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

[RSL]

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):

Check dry mounting presses, Slobodan. Dry mounting is done with a heat press. But the mounting material is a tissue with adhesive that melts a bit under the heat from the press. It's not sticky. As I said, Ansel Adams used to dry mount some of his stuff. As far as a print having to be detachable from its mount in order to be considered archival, yes, I understand that the overseers who make such decision have DECIDED, but, as is the case with most such dictates, it's BS.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Check dry mounting presses, Slobodan. Dry mounting is done with a heat press. But the mounting material is a tissue with adhesive that melts a bit under the heat from the press. It's not sticky. As I said, Ansel Adams used to dry mount some of his stuff. As far as a print having to be detachable from its mount in order to be considered archival, yes, I understand that the overseers who make such decision have DECIDED, but, as is the case with most such dictates, it's BS.

I think it's BS as well.  I think all the Ansel Adams exhibition prints are dry mounted and as noted earlier (this was certainly the case at the major exhibition of Adams prints here in Washington some years ago), the reproductions that one can purchase are as well.  I bought an 8x10 Yosemite image some years ago and it came framed and dry mounted.  When I was dry mounting B/W prints back in the day I used a low temperature mounting tissue that was easy to handle.  As long as one has acid free mat board there should not be any problems with image degradation and one can selenium tone B/W prints for enhanced preservation.  I've seen differing reports about whether PK ink jet prints can be dry mounted because the surface coating might not be fully heat stable.

[RSL]

Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep. As far as I'm concerned it's the only reasonable way to produce a large, flat, framed print that will stay flat. There's an awful lot of horse hockey out there about using acid-free hinges at the corners of a print. Yes, that works well enough with a print no larger than about 8 1/2 by 11, but try it with a 17 x 22.

[faberryman]

Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep.

It should come as no surprise that some people don't know what they are talking about, particularly when they have no hands-on experience with the topic.

[RSL]

Well, Fab, I've dry mounted at least a thousand prints, and hung hundreds with corner hinges, but I'd be happy to become educated about mounting and framing on the basis of your vast experience.

[faberryman]

Well, Fab, I've dry mounted at least a thousand prints, and hung hundreds with corner hinges, but I'd be happy to become educated about mounting and framing on the basis of your vast experience.

I wasn't talking about you. You obviously have dry mounting experience. It's the other dolts in this thread that have never dry mounted a print I was referring too.

[rabanito]

It should come as no surprise that some people don't know what they are talking about, particularly when they have no hands-on experience with the topic.

LuLa Member Rabanito pleads not guilty to that charge 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..l It's the other dolts in this thread that have never dry mounted a print I was referring too.

Thanks. Classy.

I never said I have dry mounting experience. On the contrary, I repeatedly stated I don’t, and was speaking from memory and remembering statements from museum curators and galleriests, which Rabanito also quoted. That some dispute that stance, like you and Russ, is fine, but that doesn’t mean that the official view of those who matter is non-existent or wrong, however you may not like it.

[faberryman]

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.

I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?

[LesPalenik]

I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?

Names on logos? What else have you seen?

[rabanito]

I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?

You can buy a piece of garbage with the face of Andy Warhol (selfie) for 7.7 Mio Dollar.
Why wonder then...

[faberryman]

Names on logos? What else have you seen?

Should have been names and logos. I don't think it is a given that if you buy a print, they take them off. Perhaps, as suggested, it is for branding purposes. I think it is tacky, but opinions differ.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep. As far as I'm concerned it's the only reasonable way to produce a large, flat, framed print that will stay flat. There's an awful lot of horse hockey out there about using acid-free hinges at the corners of a print. Yes, that works well enough with a print no larger than about 8 1/2 by 11, but try it with a 17 x 22.

I've used Mylar photo corners along with an overmat one17x22 prints with one inch margins on all sides and that can keep a print flat.  However, your print is not as large as it could be if you had smaller margins and went the dry mount route. 

[LesPalenik]

Should have been names and logos. I don't think it is a given that if you buy a print, they take them off. Perhaps, as suggested, it is for branding purposes. I think it is tacky, but opinions differ.

Some artists put their name or signature on the artwork in a permanent way, especially if it is a print, that's their choice.
Some on-line galleries and all stock agencies superimpose their name and/or name of the author as a watermark on the displayed image (as shown below), but when a customer buys the image he receives it without the watermark.

[RSL]