Questions about limiting editions of prints

[benjiboy]

I was involved for many years in local and national photographic competitions and any prints submitted would be automatically disqualified if the photographers name was on the front and could be seen by the judges, to avoid any favouritism.

 

[gzinsel]

IMO, you sign your name in pencil, on the back of the print. if it is (part) of an edition let that be known on the back of the print. trying to sign on the (front) a.k.a -super coating (gelatin) is a bad idea(imo). do not sign mat board. If it is framed but a card next to it having name of artist, tittle, size, edition, and price. thats it.

 

[eddie]

trying to sign on the (front) a.k.a -super coating (gelatin) is a bad idea(imo).

Why? I only use matte papers, and sign on the print, using pencil. It doesn't do any damage to the surface.

 

[miha]

The whole idea that photography could be sold as "Art" is a fairly recent idea since WW11 that was largely promulgated by galleries , and photographers agents to increase the products that they could make a profit on by displaying.

Actually the idea that photography could be sold as art began much sooner. One of the first (if not the first) galleries promoting photography opened in 1905 by Alfred Stieglitz in NYC, gallery 291. I have no idea of the WW impact and when similar galleries opened in Paris, London, Prague? (any art historians among us?).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why? I only use matte papers, and sign on the print, using pencil. It doesn't do any damage to the surface.

Exactly. The matte papers are fine to sign on the front, and many photographers do this. I don't see anything wrong with it, other than that personal preference guides what looks good and not.

Personally I put a very small signature in the lower right of the photograph, below the print area in the white space I leave between it and the window mat.

Then I sign the print on the verso with my name, title, date photographed, date printed, and any numbering of edition. Then the same info gets recorded on the back of the board the print is mounted on. It's how I like to do it, but don't really care one way or another how others do it. We're all different in what we like.

 

[benjiboy]

Actually the idea that photography could be sold as art began much sooner. One of the first (if not the first) galleries promoting photography opened in 1905 by Alfred Stieglitz in NYC, gallery 291. I have no idea of the WW impact and when similar galleries opened in Paris, London, Prague? (any art historians among us?).

I should have written "more prevalent since WW11".

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Photography might have been "sold as art" from a while back but it wasn't until much more recently that the more prominent galleries and museums took it at a serious level even close to other forms of art.

 

[benjiboy]

Photography might have been "sold as art" from a while back but it wasn't until much more recently that the more prominent galleries and museums took it at a serious level even close to other forms of art.

Certainly Richard in the days that I became interested in photography in 1953 if you would have told the majority of serious photographers that what they were shooting was " Art", they would have probably laughed in you're face.

 

[DWThomas]

I use pencil on the back of the print to record title, date printed, and lately a code that connects me to the specific negative. I double mat my work and I sign, gently in pencil, at the right side of the inner mat at the bottom, which I make slightly larger than the the top and sides. What the hell, I cut the mat personally!!! I have received many compliments on my "presentation" so I have no plans to change. If a specific exhibition requirement ruled out a sig on the front, I might go along -- or skip the exhibition.