Where do photographers sign?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colleen A. Brown
  • Start date Start date
Create a Post
C

Colleen A. Brown

Guest
I frame a lot of photos, and am curious about where the photographer should sign his picture. One insists that it is proper to sign the matboard only. He printed his signature in pencil on white matboard. What should be done when a customer who buys the photo then wants it rematted...where is the signature & copyright? It also looks very distracting to see a signature on the white mat. Other photographers sign directly on photo with gold or silver ink. Do any of you know what is preferred? Thanks
 
I've been a semi-pro photographer as well as a framer for many years. When I sign a photo, it is always on the lower right hand corner in gold, silver, black or white ink, depending on the colors in that area. Signing on the mat, as you said is a temprary thing, good until the photo is rematted. I just rematted just such a photo. It was taken and signed on the mat in 1956, and I had to use a second window in the mat to encase the signature.

------------------
Seth J. Bogdanove, CPF
22 years framing and still loving it
 
I hate those gold & silver pens. They look cheap, they can smear and worst yet if the photo needs to be drymounted the ink can lift. What a mess.

I prefer a pencil sig on a under mat. Seem less distracting to the image.

Diver Dave
 
Strange, must be that time of month. I had a photo today that was signed in a CHEAP WHITE PEBBLE MAT. I cut a new mat they wanted and sent it with them back to the photographer. I agree they need a special pen for photo emulsions. A presentation mat is not a finished mat to frame in. We need to start spreading the word to not sign the mat.

framer
 
Oh, you have touched a nerve with this question. LOL We have a lot of local artist shows around here, and the photographers ALWAYS sign their cheesy little paper mats, instead of the picture, and so I have to explain to the customer that their hideous, brown-bevel mat is going to eventually ruin their picture, and that we should cut the signature out of the mat, or get the photographer to resign it.

I like the picture signed; the picture will outlast every frame job that way, and you're not stuck with some hideous old paper mat. The only exception is the rare artist who uses 4-ply; I have no problem framing around that, but I don't meet very many artists who give a damn about conservation of their work, so I rarely see it.

As a photographer myself, I sign the picture, in a silver archival pen. I like silver because you can see it on any picture, and it's not obnoxious.

------------------
I don't care what color your sofa is.
 
Speaking of this topic (this is slightly related)...

Does it URK anyone as much as it does me when you have a customer say "Well the artist CHOSE THIS MAT so therefore THIS is what they intended to be around it? And they had it displayed in a tiny metal frame... so they OBVIOUSLY wanted to see it framed that way"

GRRRRRR... then you try to explain... "Mame/Sir, most artists use what materials they have handy and are least expensive, they know that you will reframe them anyway with a more suited combination for this piece. They usually never have the intention of having THAT be the BEST selection for their piece"....

And when they still don't listen.... grrrr

Anyone else?

[This message has been edited by Egon's cage (edited June 21, 2001).]
 
Me- I like the little stickers they put on the back of the photos,that take an act of God to remove, or show an impression when dry mounted. I try to explian to them that if it covered up when framed, there is no need to put it on. But know how artists are.
 
Having just reframed about 50 vintage photographs from a collection, I think I can safely say there is not now nor has there ever been a standard in how or where an artist signs their photographs.
A lot of the pieces that dated from the middle of the 20th century were dry mounted to pulpwood matting material and pencil signed on the mat. This is going to prove a little dicey when it comes to conserving the pieces later on.
The few that sign on the photo usually sign in the margins and have used a non-fading ink, India Ink (China Black) I would suspect.
The use of fiber paper with a matte emulsion allowed some to sign with pencil. None of the artists signed their work on the image.
Most of the pieces that were not dry mounted had information on the back about artist, date, and where the image had been published. The pieces that had been dry mounted had the infrmation on the back of the mount as well.
I would encourage all photographers to do this with their work. Signing the emulsion is alright, but I question the archival nature of emulsified inks. Signing the mats looks good, and you can then use pencil, but the mat and photo may part ways. By signing the back the information will always stay with the art.
Personally I find the signature distracting. The quality of the work is not based on where the artist signs the piece. It is important for the provenance to have the information about the piece and the artist with the piece. A number of the photographers I work with sign in the margin and then ask that I cover the signature with the matting. Authenticity can be confirmed easily.
An alternative to signing the work is to put an embossed chop mark in the margins.
 
Fiskars makes a special gold pen that is for signing photographs, it writes and feels like a normal ballpoint pen, it also comes in silver, blue and red. We get lots of photographs with signatures in, most of them are in the bottom right hand corner. Our pet peeve is when they sign less than an eighth of an inch from either corner of the photo. We've finally trained some of them to sign about a quarter of an inch up and in off of the side. We also get the customers with the existing mat that the artist chose constantly, other than rolling your eyes and pointing to the displays on the wall of paintings, photographs and memorabilia all framed to the nines, there isn't much you can do. My personal favourite is when the artist or photographer comes in with the customer and you end up trying not to throw them out because they think that they know best and are confusing the customer because the customer doesn't want to offend them, but they like our idea better...sigh...

Nikki
 
#1 A photographer writing his name on a matboard? You gotta be kidding... If so, why not me put my own name below his??? ...I FRAMED IT... that's what makes HIS photo look so good...

# 2 A few years ago, a customer who moved down here from another state and was telling me about family photos she didn't like because of the extra large photographer's autograph on each photo (she had a total of 6 ..8x10, 11x14, 16x20’s). When she came back to pick an order a week later she came in with one of the photos to show me how large the signature was... I couldn’t believe it! Movie star signatures are not that big! After examining the photo carefully, I spotted a few fingerprints, so I gave her a couple of ounces of "Unseal Adhesive Releasing Solvent", to help remove a few "f-i-n-g-e-r-p-r-i-n-t-s". By "accident", when she was removing "fingerprints", she “accidently” rubbed away the gold ink signature. ... ahhhhh. (What a shame! lol) I framed them
all a few weeks later...

#3 I suggest photographers use silver or gold paint pens and sign them in an inconspicuous space, and very small. A place where they are easy to find, but doesn’t look like a movie star’s autograph.


[This message has been edited by ajhohen (edited June 21, 2001).]
 
....and those mats are not only pulp mats and the wrong color, but usually appear to have been cut with a utility knive without so much as a straightedge.
 
....and those mats are not only pulp mats and the wrong color, but usually appear to have been cut with a utility knive without so much as a straightedge.
 
Want to talk about large signitures that are distracting??

My co-worker/friend showed me a piece she is framing for her cousin. The photographer not only convinced the newlyweds to purchase a 22x28 photo, he mounted it on board (that always bugs me) and then signed in BLUE marker/pen (the picture was primarily earth tones) with his signiture, and his studios name.... it's HUGE... I'd have to say the entire thing takes up the lenth of the bottom of the photo, roughly 2" tall!!!! We aren't matting it, because they didn't want it any larger, but heck, I Want too, let's cover that up!!!

Photographers! Sheesh!
 
Speaking of photographers, we had a woman come into the shop with a handful of lovely portraits of herself and her children that had been purposely printed to odd sizes....just so she would either have to get them custom-framed, or buy the photographer's "oh so handy" pre-matted, readymade frames.

She said she had assumed she'd get the portraits framed in standard sizes, but she was so angry at the photographer for trying to corner the market and make even more money off her that she opted to custom frame them elsewhere. LOL

Which happened to be our shop. Bad move on his part, good move for us.
wink.gif


------------------
I don't care what color your sofa is.
 
Don't get me started! Too late:)
{Start Rant}
We do some work for a photographer that wanted us to rubber stamp his signature on our mats. It took us a while, but we no longer perform this requirement...
Another had the gall to request Aus$125 for an 8x10 reprint for our customer, when the typical cost at a professional lab is $10-12 tops! They explained that the price was to ensure professional colour reproduction, yadda, yadda, bulldust, yadda, etc... The copy (I haggled them down to $95 - whew) looked nothing like the original, despite being made from the original neg.
I also have a bit of a problem with the concept of photographer copyright. If I pay a photographer for a picture of myself, I would expect the priviledge of being allowed to copy it myself. It's not like it's a flamming Picasso, after all. I have seen photomart type baby pics which were better than some of the 'professional' pictures taken by photographers.
{End Rant}
Thanks for providing a forum to get that of my chest :)
Cheers,
Mike (aka Bulldust BTW)

[This message has been edited by CAF (edited June 23, 2001).]
 
Hi CAF: You stated: "I also have a bit of a problem with the concept of photographer copyright. If I pay a photographer for a picture of myself, I would expect the priviledge of being allowed to copy it myself. It's not like it's a flamming Picasso, after all. I have seen photomart type baby pics which were better than some of the 'professional' pictures taken by photographers."

I agree 100%. Next time, do like i did. I went to a photographer, got a price from him on family photos (1-16x20, 1-8x10). I thought about the price he quoted me, BUT, told him ONLY if i get all the negatives. He agreed, but hesitated, then I asked him how much, but for ONLY the negatives, no photos. He thought about it for a few minutes, then agreed...negatives only. If he wouldn't have, i would have gone to another photographer. For one 16x20 and one 8x10, it would have cost me $275.00. He sold me the "negatives only" for the same amount...$275.00 I had them professionally developed (1-18x24, 2-16x20, 4-8x10, and 6-5x7's) for $165.00! I have been suggesting this to my customers since then and have been getting great compliments on my suggestion ever since...except from a few unhappy photographers. lol


[This message has been edited by ajhohen (edited June 23, 2001).]
 
Ah yes- then there is Olin Mills with their family pak on stretched canvas, that the customer has a heart attack when you quote them the price for framing canvas that they didn't ask for in the first place. I thought I could make this sentence longer, but I could'nt.
 
Artist,
Our fire dept. does a fundraiser every year with Olin Mills doing the photography. I'm always thrilled to see those photos come in. Stretched canvas is fine with me too! They fit great in the readymades that I order prior to the fundraiser for the customers that won't go the price of custom framing. Easy work!
 
I see your point about the outrageous price of duplicate prints, but I must quibble over the copyright. (And I am a hobbyist photographer who has never sold a thing. LOL)

Photography is an art, just like anything else; if he had painted a picture of you, instead of taking one, would you own the painting as well? Of course not; it's his art, and he has a right to make money off it. I have had women come in who are practically foaming at the mouth over the fact that they can't just take the negatives and reprint them at Eckerd's, and it never ceases to amaze me. Photography is like any thing else--it is a BUSINESS. The photographer owns the negatives, and if you want to sidestep his fee for the prints by doing it yourself, you have to buy them. And as any savvy consumer knows, you have to settle over EXACTLY what you're getting BEFORE you hand over your money. People make the mistake of assuming that they can just take the negatives along with the prints, and then get all bent out of shape over it later.

As for the quality of the photographs--that's an entirely different question. Anyone who goes to Olan Mills should expect the sort of canned, mass-produced portraits they see on the wall; to complain about them after the fact seems silly. They're the Hobby Lobby of photography, and you get what you pay for.....and as a word to the wise, if you go to a studio and you like the samples you see, ask who took them, and make sure that the photographer who took them is going to take YOUR pictures, too.

Otherwise you could be left with the greenest photographer in the building. LOL

------------------
I don't care what color your sofa is.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top