Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: JackR on June 01, 2004, 10:18:20 pm
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I sign on the front of the image in the white border and on the matte. If someone wants to reframe it they still have a signed print.
This way when I become the Ansel Adams of the 1Ds their art will retain it's value;-)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Always nice to hear that someone's selling prints. The 'norm' is that you sign on the bottom right, and I put a comma after my name, followed by the year the image was made. The title goes on the left, followed by edition info (3/20, for example). I do this in pencil, small and just dark enough to be legible, but not distracting from the print. Pencil is also good from an archival standpoint. I also mat with white space around all sides of the image, a bit more at the bottom.
On the back of the print, again in pencil, I write the same information but add some things. After my name, I put my city, should anyone want to track me down after a generation or so. I put the place the photograph was made (just city, state, or city, country). I put the paper and the inkset used to make that print, and I put the month and year the print was made, all for conservation information, should it ever come to that. 6 lines, in all. But then, I don't do editions of 200.
You will want to select a hardness of pencil that does not require you to bear down at all on the paper, which would leave an impression on the front. Some trial and error will be necessary. For my particular paper, I use a 4B for the front and a 6B for the back. God only knows if any of my photographs are worth all this trouble, but there you have it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Limited editions...Just wondering what that means to different people.
To me Greg Heins' 3 of 20 example would do fine. It makes it "trackable". If you run across another 3 of 20, or suddenly a 5 of 250 of the same image, well, that will certainly kill any credibility of the artist.
As for the location of the print: why not make it a customer option where you say it will be printed on the back, but by request also at the front, in your choice of light or dark print, visible in the margin or not, etc... Vanity of some customers may even go so far as wanting their name printed as well!? Which btw isn't such a bad idea, to have a form of tracking table at the back of the photograph where owners can jot down their name, year & loc...[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']There's another reason pencil is preferred... it can't be copied the way ink can. Almost all artists sign their work in pencil on the mat for that reason.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jean-Loup Sieff (I believe it was him) once argued that since producing a fine print represented so much effort the number of prints in circulation would be limited by the nature of the process of making them. This is not really true for digital prints anymore, although the price for a good inkjet print will still deter the masses. Selling posters is a different business.
A more fundamental question: Why do you want to number your prints?? I believe numbering is supposed to suggest to the potential buyer he/she buys a rare item, having a potential to become collectible and be resold at a higher price. Are your photos really collector-grade? I see this practice as both pretentious and self-limiting.
Why would you be interested in the evolution of the commercial value of your prints? If you become more popular, you simply charge more for new stuff, and demand will go down automatically.
If you are a successful artist, you are lucky to sell what is popular to allow you to move on with what you are doing. You are still free not to sell to somebody you don't like. Free to reprint a picture if a buyer's dog chewed on it, or if the kids painted a moustache on the lady's portrait.
If I buy a picture it is because I like it. If I want to speculate I buy financial instruments (paper shares of companies gone bust a long time ago can be decorative as well, agreed).[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
They reason frame and mat is their work, and the print is mine.
Your kidding, right?
I'd find a new matt and frame shop if I were you.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Bill,
I have a similar problem. I found a script font on the computer, that actually looks like my signature. Then I print the "signature" and title, edition number on the bottom edge of the print in 1/2" white space. Buyer can mat making it visible or not to suite. I print it with a light grey color and most confuse it for pencil. It is also part of the print that way so it goes with the print not the mat.
I sign it with my scribble on the back as well.
Cheers[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']i've started to sell some of my prints, and i have a couple questions over the minor details of signing and numbering.
is this done on the front or back of the photograph? is there a 'norm', so to speak, for this practice? i'm not sure if it should be visible when framed, or on the back just for verification.
and as to the total number of limited edition prints, in alan briot's article he mentioned 250. again, is there an acceptable 'standard' for fine art limited edition prints?
thanks,
charlie.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']If it's framed, the signature is often just on the matte.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I should add that the signiture in the white border is covered by the matte.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']It is all about perceived value..
There are two things in art.. the image..and the artist .
.do you want to own a signed Picasso or an unsigned one
People want to know something about the artist as much as the art.
So sign it ..and number it..but keep the numbering low to begin with.
Hopefully you have more than one good image in you to sell..
Put two images side by side one signed and numbered and the other not most people will pay a premium for the signed and numbered edition.
"If" your selling …the bottom line is how much…
Just my two cents[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Limited editions...Just wondering what that means to different people.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']My biggest problem is that my signature and hand writing are absolutely horrible. I mean down right ugly. Any suggestions? Practice?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
a good way to make a small fortune in fotografy is to start with a large one.
I heard that a little differently. A photographer won a really big lottery prize and the news interviewers asked him what he did for a living and what he would do now that he's got all this money. The guy said, "Oh, I reckon I'll just keep doing photography until the money runs out". [/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Come to think of it: why not keep a database yourself where which photo is residing. Ask owners to contact you. Store it in an online database. Make part of the info available to respective buyers. In other words: the more transparant you try to make the "limited edition" prints, the more credible it is...[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']And I guess you also do not want the customer to come back to you in ten years for buying another print? You also do not want them to spread the word about the great service offered so you get lots of reveral customers in ten years time? As a matter of fact, you don't want other customers, period.
Read carefully: I wrote *part* of the info. Obviously you don't want to expose private or sensitive info, but something like location, as in city, state, country, could show a sense of transparancy. You keep an initial record. If a customer cares as much about your prints as you do (or should), then they can *optionally* keep their info up-to-date.
It's all meant as an extra service, for which you can justify a different price. If you charge USD5.00 for a print then:
a) it probably wasn't fine art to begin with,
it makes no sense to offer extra services, limit prints, or have the customer come back for a reprint
Mind you, there are certain items for which a track record is common practice or known like diamonds, certain grand pianos, paintings etc...[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The people at the frame shop keep telling me I should sign the print. They reason frame and mat is their work, and the print is mine. Plus if someone takes the photo out of the frame the signature will travel with it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Signing and limited editions are marketing moves, intended to increase "perceived" value on the part of the buyer.
If you do a limited edition and don't compromise that ever (ie. don't ever print #51 of an edition of 50) then there might actually be some real value there too, if your work becomes popular enough (one day, before the lottery proceeds run out).
I see no difference (assuming an honest seller/photographer that sticks to their limits) than a fine art printer only doing x number of Bateman prints. A printer can easily print 100 or 500 or 5000 in a run, so the limited edition is arbitrary there as well. In fact, a printer can probably do this more easily (eg. less time/effort/overhead) than with a good inkjet in the hands of the actual artist. So why not?
I donated some framed, matted fine-art prints in various sizes (5x7, 8x12 and one 13x19) to Bear Creek Exotic Wildlife Sanctuary (www.bearcreeksanctuary.com) for their Golf Day fundraiser silent auction. Since I wanted to have the highest perceived values possible, to ensure that the bids would be as lucrative as possible for the Sanctuary (it's a good cause), I provided offical certificates of authenticity, estimated retail prices and also signed/numbered the largest print as a limited edition (which I will not exceed of course).
The prints attracted very healthy winning bids, in part because people must have liked the images, but also I believe because of all the "extras" that helped market the perceived value to the auction bidders.
I spent a lot of years in sales (a long time ago in my career), and one thing you learn is that "perception" is "reality" in marketing and sales.
Just my 2 cents (in a limited edition: 1 of 10 ;-) ) worth.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.
Whose lifetime?
And why date it adjacent to the signature, as opposed to elsewhere, if at all? Is the value of the art dependent on when it was done?
value from a purely artistic perspective, and in relation to that specific print, the date is irrelevent.
Given a collection of work from an artist, that date can show an evolution of an artistic style (if you've seen the Adams Moonrise exhibit, which shows maybe 20 of the same image, and how he's re-visualized it over time).
If you're selling prints, then that date can alter the monetary value of that print ('vintage' prints tend to bring more than recent ones ).
i usuallaly mat with a 1/2 in. border around the print. i try to make my signature as unintrusive as possible to the image. For prints on watercolor type paper (platinum, inkjet), i sign in pencil on the print, bottom right, so it shows in the border. I date it in the bottom left.
for glossy prints, i'll sign in pencil on the mat, but then sign in a black pigment marker on the print, with date, but so it doesn't show through the mat.
as far as signing on the image itself, there's nothing to prevent anyone from doing that if they're selling their own images. it would probably be a deal stopper if trying to sell images through galleries though
jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
My biggest problem is that my signature and hand writing are absolutely horrible. I mean down right ugly. Any suggestions? Practice?
Practice, practice, practice! [/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Raoul, I must agree that numbering prints is an ego trip for most photographers. I have a huge stack of "1 of 1" prints and they are not worth more or rarer because of it. They are simply prints I have made for myself and I only need one. (They aren't actually numbered, but merely "one of a kind.")
I have some numbered lithos and sometimes wonder how many other "238 of 500" are out there. I'll never know or really care.
A photographer whose name I don't recall dry mounted the negative to the back of the print to prove it is the only or last or for sure a limited edition. Doesn't work so well with digital.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I'd find a new matt and frame shop if I were you.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I find some logic in their argument. I haven't seen any limited edition prints (as opposed to photographs) signed on the matte. I believe Robert Bateman (to use a well known example) only signs the prints.
Why should fine art photography be any different?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Your kidding, right?
I'd find a new matt and frame shop if I were you.
The shop I deal with has always been very helpful, and that is the spirit the advice was given in. I may be switching purely because of geography. Which is extremely unfortunate; I know it is going to be difficult finding someone I enjoy working with as much.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']1. If you're going to sign it at all, sign it on the back.
2. I think limited editions are a marketing gimmick. You got a file and a printer, you can print thousands.
3. Just my opinion.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Been asked and answered before, but...
I sign on the front below the image, on the right. On the left I write the title and print number. I use a black Pilot Precise V5 Rolling Ball pen. I mat my images with about a 1/2" 'show' on 3 sides and 3/4" on the bottom, signature edge.
My editions are limited to 200 prints--nothing bashful about me!--and I'm up to #8 on my most-popular image, Black Tree, created on Mr. Reichmann's fall-colors workshop in 2001.
This is NOT a way to make money! Said another way, a good way to make a small fortune in fotografy is to start with a large one.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I sign on the front of the image in the white border and on the matte. If someone wants to reframe it they still have a signed print.
This way when I become the Ansel Adams of the 1Ds their art will retain it's value;-)[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I do as Jack. I sign in the margin and on the mat. I use fine art papers, so I sell matted prints. The coating is too fragile to put them in tubes. I have to print them from the back of the printer on a flat path.
I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.
Also, I give them two signed and numbered certificates. One is attached to the back of the foam core board. The other is loose, so they can attach it to the back of their framing packet.
My grandfather told me to always give the customer a little more than they expect.
Cheers,
Mitch[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Store it in an online database.
Right, as a customer I want to spend my time following up with the photographer...letting him know whenever I move. I would never do that, especially if my name is going to be part of an online database with my address.
I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.
Sounds like unlimited liability. A nice idea but the last thing I want ten years down the road is somebody harrassing me for a new picture[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I also provide the buyer with a lifetime replacement guarantee against fading.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Whose lifetime?
Seriously: Why not sign on the surface of the print with an indelible ink? Who started the convention that a photograph should not be signed in the same manner as a painting or drawing, or even a cartoon?
I use a fine, gold or silver metallic gel roller-ball in the lower right or left corner. Why not?
And why date it adjacent to the signature, as opposed to elsewhere, if at all? Is the value of the art dependent on when it was done?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The prints I sign and date, the date and signature are together in one of the bottom corners, which one depends on where it will be the least distraction to the image.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']As a bit of info, I have a Horst print (bought several years ago). The print has a very subtle embossed signature on the white border, bottom right. It also has the title of the photo and his signature, in pencil, on the reverse.
This has always seemed to me to be the best combination. Obviously (assuming the margin falls within the printer's printable area) a Photoshop semi-transparent/embossed signature would be a suitable replacement if a physical embossing was too much hassle.
See: www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_54/essay.html for ideas.
For my part I think the limited edition concept is very much a marketing tool of limited worth. I don't think many of the 'greats' worked that way (even if it was last century!).[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I haven't seen any limited edition prints (as opposed to photographs) signed on the matte.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I've see numerous limited edition phoptos and other artwork signed and numbered on the mat. But they were likely matted by the artist/photographer.[/font]