How do you sign your prints?

[Milton Tierney]

How do you sign your prints? Lately, I was told by a few photographers and artist to sign the prints not the mats. I’ve always signed the mats with a pencil. All of my work now are scanned and digitally printed so I can add my signature when I make prints. Is this correct or should I still sign the mats?

[John Bowen]

I've always signed the mats with a pencil. I find it really helps the value if I sign them Ansel Adams or Edward Weston :-)

[Steven Barall]

I sign the prints on the face bellow the image area so if someone wants to they can over mat the print to hide the signature or if they want to of they can cut the mat to reveal the signature. I use a fine point marker that uses acid free ink. This is a really good post Milton, I look forward to see other responses. Thanks.

[bvstaples]

I don't "sign" my print (or the mats), but I do put pertinent information, like title, date, and copyright notice in light pencil on the back. I know it can be erased, but its purpose is informational, not legal or egotistical. I do this because I think markings of any kind, other than sublime retouching, detract from the image.

Just my humble opinion...

Brian

[Richard M. Coda]

I think you should expand this question to add "and how do you mount them?" Because that greatly determines how you sign them.

[BetterSense]

Since I don't dry mount normally, sign the white border of the print itself, which I leave a bit bigger at the bottom. If I dry mount, I sign the mount board in the same spot. In both cases the sig could be covered by using an overmat that went right to the image edge.

[SamReeves]

Nah, don't sign the prints. That could muck with your washing to keep the print archival.

Always sign the mat board in pencil as the others have suggested.

[Scott Davis]

I usually sign the reverse of the print in pencil, with my name and copyright, the date, the title, and the number in the edition. Usually in the lower-right corner. I title, number, and sign the window mat just below the window, left to right in that order. I sign and indicate on both because I don't dry-mount, and it is entirely possible that they could get separated at some point in the future.

[anchored]

I sign prints on the face with an archival ink pen, and also the mat board with pencil. Reason for choosing to sign image and not simply border or mat... if image is reframed later the sig could be covered. On framed prints an informational tag is attached to the back, showing business card, image title and ID number.

[ret wisner]

i dont sign or write anything on any of my prints, they are what they are, just copies of reality.

[Laura_Campbell]

I have two rubber ink stamps that I put on the back of the print, well below the image area. One allows me to fill in the title, year, medium, and edition number. The second stamp provides details like paper type and weight, etching ink, and that it was hand pulled by me. All writing is done in pencil, and in between the stamps, I sign my name, with my location.

I used to sign the front of the print, below the image area, but stopped doing this because I began to feel it distracts from the image.

[William McEwen]

Mounted prints:
On the back:
I title and date in pencil (including the year the print was made)

I rubber stamp my name and address + copyright info.

If the print is for a friend or loved one, I usually write a personal note of some kind. I think Stieglitz influenced me here.

I used to sign the front of the mount right underneath the print. Just as instructed by Picker, Adams, etc. But I stopped. I like the overmat to be right to the image, and my signature doesn’t need to be there.

(It makes me a little crazy when I see signatures on overmats. The mat could be removed and put over anything. And it will have your signature on it.)


Unmounted prints (press prints, etc):
I never sign them. I stamp them with my copyright info + address, and usually write the title on it in pencil.

[Joanna Carter]

Can someone point us to an archival ink pen that doesn't write too dark? I want the effect of a pencil signature but, on RC (silver or inkjet) paper, pencils don't work too well.

[anchored]

Joanna, The brand of archival ink pens I use for signing prints:

Prismacolor "Premier" Fine Line Markers. Comes in sets of assorted colors (what I use... so can choose sig color based on print colors) or sold individually. I buy from a local art supply store. Advertised as "Acid-Free, Lightfast, and Archival Quality."

Made in Japan (what? not China???... Amazing) by "Sanford Brands."

Package advertises web address to be (I haven't been to look to verify site or products):

www.prismacolor.com

Glenn

[anchored]

An addition to the above:

Prismacolor also makes gold ink pens. The Premier pens are 0.5mm fine lines. Also tried ink/paint pens made by "DecoColor" but had problems with flow.

[Milton Tierney]

I’ve tried to find am archival ink pen source, but without luck. The gold pens I’ve seen look sloppy and doesn’t produce a good signature. When I was doing wet prints I would dry mount my prints sign the back and sign the inner mat.

Now, I’ve stopped wet printing and jump over to the digital prints. With digital prints I can add my signature to the image with Photoshop. I’ve been testing out the look on a number of color and b/w prints. Depending on the image, if I adjust the signature size and layer opaqueness from 25 to 80% it doesn’t distract from the image. I have two signature layers, one black and one white. Obviously, you can not do this with wet printing. I’ve been trying to find out if signing the image is acceptable or not among photo enthusiasts.

[BetterSense]

Sorry, but I find a digitally generated signature completely ironic, faintly humorous, and bordering on dishonest. That's just my opinion, though. Clearly the scope of what is acceptable is a matter of consensus and culture, and I wouldn't pretend to be "up" on what currently passes.

[Milton Tierney]

Good point! When I was wet processing I normally dry mount and double mat the print. Sign, write the year and name of the image on the inner mat in pencil and sign the back in pen with the same info. Now I only use my printer to make prints. I tried not signing the mats, but I would get customers asking for my signature. Which means I would have to open the package sign it and put it back in without the sticky envelope flap catching the print. Past two exhibits I’ve had fellow photographers tell me that signing the mat is no longer kosher and I should sign the print. From the response to this post it seems to be a matter of taste.

[Milton Tierney]

Hmmmmm! Something to think about. Digital signature is something I’m toying with and like to get other views, good or bad. I’ve always done it old school in the past with a pencil on the mat. Now I only do digital prints. I do not like signing the image with a pen, I feel later on the pens ink can cause discoloration. Digital signature seems a better alternative. Bordering on dishonesty, you need to clarify that one for me. I have a think skin, so NO insult taken. I’m always fishing for other photographers views of my work. If I do not hear the bad, then I cannot make my work better.:)

[BetterSense]

What does a signature mean to you? To me it means that somebody physically produced and "signed off" the art object. That's what gives it authenticity. The signature is not there for decoration. You can't get a signed ansel adams print anymore because he is dead. He himself never signed prints for reproduction, only fine prints that he made himself. If you didn't physically write the signature there is no point in putting it there because it is not fulfilling its expected purpose as a signature. But then, maybe it's appropriate for a digital print because you didn't really print the picture either, your computer did. Why not add a digital signature so that you don't even have to bother manually signing the thing with a device so crude as a pen or pencil? Why, you might even mess up the signature, and it wouldn't look exactly the same every time. As you can probably tell, I'm behind the times and out of the loop. I don't understand why fine-art photographers are so eager to join the commercial marketplace in a race to the bottom. I would have expected them to esteem their work more, but maybe that bit about photography not being "real art" for all those decades was truer than I thought. Much of what passes as acceptable and even desirable in the conglomerate field of multi-media-which-is-sold-as-photography just racks my brain as trivialization and kitsch. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but I'm just saying that the idea that digitally adding a signature to a print isn't seen as just silly is a symptom of changing photographic values which I'm clearly not in sync with.

[Kirk Gittings]

Clients want signed prints and I don't want my prints to be anonymous.

I always sign just under the printed image. If it is a silver print, I drymount it and sign on the mat just beneath the print, bottom right, in pencil. I then cut a window mat that is about 1" larger all the way around and show the signature. If it is an ink print I make the print a couple of inches wider than the image, sign with a permanent archival ink pen same as above and mat with a window mat same as above.

I use a super fine tipped black pen, which gives me a signature that doesn't leap out at you.

[sanking]

I print (or transfer my carbon prints) to over-size paper so there is always at least a couple of inches of breathing room around the raw print. In matting I leave about 1/4" to 3/8" around three sides of the print, and a tad more at the bottom. I sign at the bottom right side, just under the print, and sometimes add the year, which is the date of printing. On the bottom left side I often add the name of the place.

On the back of the print I write in pencil information such as my name and address, date of image capture, often different from date of printing, where the image was made, and type of process.

Sandy King

[Milton Tierney]

OK, I understand your point. I must agree. After taking a second look, with your and other views points, I must admit that the digital signature does look a little cheesy.
Like in a traditional darkroom, I spend hours on my computer just trying to get the image just the way I visualized it. So, I value my digital as much as my silver prints.

With regards to the market place, here in southern Maryland, if I am to continue shooting at all, I need to reduce my prices for them to sell. I do not like selling my work at Wal-Mart prices, but I’ve seen very good photographers not sell a single image because their work was price out of reach. No sells, no money, no photography.

This area is not well known to be art minded like in northern Wash. D.C. or NYC. It’s more like beer can minded. Thanks for your input, your and others post have been very helpful. I need to do some rethinking on this subjest.

[BetterSense]

Like in a traditional darkroom, I spend hours on my computer just trying to get the image just the way I visualized it. So, I value my digital as much as my silver prints.

I have no doubts as to the craft of digital art, and I have the utmost respect for people that work with digital images and produce amazing work that I would not have the first idea how to do. One thing that bothers me about digital art, is that there is no "definitive version" of a digital work. It's all nebulous. Digital images are copied by the millions of times, morphed constantly by websites, recompressed, resized, and photoshopped by people on the internet. If you put a visible signature in the image to try to claim it, well, do you really want your signature appearing when someone photoshops porn into the image or compresses it down to a 160x200 jpg? Decades into the future, when somebody wants to compile the work of a digital artist, what do they do and where do they go to get the original digital work? What does that even mean? Do they Trawl the Internet Archives and pick the highest-resolution one they can find? Once you have completed your work, you should be able to digitally sign it so that it could not be modified without breaking the signature. Then that can stand as the "work". You can sign a print, but I think it's sad that digital artists/photoshop artists have no way to digitally sign their work.

[Robert Hughes]

One thing that bothers me about digital art, is that there is no "definitive version" of a digital work. It's all nebulous....Decades into the future, when somebody wants to compile the work of a digital artist, what do they do ...

Interesting question - perhaps we as the viewing public will not care so much about definitive versions, just as we aren't so concerned about seeing original prints of old news photos. I've never seen an original print of the Hindenburg burning, but I sure remember the image.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1408/1053256971_08953f3a33.jpg

[BetterSense]

I'm sure the viewing public won't care, just as they won't care that kodachrome is discontinued or a thousand other things. I was more sympathizing with the artists.

[Ginette]

Can someone point us to an archival ink pen that doesn't write too dark? I want the effect of a pencil signature but, on RC (silver or inkjet) paper, pencils don't work too well.

PIGMA Micron Pens are a great choice for archival quality. They do a lot of colors but not gray. It can be a good suggestion for them. Maybe you can try a 005 size, the smaller size ans see if you like the effect.

[hmf]

i dont sign or write anything on any of my prints, they are what they are, just copies of reality.

You must do some remarkable photography. The "reality" I know is 3 dimensional, infinite and ever-changing.

[Milton Tierney]

I must disagree that digital art is nebulous and it as “no definitive version". In the past 50 years I’ve shot 35mm to 4x5 and some 16mm cine. I’ve loved every second of it. I still shoot LF and apply my shooting skills to digital. Unlike many digital shooters who just pull the trigger and blaze away, I would spend hours or days trying to get that one shot with digital. 35mm, LF or digital are all tools, nothing more nothing less.

With regards to the “digital signature” after reading your and others post. I need to rethink my views on this subject and must admit that writing your signature with a pen or pencil is more professional. Also, I do agree with you about pics on the internet. One of the unfortunate things today is the ability of anyone morphing photos, including yours. I can buy one of your photos scan it and change the image anyway that I want and post it on the internet. Yes, the internet can cause a lot of very skilled artist to be ripped off. But then if it was not for the internet I would not be able to enjoyed the many great works and be inspired by the very skillful photographers who are members of this LF forum.

[Milton Tierney]

The general viewing public don’t care about your or my skills as a photographer, they just want Wal-Mart prices. Kodachrome was one of the best films produced. I still have one or two rolls of Kodachrome 25 in my freezer.

[Mark Sawyer]

I agree that "digital signatures" are a bit cheezy. That's why I had a rubber stamp made of my signature, and I stamp each print by hand for that personal touch...

...okay, seriously, I sign at the lower right corne of the print, on the matt, in pencil. That way, if I give a print to one of my high school students, they can erase my name and put theirs in. Yup, some of them do that... :(

[David de Gruyl]

I agree that "digital signatures" are a bit cheezy. That's why I had a rubber stamp made of my signature, and I stamp each print by hand for that personal touch...
(

That would actually be pretty impressive in China... (more impressive than just writing, as I understand it)

[Thebes]

I must disagree that digital art is nebulous and it as “no definitive version". In the past 50 years I’ve shot 35mm to 4x5 and some 16mm cine. I’ve loved every second of it. I still shoot LF and apply my shooting skills to digital. Unlike many digital shooters who just pull the trigger and blaze away, I would spend hours or days trying to get that one shot with digital. 35mm, LF or digital are all tools, nothing more nothing less.

I don't think you are understanding what BetterSense meant. I do not believe that he intended to belittle skills or digital images. One of the things that has historically been spoken of when talking about photography as art is the thing itself. (true of other mediums too, eg "This is not a pipe") This might, in the mind of the artist, have been the matted and framed contact print in a numbered edition... it might have been a polaroid... it might have been a carbon transfer onto paper- in all of these cases there is a thing apart from the image that is the actual object of art. With a digital file, there might be many things, each able to be copied on a moments notice, and many different from each other- which is the object of art? How do we know the object from altered versions, such as jpeg thumbnails? What is the thing itself and how does that effect the meaning of the art.

I think the proposal to encrypt a signature into the finished file as a means of fixing it as a discrete thing is brilliant. This has nothing to do with how many images one makes or the efforts in making them or if they are good, it was a philosophical point about art theory as it relates to digital images.

[Milton Tierney]

OK, I think I understand and no I didn’t think that BetterSense intended to belittle digital images. Sorry, I've been unable to shake a nasty virus for the last month and it’s left me a little thick headed.