I sign all of myh prints in an unprinted margin between the printed area and the mat. When it comes time to sign, it becomes a stresssful thing. My penmanship isn't that aesthetic, and I've had to throw away a couple of prints because I was not happy with the way it looked after signing. If i went with a digital signature, it would be consisitant and look better, IMO.
My question is, if you were considering purchasing a piece of art with a digital signature instead of a hand written one, would you think less of it, or not make the purchase because if it?
I wouldn't think less of it, but I think I'd be happiest if it also had a freehand signature and date on the back.
We use digital signatures on 8x10 and smaller, but sign 11x14's and larger by hand. The only grief we've had came from people who intended to make more copies for themselves. Tuff luck for them.
Posted by Brad Mangas on December 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM
OK, here's my take on it. They are the Same Thing! You could more precisely qualify these as a hand written signature "only" from a manual writing device or a hand written signature via printer. They are both your signature! So I guess the only delima to me is, well there is no delima for me. The only way to guarantee the signature will last as long, not degrade or damage the original print is if it is printed with the same ink as the print is printed with. To me it make it a no-brainer.
And while I'm on my soapbox, prints should be signed in the printed area not the non-printed margins where a mat will cover it up. If your proud enough to make a print, be proud enough to sign "The Print". Yeah I know this is a personal preference and there is no right or wrong way so nobody says how they "should" be signed. Well, guess I just did!
That makes sense. But a hand written signature seems more personal to me. I was looking for a way to get the same consistant results every time. The digital signature would achieve that, but at the loss of some of the personal touch of a hand written signature. I cut my matboards big enough to show about 1/2 inch of the unprinted margin so the signature is visible.
HERE is yet another alternative. We used one for years in our studio to affix "signatures" to everything from 8x10's down to wallet-size. With a die of your perfect signature, it's possible to add it to any photo without worry. I'm not even sure if it's made any more or if the foil is available in black, but it certainly is an effective tool, if not cheap.
I'm betting there are current competitors. HERE is another example.
Not the perfect solution, but more fodder for creative solutions.
I have thought about this myself. I hardly ever like the way my signature looks. I usually sign on the matting. I sign the matting before the print is matted. This way, if I mess up, I only loose the matting. I guess if I was signing directly on a print that was expensive to make, that would make me nervous and even more likely to mess up. I wouldn't think a digital signature would be valued as much as a hand signature. It's like having a baseball autographed by hand vs a copy of an autograph. I would think there are ways to tell if it's a real hand signature or not. If they had the technology in Ansel Adams's times, wouldn't you thing that a print with his real signature would be more valuable than a print with a copy of his signature?
Posted by Buck Ward on January 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM
My signature is so bad that I actually admire Jack Lew's signature. So, for signing prints, I devised a different signature. Basically, I print my last name, slightly stylized. It's legible and it gets the job done.
And, I agree with Brad. A photo should be signed on the body of the print, not in the margin.
Posted by Martin Dunn on February 20, 2013 at 10:43 AM
I produce limited edition (5 copies only) canvas prints of my favourite photos.
I sign them on the back, and number them.
I appreciate what Brad is saying but unless you are famous enough to be bought for your signature isn't it true that people are buying it because they like the image not because of your name. Do they really care who the photographer is? Therefore, for me at least, the signature is just an unwanted bit of graffiti on an otherwise beautiful picture.
Discussion
7 repliesMy question is, if you were considering purchasing a piece of art with a digital signature instead of a hand written one, would you think less of it, or not make the purchase because if it?
Thanks,
Chris
We use digital signatures on 8x10 and smaller, but sign 11x14's and larger by hand. The only grief we've had came from people who intended to make more copies for themselves. Tuff luck for them.
And while I'm on my soapbox, prints should be signed in the printed area not the non-printed margins where a mat will cover it up. If your proud enough to make a print, be proud enough to sign "The Print". Yeah I know this is a personal preference and there is no right or wrong way so nobody says how they "should" be signed. Well, guess I just did!
That makes sense. But a hand written signature seems more personal to me. I was looking for a way to get the same consistant results every time. The digital signature would achieve that, but at the loss of some of the personal touch of a hand written signature. I cut my matboards big enough to show about 1/2 inch of the unprinted margin so the signature is visible.
HERE is yet another alternative. We used one for years in our studio to affix "signatures" to everything from 8x10's down to wallet-size. With a die of your perfect signature, it's possible to add it to any photo without worry. I'm not even sure if it's made any more or if the foil is available in black, but it certainly is an effective tool, if not cheap.
I'm betting there are current competitors. HERE is another example.
Not the perfect solution, but more fodder for creative solutions.
And, I agree with Brad. A photo should be signed on the body of the print, not in the margin.
I sign them on the back, and number them.
I appreciate what Brad is saying but unless you are famous enough to be bought for your signature isn't it true that people are buying it because they like the image not because of your name. Do they really care who the photographer is? Therefore, for me at least, the signature is just an unwanted bit of graffiti on an otherwise beautiful picture.