Question About Signing Prints & Matting (Alain Briot, feel free to jump in here!)
Discussion
7 replies
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 16, 2015 at 6:56 PM
OK, in my normal world, I print 13x19's with a Canon Pro printer. I set a ¼" border so I actually have a 12½ x 18½ print. Then I matte them with an 18x24 matte with (obviously) a 12½ x 18½ opening, actually a touch smaller. Life is good.
THEN, at roughly the same time I see an Epson promo card (as you see above) for their Signature papers AND an eBook by Martin Bailey on prints, and what both of these sources have in common is making the print size about 9 x 15 and offsetting it up a bit on the 13x19 paper, and then doing a nice large signature (Martin also uses some special stamp). I admit, I like the look and it would work for a few special prints, but what about the end customer who wants to matte the print? That will cover the wide border and signature, yes/no? Then they're left with a smaller image with a huge border hidden. OR, are they supposed to frame a print like this without a matte and let the border be the matte? Or do they just stick it on their fridge with a magnet the size of donut and call it a day??
Ultimately I like to deliver as much of an image as possible, always matted (Alain Briot's books have greatly brainwashed me in a good way), but when I see this different format, I'm just not clear what the customer is supposed to do with it for proper display. Any thoughts are much appreciated!
If the customer wants to matte the print themselves, you should include instructions as to the size the opening should be. Also stipulate that your signature remain visible.
--P
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 17, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Well that's the question I guess I have: it's ok to matte the print so there's actually a section of photo paper with NO image showing (that bottom area where the signature is). I guess that's what's bugging me, I've always matted with ONLY picture showing through. So I t's considered a professional look to show that white section? I'm probably thinking too hard on this, lol. I'd rather just sign the matte. But thanks for piping in Preston!
So It's considered a professional look to show that white section? I'm probably thinking too hard on this, lol. I'd rather just sign the matte.
Just my opinion, Paul, but I think that with a well done mounting and matting job, the white of the paper showing would look real nice and professional, as well as providing a transition between the image and the matte.
Also, if you sign the matte, and the customer decides to change the matte for some reason, your signature would be lost, unless you sign the print itself.
--P
Posted by Mark Seaver on January 17, 2015 at 1:53 PM
Paul, I own prints by Tom Mangelson and Michael Melford. The Mangelson print has a signature (plus print number and date) subtly included in the image. The Melford does not show a signature. I did the mounting and matting on the Melford print and vaguely think it may be signed on the back (it does seem like a signature is important, if you're hoping that the prints will increase in value). Neither of these shows a white border around the print. Both are older prints, so it's possible that styles have changed but it seems like a visible signature may be partly a matter of personal choice.
I like the signature to be in the image. All my fine art paintings, scratchboards, Artist's proofs, and canvas limited editions, plus all my Bev Doolittle limited ed. and other lithographs are signed on the print itself. All of my printed AP and LE are signed above or below the signature, that is printed with the canvas or litho.
The only art, that I have, that is signed on the white border are all my etchings. But, with an etching, the indented impression on the border is a special look all its own, and is usually ecru colored.
If I bought a photo, I'd mat it over the white. If I wanted a white mat, I'd put one on the piece. But, I really hate white mats...preferring suede or lightly textured mats. I think, that the white border detracts from the work itself. I want the mat to complement the colors within the piece. And most photos do not have a lot of bright white in them.
So, if you really want the signature to be seen, I'd sign the piece unobtrusively. Just my opinion as a long time, 40 years, of collecting all kinds of fine art.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM
I realize what it is... I like the look of the bigger bottom border and the lavish signature like in the example above, but I have two hangups: one is, being old school I don't want plain photo paper inside the matte area especially when it's showcasing the signature (which detracts from the image to me). and two, while I really like this style WITH the lavish signature, I am WAY too uncomfortable putting MY signature on a print in that way, lol. I think it's grand for artists much better than myself, I'd rather put mine small and in light pencil out of the way.
Hi Paul! A little late with a response but we do all our limited editions with a 2-3in white border. The prints are signed and numbered in the image area with sufficient margin for a small overlap on the mat opening, and then in pencil or medium grey under the image they are inscribed with the edition, name of the work and name of the artist. The print can then be matted to the image OR leaving a white border all around (often narrower on top and the sides than the bottom area with the inscriptions).
This may be a little old school, but it's what I did when I was represented by several galleries in the US and Canada in the 90's and it was very well received...for one, it matched the limited edition print standards practiced by major production houses like Mill Pond Press (Robert Bateman, Carl Brenders, Paul Calle, etc.) and was always accompanied by an embossed Certificate of Authenticity and write up about the print/image.
That being said, I have to say Jenaya and I have gone back and forth on several "would this be a better way to do this" ideas (but haven't hit on one that prompted a change yet!).
I gotta push back on the "grand for artists much better than myself" bit...you have some wonderful pieces of photographic art in your portfolio and YOU bring your own unique visual voice and perspective...your work needs to be treated in a way that conveys that value. Now for myself, your comment re signatures does hit a nerve but mostly it's that my signature, while very clean and legible, just doesn't have that awesome cool style some do. I totally have signature envy with other photographers!
Discussion
7 repliesTHEN, at roughly the same time I see an Epson promo card (as you see above) for their Signature papers AND an eBook by Martin Bailey on prints, and what both of these sources have in common is making the print size about 9 x 15 and offsetting it up a bit on the 13x19 paper, and then doing a nice large signature (Martin also uses some special stamp). I admit, I like the look and it would work for a few special prints, but what about the end customer who wants to matte the print? That will cover the wide border and signature, yes/no? Then they're left with a smaller image with a huge border hidden. OR, are they supposed to frame a print like this without a matte and let the border be the matte? Or do they just stick it on their fridge with a magnet the size of donut and call it a day??
Ultimately I like to deliver as much of an image as possible, always matted (Alain Briot's books have greatly brainwashed me in a good way), but when I see this different format, I'm just not clear what the customer is supposed to do with it for proper display. Any thoughts are much appreciated!
If the customer wants to matte the print themselves, you should include instructions as to the size the opening should be. Also stipulate that your signature remain visible.
--P
Just my opinion, Paul, but I think that with a well done mounting and matting job, the white of the paper showing would look real nice and professional, as well as providing a transition between the image and the matte.
Also, if you sign the matte, and the customer decides to change the matte for some reason, your signature would be lost, unless you sign the print itself.
--P
The only art, that I have, that is signed on the white border are all my etchings. But, with an etching, the indented impression on the border is a special look all its own, and is usually ecru colored.
If I bought a photo, I'd mat it over the white. If I wanted a white mat, I'd put one on the piece. But, I really hate white mats...preferring suede or lightly textured mats. I think, that the white border detracts from the work itself. I want the mat to complement the colors within the piece. And most photos do not have a lot of bright white in them.
So, if you really want the signature to be seen, I'd sign the piece unobtrusively. Just my opinion as a long time, 40 years, of collecting all kinds of fine art.
Appreciate the feedback everyone, thanks!
This may be a little old school, but it's what I did when I was represented by several galleries in the US and Canada in the 90's and it was very well received...for one, it matched the limited edition print standards practiced by major production houses like Mill Pond Press (Robert Bateman, Carl Brenders, Paul Calle, etc.) and was always accompanied by an embossed Certificate of Authenticity and write up about the print/image.
That being said, I have to say Jenaya and I have gone back and forth on several "would this be a better way to do this" ideas (but haven't hit on one that prompted a change yet!).
I gotta push back on the "grand for artists much better than myself" bit...you have some wonderful pieces of photographic art in your portfolio and YOU bring your own unique visual voice and perspective...your work needs to be treated in a way that conveys that value. Now for myself, your comment re signatures does hit a nerve but mostly it's that my signature, while very clean and legible, just doesn't have that awesome cool style some do.