Why not sign directly on the photograph?

Artist sign there paintings. Why not a photographer sign is his photograph,

like a painting.

 

You can get those waterproof metalic silver and gold pens. Seems like it would

make the photograph more personal to the buyer that way.

 

Rick

Yeah, nothing says class like a metallic gold signature right on the print.

Because it looks cheesy. When I purchase a photograph, I'm purchasing a copy of the photographer's vision, not his or her signature.

 

Metallic silver and gold?! You must be kidding - right?

Do whatever you want. Your buyers might have an opinion....they are the ones that

count.

Actually, this is an excellent idea. This was practised years ago. The name of the studio/photographer was imposed directly on the image. (How did they do that?) In historically significant photographs, the value is enhanced because of the authentic "signature" documenting its source.

 

I would think a small signature in silver in the corner of the print, something that is indiscrete, would be appropriate. In this age of digital, where prints are not always dry mounted to mount board, where would a signature appear? Not to long ago everyone signed the mount board (I know I did). Why? Did the photographer create the mount board? Hummm?

Ocean Physics , jul 06, 2006; 11:43 p.m.

 

"Yeah, nothing says class like a metallic gold signature right on the print."

 

LMAO... that was simply tooooooooooo funny! :)

 

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with doing that but, personally speaking, I'd never even

consider it! But, that's just me. :)

 

However, there are ALWAYS those consumers who don't mind signatures directly on their

prints. So, sign some in the traditional method and a few the way YOU want to do it! No

harm, no foul!

 

Cheers

hmm, being prints, and not, in general, a one-off, i prefer to stick to the old system that was used, and is still used, with etchings and lithographs... leaving an extra bit of white paper at the base of the image, preferably 5-10cm, depending on the size of the print... and in that space you can write title, year. edition/of. signature.

 

this way the client has the choice to window mount covering or exposing the signature (mine is awful looking anyway).

 

t

How about embossing your name on the print. You can get firms to supply your name in an embossing tool and the result will have little effect on the print image.

I know some guys that sign the back of the print. Then if they mount it they sign the board too. This way the print is signed itself and does not distract from the image.

 

Its really a matter of personal taste and what you are selling.

Some successful photographers do sign on the front of the print. I forget the artist, but he had his own gallery in Denver airport and signed on the front in black.

<p>The gallery in Denver airport is <a href="http://imagesofnaturewebstore.com/">Thomas Mengelsen's</a>. (Was just there in May)</p>

 

<p>Whether it should be *in* the image area or not is debatable, but I had an artist tell me recently that it's wise to sign *somewhere* on the photograph itself (white border, back, whatever) because it's not uncommon for customers to remount the work. Signing on the photo ensures your signature remains with the photograph.</p>

I went to a George Lepp workshop about 3-4 years ago and he was talking about how nicely a gold or silver metallic pen was for signing right on prints. I thought it was a bit cheesy but I guess depending on the print and the presentation it could look alright if done nicely. Not for me though---seems too 70's-like, sort of like the style of Gary Bernstein's signature as seen on the photo.net home page. I prefer the pencil on the matte look myself.

Portrait photographers have traditionally signed the face of the print. Since very few use matts anyway, they were signed then lacquer sprayed.

 

Michael

The widely exhibited Mark Klett signs on his prints. Like everything else, there are no rules.

 

http://www.lisasettegallery.com/artistsI-O/klett.htm

It is unlikely that the metallic gold and silver pens are archival if that concerns you.

 

The professional studio portraits I have, have signatures that are on little static cling clear plastic tabs. The tabs are essentially invisible (they are gloss prints) but easily removable.

 

Personally the work I have is signed in pencil.

Sorry to reiterate, but it really is cheesy. It's nice for folks to say 'you can do whatever you

want,' but the standards for a saleable archival print aren't just personal preference. If you

make a habit of going to galleries & museums, you'll notice that signatures on the print

area, colored mats, etc., aren't accepted & put you out-of-the-running in the art market.

After posting a similar question (www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GqEP), I started noticing how others sign, or more appropriately don't sign, their work. At the Houston Center for Photography's Annual Juried Membership Exhibition, there are very few signed photographs. Those with visible signatures were signed in the same way that T. Feltus suggests in his response posted above. I can only assume that any other signatures are on the back of the photograph, or in an area that is covered by the mat.

I held off contributing until after this weekend's trip to coastal NH. We visited quite a galleries and higher-end Antique Shoppes. In the galleries, I saw unsigned photos and photos signed in pencil on the mat below the photo. Didn't see any signed photos in the Antique Shoppes. But one higher-end framing store did have a selection of photos for sale by a photog who signs the white photo-paper border outside the image area with the gold pen.

 

As soon as I saw it, I realized that I'd never seen that approach before. Also noticed that the "gold" didn't even look all that gold any more...closer to an umber color. So it may not have worked too well as an approach to doing "archival" signatures!

 

For my exhibits of digital-infrared prints, I:

 

* Don't sign the mat or the photo.

 

* Sign an informational sticker that includes the image's name and date. I place the sticker on a thin, stiff, archival sheet, which is the last thing to go into the back of the frame. That way, if people want to change frames, they can simply move the sheet to the new frame (and even cut it down in size to fit a smaller frame).

 

That has seemed to satisfy all of my customers but one...who wanted me to ALSO sign the front of the photo using a very-fine-point permanent Sharpie!

 

--Dave

I'm having my first exhibit of digital photos and prefer the approach of signing on the back of the photo (Epson Premium Glossy and Ultra Premium Luster) , but I've found that the only thing that the surface seems to take well without smearing is a silver metallic Sharpie. I think I would prefer pencil (since I'm doubt the archival properties of the Sharpie ), but the surface does not take it well and displays the signature only very faintly (using a 2B pencil). Any suggestions?