciation, but a fact that could be verified if one cared about it.

[Oren Grad]

If you sign the print in the border on front, those who prefer to display without the signature can matte over it. If you sign on the back, there is no way to display with signature.

If you sign on the mat, it's easy for the purchaser to replace it if he doesn't like it. If you sign on the face of the print, there's no way to look at an unmatted print without having the distracting signature in your face. If the seller feels he must sign on the front, I would be very unhappy with a photograph signed on the face of the print itself, rather than on the mat - it feels like a bit of petty vandalism to me.

People just have different preferences, and in some respects those preferences are irreconcilable. That's life.

So if you're printing for yourself, just do whatever you want. If you want to sell to a particular market and maximize your income doing so, you'll have to find out what that market demands - but that's an empirical and practical question, not a matter of principle. And finally, if you want to sell prints but don't care how many you sell, then once again you can do whatever you want. Very simple.

[QT Luong]

Well, to be precise, here is the blurb from my site. I think this should satisfy everybody, even Oren :-)


By default, the prints are individually captioned with the location and date, and signed by hand in the border (we use an archival pen that doesn't fade or damage the print). You can matte the print with or without the inscriptions, since they are not in the image area. If you prefer, the print can be signed elsewhere or not at all. Personalized inscriptions are also possible.

[photographs42]

Just thinking………. I’ve sold thousands of prints. To private collectors, corporate collection curators, Museum curators, galleries, other photographers and lots of ordinary people who just like my work. I’ve had some interesting comments about my signature in general but not once in 25 years have I had anyone question how or why I sign my prints.

Hmmmmmm.......
Jerome

[Tom Westbrook]

I sign mine with a #B pencil on the front mat. They can erase it pretty easily if they want to.

[Oren Grad]

Well, to be precise, here is the blurb from my site. I think this should satisfy everybody, even Oren :-)


Yup. ;)

[QT Luong]

If you sign on the matte, nothing prevents you from also signing on the print.

[QT Luong]

I don't see copyright protection as one of the reasons why prints are signed. A print is not that easy to reproduce well, and if one wanted to do it, they wouldn't think twice about cropping the image. You're not advocating signing in the middle I assume :-)

[QT Luong]

Conventions in painting and photography are quite different. Interestingly, the last time I sold (photographic) prints on canvas, I was asked by the buyer (art consultant), to sign in the image area. Like the blurb that I posed said, I'll sign anywhere the client wants, and I think that's the key.

[Jim Jones]

If the signature is more important than the art, sign the artwork conspicuously. If the art is more significant, don't disfigure it. I do sign my paintings because they are not permanently matted or framed. The mount board becomes an integral part of the package of dry mounted prints, and a small signature on the mount is appropriate. If someone admires the photo, they can find the signature. If the signature was more important than the art, I'd be ashamed to sign it.