About signing prints

[nitroplait]

If you use a stamp on the back and fill in information in pencil - will any of it show from the front or stamp ink eventually cause problems?

It's a good question.
I have seen loads of vintage press photographs for sale with many stamps and notes on the back, and I don't recall seeing any bleeding through the often very thin fiber paper used in those days. I doubt archival longevity was a concern when choosing ink, but yet it mostly worked out - it seems.
However, I would not personally stamp the back of a photograph without a good knowledge of how the paper and ink would interact.
When I teenager in the 70's, I stamped my name on the back of my prints. It was Multigrade RC prints so ordinary paper ink didn't adhere and I used a permanent marker pen as "ink pad" without regard to archival properties.
With RC being plastic it is probably not a surprise that the ink didn't migrate through the "paper", but sometimes I have seen permanent marker ink migrate into plastic materials so I consider myself lucky.

[xkaes]

Seems like we need to separate out prints that are mounted with a backing and those that are not. Why put anything on the back of a print that is mounted?

[Vaughn]

I sign the on the mat board below the print, right side...#3 pencil lightly used.

That way folks won't mistake my prints for Ansel's. A title is written under the left lower corner of the print if the title is an important part of the image. Any date is date of the image was made, not the print, but I save that for the back of the print and matboard.

Someone famous once told a photographer not to sign the front -- took him outside and said something along the lines of, "God does not sign his work." I've always thought "BS...of course not, god does not need to -- god wrote a book about it instead."

[Doremus Scudder]

If you use a stamp on the back and fill in information in pencil - will any of it show from the front or stamp ink eventually cause problems?

Seems like we need to separate out prints that are mounted with a backing and those that are not. Why put anything on the back of a print that is mounted?

Exactly.

I was referring to prints that have been dry-mounted to a 4-ply board. All of Ansel Adams display prints were mounted this way; print dry-mounted to the bottom mat, signature on the mat board just below the image on the bottom right, a stamp with "Photograph by Ansel Adams" and then lines underneath for title, dates, etc. on the back of the mounting board. Information and signature are in pencil. The print was finished with a window mat cut just a little larger than the image with a bit of extra room at the bottom to show the signature. This is a classic way of presenting photographs and one I use as well.

FWIW, my stamp pad is charged with "archival ink," whatever that really is. I got it years ago from a print shop. I've never had any issues with the ink bleeding or showing through. Still, I stamp on the back opposite a spot that will be covered by the window mat when the print is displayed.

I would be hesitant to use an ink stamp of any kind on the back of a fiber-base print. However, if information there is needed, pencil should do the job without bleeding.

As for putting information of the back of mounted prints: Obviously, no one is going to see anything after the print is mounted, so that's a bit unnecessary. However, I mount my prints using a heat-reversibly mounting tissue. If the mount board is damaged, it is possible to remove the print from the board and re-mount it on another. For the extremely unlikely case that that might happen, I sign my name on the back of my prints before mounting (very lightly so the impression won't show through).

Unmounted prints are not really displayable; they need to be put on a mat board with an overmat and framed first. If dry-mounting is not used, the prints are usually hinged to the board with tape or with adhesive corners. In both these cases, the overmat window is usually a bit smaller than the print dimensions so that the overmat holds the edges of the print down. Information on the back of a print so mounted would be pretty useless too, unless one wanted to dismantle the framing and mounting to see it. And, even with loose-mounted prints, the signature usually goes on the mat board.

Best,

Doremus

[willwilson]

I sign my prints. When I drymount, they get signed in pencil lower right on the mountboard. The art is the whole piece mount and photo are one. Never thought about what number pencil! Signature finishes the piece for me. I only sign prints that I think deserve it. I am not too interested in dates for my prints that are trying to be art, emphasis on trying. Back of the print or a note accompanying the print would work. Portraits get more info on the front, but those are just for family or fun for me.

Christopher Burkett includes a note (with details) and signs the overmat in light pencil (cibas are not drymounted). 8 ply double overmat, which looks nice on large prints.

[willwilson]

Burkett example.

[h2oman]

I don't sign my prints, because I can't stand my own signature!

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just sign on the matt board. I don't bother with dates. Although when I lived in Japan, they also wanted the date and location. My most recent exhibit over there I omitted dates and locations, to the annoyance of a few

[Ironage]

I only sign my Ziatypes. They are contact prints so I write the title and date on the edge of the negative in very fine pen. This then prints through and can be seen. I then write my mark in the image itself with an ink fountain pen. I guess that is not my signature after all but more of a symbol or brand.

[Carol C]

I use to get archival ink for my ink pad and had a stamp made that had my name and the word copyright . Stamped the back then I signed the print with an archival ink pen in the corner and did a circled c. I would write the name of the print with date printed on the matt board. You use to be able to get black and or white archival pens. Art -N-Fly makes some they say are archival sold on Amazon.