To sign or not??

I’ve sold a few prints over the years as a hobby. A guy I kind of know recently ordered a few 16x24 metal prints. I had originally planned on printing with my digital signature in the corner but now I’m having second thoughts. Would it be better to physically sign the corner with a nice silver or bronze fine point marker? My signature isn’t so great. Or maybe no signature at all?? I’m kind of leaning towards physically signing but just not sure!

Houston1852 wrote in post #18887250
I’ve sold a few prints over the years as a hobby. A guy I kind of know recently ordered a few 16x24 metal prints. I had originally planned on printing with my digital signature in the corner but now I’m having second thoughts. Would it be better to physically sign the corner with a nice silver or bronze fine point marker? My signature isn’t so great. Or maybe no signature at all?? I’m kind of leaning towards physically signing but just not sure!

I physically sign wall prints that are framed without matting or unframed, sign the mats of prints that are matted. I use a digital mark for desktop prints.

.
I have always thought that signatures or watermarks look unprofessional and mess up the aesthetic pleasantries of an image.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18915114
.
I have always thought that signatures or watermarks look unprofessional and mess up the aesthetic pleasantries of an image.


.

Most artists feel differently.

RDKirk wrote in post #18915132

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18915114
.
I have always thought that signatures or watermarks look unprofessional and mess up the aesthetic pleasantries of an image.


.

Most artists feel differently.

I know I’m late to the thread, but do you have any documentation to back up your claim? When I see photos in museums, virtually none are signed, and no one uses a watermark.

But since you’ve thrown it out there, I’d like to give it due consideration, if it’s not just a projection of your personal opinion.

There is a huge different between signing a work and putting a watermark on. They each serve a totally different purpose.

A watermark is there to obscure part of the image and limit/discourage unauthorised usage. It also serves a duel purpose of clearly identifying the artists/copyright holder so the viewer can find them to license the image/get permission.

Signing an artwork is a way of showing the provenance of an image. Countless artists throughout history have signed their work, usually at the bottom or in a corner where it would not obscure key parts of the image. Obviously with a digital photo you can sign it digitally by including the sig image as part of the image file (in a way that does not obscure key parts of the image) but most photographers that consider their work to be worth signing will use a pen/pencil and will often sign a blank area of paper below the actual print, or on the mount board or even on the reverse of the paper.

moose10101 wrote in post #18943261
I know I’m late to the thread, but do you have any documentation to back up your claim? When I see photos in museums, virtually none are signed, and no one uses a watermark.

But since you’ve thrown it out there, I’d like to give it due consideration, if it’s not just a projection of your personal opinion.

Well, first, notice I said "most artists," so I'm also considedring all the painters, sculpters, and other artists.

But most of the photographs I see in museums do have the artist's name or signature physically attached to the image--they are usually not anonymous.

And, btw, museums are not the only place photographs can be seen. High-end photographers doing portraits to be hung in high-end homes for high-end clients often sign their work, seeing it as no different from the work of a painter.

You've got to sign it. Without the artist's signature, the customer does not get the same sense of value.

And just to reinforce what's been said, I don't think "watermarks" should even be part of this discussion. There is no comparison between the artist signature and a watermark or copyright claim.

This little page covers the norms and standards quite concisely;
https://www.gyst-ink.com/signing-dating-your-work

When people have asked for copies of my motorsport photos in order to make large prints for their wall (usually of themselves or their kids), I used to ask if they wanted me to remove my signature. In every single case, they wanted it left on. Now I don't bother asking and I haven't received a single complaint or request to remove it.

RDKirk wrote in post #18943829
But most of the photographs I see in museums do have the artist's name or signature physically attached to the image--they are usually not anonymous.

And, btw, museums are not the only place photographs can be seen. High-end photographers doing portraits to be hung in high-end homes for high-end clients often sign their work, seeing it as no different from the work of a painter.

I should have been more specific. Most of the photos I see in museums aren’t signed on the front.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18915114
I have always thought that signatures or watermarks look unprofessional and mess up the aesthetic pleasantries of an image.

Watermark yes, signature no.

A small, tasteful, legible or otherwise identifiable, sig in one of the lower corners is welcome. A gaudy watermark or some garish sig that intrudes on the image, I agree 100%, diminishes the value of the piece.

I like being able to identify the artist. I've seen some great stuff over the years and have no clue who created the work. No name on the print, no label on the wall next to it.

moose10101 wrote in post #18945036
I should have been more specific. Most of the photos I see in museums aren’t signed on the front.

Most I see are signed on the mat.

RDKirk wrote in post #18950788
Most I see are signed on the mat.

In museums, this is what I see most often:

moose10101 wrote in post #18951624
In museums, this is what I see most often:

Hosted photo: posted by moose10101 in
./showthread.php?p=189​51624&i=i146165005
forum: Presentation & Building Galleries

Hosted photo: posted by moose10101 in
./showthread.php?p=189​51624&i=i138460656
forum: Presentation & Building Galleries

That does not look like a print that Aaron Siskind himself prepared.

RDKirk wrote in post #18951664

moose10101 wrote in post #18951624
In museums, this is what I see most often:

Hosted photo: posted by moose10101 in
./showthread.php?p=189​51624&i=i146165005
forum: Presentation & Building Galleries

Hosted photo: posted by moose10101 in
./showthread.php?p=189​51624&i=i138460656
forum: Presentation & Building Galleries

That does not look like a print that Aaron Siskind himself prepared.

I’ve seen Siskind photos in several museums. All were like that one.