signing prints and edition number

[mminegis]

While the half of the population is busy downloading or viewing the LR2 guide   like myself, I have prints to sign for an exhibition and I need to add the edition number too.

Do you put:

your signature, 1/10

or

1/10, your signature

or do you add the year too, after your signature, 2008?

Basically I'd like to know the conventional way to do it... and I would sign bottom right hand side (and the title would go left hand side but I don't think I would write down the title).

[Edhopkins]

Replying for my wife who is working away on her latest shoot, but who has a fine arts background, she always puts her name and date at the bottom on the right and the print edition, etc. information on the bottom on the left side.  According to her, this is the traditional way to do it.

(question how big are your "editions'?  We are baffled by this question. It is not as if any of us would run off everything in an "edition" and then delete the files so we can't do any more. We will print them on demand.  And has anyone ever asked you about what you mean by "edition" or "limited edition"?  The best answer we can come up with is: Trust me.  I am a person of integrity.)

Hope this helps.

Ed in Baltimore

[silverhalide]

or, if you are going to title them it is usually title lower left, date followed by signature or initials or the opposite & edition centered, like 1/10. This is pretty traditional printmaking wise. As we are hypothetically in the Post Modern era, anything goes . . .

Michael

[mminegis]

Thank you for the suggestions! I think I will try title (left), edition (centered) and name 2008 (right) to see how it looks like.
In the end, it all will be hidden after matting and framing so no one else is going to see it unless  disassembled!

[framah]

It doesn't have to be hidden, you know. You can leave a reveal around the image and let your name  and such show. Again, that is the "traditional" way to do it.
you can also redo the info on the mat as well if you are going to hide it on the print.

[DougMorgan]

Are you using the date signed, the date printed or the date the photo was taken?  

Some subjects do better without any dates as it gives the composition more of a "timeless" quality.    I've been asked not to date images like cityscapes as it can make the finished product seem out-of-date and harder to sell as the years pass.

YMMV, of course
Doug

[mminegis]

That's a very valid point - thank you. I was considering putting '2008' but maybe not.
(and today's What The Duck has a future observation re 'dated' prints       )

[sesshin]

I've released a number of limited editions for different artists and everyone has their preference, but as far as I can tell there is no standard. Some people do Number:Left, Title:Middle, Signature:Right, others just do it all on the right. Some artists like to sign in the white border, others don't like the white border and actually sign on the print itself.

What I've come to prefer lately though is having the artist sign once on the back of the print, frame it without a white border and then attaching a Certificate of Authenticity to the back of the frame with every little last piece of information about the print possible; who/where/how it was printed, date, number, signature, etc.. This seems to please collectors who want an unadulterated image to hang on their walls but still want the verifiable authenticity of a limited edition.

[DotCom Editor]

What about signing gallery-wrapped canvas?

With regular prints, I use 8-ply archival mat and sign in three places: on the mat, on the print (in the border area, which is hidden by the mat), and on the back of the print.

What I haven't figured out is how to sign canvas, whether gallery-wrapped or float framed.

David Ziser has a fascinating technique to turn your signature into a Photoshop brush and stamp on the print in embossed gold. Looks good, and is certainly handy for a wedding shoot with hundreds of prints, but I'm not sure I'd want to do this on the body of a canvas print. His tutorial is here:
http://www.digitalprotalk.com/DAZ%20Media/...h%20Lesson.html

I'd enjoy hearing your suggestions.

[DougMorgan]

For large canvas prints I use a Pilot Super Marker Metallic Gold or Silver before coating.   Shake well and test before each use as they can let out a big blob at the start and then one smallish signature lower left or right far enough from the edge to allow for any common framing option.   I have horrible handwriting and the thought of having to legibly sign a print three times gives me the willies.

For small ones it's too much bother and I've just got a signature layer in photoshop though I've yet to get a color even close to a real metallic marker.

Doug

[luong]

Personally, I use left: location, year taken, right: signature, edition number.
The logic is that the left group is the image information (similar to what appears in a book), while the right group is print information.

I don't think you should hide inscriptions, unless expressly told to do so by a customer. Information can be useful, and you should be proud to sign your print. I frame with a reveal, and from a discussion with other photographers, this is the most common way to do it.

[Rusty]

Lower left title + year image made, Lower Right sign + year printed. I leave a reveal around the print and also print my logo bottom centre which is covered by the mat (LR makes this easy). below that I note the image file no., you never know when another order for the same image may come. I do not edition.

[bill t.]

What I've come to prefer lately though is having the artist sign once on the back of the print, frame it without a white border and then attaching a Certificate of Authenticity to the back of the frame with every little last piece of information about the print possible; who/where/how it was printed, date, number, signature, etc.. This seems to please collectors who want an unadulterated image to hang on their walls but still want the verifiable authenticity of a limited edition.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like that style.  IMHO visible signatures and text and the extra white space etc simply detract from the image by adding a fiddly perimeter of irrelevant stuff.  It greatly changes the perception of the image.  And it's a little too self-important somehow.  And it invokes the issue of "print" versus "original" which is a place non-collector buyers maybe don't need or want to go.  Painters sign their originals rather sparingly...what makes those photographers think they should write a book around the edges of their prints?

One guy I know has a large, high quality rubber stamp of a form with all the above info.  He just stamps the back of the mount, fills it out.  It looks very professional and satisfies the collectors.

[BruceHouston]

I would just add to the foregoing ideas that there are legal formalities associated with various levels of copyright protection in the U.S.  A "mid-level" protection obtains by adding the following "public notice" to the work: © (artist's name) (year when the "artistic expression" was first embodied in a "tangible medium").  (Note that in the case of photography it is the year when the in-camera flash card was written with the image, or when the film frame was exposed.)

Thus, for example: © John Smith, 2008.

[luong]

I like that style.  IMHO visible signatures and text and the extra white space etc simply detract from the image by adding a fiddly perimeter of irrelevant stuff.  It greatly changes the perception of the image.  And it's a little too self-important somehow.  And it invokes the issue of "print" versus "original" which is a place non-collector buyers maybe don't need or want to go.  Painters sign their originals rather sparingly...what makes those photographers think they should write a book around the edges of their prints?

One guy I know has a large, high quality rubber stamp of a form with all the above info.  He just stamps the back of the mount, fills it out.  It looks very professional and satisfies the collectors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If someone doesn't like the inscriptions and the white border, he can just matte to the edge of the print. Painters sign and often write the year in the artwork, which does not even give you the option to frame that out.  The title of the piece is often inscribed in the frame itself.  Sure, no edition number is needed, but that's about the element of the "book" missing.

Per the Berne convention, no inscriptions whatsoever are needed for copyright protection, which is the last thing one has in mind in signing a print. Certain US states (and maybe countries) do require a certificate of authenticity for limited edition prints, but that's independent of whether the prints are signed or not.

[bobalu]

I am about to send some panos to the framer and need to sign them. I know how I am going to sign and where... my issue is what to use to do the signing on Ilford's Baryta paper. I love the paper, but it looks as if it will be harder to use a #2 pencil on this stuff. Old air dried F surface darkroom paper was easier, but this is a tough problem. After finally getting great sales and gallery recognition, I can't see using a sharpie or the silver or gold "shake well first" permanent marker. Anyone know what to use?

[titusbear]

I agree that there is no 'standard.'  
There is, probably, a great deal of difference between a 'limited' (but mass market photo image) and an accepted 'fine art' documentation. Most 'mass market' photogs might simply sign their prints, or even provide some info re: print #, etc. That's fine for the mass market, but leads to all sorts of problems re: documentation of a 'fine art' piece down the road.
Documentation for true 'fine art' images is more sophisticated and involved - and any half qualified gallery /conservator /collector would/should demand it. Look at the documentation from  Sotheby's or Christie's re: fine art photos /mixed media.  While a photog/artist cannot track what eventually happens to each print they produce, they can document each individual image by documenting:
- the exact file name used to produce the image (critical re: detecting forgeries)
- the 'basics' of the print (i.e. printer, paper, inks and settings used)
- the exact size of the printed image (to 1/100's of an inch /cm)
- a unique identifier for that specific print - to be kept as a master catalog of the photog's /artist's work. (all sorts of low tech to high tech ways of doing this.)
- some idea where the print first went (to make life much easier down the road re: provenance).  

A signature /date /title  print # and identifier - supported by the remaining documentation kept in a secure /organzied manner would make galleries /conservators /collectors more at ease - especially when the image price in more than 'mass market'.

[Colorwave]

While we are addressing authentication issues, I'm wondering what others think of the Hahnemuhle certificate system with holographic identification.  I think that it does pose some value, including marketing value, of course, but wonder if something entirely custom might be better still, if it has enough information on it (along the lines of what titusbear mentions).  I'm not sure that the hologram has much true value, although it certainly sounds good on paper.
-Ron H.

[ashaughnessy]

Re: signing baryta papers and what type of pen/pencil to use - I use an indian ink brush pen (bought from an art supplies shop). It writes very easily and dries almost instantly and is a pleasing mid-grey shade. The downside is that it has a soft (but narrow) brush instead of a nib and so is difficult to write neatly with. Pencils don't seem to work at all (I use Harman FbAl).
Anthony

[JohnBrew]

Re: signing baryta papers and what type of pen/pencil to use - I use an indian ink brush pen (bought from an art supplies shop). It writes very easily and dries almost instantly and is a pleasing mid-grey shade. The downside is that it has a soft (but narrow) brush instead of a nib and so is difficult to write neatly with. Pencils don't seem to work at all (I use Harman FbAl).
Anthony
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for that info. I've been using an Ultra Fine Sharpie after the print thoroughly dries, but it leaves a sheen much like a ball-point pen. Plus, trying to write on a color print (not the margins) can be trying.