Signing a photo?

Create a Post
J

Jay H

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Posts
9,908
Loc
KY
This is subject matter that I don't have the slightest opinion about. I wished I did and I suspect I may by the end of this thread.

Where should a photo be signed? As I begin my photography collection I really prefer the photos to be signed. But where?

I really dislike signing the mat. The mat is not the photo. By signing the mat you have forever married the mat and the photo. BUT I love the way a signature looks on a white mat. While it does look good, it seems to lack logic.

I don't really like signing over the image. It seems somewhat visually and practically acceptable because painters and LE prints are commonly signed over the image. But photos tend to be much much smaller. A giant silver paint pin signature at the bottom of an 8x10 doesn't work for me.

Signing just under the image doesn't seem quite right to me either. Again LE prints are commonly titled and signed just under the image. Really photos with large white boarders are an invention of the digital age. Traditional printing methods don't usually leave a large enough boarder to sign.

Is this an issue that serious collectors have addressed? What do you prefer? Which is most visually acceptable/logical? Do I even need a signature?

There aren't very many issues that I don't have at least some opinion but I just simply don't know where I prefer to have a photo signed. Photographers ask me this question often and I just don't have a solid opinion.
 
Well, since you asked for an opinion...

Sign on the image. It doesn't have to be a huge signature in silver paint pen. I think artists/photographers who do that are more concerned about their ego than the art. Go and look at any one of thousands of paintings, watercolors, etc. through time to see that there is a precedent.

Besides, it make's the framer's life so much easier.
 
My only opinion is that they sign it before it is fit.
 
Yeah... the opinions will be all over the map on this one and for pretty much the reasons you listed. I sign mine at the bottom of the photo in black so it isn't obvious. I then give title or place info on the mat. I really do dislike large signatures in gold or silver gloppy ink. We might as well be framing the signature!

I have one B/W shooter that signs and titles all of his photos on the mat. I mentioned to him the possible minuses off that and he really didn't care.

I have another photog who signs in the white under the photo.. small and in pencil so it is not really obvious.

Another one signs on the print paper in the white under the image and then covers it up with the matting.
He has detailed info on the back of the frame package about him and the image. This way, his signature is with the photo but not visable.

As I said.. all over the map.
Pick one and know that whatever you do is ok, it is just how YOU like to do it.:beer:
 
I know as far as most framers are concerned, they would rather see the artist sign the photo for ease of framing, but the majority of my photographers would rather sign the mat. I cut all of the mats to our design specifics and then they come back and sign before I complete the frame package.

Lori
 
I sign my phots in the lower right corner of the image with a gel pen. Depending on the color of the signing area, I select colors to make the signature noticable, but not distracting.
 
Maybe an artist would insist on making an original signature on every print, but the best photographer around here has his very-small signature digitally overlaid on a lower corner of the image in a slightly-contrasting color. Since it is printed with the image, there is no concern about the ink reacting with the print, fading or discoloring, and it is perfectly sized and placed every time.

DNA is not involved.
 
I agree with signing digitally. Use a Wacom tablet to create the signature - it may take a few tries. Here are the advantages:

1) The signature will be consistent.
2) Signature can be resized, color changed and blended with background.
3)Some customers object to having the print signed directly. It is easy to turn-off the signature then print. In this case, sign the mat.
4) Customers do not appreciate gold-gel signatures on every print.
5) The paranoid artist can have his/her DNA injected into the print cartridges.

Ernesto
 
I have my sig digitized perfectly. I learned to dislike printing the signature on my prints. I'm not sure why but I just don't like it.

It doesn't apply to images that are already printed or for clients with a disk in hand.

Of the big collections I have seen there is often a rubber stamp on the back with some lines where the photographer wrote in things like the title, edition, their sig and other stuff. Can't say I want somebody writting on the back of my photos though.
 
I prefer signatures in the lower left white space below the photo. If it was good enough for Ansel Adams …

To my mind, unless it is hand signed, it is not an original. To me that’s like a Xerox copy of Mickey Mantle baseball card.
 
Sam Wagstaff was a big time photo collector. Some of his collection is online. The photographs are scanned and you can see the front/back and in some cases the envelopes they were shipped in. Most, including Adams, have no identifying mark from the photographer at all. A few are signed on the back. Few have anything on the front.

You can see some of it here http://www.aaa.si.edu/collectionsonline/wagssamu/container97265.htm
 
A signature has traditionally been a way to identify who made the print, painting, etc. Are you making limited editions? If so a signature on the print is more likely to make it an authenticate print. If you are simply signing the prints (open edition) I prefer it on the print image as well. Signing the mat means nothing. You could sign thousands of mats and put anyone's print into it. Some years ago There was a big to do over Dali prints. He signed blank print paper I believe before anything was printed on it so now any one buying his prints has to wonder if they are his or not. It's your call.
 
I sign mine somewhere along the bottom (usually right side) in a complimentary color in a area without much detail. I leave whether it is signed or not up to the customer.......haven't had one yet tell me to not sign it!

Like Bill said a digitally printed signature doesn't appeal to most, as it then looks like a poster and signing a mat IMO is ridiculous as it then has to follow the print and if anyone were to sign the mat it should be the one cutting it. ;)

I have signed in the white area under the print giving the customer the option of leaving it or matting over it, not so good for the framer.
 
I did the art circuit for 8 years and printed between 40-75 prints per week for the next show. I used to use the gel pens on prints and perm pens on canvas; however, I became very frustrated when the ink would not run smoothly during the signing, and yes I'd have to try to resign. This just never works - it just looks like a correction, to my own signature!

I tried signing the mats, with the title on the left and signature, copyright on the right side. You never know when a pen would fail in mid stroke. I also tried signing on the print (Cibachromes and later digital prints). On more than one occasion, I had someone wanting to exchange the print cause they thought the signature was distracting.

Finally, I said, "screw it". I use a digital signature that blends well with the background. I can identify it as one of mine and if someone wants it signed, I point out where the signature resides. It is not distracting and it authenticates the print. End of problem for me.

Personally, I dont like the white border at the bottom for signing. Usually, the white area is distracting to the rest of the print, especially since 99% of my prints are in color.

My 2bits worth.

Ernesto
 
Ernesto, it's good to see somebody else who shares my mania.
 
Here are the two ways I sign prints. I've now gone to just printing with a white boarder and signing lower right.
 

Attachments

  • On the mat.jpg
    On the mat.jpg
    247.9 KB · Views: 30
  • On the print.jpg
    On the print.jpg
    254.9 KB · Views: 30
Jay H said:
Sam Wagstaff was a big time photo collector. Some of his collection is online. The photographs are scanned and you can see the front/back and in some cases the envelopes they were shipped in. Most, including Adams, have no identifying mark from the photographer at all. A few are signed on the back. Few have anything on the front.

You can see some of it here http://www.aaa.si.edu/collectionsonline/wagssamu/container97265.htm
Click to expand...

Hi Jay,

In the case of the first couple Ansel Adams Photographs, those are not meant for collectors, that's why they are not signed. They are reproduction prints, meant to be used by newspapers and magazines to reproduce a photo.

to the OP

Starting in about the 1930s, Ansel trimmed his photos to the edge of the photo, drymounted it, and signed on the back board in the lower right had corner. The photo was then overmatted, with the mat opening revealing the signature. This was common practice for Ansel's contemporaries like Edward Weston, etc., and is continued today by amny photographers printing with silver gelatin.

I'm not a fan of signing on the photographic image. There is no way to know what effect this will have on the print long term, either from the solvent in the pen, or the ink/pigment itself.

Many fine art photographers I know leave extra white paper around their images and sign in the right area to mark the print as an original. This is then overmatted with the signature hid, and the overmat is signed for display purposes. This is a common method, but there is no right or wrong.

If you go to a big collectors event like PhotoLA, you can see a great sample of how contemporary photographers are addressing this issue. At events like that with high end collectors, you'll be hard pressed to find a gold pen on the photo signature. For better or worse, signing on the print, gold pen or otherwise, can turn off high end collectors.
 
I thought those gold pen signatures were so cool at first and now they just look unbelievably tacky. Plus they tarnish and turn uggy bronze over the years.

I like the idea of the photographer signing the white border and then overmatting - with a signed or unsigned mat. Photographers are like doctors, most signatures are completely indecipherable anyways, so as long as the signature exists somewhere, that should be enough for the sake of the future value.

I keep an array of gel pens, like Zigs, for artists to sign work before framing, and some photo papers simply defy signing, front or back. I think that is why artists are drawn to Sharpies and those awful gold and silver pens - they will mark on anything.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top