How it works about the date on the print.

[marciofs]

I printed some images I photographed a couple of years ago. Now I want to sign, put the title and the year... But should I put the year the photo was taken or should I put the year the print was made.?

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Many of the photographs I've seen at galleries are stamped with "Image/Negative Date" and "Print Date."

The relative proximity of the negative date and the print date can make a huge difference in the price at auction and in galleries. Many collectors prefer "Vintage" prints (those printed very close to the negative date) over later prints, even ones that are demonstrably better interpretations of the negative.

For posthumous prints there is generally an estate stamp or a dual signature such as "EW/CW" which are posthumous Edward Weston prints produced by Cole Weston.

 

[gone]

Date them 2017-2018. This will show you're original, avant garde, with it, not tied to convention, and ahead of your time. They will either think you're nuts or onto something they need to know about. Either way is a plus in the gallery game.

 

[summicron1]

whichever you want -- I usually put the date I took the pic, since that is the date the light hit the film, the print being just the result of that.

But you can do it either way. Ur the artist, it's your work, you decide.

POWER!!!

 

[marciofs]

I like all the answers.
I will do the momus suggestion.

Thaks all.

 

[esearing]

Brooks Jenssen uses a neat open scheme. First Edition/ third printing/ print # indicating it is his first interpretation but the third printing session and the number of prints within that session.

 

[paul ron]

Brooks Jenssen uses a neat open scheme. First Edition/ third printing/ print # indicating it is his first interpretation but the third printing session and the number of prints within that session.

+1
Same method for lithographs and etchings.

but momus shows up in his delorian.

 

[DannL.]

Consider carefully whether you really want to date your prints. Many photographers sign without dating. Lange in an interview expressed her regret for dating her prints. I can understand why. I don't think AA dated his works. Not the works I've seen. Regardless, it is a choice. But once made, it's hard to remove.

 

[marciofs]

Consider carefully whether you really want to date your prints. Many photographers sign without dating. Lange in an interview expressed her regret for dating her prints. I can understand why. I don't think AA dated his works. Not the works I've seen. Regardless, it is a choice. But once made, it's hard to remove.

I don't get it. What issues dates may cause?

 

[DannL.]

I don't get it. What issues dates may cause?

In Lange's case I believe she said years later she preferred a timeless appeal. I really can't speak for photographers that don't date their work, except I prefer the signature only, myself. I brought it up, as food for thought. There are no rules here, of course.

 

[removed account4]

no need to date anything,
just sign the mat and the back of the print
in soft pencil and put glass on it ...
this seems to work well for alot of people.
and numbered editions ...
unless you really plan on printing
and printing the same negative (or having someone else print it for you )
numbered prints seem to be more of a marketing scheme than anything else.
good luck with whatever approach you use

 

[480sparky]

........ But once made, it's hard to remove.

I find ordinary scissors work well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use the date the photograph was taken.

 

[Vaughn]

I use the date the photograph was taken.

Same here

 

[RobC]

I would put the year the image taken (unless you have a compelling reason to put the actual day and month) and say printed by whoever. That way people will assume its printed around the time of the taking date but they won't know for sure. But the fact its printed by the actual photographer is more important than the date it was printed.
Lots of deceased photographers negatives are being printed and sold by other printers today. They ain't worth as much as original prints by the photographer. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. You need to get famous for it to make any real difference and then they only go up in value after you die unless you exist in a very rarified atmosphere today.

 

[Peltigera]

<snip > But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. You need to get famous for it to make any real difference and then they only go up in value after you die unless you exist in a very rarified atmosphere today.

Worth remembering. Same applies to archive standard negative - mine need to last another 20 years max then my daughter throws them in the bin.

That said, the prints I sell I sign on the back together with the year just in case.


Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lots of deceased photographers negatives are being printed and sold by other printers today. They ain't worth as much as original prints by the photographer. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. You need to get famous for it to make any real difference and then they only go up in value after you die unless you exist in a very rarified atmosphere today.

Gee, I was not planning on becoming a deceased photographer.

 

[RobC]

Gee, I was not planning on becoming a deceased photographer.

No but your buyers would probably like you to be so they get a rapid increase in the value of their investment.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Way too much is made of these things on the internet. The reality is no one cares unless you are famous, but if you are famous no one cares until you are dead. In other words, do whatever you want 'cause in either case, it doesn't matter since you are either a nobody, or dead.

 

[RobC]

Way too much is made of these things on the internet. The reality is no one cares unless you are famous, but if you are famous no one cares until you are dead. In other words, do whatever you want 'cause in either case, it doesn't matter since you are either a nobody, or dead.

I was in the process of buying some scans from a well known photographer whose London agent was the same as Helmut Newtons. It was coincidentally on the same day Newtons death was announced. The agent told me that it had gone ballistic in the office that day because everyone wanted remaining stock of Netwons prints/work which, funnily enough, had just sky rocketed in price. Good job it wasn't his work we were after.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I printed some images I photographed a couple of years ago. Now I want to sign, put the title and the year... But should I put the year the photo was taken or should I put the year the print was made.?

both taken/made

 

[Jim Jones]

The date the image was first captured is of greater historical interest than when it was printed or reprinted.

 

[MartinP]

For copyright purposes doesn't the year have to be the year of publication, when used with the copyright symbol?

For historical pictures, family photographs etc. then the date the picture was taken is certainly nice-to-have -- together with a good description of what is depicted of course. When the print was made, and by whom, is also interesting. I have often seen lots of text on the back of the mounts of museum-photos and that is not a bad location to put the information in the first place.

 

[paul ron]

I think the date the pix were taken is important. Ive taken photos of trees that aren't there anymore.. trees that were well over 100 years old. Ive taken pix of people that aren't here anymore. NYC buildings that were once important landmarks now replaced by fancy high rises..... its part of capturing history n documenting it as well as making a pretty picture. On the back of the matt, I also pencil in the locations or other pertinent information.