Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: torger on December 19, 2011, 01:12:13 pm

Title: Signing fine art prints
Post by: torger on December 19, 2011, 01:12:13 pm
I'm trying to get serious about fine art prints. I've made a few prints and framed them (passe-partout behind glass). I've provided no text or signature anywere on the finished product, not on the print, not on the backside of the frame, not under the passe-partout. So it could be the work of anyone :-).

My handwriting looks kind of ugly, and I don't really want a signature in the corner disturbing the fullness of the picture. But I guess somehow the print should be marked with my signature, and perhaps be numbered. Perhaps only putting a label on the backside of the frame is enough and leave the print untouched, or signing the print, and having a label on the backside of the frame with further information. I don't really know how people use to do it.

Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: MichaelWorley on December 19, 2011, 02:38:58 pm

Look here:

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/?tag=signing-prints

then sign up and get his full lesson for free.

Mike
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: JonathanRimmel on December 19, 2011, 03:40:13 pm
I was going to ask a similar question myself. After seeing how both Jeff and Micheal sign their prints, I was wondering how everyone else went about it. Should I sign the print? Front vs Back? Sign the mat? Pen/Pencil?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: mstevensphoto on December 19, 2011, 04:30:06 pm
"sharpee pens fade" - never mind that, they're loaded with acid.

I sign with an oil paint pen on canvases and a pigment pen on the rest. I elect to sign in a visible but not obnoxious manner, no signing the back for me. you'd want your original painting signed, I sign my original work - I firmly believe that it increases the value and it costs more to get a signed original than an unsigned reprint.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: torger on December 19, 2011, 05:00:33 pm
My idea would be to sign with say my name, date, print number on the white border outside the print, and then cover the darn thing with the mat and frame it all behind glass, and then possibly sign the back of the frame too and/or add a printed label with some extra info (photo title / location etc) so you don't necessarily need to take it all apart.

That is use the signing just for authenticity but not have it displayed... but perhaps I would be the first doing that way?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: JeffKohn on December 19, 2011, 05:19:52 pm
Approach I've taken is to sign the front in the margin, customer can choose to frame with or without reveal to show signature. I also write the print title, print number, and print date on the back along with my signature again.

I use pigma pigment ink pens for gloss/semigloss print, and pencil for matte prints.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: framah on December 19, 2011, 06:10:44 pm
Trust me... no matter HOW you decide to do it, you won't be the first!!

In reality, there is no one way, right or wrong, to do it. Look around at what's being done and say to yourself... "Yeah, I like how that looks!! I'm going to do it like THAT!"
You now a signature style. Congratulations!!
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mary K on December 19, 2011, 06:13:42 pm
I, too, have poor handwriting.  My solution is to sign my prints with a Wacom tablet before submitting the image to the printer.  That way I can trash a poor signature and replace it with something a little better.  It is a bit time consuming, as I create a new signature for each and every print, including additional prints of the same image.

Another benefit is that I don't have to worry about archival issues, as my signature is laid down using the same pigment inks as the print. 
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mike Guilbault on December 19, 2011, 06:16:08 pm
I use pigma pigment ink pens for gloss/semigloss print, and pencil for matte prints.

Why don't you use the pigma pens on matte prints?  That's what I started doing and seems to work fine.  I sign outside the image in the margin/border. I usually number the print there as well, and the title is printed on during the printing of the image (using an identity plate in LR).

I am looking at pencils for my matte printed portraits since those tend to be matted without leaving a border and I need to sign on the image area.  I've tried several, but haven't found one I'm happy with yet.  Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: JonathanRimmel on December 19, 2011, 06:20:22 pm
Everyone so far has some fantastic ideas. I think my approach may be like this: Sign with a pigment ink pen on the border of the print and again on the back with print name, year, number etc. Then optional reveal. Perhaps additionally add some kind of label to the back of the frame as well. In some cases a plate on the front. I am not sure I will ever use pencil. The Wacom idea is good, although it may take a bit more time. I do wonder however, about open editions, limited editions, etc. (how I will indicate this)
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mike Guilbault on December 19, 2011, 06:25:56 pm
I, too, have poor handwriting.  My solution is to sign my prints with a Wacom tablet before submitting the image to the printer.  That way I can trash a poor signature and replace it with something a little better.  It is a bit time consuming, as I create a new signature for each and every print, including additional prints of the same image.

Another benefit is that I don't have to worry about archival issues, as my signature is laid down using the same pigment inks as the print.  

This may be worth a separate discussion and I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I'll make my remarks here to start. If a moderator would like to move this, please feel free.

I have a Wacom signed signature that I saved and will use occasionally on non-edition prints. From what I understand reading this forum, the 'digital signature' is pretty much frowned upon by art collectors.  However, Mary's idea of creating a new signature for each print, although digital would be as unique as a hand-written signature is intriguing. It's then printed as archival as the image itself and is the artist's own writing AND is unique to every print.

How do you think the art community would view that?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mike Guilbault on December 19, 2011, 06:28:40 pm
I do wonder however, about open editions, limited editions, etc. (how I will indicate this)

Are you wondering which to use, open or limited, or simply how to indicate this on the print?

Since I number my prints right on the front (opposite side of my signature in the margin), I either indicate the print number of an open edition (I still number them, but they're not limited), or if it's a LE, then I indicate the print number 'of' the limit. ie. #12 / 50.

I also include a printed card (5.5 x 8.5") which has the image printed at the top, usually about 5x3", and then a description of the image and details including exposure, date taken, conditions, reason, etc., and then at the bottom include the printing information including treatment (B&W, Sepia, etc), paper used, printer, inks, etc., and finally the serial number (filename) of the image and when that particular print was made. 
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: JonathanRimmel on December 19, 2011, 06:31:39 pm
Are you wondering which to use, open or limited, or simply how to indicate this on the print?

Since I number my prints right on the front (opposite side of my signature in the margin), I either indicate the print number of an open edition (I still number them, but they're not limited), or if it's a LE, then I indicate the print number 'of' the limit. ie. #12 / 50.

Thank you, I was trying to just figure out how to indicate it on a print. I think most of my prints will be open editions with a few exceptions.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mike Guilbault on December 19, 2011, 06:34:23 pm
If they're open editions, I don't think it really matters if they're numbered or not.  I like doing so just so I know how many have been sold.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: luxborealis on December 19, 2011, 11:24:05 pm
FWIW - I sign on the back in pencil and include the print date. I also sign the matt on the front. I offer my prints matted (in most cases) for protection and presentation purposes. Buyers also receive a "certificate" card as shown.

Below the printed image in the white paper margin, I use Lightroom's Identity Plate in the Page palette of the Print Module to print "An original photograph by Terry A. McDonald – www.luxBorealis.com" as well as the "Photo Info" (also in the Page palette) to print the "Title" from my metadata. If the photograph is ever removed from the mat, it can still be identified.

I do not number and have issues with the artificiality of limited editions, so avoid those (you know, make it appear more valuable than it is because it's "limited" - that is until another run is done at a slightly different size which is totally acceptable from a marketing point of view, albeit deceitful - but that's another forum post altogether!).

Really, photographers should be signing their work in the same way watercolourists do - on the front within the work itself - but for some reason it is frowned upon (perhaps it makes us look like we are trying to be painters, I dunno ???)

I also market each matted/framed work as an original photograph, trying never to use the word "print". Although we call them prints, to me each one is a finished and original photograph. I think it is important that photographers push this concept. After all, these are not lithographs run off a hundred or a thousand at a time (although they could be). Nor are they simply knock-offs of an original work - they are photographs!
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: torger on December 20, 2011, 04:13:22 am
I, too, have poor handwriting.  My solution is to sign my prints with a Wacom tablet before submitting the image to the printer.  That way I can trash a poor signature and replace it with something a little better.  It is a bit time consuming, as I create a new signature for each and every print, including additional prints of the same image.

Another benefit is that I don't have to worry about archival issues, as my signature is laid down using the same pigment inks as the print. 

Isn't it a problem from authenticity standpoint? I mean you cannot sign a check by putting into the printer and have your signature printed on it, even if you made it unique. Wouldn't it be better for future authenticity checks if the signature is made with a pen of some sort?
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: torger on December 20, 2011, 04:32:05 am
Thanks for all the feedback on how you experienced guys do.

I don't think a signature adds to the visual part of the photograph, especially not mine since it looks like sh*te :-) so I don't want it visible, but that's only my personal taste, I can understand if one wants it visible like the tradition to sign a painting.

What I find valuable is that the print is authorized by the photographer personally (many artistic decisions is made from raw file to finished printed product), and signed to indicate that.

I don't really like the concept of limited editions, but customers seem to like it, and it seems to work as a trick to be able to charge more money. I have not yet decided if I will adopt it, I don't think I will, but numbering the prints can be good anyway to be able to identify in which order they were made. I may for example change the post-processing slightly to new prints as I evolve as printmaker.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mary K on December 20, 2011, 08:11:49 am
Isn't it a problem from authenticity standpoint? I mean you cannot sign a check by putting into the printer and have your signature printed on it, even if you made it unique. Wouldn't it be better for future authenticity checks if the signature is made with a pen of some sort?

I don't know.  I have received checks with the signature printed or stamped on them, and the signature was not even unique.  I never had a problem cashing one. How would my signing on a print make it more authentic than signing in a print?   
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: luxborealis on December 20, 2011, 08:27:55 am
Signing "on" a print with a pencil/pigment pen or "in" a print digitally probably does not matter at this stage. It all depends on how famous you plan to become. ;D

Authenticity becomes paramount when a price is being determined for an artist's work (perhaps posthumously!!) A digital signature can be copied and pasted quite easily using scanning technology so a work with a digital signature can't carry the same value due to some small doubt about its authenticity. A digital signature can also be copied well after the artist leaves this world which creates further doubt ("Is it real or is it Memorex"?)

A work with the artist's real signature on it is potentially worth more because it is "more real" and after the artist passes on it is no longer possible to have a real signature. It's not unlike autographs: if you were collecting celebrity autographs, would you prefer (pay more for) a real pen and ink autograph or one that is digitally produced?

I realise this probably has little bearing on the vast majority of photographers who sell locally and do not become "collected". But if you do, then your works with real signatures will automatically be worth more, which will make all of your patrons, friends and relatives who own your work that much happier about it!
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: torger on December 20, 2011, 09:04:44 am
I don't know.  I have received checks with the signature printed or stamped on them, and the signature was not even unique.  I never had a problem cashing one. How would my signing on a print make it more authentic than signing in a print?   

I thought that it may be a pedagogical problem. That the customer sees it is a printed signature and then thinks it is a mass-produced print with signature and all, because she/he does not know that you do prepare a new digital file with a new signature for each print. I realize that there may be a difference in culture though, here in Sweden we are quite often reminded in legal papers etc that it must be a real signature made with a pen, and you need to mail the papers instead of faxing them etc. That is the "hand-written signature by pen" has a quite strong status as authenticity mark here, while a printed signature is associated with mass-distributed material.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: RFPhotography on December 20, 2011, 09:15:07 am
Isn't it a problem from authenticity standpoint? I mean you cannot sign a check by putting into the printer and have your signature printed on it, even if you made it unique. Wouldn't it be better for future authenticity checks if the signature is made with a pen of some sort?

Actually, yes you can.  Facsimile signatures are extremely commonplace in the corporate world.  Too many cheques being written to waste a senior exec's time manually signing.  Manual signatures, these days, are really only done by small businesses that can't justify the expense of the cheque printing/signing printers and related software.  Even cheques are going the way of the Dodo bird as more payments are done electronically.

Back to the original question, though.... Historically it was considered bad form to sign on the actual printed area.  The print is sacred and should stand on its own, unadulterated by a signature. Photographers today who don't have the sense of history or haven't learned from an 'older' pro will have a greater tendency to sign in the printed area.  This is becoming more true with newer media like canvas where the image is being treated more as, and considered as more like, a painting than a photograph.  Borderless printing methods also make it difficult to avoid signing inside the printed area unless the signature is on the reverse.  Farming out printing and framing/presentation also makes it difficult to have the print signed, which is a good reason only to farm out printing (if you have to farm out anything at all) and have the print delivered back to you for presentation before it goes to the customer.  If signing on the reverse, care needs to be taken where the signature is placed so that it doesn't affect the front of the print from pressure of the pen/pencil.

As far as what is used to sign, if you're going to use conservation methods and materials then you want to do the same with the signature or any other information included on the print.  Pencil is a classic.  There are numerous types of pens available that are labeled as acid free.  

Editioning is what it is.  And there are arguments on both sides of the fence as to the worthiness of editioning.  But there's no reason not to sign an open edition print.  What you may consider doing is providing a certificate of authenticity.  Terry's posted an example.  I do something similar.  What I also do (and, again, there are arguments on both sides) is create a unique alphanumeric identifier for each print.  That identifier is written on the print and is put on the COA.  I tell buyers that the two should be kept together or if the COA is to be stored separately, it should be kept in a place where it won't get lost, damaged or forgotten.  Personally, I sign on a non-visible area of the print.  Typically that's the unprinted border or for canvas on a portion of the canvas that will be wrapped around a stretcher.  With matted/framed prints, I also sign on the mat.  

Re: manual or digital signatures on prints, while cheques can have facsimile signatures, doing so on a print would lend credence to the audience that feels photography isn't as legitimate an art form as other visual arts.  It lends credence to the idea that the photographic print is a 'reproduction' and not an original.  Quality of handwriting really shouldn't matter.  Plenty of artists have/had bad handwriting.  Sign the prints manually.  Manual signing also lends a more personal touch and removes the idea that it's simply a mass produced piece that could be bought at Wallyworld.  A signature in pencil will always be evident as manual but with some pens, it can look like a reproduction.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mary K on December 20, 2011, 10:42:58 am
Several of you have provided excellent comments that have me rethinking this issue. 

I think it would be difficult to tell my Wacom signature from a pen signature on many of my prints, but it might be noticed on some.  While I know that each print signature is unique, it hadn't dawned on me that the buying public wouldn't know that -- short sighted of me! 
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: framah on December 20, 2011, 04:30:09 pm
For those who are planning to write on the back of the print or put ANYTHING on the back of the print...

remember that if you press too hard, you will  impress the lines into the paper and that will telegraph to the front.

If you aren't careful as to where you write,  you may be in a light area and that will also make the pencil lead or pigments show thru the paper.

The other thing is don't put a sticker on the back anywhere in the same area as the art on the front.

I'm saying this only because I have already seen it on work that has come into my shop to be framed.

Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: ckimmerle on December 20, 2011, 06:49:59 pm
For you folks considering digital signatures on your prints, I think you need to really think about what a signature is supposed to mean. It's not a decoration, nor should it be taken lightly. It's a symbol that you, as the artist, have individually certified that a specific piece of work is to your standards. If you can't even be bothered to sing your own work, how can you expect anyone else to take you seriously.

As for poor penmanship, you don't have to use your actual signature. As my normal written signature is done very quickly and is quite haphazard and unreadable, I have resorted to simply PRINTING my name beneath the images. Nobody has ever questioned me about it, nor do I think they even care.

How you sign is not important. Signing is!
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Rick Popham on December 20, 2011, 07:18:13 pm
As for me, I always sign under the image -- bottom right.  Sometimes I'll put a title and location on the bottom left.  If I'm matting the print (which is usual), I leave 1/4 inch of paper showing around the image, which leaves my signature visible.  If I'm using matte paper, I sign in pencil.  Lately I've been printing on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or the similar Canson Baryta paper, and pencil doesn't work.  I tried a black Staedtler pigment pen, which works well, but looks very stark.  I prefer something that looks more like pencil. 

I found a Sharpie product that uses "Liquid Graphite" which works pretty well on the glossier papers.  I'm not sure how archival it is though.

This fall I bought a print from Ctein during one of the print sales at The Online Photographer.  Printed on IGFS, it looked like he had signed and titled it in pencil.  When I asked him about it, he said that he was using a calligraphy pen with the light-light black K3 ink. I thought that was a really good idea, but I haven't experimented with it yet.  It might be worth getting one of the smaller cartridges to try it out.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mary K on December 20, 2011, 07:54:55 pm
For you folks considering digital signatures on your prints, I think you need to really think about what a signature is supposed to mean. It's not a decoration, nor should it be taken lightly. It's a symbol that you, as the artist, have individually certified that a specific piece of work is to your standards. If you can't even be bothered to sing your own work, how can you expect anyone else to take you seriously.

As for poor penmanship, you don't have to use your actual signature. As my normal written signature is done very quickly and is quite haphazard and unreadable, I have resorted to simply PRINTING my name beneath the images. Nobody has ever questioned me about it, nor do I think they even care.

How you sign is not important. Signing is!

I presently sign my prints with a Wacom tablet, and believe me when I say that signing each print this way is much more time consuming than signing the print with pen or pencil after I've made the print.  I signed all of my prints with pen or pencil up until about six months ago when I started selling canvas wraps.  Since then I have been signing my canvas wraps with my Wacom tablet before printing, and each signature is unique, which is to say that every print I make has a unique signature unlike any other, including reprints. 

As a result of this discussion I am rethinking this practice, but as you say, none of my customers has complained, nor do I think they care. 

I agree with your last statement:  How you sign is not important - signing is.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 20, 2011, 08:25:23 pm
As for poor penmanship, you don't have to use your actual signature. As my normal written signature is done very quickly and is quite haphazard and unreadable, I have resorted to simply PRINTING my name beneath the images. Nobody has ever questioned me about it, nor do I think they even care.
+1 since my handwriting is poor as well.  I print my name 0.3 micron Pigma pen.  It works well on both gloss and matte paper.  If I'm selling matted and or framed works I sign on the over mat as I like to have the mat covering the full image since I mount with Mylar photo corners.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Mike Guilbault on December 20, 2011, 11:40:17 pm
I tend to agree with the 'real' signature side of the equation.  There's something about actually putting pen to paper that may not only be more authentic legally, but adds that personal touch.  I quite often will sign the print while the customer is there to witness it. In effect, it becomes part of the delivery ritual.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: BarbaraArmstrong on December 30, 2011, 01:49:45 am
This is for those of you who may be worried about their handwriting.  I recall seeing a video recently of Henry Kissinger signing the Paris Peace Accords to bring our involvement in the Vietnam War to an end.  He simply printed a bold H and K, with the forward vertical of the H forming the back of the K; the two printed initials were simply run together. It formed a very simple and very individual "signature."  And obviously, printing is just fine.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: texshooter on December 30, 2011, 01:06:26 pm
use an ultraviolet invisible ink pen.
Title: Re: Signing fine art prints
Post by: Geraldo Garcia on December 31, 2011, 01:11:51 am
The following reflects my own opinion, based on what I am used to do and on what I see in on European and South American galleries:

Number on the left (##/## or A.P. or P.P.) , title on the center (usually between quotes) and signature or initials on the right, written with pencil or pigmented pen below the image on the white border.

If it deserves a signature or, even more, a numbered limited series, it should be treated with the proper respect and care. That means archival (reversible) mounting with an over mat (passe-partout) and printing with nice and wide white borders. Drymounting, facemounting and other procedures are very nice for decoration-oriented images but are not appropriated for signed and numbered pieces of art.

I never sign on the mat. Honestly, I think it is ugly and makes no sense. Think about it a bit: if your prints are signed below the image the final owner have the option to show the signature with a nice reveal (mat window cut bigger than the image) or hide it with the over mat. A signed mat will force the owner to re-mat the piece and who knows where the mat with your signature will end? Nah... Ugly and makes no sense.

Again, no "rules" here, only my opinions.

Best regards.