To sign or not to sign?

agallia

A little off the beaten path, but I have a couple of questions related to commonly accepted practices when hanging photos in a gallery:

1. Signing - what is acceptable regarding signing an original photo? Can the photographer (who assumes responsibility for printing output) sign his/her photo print in ink on the front, similar to an artist signing a painting? Can the signature be incorporated into the digital photo or watermarked so that it is printed too? Signing the mat with pencil seems to be fairly common but is lost if the mat is removed.
2. Title - Is it acceptable to give a gallery photo a title, like a painting? If so, any guidelines for picking a title? Should it be descriptive of the actual photo/location or is it okay to do as any artiist would do, choose a title that fits the scene depicted?

I know these questions are bounced around the internet by untold numbers of pro & con supporters. Just interested in what other Dgrinners have to say. Have a good day!

Bill_M

agallia wrote:

A little off the beaten path, but I have a couple of questions related to commonly accepted practices when hanging photos in a gallery:

1. Signing - what is acceptable regarding signing an original photo? Can the photographer (who assumes responsibility for printing output) sign his/her photo print in ink on the front, similar to an artist signing a painting? Can the signature be incorporated into the digital photo or watermarked so that it is printed too? Signing the mat with pencil seems to be fairly common but is lost if the mat is removed.
2. Title - Is it acceptable to give a gallery photo a title, like a painting? If so, any guidelines for picking a title? Should it be descriptive of the actual photo/location or is it okay to do as any artiist would do, choose a title that fits the scene depicted?

I know these questions are bounced around the internet by untold numbers of pro & con supporters. Just interested in what other Dgrinners have to say. Have a good day!

Regarding signing, yes it should be done. I recommend actual physical signing (not a digital signature) to give the print a more 'limited edition' or personal feel. A printed signature has too much of a mass-produced poster feel.

Title is fine...I've seen matted prints with titles. Personally not my style, but I guess if it helps tell the story of the image, go for it. I've seen the titles on the inner mat of double matted prints.

Me personally, I sign all my mats & don't use titles. I don't sign the print directly.

Good luck...
Bill

agallia

Bill_M wrote:

Regarding signing, yes it should be done. I recommend actual physical signing (not a digital signature) to give the print a more 'limited edition' or personal feel. A printed signature has too much of a mass-produced poster feel.

Title is fine...I've seen matted prints with titles. Personally not my style, but I guess if it helps tell the story of the image, go for it. I've seen the titles on the inner mat of double matted prints.

Me personally, I sign all my mats & don't use titles. I don't sign the print directly.

Good luck...
Bill

Thanks, Bill, for your input. Best I can determine, signing is a personal choice issue and there is no truly "right way". As for titles on the framed photos, a multi-media show jurist once told me he did not like to see a title on a framed photo mat (some go to great lengths to have a special cut/printed mat for that purpose). I was talking about titles for the info labels posted adjacent to the hanging piece. There again, there are apparently no right way. I guess it all boils down to "...whatever floats your boat", right?

urbanaries

Great thread question, I am wondering if for larger mounted prints purchased by portrait clients (gallery wrapped canvases, large fotoflots or standout mounts) if I should incorporate a digital signature, very small logo or physically sign with appropriate pen?

It seems like this was a studio norm back in the day (a la Olan Mills), right?

It seems weird to have a big commissioned print on your wall without some identification of the artist, but it could also be seen as tacky on my part to the client.

agallia

Thanks for feedback. Periodically, I scan the net on this subject...always with same results. We photographers have our own opinions about such things and there is apparently no consensus. Seems like many do sign the lower right corner of the mat, others sign along the lower white border of the print, while some do actually sign the print, either front or back. Digital signatures are still fairly new and some feel they "cheapen" the print. However, to me, digital signatures (PHotoshop, etc) have an appeal as they allow specific control of look and location that real ink or pencil doesn't.

Guess we shouldn't drag this horse too much further unless someone out there has pertinent info to sway one way or the over. Have a good day

Art Scott

Here is what I do......and have done for a very long time (since '79).....
4x5(4x6) no signing but I did (not now as I have not had a new stamp made yet) stamp the back with full name and contact into.....5x7 and 8x10 were gold foil stamped (need new slugs)......11x14 and larger are signed with permanent acid free paint pen (in a gold or silver) (need to get 2 new ones)....
I sign directly on the print.......I have yet to see a painting signed on the mat.......at least none of the classical old masters....I did see one painting signed on the mat at the Wichita State University's Art School Gallery.....but that has been the only one.....I see my photos as much a work of Art as paintings done today so I sign on the photo it self and if it is a numberedc edition it is numbered on the photo it self.....

Now the trick is where to sign.....I usually go 1.5" up from bottom and 1.5" in from right corner.....that is far enuff from either edge that the client can mat and frame without covering it up.....

On works that are not signed (per se) the lesser expensive prints, I try to find a place to embed my copyright....and I do mean copyright.....it is small and unobtrusive and most people will not notice it....but it is there and if I should see a print of mine being sold by someone else as their work I have that to fall back on......I do this a couple of shades lightere than the area I am applying it to.....sometimes I will add a more seeable one on digital files so it catches the eye of whomever and they will process it out and leave the no so noticable one alone as it doesn't catch their eye........

I do not subscribe to signing the mats as those can be changed to match the room decor more closely....so if the mat is signed and numbered and it gets switched for any reason the value of the photos has just dropped tremendously.......

remeber this is just my own little 'umble opinon..........:D

davidweaver

Bump to Art here.

I used to sign the mats when I sold a framed piece. I moved to gold or silver pens a couple years ago. I have a small signature in the lower left or right of the print.

I used to title work but over time the titles need to change so I stopped titleing work. The exception is in a case of a series. In which case it is a simple title like Canyon X #1, Canyon X #2 etc. I'm a photographer and not a writer nor poet so I don't want to confuse or direct the viewer with words.

Recently, I have thought about just numbering the image but then it's hard to have a buyer describe it so I'm still mulling that idea over. I do not do numbered limited editions any longer. You can change the print size a tiny bit, or change the crop a tiny bit and create a new edition anyway so I don't find that I'm adding or subtracting any potential value with numbered or limited edition prints. A signed print is 'limited' by itself. :-)

Cheers,
David

agallia

Thanks, Art and David. for your super input. I agree with your reasoning and methods and will try the gold/silver pen method ASAP. Yes, the concept of creative photography as legitmate "art" seems to be slow to accept for some...too bad. While many...probably most...photos I shoot are casual and mudane, I have a number of selected works of which I am proud and wish to claim as mine. What better way than signing on the print! Just need to keep a steady hand, right?

davidweaver

Yup.
Place a pice of paper above and below your sig. Sign 3-4 times on a separate piece of photo paper. Then do it on the print. Don't overpower the photo with your sig.


Have fun!

agallia wrote:

... Just need to keep a steady hand, right?

Bill_M

agallia wrote:

Thanks, Bill, for your input. Best I can determine, signing is a personal choice issue and there is no truly "right way". As for titles on the framed photos, a multi-media show jurist once told me he did not like to see a title on a framed photo mat (some go to great lengths to have a special cut/printed mat for that purpose). I was talking about titles for the info labels posted adjacent to the hanging piece. There again, there are apparently no right way. I guess it all boils down to "...whatever floats your boat", right?

Good topic Al. Just keep in mind that the title "multi-media show jurist" is basically equal to "just another guy with an opinion". I've seen & participated in many art shows where the jury was comprised of, well let's just say, non-experts, all with opinions.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't hang your hat on the opinion of one person...whether it be that jurist, me, or any of the others who have responded. Do whatever YOU think is the best thing for your art. Good luck...

Bill_M

urbanaries wrote:

Great thread question, I am wondering if for larger mounted prints purchased by portrait clients (gallery wrapped canvases, large fotoflots or standout mounts) if I should incorporate a digital signature, very small logo or physically sign with appropriate pen?

It seems like this was a studio norm back in the day (a la Olan Mills), right?

It seems weird to have a big commissioned print on your wall without some identification of the artist, but it could also be seen as tacky on my part to the client.

This is a good question...I often wonder what to do with large unmatted canvas prints. Currently I sign small in the corner...but I'm not sold on this idea yet.

One thing I do with ALL of my finished prints (greeting cards, framed, matted or canvas) is print a clear return address label with my logo, website address & copyright & stick it on the back. I also sign this sticker...just with a small 'Bill' (not my 'official signature'). No real reason, I guess it's sorta like my stamp of approval & just another personalized touch.

Also, while we're on the subject of titles, I put an index card in every matted print bag (in the back) that gives a little info about the print...whether it be the title, the location, what it is, any unusual camera settings, etc. If nothing else, when I'm at shows & people are flipping through my racks, I can see the card & know which print they're looking at. It helps me discuss the print with them without them having to engage me & ask about it.

Bill

Art Scott

agallia wrote:

Thanks, Art and David. for your super input. I agree with your reasoning and methods and will try the gold/silver pen method ASAP. Yes, the concept of creative photography as legitmate "art" seems to be slow to accept for some...too bad. While many...probably most...photos I shoot are casual and mudane, I have a number of selected works of which I am proud and wish to claim as mine. What better way than signing on the print! Just need to keep a steady hand, right?

Do not use the gold and silver metallic pens (sanford brand I believe) found at wall world or such places......mine run about $6 each from a art supply or blue print printing comapny...depends on who has'em in stock.....make sure they are ACID FREE.....so they do not deteriorate your works of Art............


do not for get my commission on each one you decide to call a work of ART...as i am getting wore out from all this work I collaborate on for free:D:D:Drofl

Sam

Al,

One more opinion to the mix. I sign the print below the image on the right side in the white space, (boarder).

The window mat covers this, so I sign the window mat (white in pencil, black in gold pen). Now if the client wishes to change the mat for any reason they can open the new mat on the bottom to expose the signature, or cover it up, and deny ever knowing me.

Opps, forgot.......I use pencil to sign mat, and rag prints, and black archival Micron ink pens for glossy, or semi gloss papers.

Sam

agallia

Bill_M wrote:

Good topic Al. Just keep in mind that the title "multi-media show jurist" is basically equal to "just another guy with an opinion". I've seen & participated in many art shows where the jury was comprised of, well let's just say, non-experts, all with opinions.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't hang your hat on the opinion of one person...whether it be that jurist, me, or any of the others who have responded. Do whatever YOU think is the best thing for your art. Good luck...

Thanks, Bill.

Yes, this has been a good topic. I agree with your view on opinions for sure. There is an old saying, "Opinions are like a*sh*les, everyone has one!" If we are true to ourselves and strive to be honest, ethical and tolerant, signing our photographic art in whatever way we choose is okay. Of course, signing indicates ownership and control of the original photograph as well as direction and approval of the final printing process. There are many grey areas in the process but if it feels right, do it.

savannahga

I sign the matte on the bottom right just below the print.
I put the year taken on mine. ex. J. Cochran '05

agallia

savannahga wrote:

I sign the matte on the bottom right just below the print.
I put the year taken on mine. ex. J. Cochran '05

Yes, signing on the mat that way seems to be one of the more prevalent methods discussed on this thread. But, unless the actual print is also signed somewhere (front, edge, back), the mat only signature will be lost if the mat is removed or replaced. My personal feelings are along the same lines as Art Scott's Aug 20 post on this thread.

Guess it all boils down to, "do what feels right to you."