signing /stamping photos

I had read somewhere, I thing on this site about photographers numbering prints, that this was something for painters to do, not photographers. I was wondering what fellow photographers do. I met three, one who did a "series" of 12, on who did a "series" of 4, one who did a "series" of 250 or 150. Is it a personal thing? I also read in Ansel Adams, The Print, and somewhere else, that you should stamp the print with your name, adress, etc., but this baffles me because of the ink on the print (on the back). I'm reading a great book, "The Big Picture", learning a lot on copyright, and the author says to date the print with the copyright emblem, date being when copyrighted, so if anyone dates their prints, do you use the date the photo was shot, printed or copyrighted? Then I thought if I dry mount, I could stamp the back of the board, but the print could always be taken off with release paper. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thank you.

i used to number prints, but i think i was just being egoist.

perhaps someone who makes their living as an artist can justify doing

a limited edition. i used to print on the matte surface agfa

portriga (a wonderful warm chloro-bromide paper) so i could sign the

print directly with pencil, but havent done that for years. now all

my professional work (architectural - not fine art) is stamped on the

back using some kind of weird reddish archival ink that the LOC sent

me (their own special recipe, and you have to use a balsa pad). if

you are fine arts type photographer, i would find a way to sign the

prints rather than stamping them - there are archival pens around.

Time to get on my soap box: The practice of forcing photographers to

limited editions of prints is just a way for speculative collectors

to make sure that their possesions will increase in value. I does no

good whatsoever for the artist, who can no longer make copies of a

print that has risen dramatically in value and benefit from his own

creativity and right of authorship. Galleries many times think that

limited-edition prints sell better or bring a higher price (this may

be true). Personally, I am opposed to the idea of making limited

editions in principle. If one of my prints goes through the roof in

value while I'm alive, I want to be able to cash in on it. After all,

it is my photograph! I'll probably be dead in 50 years, and that will

effectively limit my output. Also, I would prefer that people buy my

work because they find it moving, beautiful, inspiring etc. and not

because they think it will be a "good investment". They can do their

investing on the stock market.

 

<p>

 

Numbering with an open end is possibly a good way to keep track of a

photographer's printing style changes over time ("I prefer the early

Westons." etc.) however, it requires good record keeping and

diligence on the part of the photographer.

 

<p>

 

As for signing work, I dry mount, and sign the front of the board

just under the print lightly in pencil. Additionally, I stamp the

back of the board with archival ink with my name, copyright info and

fill in (again, in pencil) the name of the print, location, and

taking and printing dates.

 

<p>

 

Any print that is worth anything on the art market is not going to be

removed from its mount board with the intent of re-mounting and

selling it under another name. What worth would an Ansel Adams print

have unmounted and without signature compared to one that does?

Regards, ;^D)

I agree with Mr. Scudder, the only benefit to doing numbered editions

is for the gallery, not for the photographer. It seems rather silly

to me to do a numbered edition when you have the negative, and you can

make thousands of prints.

Unless you plan on printing say 100 prints from your cliam to fame

negative and then burning the negative. Or manually scratch it up and

poke holes in it and then make a few more prints and then burn it.

Then you could have 2 series off the same negative. (Seems like i did

that in college)

Just make the best print you can each time you print your negative.

Sign it lightly with pencil if you must on the front of the print in

the border.

Stamp the back with archival ink with copyright stamp, and sign it

again.

You can either put the printing date or the shooting date or the file

number on the back of the print,its up to you. It all depends on how

you file your negatives.

Something that I saw reciently in a collection pf prints by Sebasito

Salgado, was that stamped or impressed upon the print within the

white bordes was his copyright. Perhaps this may help you.

There are many artists who sign and number their images. Michael Kenna

is one and that is how he makes his living. If you want to then fine.

To those that think it egotistical, tough shit. To number or not is a

personal issue. When you number a print it means to the buyer that the

value will go up as the edition sells out. No one is going to buy a

print just because it is number 23 in an edition of 50 anymore than if

there was no limit on it anyway. Just not how the buying public works.

A gallery needs to make money too and if the artist numbers his prints

in a limited edition it makes the gallery more interested in marketing

or handling an artist's portfolio. Or buying it outright. Before you

come to conclusions about the effecacy of whether or not to number

your prints and where to do it, talk to some gallery owners. Ones who

have been in bussiness for some time and ask them about it. Or just

write to them. Most of us aren't going to be famous enough to worry

about it so don't. James