Signing or not signing prints?

<p>Hello,<br>

I have been told by many people I <em>should</em> sign and numerate the limited edition for my individual prints, but i find it VERY bad taste. Does someone share this feeling?<br>

What could I do as an alternative? Maybe signing on the back of the frame?<br>

I'd appreciate your comments, thank you.<br>

Ana Lucia<br>

pd: afterwards comes the question about the need or no need to limit editions :D</p>

<p>Anyone purchasing a "limited edition" print expects it to be signed an numbered by the artist. However, where you sign it is entirely up to you. Galleries handling limited edition photographs will usually include where they are signed in the description of the piece. In my view, where you sign should be consistent with the photograph itself. If the signature detracts, sign on the back. However, the signature should be on the print, not the frame or the mount.</p>

<p>When printing I always leave a thin blank margin or border around the print which goes underneath the mat. This is where I sign and date the print. I will also sign the mat if requested. Only painters scribble all over their images, photographers know better.</p>

<p>As for limited additions, without proper documentation this is disingenuous at best. For a limited run to have any meaning an outside source has to verify the number of prints, otherwise I can write any number I wish. I can claim the prints are limited to 50 and when I get to 50 start at 1 again. I know of a local watercolour artist who limits his prints to 250 but starts the count at 200 to give the impression that he has already sold 200 prints. In my opinion, unless verified, numbering prints and calling them limited is an attempt to ascribe false value.</p>

<p>i sign all my limited edition prints on the back and add a "Certificate of Authenticity". My limited editions are all of 10, but that is of course a choice that differs.</p>

<p>If you are selling prints, I'd listen to what those buying them say what they want.</p>

<p>If selling limited edition prints , I'm inclined to agree with a view that you are not giving any authenticity or value to what you're doing unless you number the prints. I'm sure some who sell prints at high prices give certificates too though not even that offers complete buyer protection from a photographer determined to mislead. <br>

You don't have to sign or number anywhere where people can easily see. Some photographers do sign under the mount or on the back of the print. But you should sign on the print itself, whether its your intention for it to be seen or not. </p>

<p>I sign either on a white margin or on the back of the print. The white margin is used on personally made prints (darkroom B&W or inkjet B&W or colour prints), whereas the back of the print applies more to to inkjet or Fujicolor Crystal Archive RA-4 prints made by a third party.</p>

<p>I do not number prints as I feel that means a specific number of prints (10, 20, etc.) have already been produced. If the latter is not the case, the numbering is just an arbitrary value and not a fixed quantity. Each sale of my unnumbered prints is instead registered and at any time the purchaser or other interested person can contact me and know how many prints of the work exist and thereby its rarity or not.</p>

<p>My certificate of authenticity indicates buyer and coordinates, the title of the print, its dimensions (e.g. 16 x 20 inches) and media of exposure (film type, digital exposure MP) and printing media (e.g., Ilford Multigrade fibre paper or RC paper, and surface type, type of inkjet paper and inks, etc.). It also provides the photographer's signature and a description of the subject, its perception and artistic approach, as well as a short mention of the type of any extensive post exposure image or print modification. The price is stated and in some cases a guarantee is made of a minimum of 10 years print life before noticeable deterioration (I added this when some darkroom paper was found to be defective and acquired stains after only a year or so - not a common occurrence, but one I assume responsibilit for). The certificate requires an effort but I feel it is advantageous in terms of buyer confidence and the artist photographer's credibiity. </p>

<p>My work isn't good enough to sell in limited edition or otherwise. However I once read that in some circles it's considered poor taste to sign a photograph on the front, it even suggested that only amateurs do that. When I review the auctions it usually states "signed on verso" which I presume is pretentious art-speak for signed on the back.</p>

<p>I like to have prints from other photographers, and I like to see the signature on the print... I don`t care if on the paper or on the border, maybe I prefer it on the border. I also sometimes like a reference (name, title) on that border, written by the author. Sincerely, I don`t mind if it is of good or bad taste, I`m so proud of having prints from other fellow photographers, and love to see their name over the print... it increases my pleasure when I look at them.</p>

<p>But in the other hand, I usually hesitate to include full info on my prints simply because I don`t want to seem pretentious. Signature, date and archival condition on the back is enough. Sometimes a signature on front, which most times I consider of bad taste, mostly because I dislike my handwriting...</p>

<p>About the "limited edition" thing, I did it sometimes, but right now I don`t. It seems too much pretentious to my taste, I`m quite conscious that I`m nobody in the most massively art form (-if any-) in the world. I`m not on very high demand, I`m afraid.</p>

<p>But the very few prints I have sold included my full name, archival condition, date and edition (usually limited to no more than three or five prints). It is not to "add value" with a low quantity edition, but simply for honesty. Most of my prints are supposed to be handcrafted work, so I feel better making just a very few ones from a nice shot. I have thousands of unused images, so I always prefer to start a new project.</p>

<p>What David H. says, listen to your customers.</p>

<p>Whether a print is given away (often for charitable reasons), or sold for a small amount (say, 50 to 100$) or a more substantial amount (which I only rarely claim, unless a commission must be paid), I always provide a signature, full details and some form of guarantee of permanence on the certificate. My work, much of which is hand crafted black and white prints, is not in great demand, but I feel that the photographer owes the acquirer as much information as he or she may desire. Too often I come across art of another period, often paintings or sketches, that have minimal or no information. Photographs and paintings are sometimes important visual history of our communities, even those that are not prized enough to be found in museums or texts. </p>

<p>Thank you very much for your comments, it really helps me to get through my thoughts about it. I think it's just very relative, for my kind of photos it doesn't seem ok when I put any letters on the front; it really ruins the image. Nevertheless, it's good to learn that people really expect a signature to be somewhere in the picture (recto or verso).<br>

About the limited editions, I am still deliberating if and how to do it. I'm thinking about the option of just adding in the back: "Limited edition of 50" or something like that. Because it does sound to me weird to say 1/50 if i haven't yet printed the other 49. However, I do understand the commercial value added by that.<br>

My answer here doesn't intend to give a closure to the thread, so please feel free to comment further.<br>

Many thanks again.</p>

<p>I was once told many years ago by some "very serious art farts" that a print must be matted--and that the title of the piece and signature MUST be centered below the print on the mat--and handwritten in soft graphite pencil. My handwriting is illegible to anyone but me, and my block printing looks like chicken scratches. It took me all of a day to forget about this...</p>

<p>The vast majority of what I produce for sale these days is 13x19 print matted in an 18x24 conservation grade mount. I place my "distinctive" initials cartouche in the lower right hand corner, along with the year the print was made. Currently I am using either a metallic gold or silver 1.0mm Sanford Uniball Gel Impact pen to accomplish this. The choice of color depends upon the print itself--silver or gold to compliment the overall presentation of the print. This is very similar to--and where the idea came from--to what many portrait photographers used to emboss in foil on their prints.</p>

<p>On the back of the mat is attached a 3.5x4" water gummed label. This includes another signature, the print title, location, whether a regular or limited numbered run, technical information about the equipment used and materials, and full contact information. A certificate of authenticity and general warranty is then attached with a removable adhesive dot, and the thing then clear bagged. Framed prints roughly follow the same schema--with the exception that the certificate is placed inside the frame back, and a small label stating this placement attached below the title label. On both print backer board, and outside back of the frame, a title label is applied.</p>

<p>Here are examples of what I am talking about with a finished, clear bagged matted print:</p>

<p><img src="http://papatango.photography/pn1/print-signature.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://papatango.photography/pn1/print-back.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I cannot attest to what the art farts in NYC might conclude from this--but here in Western Upstate New York it is going over quite well... :-)</p>

<p>Ana, the choice is yours, of course, but I personally feel that it is misleading to a purchaser to see 1/50 or any other number when there may be no intention (or eventual demand) of printing 50 images. It would just seem to me to be a little pompous. A very well known artist or photographer can do that because the demand is really there and the value of the edition is determined by the fact that there are only 20, or 50, or whatever number of prints actually in the hands of collectors (Of course, some photographers may say that the limited edition only applies to one size and that a different size might warrant another edition, thereby decreasing the rarity value if there is any. Again, this is a procedure that applies to very high demand editions, which is also rare). </p>

<p>Perhaps it was a professorial bias, but on of my son's teachers (a graphic artist) said "Artists sign their work. Illustrators sign checks."</p>

<p>Well at least you guys are making some prints. I cannot remember the last time I saw a print outside of my own. However I do not sign my prints. I do not sell my photos as they are family photos, pictures of our trips and such. However sometimes on the back of my inkjet prints I will make a note of what the photo is about. The reason for that is I have my Parents and Grandparents photos and they go back to the 1800's and many of them are of relatives or friends and I do not know their names or how they are related. A simple note on the back would be so helpful. Luckily many of the photos do have just that and it makes those photos priceless to me. </p>

<p>@Edward. And someone who does their marketing and presentation right for their intended audience receives and cashes them... :-)</p>

<p>@Marc. I have been troubled all day over your statement "<em>My work isn't good enough to sell in limited edition or otherwise</em>." I disagree with this. So many good photographers--including myself--have hesitated or refused for years to exhibit or sell due to such self limiting beliefs.</p>

<p>While not a final conclusion or methodology, I heartily recommend the Rocky Nook publication of Alain Briot's "Marketing Fine Art Photography." This changed my photographic world from showing a print or two to friends and family to actually making some money from it...</p>

<p>I'm no expert on what's considered "the done thing" within the industry but, on a personal level, there is something so authentic about having a little squiggly signature on the front of the print. Just subtly in the corner, as in the example posted above by Patrick. But of course you have to go with what you feel comfortable with as a photographer - if you feel like it ruins the kinds of images you produce, then it makes more sense to have it on the back. After all, it can always be added in later on the front if that's what the buyer really wants.</p>