Does anyone else just hate signing prints??

I hate it too. It has helped me a little to put a ruler just below the place where I'm going to sign, then sign using the ruler as kind of a guide. That at least keeps the signature in a straight line and seems to inspire a little confidence. I don't know what kind of paper is being used by the person who said he didn't worry because he wrote with a pencil and so could always erase. An attempted erasure leaves a very noticeable smudge on the glossy fiber base paper I used to use back when I did traditional darkroom work. I haven't yet tried to erase on the Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte paper I now use for digital prints. Maybe erasures work better with that paper.

Brian

 

I still get the dreaded smudge on archival matte.

I sign mine with an invisible ink from a company out of Florida, only visable under ultravilot 'black' lamp. You wouldn't believe the little extras added from time to time. I saw this ink/fluid years ago at the local pizza / game funroom place for the kids. They stamped every child and associated parent with matching numbers for security as it was a very big amusement type place. At point of exit, the parent and kid were checked with an ultravilot light before being allowed to exit. I've had fun with the stuff ever since.

I'm left-handed, and I hate signing my prints. If I sign on the front just below the right lower edge of the print, I get worried about hitting the print. So, my signature doesn't look right. I also get torn between wanting to identify a print on the front as my work and not wanting anything to distract from the print.

 

I finally decided to make myself a label on archival paper that I sign prior to dry mounting the label on the back of the print. But, this takes time. Next try is to get a stamp that looks like the label, and sign directly on the back of the 2-ply mat board to which the print has been mounted.

 

I've seen several Brett Weston portfolios, and he signed his prints at the lower right of the mat on which he mounted his prints. It's a large signature about 2-5 inches below the print. I thought that this was interesting, because in cutting the mat, one can include a window to display the signature, and the signature is far enough away from the print to avoid distracting the eye away from the print.

Do not sign on the print itself. That is the worst. As others have

suggested, sign in pencil--never in ink. I use a number 4 (fairly

hard) pencil and sign lightly below the print on the right. If for any

reason you ever have to erase, use a white eraser bought from an art

supply store. There will be no smudge. Do not use the erasers that

come on the back of pencils. They will smudge the mount.

Signing on the print itself (at least in the image area) is a horrible sin.

 

So why don't you just sign the mat board BEFORE you mount the print, and then you can always toss it if you have to.

I don't hate signing, I hate not selling.

 

I am amazed at the different philosophies on signing. I have always been of the

school that I am not selling the mat, I am selling the art, so I sign my photos, lower

right within the image, lower left for the edition number, if any.

 

In the last view days, on an ASMP forum, I have heard that no serious gallery or

collector would buy a photo that was signed on the image. So I guess I have been

selling to non-serious galleries for 15 years;-)

 

I have two questions:

Why do other artists paint their name within the image in their medium? (Oil,

watercolor, etc.)

Is there a universal standard for signing? Or is it just as subjective as the art itself?

<i>Why do other artists paint their name within the image in their medium?</i><p>

 

I guess because there is no space left. All paintings I have seen use the entire canvas for the image, so is either sign on the image or the side...I dunno...just a guess....

All oil painters in the past (Rembrandt, etc) all signed within the painting, and doing this has not made them useless, their worth millions. Most famous artists sign within the art in the right hand corner(to remove the signature means you would be destroying the artwork along the bottom).For limited editions you sign again in the white area directly below the first signature, and number it on the left side, and in the middle of the white area you can mention landscape location, etc. Signing on the matt is rediculous, anyone can steal your art, and when reframed the signature is gone, plus for fine art collectors it is worthless. If you only have your name in the white area (not inside the art), then 200 yrs from now someone may have trimmed the white borders off for framing, and no one will know the original artist (famour or not at that point). Again, to a collector it is valueless. Rembrandt has one painting where the subject is sitting at a desk(back of desk facing us at 45 deg), and his signature is right on the furniture itself, a good third of the way into the portrait. In this respect there are no rules, so long as the name is within the paitaing. Also remember if someone prefers a matt to be mounted right to the edge of the art (no white 1/2 inch border remaining), then there goes the signature. There are many that do this type of framing, your name may not mean anything to anyone but yourself.

 

I've seen a lot of opionions in here. I suggest you go to a high end gallery selling fine art, and look what others have done, go from there. Anyone that says to sign on the matt doesn't know what he is talking about.

Embossing may be convenient, but if your a famous artist(or might be) it's not a good idea. Imagine Rembrandts paintings, how would you identify it was actually painted by him, or by a copy artist. A signature like in a contract means something, and can be used in a court of law to prove it's an original. Mechanical means are not allowed, to easily copied. You will see a contract embossed to add to its originality as extra backup, but it still needs the signature. A signature is worth money, and it's safest location is in within the art piece.

 

Your signature can be an X, it doesn't matter if it's fancy or not, what matters is the legal aspect and value it gives. Would you buy an original Rembrandt for $600 million if the name was missing?

Years ago I too pencil signed matted prints in lower right corner and did not really like it. Yes I muffed a few too.

 

I've been slowly preparing lots of large prints masters over the last year. Since all my current landscape prints are large digital file Lightjet prints, I decided to add a signature layer on each .psd Photoshop file. I scanned a closeup image of one of my more styled signatures then processed it in Photoshop a bit and use that one signature to add to all prints. However I don't want it to detract from the image which is one reason I disliked the pencil signatures on a white mat. So after adding the signature, I try to find a place in the foreground to place it where it is least noticeable. Then use the Hue/Saturation/Lightness tool to make it blend in well. The result is a signature which one will notice if focused on the spot but which is otherwise not distracting. Occasionally the bottom foreground will not work and I slip it in at the top say in the blue sky by making it a slightly darker shade of blue. Having done all this, I like the fact each print has my signature in the actual prints. Should I decide to remove signatures, it will be a trivial matter to remove the layer in Photoshop. Will also be placing metallic information labels on the back of my mounting board. -David

<p>Why not do what print makers of old did and design your own, individual remarque, one that is completely unique an distinctive, where there is no doubt whatsoever that it is your very own? That way, you can have it printed as a graphic right along on the photographic or engraving work you are doing, and so need never worry about having to sign anything again....</p>