Alternative to signed mat

[QT Luong]

I have a number of color 24x36s to be framed to 30x40 using single 8-ply mat. Instead of doing the common presentation consisting of matting to the edge of the image and signing by pencil on the mat, I am thinking of leaving a white border of 1/4-1/2 inch around the print, matte with that border apparent, and sign (by ink) on that border instead of on the mat.

I see two advantages. The additional border makes a nicer delineation, kind of similar to a double-mat effect (but without the cost and work). The signature remains with the print, so I don't have to sign the print in the back as I would do if the signature was on the mat instead of the print. The only downside that I see is that the image would have to be printed slightly smaller. Any other downsides ?

[Ralph Barker]

You might want a somewhat larger "surround" - 1/4" to 1/2" may look too thin for a print that size. Then, there's the issue of having enough of the print under the mat for the attachment method (hinge or whatever).

[Colin Graham]

I never liked signed overmats. It looks like you couldn't cross the velvet rope at your own party. :-)

[John Brady]

Hi QT, is 40 wide enough for your 36 in print? It seams 42 in would be the uniform size.
I just switched from leaving a half inch border on my prints to bringing my mats all the way to my images. My primary reason was because I ink print on gloss paper and therefore I am concerned about the ink from my pen eventually bleeding on the ink jet paper. With matte paper and pencil I think it looks nice printing the image instead of the mat.
jb

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I always leave a 3/8" space between the image and the overmat, then sign below the image on the right. I print small and this is a nice amount of room. For the rare times I print 11X14, I leave 1/2 inch. Never print larger (never say never I guess, I have done 16X20 in the past).

[Frank Petronio]

Signing the mat is for wimps. I'd print with big borders and leave a nice large 1/2" or larger reveal for that big a print -- and have an expressive signature.

[Adam Kavalunas]

My backerboard reveal gets bigger with image size. 1/2 inch for prints up to 20x24, and 3/4 inch for larger prints. I also agree that framing a 24x36 to 30x40 is going to be a tiny mat for a print that size. I use a 4-inch mat for my 24x30's along with a 3/4 inch reveal all around.

Adam

[Turner Reich]

I'm currently changing the way I do it, up until now I have signed the mat but that's easy to change. I will be re-matting a good number of prints and signing in the space, probably 1/2 inch, with the advantage of having the mat color and type the same for the selected prints. I'm already in the process as I came across this thread, good timing.

[Jim Becia]

I personally dislike signing on the mat, after all, not everyone likes or wants the mats that I provide (white in my case.) However, I don't like signing under the print either. I personally like signing on the image in the lower right corner as I like to mat up to the image. I do color and use a black pigmented pen for my signature. The signature in most cases is fairly unobtrusive. Jim

[Frank Petronio]

Yes the reveal is proportional to the size of the print.

I actually use an embosser with a custom die and press into the emulsion/image area. It is subtle and kind of different. I also screw up less than I would if armed with a Sharpie.

[darr]

My penciled signature goes on the right. On the left side, I pencil the title, location, or image #. Then a mat on top with an over cutout of ¼" to ½" (depending on print size) on three sides leaving a nice border with a bit more on the bottom showcasing the signed info. My clients seem to like/expect this.

[Bill_1856]

On a print that big, I'd sign and date right on the image just like "a real artiste."

[Preston]

I prefer to mount the trimmed print on a heavyweight or foamcore board and then attach a cut-out mat lleaving a 1" space around the top and both sides; on the bottom I leave a 1.25" space between the mat and the print and then sign on the mount in lower right corner.

-P

[JonathanPerkins]

I think you just need to watch the relative whiteness of the paper to the mat board - less of a problem with traditional prints, but the whiteners in some inkjet papers I find doesn't go with the core of the mat board - the papers too white/cold.

[John Brady]

I think you just need to watch the relative whiteness of the paper to the mat board - less of a problem with traditional prints, but the whiteners in some inkjet papers I find doesn't go with the core of the mat board - the papers too white/cold.

That was one of the two reasons I switched to over-matting. The other is writing on any of the new inkjet gloss papers. I keep all of my framing and mounting steps archival.

I was scanning my signature and title and then inkjet printing it but That just didn't feel like a real signature to me. Does anyone know of a better solution for safely writing on gloss paper?

jb
www.timeandlight.com

[Steve_Renwick]

QT, I have never sold a print, but those that I bought have been signed on the print itself with the extra border that you describe.

[davidb]

How do you all sign a fiber silver gelatin print? A pencil ?

[QT Luong]

Thanks for the comments. I was not aware this was the preferred method. Why is it wimpy to sign on the mat ?

The actual print size is slightly smaller, like 23.85x34 (5x7).

I use a Pigma micron pen. They come in a choice of thickness and their inks are archival. When I had Fuji Crystal Archive prints made, the lack of surface friction made it a pleasure to sign, compared with Epson papers, but they are still just fine.

[Frank Petronio]

Ansel never signed his mats and it is explained in his book, the Bible, err... "The Print".

I think you want to mark the print itself in some way, so that in case print and mat become separated, the value of the print -- assuming your signature and reputation mean anything -- is retained.

It's also one more mark of craftsmanship to sign the print -- i.e. another chance to mess it up!

[Darren Kruger]

How do you all sign a fiber silver gelatin print? A pencil ?

I use a #2 pencil and sign on the back.

-Darren

[Harley Goldman]

I have been signing mats, but am now switching to signing the prints and leaving a border. Much cleaner look and I really like the double mat look.

Depending on the paper, try a charcoal pencil. I find the micro pens are too dark and the signature competes with the image. I like a more subtle signature, but it is still plenty dark.

[Mark Sawyer]

Simple white window mattes with a 3/8" reveal, but 1/2 at the bottom, 13x16 for 8x10 and smaller, 16x20 for 11x14. I've always signed in pencil, but consider alternatives as several of my high school students have erased my name from prints I've given them so they could sign their own and say "look what I made!"

[mccormickstudio]

I prefer a studio backstamp and signature on the back. I usually sign the back with pencil or india ink (depends on the print type) outside of the image area or in a spot where I am sure that the stamp will not read through. I often duplicate the studio stamp on the backpaper of the finished framed work.

Nothing to detract from the image for me.

[domenico Foschi]

QT, after a few years mats are due for a change, at which point you won't have anymore a signed image.
I always sign the print on the lower right corner.
Some people don't even like the signature visible and sign it in the back of the print, you can also do both.
For a print that size I would leave a 3/4 in. space visible of the paper with the exception of the bottom border that usually needs a little more, I would say an inch.

[Curt Palm]

Ansel never signed his mats and it is explained in his book, the Bible, err... "The Print".

I think you want to mark the print itself in some way, so that in case print and mat become separated, the value of the print -- assuming your signature and reputation mean anything -- is retained.

It's also one more mark of craftsmanship to sign the print -- i.e. another chance to mess it up!

I think you may need to go back and read the bible, err "The Print" again :)

"..and then sign them lightly in pencil on the mount below the lower right corner of the print"
A. Adams - The Print - Chapter 7 ( not sure which verse)

[Frank Petronio]

Youch. Guess it's been a while since I've visited St. Ansel's.

Sorry

[Greg Lockrey]

Youch. Guess it's been a while since I've visited St. Ansel's.

Sorry

Hair shirt and 500 rosaries kneeling on a wet marble floor for you. :p

[Toyon]

It seems a bit hypocritical to hand sign an inkjet print. Use an Apple Autosigner or Lexic Fontograph instead.

[QT Luong]

It seems a bit hypocritical to hand sign an inkjet print. Use an Apple Autosigner or Lexic Fontograph instead.

Well, someone who understands digital technology would reckon that the simplest way to sign would be to have the signature printed as part of the image, but the point is exactly that, from what I've been told, it wouldn't be considered a "proper" signature.

[Carlos R Herrera]

Lots of great replies to this thread...

After handling thousands of fine prints, the only person that I can think of who still signs the overmat is Christopher Burkett. His ilfochromes are t-hinged and corner mounted on gatorboard or some other type of foamboard, I forget what brand. Ever since the original Lightjets and Evercolor Luminage prints hit the gallery scene, everybody I know was leaving a 1/4-1/2 plus white border to sign.

Hmm...I don't have one here at the house to look at, but Robert Turner signs the mat as well if memory serves. It's been a while....

Alan Ross does things a bit differently with his silver prints. He'll print his images with a like size white border right from the start. After the print is drymounted to a same size mount (11x14 paper size and 11x14 mat size), he uses a small plastic template to scuff up print's surface a little near the lower right corner of the image. He uses a pencil eraser to do this. He'll then sign this area. The print surface wouldn't take a clean pencil signature otherwise. It looks perfectly fine and does not distract. He'll then corner mount and tip this drymounted piece into a larger handling mat that will have his killer logo and print edition information on the back.

The idea behind this simple. Galleries damage mounts and overmats. Most people try to be careful, some don't care. Actual print damage is rare, but mat boards getting dinged up (especially foamcore) can be a common sight in some galleries, especially if they have been framed at some point. I remember unpacking a Frans Lanting show years ago that was shipped to us from a certain gallery on the CA coast. It was hammered. Dings, finger prints, coffee stain on the back of one mounts, etc. Ugly.

For digital color prints or Burkett's ilfochromes, getting a new handling mat is easy. I hate foamcore. Plus, the images are already signed. Just remount/hinge, whatever and you're done. But what if a drymounted silver prints gets damaged. With Alan, a gallery can simply order an new replacement handling mat, since his print itself is already signed and drymounted. If a Sexton print had a damaged mat corner, then the whole piece is done and would need a complete replacement. Alan's idea requires a little more work, but the logic is definitely there.

I've never seen any print with a digital signature.

Only signing the back of the mount and leaving the front clean so nothing would distract from the image is questionable in some areas. Sure it makes sense, but people JUST expect a signature on the front. People expect silver prints to be drymounted (unless your buying a Uelsmann photograph).

Studio stamps are nice and clean, but not required..but recommended. Roman Loranc sells a TON of photographs and all he has ever done is make some pencil lines with a ruler and writes in the edition info. Some neater than others!

If you intend to sells prints in a gallery, make every effort to present them in a professional manner. You would be surprised how many people don't.

CH

[Jon Shiu]

Lots of great replies to this thread...

. If a Sexton print had a damaged mat corner, then the whole piece is done and would need a complete replacement. Alan's idea requires a little more work, but the logic is definitely there.

CH
Carlos, thanks for the all the info. Couldn't Sexton's mounting board be trimmed down and mounted in a handling mat like Alan Ross's?

Jon

[Carlos R Herrera]

Boards shouldn't be trimmed down. Sexton wouldn't allow it and if he heard that a gallery permanently modified one of his consignment prints (which still belong to him), it would get ugly really fast. He would just replace the whole piece and that takes time.

Sexton, Ross, Jablonski, etc...those guys want their fine print customers to get the best and that means a pristine print. That means perfect (or as close as any can get) with an archival slip sheet protecting the print surface.

There was a person selling an old AA Special Edition on eBay recently. It was initialed (so Ted Orland printed it somewhere between 1972-73). Those were 13x16 or so and this one had been ripped down to 11x14 to fit inside a cheesy metal frame. Unbelievable.

No...mounts being altered in any way is very much frowned upon. If the gallery owned that print, then they can do whatever they want and some do, but generally consignments shouldn't be altered.

CH

[Turner Reich]

Carlos, what's a like sized border? Is the image the same size as the board, I mean is the image flush mounted on the board or is there a white border around the image on the printing paper?

[Carlos R Herrera]

is there a white border around the image on the printing paper?

Yes that's it.

Alan prints his images WITH a white border, similar to how someone would leave a white border on their digital prints.

CH

[Jon Shiu]

Your right, Sexton would not allow it, on consignment. He has also had prints damaged by galleries and that's one of the reasons he doesn't do consignment.

Jon

[gregstidham]

QT,
I wouldn't sign the overmat because it is serves a function of protecting the print and can become damaged as time passes. Signing the front below the print area is up to the artist and I see it done about 50% of the time. I have signed prints on the front in the past, but I don't with current work.

Regardless of the front signature, I would sign the back of the print, or mat if dry mounted, with a studio stamp or simply hand print the title, edition, print type, date, etc. with a signature.
Greg

[Mark Sawyer]

Related question: for those of us who dry mount our prints, would a studio stamp and/or signature on the board the print is matted on, but covered by the hinged window matte be acceptable? Or would most galleries/collectors/etc prefer a visible signature?

(When I hang my own work around the house, I prefer unsigned, as it's cleaner and less pretentious. I'm always considering ways around the "in-your-face" signature presentation.)

[Brian K]

I dry mount and then float mat my images. I leave a 3/8" border showing the edge of the print and the mount mat and then sign in that border using a very hard pencil (which makes for a very fine and light signature to deflect how badly my handwriting is) To be honest I'd prefer not to sign the front but the galleries have always requested I sign the front so it's become my standard way of working.

It's all a matter of personal preference but I prefer the smoothness of a dry mounted print for my work and by float matting don't have to worry about the window mat making impressions on the print itself.

[heatherb]

I like the signed mats

[Darin Boville]

>>I think you may need to go back and read the bible, err "The Print" again

"..and then sign them lightly in pencil on the mount below the lower right corner of the print"
A. Adams - The Print - Chapter 7 ( not sure which verse)<<

Hmmm. But didn't Adams make clear that he expected his signature (on the mat) to be permanently affixed next to the print (dry mounted on the mat). What would he do if the print was not dry mounted (as is common today)?

--Darin

[David_Senesac]

QT, that sounds like quite an expensive decision to make considering the raw cost of such a print. I'm one that doesn't usually like white mats around my prints because for color subjects they are so bright. Traditional white mats are fine for black and white prints but in my opinion not often for color prints. So your idea of leaving a white border within the matted rectangle strikes me as an experiment that might result in an inferior aesthetic. Long ago I printed and matted some images with white and grey borders inside the mat, though narrower than what you are describing and did not like it. However I think if the border is wide and the matting and framing is well done, the result with some subjects might look nice. Best of luck.

I don't pencil sign my mats like I did years ago (great way to waste an expensively cut mat with a chance sloppy signature) and instead add the following undistracting digital signatures:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/crops/02p1-16_crop_corner.html

[jnantz]

Yes the reveal is proportional to the size of the print.

I actually use an embosser with a custom die and press into the emulsion/image area. It is subtle and kind of different. I also screw up less than I would if armed with a Sharpie.

i have an embosser too, i usually emboss estimates, and invoices,
maybe i should start embossing prints too :)

thanks frank!

[Stephen Willard]

I sign my borderless prints directly in the lower right hand corner. I use a modest signature with no flare or expressive characters that looks something like 25/900 SW. It looks more like a small serial number then a signature.

The reason I do this is because my customers can buy just the print if they choose, and I wanted a uniform solution whether the print is framed, matted, or just the print. By keeping the signature modest, it does not seem to detract from the image.

Just for the record...

I do not sign prints smaller than 16x20 for rectangular prints and 12x30 for panoramic prints. 8x10s, 11x14s, 6x16s, and 8x20s are sold as photographic reproductions and are unsigned.

90&#37; of my color images are sold to women, and they overwhelmingly prefer white matting. Men prefer color matts, but they do not buy art as a general rule. I just sold ten prints to an architecture firm for their offices and the man that bought them bought prints only and intends to have them framed in color matts. I only offer white matting. I use to offer color matting, but I have only framed with color matts a few times. So I do not offer my matting in colors any more.

[Steve Sherman]

This from friend and two-time Guggenheim recipient Jay Dusard. For small prints over mat should have 3/8 inch spacing around print, large prints ½ inch around print. Sign lower right of original print with # 4 pencil. “Use the hardest pencil you can find, your signature should be as discrete as possible”.

[neil poulsen]

Lots of great replies to this thread...

. . . After handling thousands of fine prints, the only person that I can think of who still signs the overmat is Christopher Burkett. His ilfochromes are t-hinged and corner mounted on gatorboard or some other type of foamboard, I forget what brand. Ever since the original Lightjets and Evercolor Luminage prints hit the gallery scene, everybody I know was leaving a 1/4-1/2 plus white border to sign.

He also signs the print, although this signature may be covered by the overmat.

[mdd99]

I always leave a 3/8" space between the image and the overmat, then sign below the image on the right.

I believe Ansel did something similar, with signature in pencil.

[C. D. Keth]

I would always sign the print itself in case the mat ever has to be separated from the print because of damage or what have you.

[John Powers]

If this is not changing the subject too much, where do B&W silver contact prints fit in this conversation? In my case the image is 7x17 and the borders are black? The prints are usually hinged with archival tape to a mat with an overmat. A signed back is only visible if the print is flipped up for a look. A signature on the mat is lost when the mat is replaced. At this moment I am uncomfortable signing the image itself. I have been signing the back, but it has the limits mentioned by others.

John

[Leonard Metcalf]

I use an embosser like Frank, and only sign my limited editions, and always sign on the print. I use the same system as lithographers and etchers, which is part of my background experiences... there are some really interesting conventions about this process worth looking into.

[C. D. Keth]

If this is not changing the subject too much, where do B&W silver contact prints fit in this conversation? In my case the image is 7x17 and the borders are black? The prints are usually hinged with archival tape to a mat with an overmat. A signed back is only visible if the print is flipped up for a look. A signature on the mat is lost when the mat is replaced. At this moment I am uncomfortable signing the image itself. I have been signing the back, but it has the limits mentioned by others.

John

Perhaps in this case you sign the negative, or a piece of clear film sandwiched in the printing process. Alternately, you could make a little mask that would leave a white area in the black border in which to sign the print.

[John Powers]

Alternately, you could make a little mask that would leave a white area in the black border in which to sign the print.

Christopher,

Good idea. Thank you.

John