Photographer Print Stamps

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Whenever I get a chance to view original prints, I try to make a quick photo of the stamp on the back of the print, and I thought it would be a good idea to post some of these for public consumption. If anyone has one, either their own or that of another photographer, please post.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

William Eggleston Print Stamp

Here is one from a portfolio of Coca-Cola themed images I recently viewed.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Here's the one I use

 

[TheToadMen]

Here's the one I use
View attachment 118997

Is this a rubber stamp using an ink pad?

I'm thinking of having one made, but I don't know yet what kind of info I'd like to add.
Like film type, printing process, camera, ...
So it would be nice to see what others use.

Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Is this a rubber stamp using an ink pad?

yes

I'm thinking of having one made, but I don't know yet what kind of info I'd like to add.
Like film type, printing process, camera, ...
So it would be nice to see what others use.

That's why I started this thread! Hopefully we'll get to see some others.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't know if you are aware that the stamping ink that you use has to be especially suitable for resin coated printing papers ordinary stamp pads don't work properly. http://www.rubberstamps.co.uk/catalog/Special_inks/category.aspx?catid=21

 

[mexipike]

Do you stamp these on the back of the print itself, or somewhere viewable in the frame?

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Do you stamp these on the back of the print itself, or somewhere viewable in the frame?

Most photographers stamp the back of the print, sign date, etc. Some will also sign the front of the print or mount directly under the image area.

 

[StephenT]

With what kind of instrument do you sign the back of the prints? I assume a felt tip, but do you use a specific archival one or a regular "Sharpie?"

 

[removed account4]

thanks for this thread parker !
i used to use a self inking rubber stamp
but stopped,
once in a while i use an embosser
i always sign the mat in pencil and the back of the print in pencil too.

 

[TheToadMen]

I made a simple lay-out for a possible stamp for me. I'd like to make a rubber stamp and use an archival ink pad.
(red text is had written info)
What do you think? Is this useful information?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With what kind of instrument do you sign the back of the prints? I assume a felt tip, but do you use a specific archival one or a regular "Sharpie?"

nothing but a soft pencil.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

With what kind of instrument do you sign the back of the prints? I assume a felt tip, but do you use a specific archival one or a regular "Sharpie?"

If it's a fiber base print a pencil is preferable, and archival as well. When I worked at the UGA Library Rare Book Room they pretty much frowned upon anything other than a pencil, and if you were viewing the special collections you weren't allowed to bring in anything other than paper and pencils.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I made a simple lay-out for a possible stamp for me. I'd like to make a rubber stamp and use an archival ink pad.
(red text is had written info)
What do you think? Is this useful information?

Looks good, I like the "info" field but I would think the negative date and print date would be more important than the camera info.

 

[mexipike]

I hope it's ok to resurrect this thread. I had a show this year in September which is still up. I sold a couple of the prints and would like to add some sort of stamp of authenticity or the like. It was suggested here that I should place the stamp on the back of the print itself, however the prints have already been framed and furthermore, I would like the client to see the stamp so they know it is of the edition. Would it make sense to remove the print from the frame to stamp the print, put it all back together then stamp the mat board as well? Or maybe include a stamped piece of paper as a certificate of authenticity while placing the stamp on the print as well?

Thank you for your help.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I hope it's ok to resurrect this thread. I had a show this year in September which is still up. I sold a couple of the prints and would like to add some sort of stamp of authenticity or the like. It was suggested here that I should place the stamp on the back of the print itself, however the prints have already been framed and furthermore, I would like the client to see the stamp so they know it is of the edition. Would it make sense to remove the print from the frame to stamp the print, put it all back together then stamp the mat board as well? Or maybe include a stamped piece of paper as a certificate of authenticity while placing the stamp on the print as well?

It will be a pain but I am certain any curator or collector would want to have that stamp on the back of the print. A certificate is nice but not something I've seen very often, other than with editioned ink jet prints. I'd take them to the framer, have them cracked open, stamp and sign and then put right back together. A stamp on the backer board would be a nice touch as well.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Yamamoto Masao print stamp:

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Weegee print stamp:

 

[Peter Schrager]

I have quite an involved stamp stating these belong to me or my heirs. also a similar one that is in calligraphy..away from my photo stuff right now but will take a digi snap when I'm reconnected to my mounting supplies...it's all good..I feel it is professional and the proper way to finish the job!!
best, peter

 

[Maris]

An un-annotated photograph, even a beautiful one, has no identity. It is an orphan lost to history and will be discarded the instant it fails to appeal. The stamp on a photograph, and all the other markings too, establishes it as an object with a historic, cultural, and possible aesthetic context. To destroy such a piece is more likely malice than common neglect. I've marked all my photographs for decades. Here's an example:
Front:

Back:

 

[mooseontheloose]

What a beautiful print Maris. I like the simplicity of your stamp as well.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There are many and myriad ways to personalise a print. I do not scribble on the front or rear of my framed prints, and I see no relevance to mention of camera, film, lens and other flotsam so often romantically evoked over several (or many!) lines by a number of photographers. I have seen almost a third of the rear mat taken up with wholly irrelevant, almost pretentious discourse on camera, lens, apertures, program, filter, colour space....<*groan*>. Melbourne photographer David Tatnall has an elegant, small round embossed 'stamp' on the margin rebate of his prints and he has done this for many years. It is elegant and inconspicuous. My own labels, rather than 'stamps' are typeset (by me) and printed to pH-neutral self-adhesive paper affixed to the rear of the mat or framed print in the frameshop, then photographed as file reference. Unmatted/framed prints are never marked, front or rear and are not sold as unmatted or unframed works. In the case of several extant Ilfochrome Classic prints and those in the collection of Melbourne University/Royal Melbourne Hospital, a Certificate of Authenticity from both the printer and a Statement by Photographer/Originality of Work is also included.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you stamp these on the back of the print itself, or somewhere viewable in the frame?

I use them on the back of the mount board.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

An un-annotated photograph, even a beautiful one, has no identity. It is an orphan lost to history and will be discarded the instant it fails to appeal. The stamp on a photograph, and all the other markings too, establishes it as an object with a historic, cultural, and possible aesthetic context. To destroy such a piece is more likely malice than common neglect.

Beautiful work there, Maris. Just terrific.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Alexander Rodchenko print stamp (sorry, a bit fuzzy). Just went through several portfolios of his work at a local gallery.