Is there any (valid) reason for putting a signature ON a picture?

[rabanito]

If it does, I did it, thus my problem.

Sorry Slobodan, Les approved (tonal) improvements for didactical reasons and I was answering that.

It should have been obvious that the size of that logo (reply #4) was used in jest. I

Of course Slobodan. At this stage I think I know a little about your sense of humor 

[LesPalenik]

Just other way around. I'm implying that the big signatures on the image deteriorate their artistic quality.
That's why I ask the question in the first place
Take the signature away and - in my humble opinion - the image improves

Have you ever sold or attempted to sell a picture? Not that it would be essential for making art, but for some artists getting paid for their artwork is essential.
 
As I mentioned in my previous post, there can be different considerations when showing a picture. I never stated that a signature will improve the composition or color harmony of an image, so we don't need to discuss that.
Why can't you understand the other point, that a creator of the image has a right to protect his artwork? In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.
   

[rabanito]

Have you ever sold or attempted to sell a picture? Not that it would be essential for making art, but for some artists getting paid for their artwork is essential.

Actually yes, but not for a living. The galleries put a price tag and some people bought. Satisfied my ego but not much more 
Selling was the job of the galleries

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, there can be different considerations when showing a picture. I never stated that a signature will improve the composition or color harmony of an image, so we don't need to discuss that.

Of course you didn't. And I only stated that IMHO the signature ON the image deteriorates it, which is - again IMHO - true

Why can't you understand the other point, that a creator of the image has a right to protect his artwork?

I understand that.
But as you might sense, my experience in digital photography is very limited.
Protecting a digital image intended to be projected in a low resolution medium like a PC screen is relatively new to me.
There are other issues as well.
That's why I ask. It looks like for protecting (let alone successfully )your work the only way is to put a stamp on it, to be removed later.
So we come to LuLa to watch great photography and in many cases the works of art are impaired wit logos.
I don't buy anything, I want to enjoy the works of art of my fellow photographers.
And I can identify their names or their nicks.

In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.   

No I didn't know that.
In my humble experience with silver prints the signature (usually on the mat or on the backside when mounted on a backboard) was wanted (even the numbers in limited edition prints, which is another interesting subject  )

The artist would smile at what the customer considers important but that is again another topic 


Again: I don't come here to fight or criticize but to exchange ideas.
This is the coffee corner. I sit down with you to a cup of coffee and chat.
Maybe (probably) I learn something
No offense meant to anyone   

[LesPalenik]

Protecting a digital image intended to be projected in a low resolution medium like a PC screen is relatively new to me. There are other issues as well.
That's why I ask. It looks like for protecting (let alone successfully )your work the only way is to put a stamp on it, to be removed later.
...
In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.   >
No I didn't know that. In my humble experience with silver prints the signature (usually on the mat or on the backside when mounted on a backboard) was wanted (even the numbers in limited edition prints, which is another interesting subject

As a matter of fact, nowadays many stock images are sold in a relatively small size (even smaller than 800-1000 pixels wide) for use on websites, on-line ads and various on-line publications. Even social media companies like Facebook are purchasing stock images in small sizes specifically for on-line use. They can obtain such images at a special rate, and the stock agencies and their contributors benefit also by distributing their images via additional channels. Below are examples from two on-line publications using relatively small images.

climate-roundup

the-most-romantic-winter-wedding-destinations-in-canada - my image of Prince Of Wales Hotel is the 6th from the top

Many travel guide books use rather small images, on average 3" x 3" (7.5cm x 7.5cm). If they print the image at 300 dpi, they need a 900 pixels wide image.  If they print at 200 dpi, they need only 1000 pixels wide image for a 5" printed picture.

As to the watermarks which you see on stock agency images, they are not part of the image, they are superimposed on the image just prior to the display. Of course, LuLa is not providing such a feature, so we have to add the signature or watermark as another layer to the image (saving a layered file in jpg format will merge all layers automatically). Personally, I'm used to see the watermarks on the images and my brain must be filtering them out, so they don't disturb me at all. On my own images posted on this site, I usually tone down my copyright notice to 15-30% opacity to make it just a subtle watermark rather than a loud signage.                   

[RSL]

Prints I've seen in (photography) exhibitions were signed on the mat. . .

The main problem with signing on the mat is that the mat can be removed and put on a different picture. Best to sign on the print itself.

[rabanito]

The main problem with signing on the mat is that the mat can be removed and put on a different picture. Best to sign on the print itself.

Sorry my English. Mat is the passe-partout, I guess.

In the following example:
The pic is heat-press mounted on a board
The signature is on the board lower right in pencil.
Of course you can erase the signature and put your own
But the rest of the data is on the reverse in ink
You cannot detach the print from the mounting board
 

[rabanito]

As to the watermarks which you see on stock agency images, they are not part of the image, they are superimposed on the image just prior to the display. Of course, LuLa is not providing such a feature, so we have to add the signature or watermark as another layer to the image (saving a layered file in jpg format will merge all layers automatically). Personally, I'm used to see the watermarks on the images and my brain must be filtering them out, so they don't disturb me at all. On my own images posted on this site, I usually tone down my copyright notice to 15-30% opacity to make it just a subtle watermark rather than a loud signage.                   

Thank you. Nice images.
But I can still steal your images from the pages you publish in. I tried it
Wouldn't this be equivalent to stealing them from LuLa?
Sorry for my ignorance

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You cannot detach the print from the mounting board...

That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.

[rabanito]

That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.

Well I was told that boards in "museum quality" are archival
Anyway I don't collect mounting boards, they all look blank
 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well I was told that boards in "museum quality" are archival
Anyway I don't collect mounting boards, they all look blank
 

Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.

[LesPalenik]

Thank you. Nice images.
But I can still steal your images from the pages you publish in. I tried it
Wouldn't this be equivalent to stealing them from LuLa?
Sorry for my ignorance

Well, you are correct, it appears that it's easier to steal the images from the aforementioned publications than from LuLa. I learned something new today.
I assumed that they downsized the images to 500-600 pixels wide as they appear on my screen  (and many on-line pages do that), but the referenced images are actually 1000, resp. 1200 pixels wide and only the browser displayed them in a smaller size. So it looks like we can't prevent the stealing entirely, we can only try to minimize the damage.

[rabanito]

Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.

Of course you did.
I hope you appreciate my sense of humor too

As for "Archival":
While the print, and the board can be acid-free, most dry mounting is not considered an archival technique, because archival standards require that any mounted print can be easily removed from the mount board behind it.
But at least as far as my humble experience (hearsay) goes, prints mounted that way don't deteriorate if treated with due care.

The Ansel Adams Gallery writes
"Exhibition quality prints by Ansel Adams and the Ansel Adams Special Edition Prints by Alan Ross are made with great care. Every effort has been made to insure that they have practical archival quality and will last indefinitely unless subjected to an extraordinarily destructive environment, excessive humidity, vermin and/or poor handling and storage conditions. All prints are subjected to three fixing baths and hypo-clearing agent, and are toned in selenium. They are mounted with dry mounting tissue on the highest quality mount board."

The Rabanito Fine Art Gallery believes that they might be right 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

^ You had me at "vermin"

[RSL]

That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.

Depends on what you're talking about when you say "mounting boards," Slobodan. If you're talking about dry mounting with a dry mounting press, Ansel Adams mounted a lot of his stuff that way and the stuff he mounted certainly is worth collecting. Dry mounting tissue is archival. On the other hand, it's possible, with the right equipment, to un-mount stuff that's been dry mounted. I dry mount my larger prints, and I'd hate to have to try to un-mount them, but I know it's possible.

And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?

[faberryman]

And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?

I am proud of my prints. I sign them on the rear (verso).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... If you're talking about dry mounting..

Rabanito was talking about heat-press. I am not familiar with the process, so I do not know what the heat does to the glueing material. My recollection about archivability is based on something that he also quoted above (emphasis mine):

archival standards require that any mounted print can be easily removed from the mount board behind it.

[rabanito]

And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?

Well if you observe the example I put before you'll see "Rabanito" on the board lower right in pencil :-)
On the back there is a stamp with the name of the print, date and the ridiculous number of the copy (2/20 for example - shame on me  )
This with ink

[faberryman]

Rabanito was talking about heat-press. I am not familiar with the process, so I do not know what the heat does to the glueing material. My recollection about archivability is based on something that he also quoted above (emphasis mine):

Removeable dry mount tissue is readily available.

[LesPalenik]

Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.

Archival mats are made from better materials, thus holding their original color. Most non-archival mats will fade over the years, and the white mats will change to dull yellow color, mainly due to light exposure.

[faberryman]

Archival mats are made from better materials, thus holding their original color. Most non-archival mats will fade over the years, and the white mats will change to dull yellow color, mainly due to light exposure.

It goes without saying that you should use archival materials. None of that has anything to do with signatures on the prints.