Should framed prints be signed

[john_boyle3]

I'm preparing some 10 x 15 prints of wildflowers for framing in a

black 16 x 20 frame with two white mats. These are for an art

gallery and will be for sale. I have already sold three such prints

to friends, one of whom wanted my photo of a praying mantis signed.

The photos are not numbered and there is nothing exclusive about them

as far as marketing is concerned. Once the framing is complete it

can't be undone. There will be an identification label on the back.

Should the print be signed? I would appreciate some opinions.

 

As a matter of interest most are from Kodachrome slides and were

taken with my Leica M2, Visoflex III, Bellows II and 65mm Elmar

(Wetzlar version). The sale price is $250 (which includes the

gallery's cut). The slides were scanned by my local photo shop and

printed from the scan. They put the scans on a cd and I'll post some

once I get a handle on the software. I don't have Photoshop.

[john_brewton]

You want credit for your work, right? Sign 'em.

[blakley]

When I give someone a framed print, I sign the matte in pencil. I never sign the prints themselves, either on the front or on the back.

[________1]

"Does God sign the sky?"

 

I forget who said that now, Stieglitz or someone like that.

[al_kaplan1]

Sign them, signature and year they were shot. You might also include a little "c" inside a circle before the year to signify copyright. Also put a copyright notice on the back of the print itself and on the backing paper on the frame.

 

I wouldn't worry about numbering them. With photos it doesn't seem to matter as much as it does with etchings, dry point, or lithographs, where the process of printing ~ inking and wiping the prints by hand for each impression, will degrade the plate over time.

[aizan_sasayama]

Sign and date them on the back in pencil.

[rj]

I'd sign them on the bottom of a white border in a fine black ink that won't run. Thats the way I do it.

[terry_rory]

I sign them in pencil on the matte if asked to. Prefer not to though.

[wmwhee]

I pencil my name and date lightly, for future reference, on the back of the print.

[jtdnyc]

<"Does God sign the sky?"

I forget who said that now, Stieglitz or someone like that.>

 

Maybe if He did, there would be fewer arguments over whether He is entitled to the credit.

[douglas k.]

So Stieglitz compared himself to God?

 

I write in the mat: lower left is title, lower right is signature.

[andrew_lee2]

A matter of personal preference, but it's tacky IMO, and you'll look a fool if the photo sucks.

[douglas k.]

"A matter of personal preference, but it's tacky IMO, and you'll look a fool if the photo sucks."

 

A very strange opinion. If John thinks the photos suck, he'll probably not display them, will he? And if signing them is tacky, then I guess many great photographers (and painters, etc.) are pretty tacky, given the thousands of signed works I have seen in museums, galleries, etc.

[billsr]

If you'd like the recognition for your your best work, by all means sign the prints. Bear in mind that you risk becoming famous, though, and who wants that? I prefer my life of utter obscurity!! ;^)

Best regards, Bill

[william_todd_faulk]

Douglas,

 

Andrews's opinion is not strange in the least and contrary to your own thoughts is quite true. Photographs and to some extent paintings are signed on verso. The practice of signing mat boards or the front of photographic prints where visible is an immediate and rather prevalent display among amateur photographers.

 

A few observant hours of strolling through galleries would attest to that.

 

Sincerely,

Bill

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Signing the matte results in an unsigned print. I sign and title all my prints on the border in pencil. The client then has the choice whether to frame the print with the signature and title showing or not.

[gerald_widen]

Do what Keith just said.

[william_todd_faulk]

"<I>I sign and title all my prints on the border in pencil.</I>"

<p>

My words reinforced.

[bill_pearce1]

I'm with Keith. I have gone through galleries, and I've seen photos signed and unsigned by great photographers all. Paintings have been done either way for eons at the artist's option, and I think that is the best answer.

 

If you are making a gift, leaving it unsigned makes more sense than if you are selling prints, from an advertising aspect. Signing on the mat, however, is a silly pretension, since, as Keith says, it makes the decision unsigned for you.

 

I remember one gallery that was showing some of my photos relating that someone asked if they bought it, could they have it matted to exclude the title, number and signature. I told them it was OK as long as they got cash!

 

Bill Pearce

[tommy_baker]

If you are proud of it, sign it. Some day some one will look behind the print

and know that "John Boyle" took captured this wonderful image.

[tommy_baker]

> If you are making a gift, leaving it unsigned makes more sense than if you

are selling prints

 

why

 

 

> Signing on the mat, however, is a silly pretension, since, as Keith says, it

makes the decision unsigned for you.

 

does the matte refer to the actual part of the print on the front. and why does "it

make the decision unsigned for you"?

 

is it me, or has my brain gone to sleep. maybe its the red wine taking effect..

[john_elder1]

You should sign the prints somewhere. Otherwise 50 or more years from now no one will know who made the photograph. Second issue: do you want the viewer of the photograph to know who made it. Most photographers do. Further, most viewers want to know who took that great shot. So, I would sign the front of the mat or print where it can be seen. I usually sign the print on the border beneath the image area above the mat in pencil or ink.

[simonpg]

Absolutely, yes!

 

Two reasons that were given to me by my "printer" who insisted when I had 2 framed for sale:

 

1. Take and show pride in your work.

 

2. Allow the buyer to display a piece of art which identifies the "artist" and allows the owner to have pride in his new possession.

 

These may seem strange at first blush, but think about it and how you feel when you buy a piece of art.

 

An important issue is how to sign it. I was guided by expert framers who do paintings and photographs. They said:

 

1. Sign in pencil and date.

 

2. Use a small signature and be subtle about it;

 

3. sign on the border card and not on the photo itself - at the bottom in one corner. NEVER sign the photograph or embed a digital signature in a printed photograph - it is tacky and very "un-artistic".

 

4. Print on the back of the photo "taken by....... " and sign lightly with a felt tipped pen and date it.

 

My printer said if you think your work is a professional piece of art, then act like one!

 

Upon reflection I think it was good advice. I hope this helps John.

[pensacolaphoto]

Once I had someone call me at home to arrange for a visit so that I could sign a print for her that she had just bought. To some buyers it is important.

[david j.lee]

i think that in painting, the signature means that the work is finished.

i think a rubber stamp on the back with your name and the date and your

signature in pencil is enough.( by the way, if someone here is using rubber

stamps, can you show it to us?)