Signing photographs
by Mark ~ October 17th, 2007. Filed under: Inkjet printing, art, artistry, business, nature photography, philosophy, wonder.I find the array of answers interesting whenever I see the question “what is the proper way to sign a fine art print?” I am reminded of an older podcast by Brooks Jensen on signing prints where he asks some probing questions himself, and acknowledges there are no resolving answers. Even the ‘traditional’ art community has different methods across a variety of mediums. Of course many photographers have different ways they think is the right way. 
Some sign the mat, some sign the print off the image, some on the back (??), or like me, sign directly on the image itself. (I use a somewhat abstract monogram) Some of the strong stances about how it must be done amaze me at times. From a consumer’s standpoint, it is almost always a desired to have it signed in some way. And therein lies two distinct viewpoints - of the artists’ intent vs. the value to the owner of the work.
Does having the artist’s signature separate it from something from a mass production factory? (Though certainly there are mass produced signatures!) Does it make it appear more authentic? I think everyone has their own reasons. I have seen reference to how Pablo Picasso referred to the signing of artwork as indication it is ready for abandonment.
Although commonly done by some photography masters of old, I don’t see much value in the signing of a mat board - it can be replaced, and your signature is discarded with the trash. Of course, if someone doesn’t order a matted print, it isn’t even an option. So some people end up signing both to have a visible signature, yet not feel they are ‘interfering’ with the image. Signing the back seems rather pointless, particularly if an image ends up being mounted. So it really comes down to signing on or off the actual image and paper it is reproduced on. Does it matter if it is visible or not?
As Brooks mentions in his podcast, signatures can be talking points of the art collector - perhaps even a bragging point of authenticity. For the photographer, perhaps an indication of an image finally being at its final stage. The work has a final blessing.
If it is a distraction to have a signature on an image as some claim, then why is it common practice for painters to have obvious signatures on their works? I have never understood why it may be accepted for one and not the other. I think a photographer can take the worries about possible distraction into consideration. It should not be signed in a manner where it becomes a focal point, but merely an accent.
Brooks suggests having a good, consistent reasoning for signing your images. We all put a lot of effort into composing a shot to begin with, and perhaps even more effort in creation of a final print. I have never seen anything wrong with showing a bit of pride and self-confidence in that.
October 17th, 2007 at ?
I have seen, as you suggest, many different ways of signing. I do sign….because I feel it indicates a finished piece and, as you suggest, as a ’sign’ of pride in the work.
I sign just below the image on the white paper to one side. I also write the title of the image. Of course, that implies that the image should be matted in a certain way….with a 3/4 inch or so border of paper exposed around the image. Bu similar to signing the back, if someone doesn’t want it that way they can always cover it up with the mat.
Lots of ways to do it. I never trust anyone that says there is only one correct way!
October 17th, 2007 at ?
I am a painter and as such I sign my paintings - signature means the painting is finished.
Why should I do something different on my prints? It’s the same process - a “finished” photo - ready to leave.
The only difference between painting and print is that I put a label on the back of my paintings with all the necessary details - on the prints I write directly on the back as a proof for authenticity.
My signatures never interferes with the image and I tend to use a matching colour - nothing extravagant - neither on the painting nor on the print. It never came to my mind why I should NOT sign a piece of my work. Signature simply means identification with the work - nothing more and nothing less.
October 18th, 2007 at ?
I always felt self-conscious about signing my work, I have no idea why, so now when I sell to a restaurant or office I don’t even sign them. I do sign them when I sell to family or friends. You think thats wrong , I am glad you brought this up, I have always wondered about this as well.
October 18th, 2007 at ?
Bernie, you make so many great images, I am sure your restaurant and office clients would see value in having signed pieces from you. It is not that it is right or wrong, just a lot of intriguing aspects of the hows and whys we sign our work.
October 20th, 2007 at ?
I sign prints on the photograph, not the mat, usually bottom right. It’s a claim of authorship - “I made this.” A form of branding. Perhaps with painting it indicates the piece is finished, not so with a photograph. I’m always tinkering with prints. But once signed, one my prints is off on its own in the world, in whatever form or appearance it had when I released it, somewhat different from other versions as it may be.
October 21st, 2007 at ?
I totally agree that prints should be signed. When I start printing my work I will not sign the original until after it is printed and sign the prints in such a way as people will know they are prints. Some of my paintings have so much texture that it is hard to sign them. I also put a registration tag on the back of everything I sell that helps the purchaser in a myriad of ways.
October 21st, 2007 at ?
Great shot as well. I can’t wait to see one of your prints!
October 22nd, 2007 at ?
Here’s my two-cent’s worth on this subject…
I used to sign the mat, then realized how silly that was if someone discards the mat. And as you said, signing the back seems a bit odd, as in, what is the point?
Because my penmanship really isn’t something I’m proud of, I’ve adopted a particular “font” as my signature and use it lightly on the lower right corner, sampling a color found within the photograph so it doesn’t clash.
Then if someone asks me at the point of sale to sign the image, I sign the back of the matted print where the information about the image is as well.
November 2nd, 2007 at ?
I always questioned how to sign my photo work. I finally started to stamp the center of the photo on the back and also use a copyright symbol. This protected my work as nobody could crop in my work and eliminate my signiture. I also sign the mat as well on the right corner and the name of the photo on the left. I think I have covered it completely.
May 10th, 2008 at ?
i am an amatuer photographer embarking on selling my photos… i have been signing the photos on the bottom right side of the print… using fine point liquid gel ink… is it possible to have a signature stamp made up that would use indelible ink that would be like the fine point gel pen??
i sell greeting cards… and i have numerous quanities to sign.
any suggestions?? i print my pictures at an imaging store so do not have a computer generated program to digitally sign each photo.
May 10th, 2008 at ?
Debbie, I think it is up to the individual. I certainly am familiar with ink stamps, but have never seen any like a liquid gel pen.
May 10th, 2008 at ?
Mark:
thank you for your response… the liquid gel pens are very popular… have metal tips and .7mm ball so is very fine… Pentel is one brand that i frequently buy at Staples.
my question is - - if i purchased a pre-inked stamp of my signature… will this ink dry without smudging… and stay on the glossy photo paper permanently?? is there a recommended brand of stamp that is better than others??
or is it just better to individually sign each card with pen and ink regardless of how much my hand starts to ache?
June 23rd, 2008 at ?
I have just started getting into photography and I am wondering if the same rules apply to give a photo series as a gift. I am printing and matting photos as a wedding present and don’t know if signing them seems pretentious or a personal touch for the gift?
June 23rd, 2008 at ?
Olivia… i have given several of my photo collections as gifts… and i have found that the receipients of my work have truly appreciated having it bear my signature… that it is a personal work done by me and given to them to enjoy. i do not think it is showing off to sign photography that i have taken and want to share with someone special… and as the writers above agree… it is a piece of art… why not sign it if you are proud of it and claim it as your own work!!
p.s. i did purchase a signature stamp with perma ink and it works perfectly.
June 24th, 2008 at ?
The only thing that might worry me about a signature stamp is that it might be interpreted to be too much like mass production. I know for each of my prints, the signature varies just slightly, and I think that is part of the appeal of ‘personally signed’ artwork.
I wouldn’t consider signing the work given as a gift to be pretentious either.