And the Winner Is...(Yes, More About Pens)

Those of you who don't make and/or sign prints must be nearing terminal sufficiency on this topic, but let's face it, if you aspire to be an art photographer in the accepted sense you do need to make physical objects. A few more items:

1. To sign or not to sign, and where: I'm collecting some data on what the art market actually wants and expects with regard to the signing of artwork. I've sent a very short questionnaire to several museum curators, eminent gallerists, and serious collectors. I've already gotten two very useful replies, and if/when I get a few more I'll summarize the findings for you. A foretaste, though: in contrast to what I wrote yesterday, not everyone agrees with Ken that a recto signature isn't necessary.

2. Front-runner emerges: After signing many dozens more prints, it has emerged that my favorite pen of all for Canson Baryta Photographique paper is the Prismacolor Premier Illustration Marker Fine Line .05 black pictured above. This pen is almost always sold in sets of various colors or tips, so I thought I'd offer a direct link for the single pen alone. Here's the single pen and here's the page at Blick Art Supplies where you can find all the pens in the series. Hope this helps someone somewhere.

My endorsement is not a guarantee that the manufacturer's promise that "these markers contain premium, pigmented, acid-free, archival ink that is lightfast, permanent, non-toxic, and water resistant" is absolutely true at face value for your papers and your conditions. Just sayin'.

I'm also finding it's a good general-purpose writing marker, and it's not expensive ($1.61 ea. if you order 12), so I've ordered a dozen to have on hand. More working pens in the house is seldom a bad thing.

3. Ctein's take: Ctein was psyched that a recto signature isn't considered mandatory (we both came up in the era when it was), and he and I had a phone conversation about the various options for the back of the print: a stamp, a plate or label, and a third interesting option—but I'll let him tell you about it.

Mike

ADDENDUM from Tech. Ed. Ctein: Personally, I'm delighted to find out that collectors [at least some —Ed.] would prefer that I don't sign and title my prints on the front. Decades of practice have made me very good at that, but it's the most nerve-racking part of the whole printing process. A slip-up can ruin a print. If it's an inkjet print, it's a nuisance and some wasted time and a modest amount of money. If it's a dye transfer print, many, many hours of work go down the drain. It is much easier signing in soft pencil on the back; I've never screwed that up.

Regarding the signing of inkjet prints, stamping with ink raises all sorts of concerns.  The inherent archivality of the stamp is the least of mine. Inks are notorious for penetrating, bleeding, or outgassing. You'd want to have  an ink that would adhere to the paper, would not smear, would not penetrate if you're printing on fiber-based paper, and won't transfer anything or outgas solvents to a sheet of paper below it  (whether or not there is an interleaf sheet between the prints—those are not impermeable barriers). These physical requirements are likely to be very different for fiber-based prints and RC prints.

Signing in soft graphite pencil (e.g., a retouching pencil) is an entirely safe practice. Signing or stamping on the back with ink is an unknown.

With one exception: rather than physically stamp, you can print the information on the back of the paper with your inkjet printer. At least in theory. You can even scan in your chop or your signature and print that as well.

There are two practical issues that arise here:

1. The first is whether the ink  would properly  adhere to the back of the paper and not smear or transfer to an adjacent sheet—not a problem with fiber-based papers, but it might not work with RC papers. You'd have to try it.

2. The second is that it requires running the paper through the printer face-down. That may or may not scratch the surface of the print. It will depend entirely upon the printer and inkset, the chosen paper path, and the kind of paper: RC  vs. fiber base, glossy, semi-matte/gloss, or matte surface. Matte surface papers, in particular, are notoriously easy to scuff and mark. Again, you'd have to give it a try with your particular paper and setup.

For what it's worth, I just ran the experiment on my current setup: Epson 3880 printer, rear paper diagonal feed, and Canson Baryta Photographique paper. I'm delighted to find out that front-side scratching is not a problem. I get an un-marred print whether I print the backside first or the frontside first (allowing a day of blotting and drying after printing the frontside before printing on the back).

I'm pretty sure your mileage will differ, but I'm a happy camper.

Ctein

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ming Thein: "We must have tested 30+ different pens over the last few months as part of the Ultraprint development process. I've found that either the Faber-Castell pigment markers (grey body, silver clip) or the dark blue bodied Pilot 'Drawing Pen Pigment Ink' pens work best—on both Canson Baryta Photographique and Canson Infinity Platin Fiber Rag (the latter of which is my personal preference)."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Just to be clear...I think people should 'sign' their photo prints any way that makes them happy, including potentially not signing them at all. My earlier remarks were 'observational'; I was reporting what I have observed having had the opportunity to closely inspect many, many prints of many of the most influential photographers of history. That is, I was not attempting to be prescriptive.

"Signatures are, of course, symbols of authentication and authorization. So to the extent that a signature represents an artist's authority it will naturally be desirable to a collector if all other factors are equal. But they often aren't 'equal'; that's the hitch. There are, for example, more than a few situations where a photographer never signed highly-desirable 'vintage' prints of his work, but did sign much later and poorer prints that often go unsold, or bought-in, at auctions.

"Then, of course, there is the whole issue of the authentication of the signature. One of the most famous cases of photo print fraud in our times was the case of the Lewis Hine prints which were signed. I am acquainted with someone who was burned by this incident, having purchased a 'Powerhouse Worker' print from an established dealer. Despite the Hine signature, an expert thought that the print just 'looked too pretty' to be authentic...which it was not. (The collector received a full refund, by the way.)

"But I digress. Few, if any, of us sell into the 'Art' market , so 'Forever Authentication' is not really a major factor for consideration. Marks made by pencils, pens, crayons will all last more than long enough to do the job. (In fact the 'lasting' nature of most marks is what gives conservators headaches.) Our signatures are principally marks of pride of authorship. So again I recommend that you sign your photos wherever and however it makes you happy to do so."

Mike replies: Good points all. Especially the observation that it's unlikely ever to be a serious issue for most if not all of us. What I'm learning from the other experts I'm consulting also seems to indicate that there is considerable latitude for preference—what the photographer prefers, what her or his customers prefer, what the gallery owners prefer. So the best thing is to do it your way—then that will become what is characteristic and expected of your prints, if and when anyone in the future is paying attention.

Terry Letton: "For what it's worth, the prize of my minuscule print collection is a portrait of the Indian poet Rabandrandath Tagore. It is not signed but is stamped on the back Studio of Edward S. Curtis. Good enough for me."

Richard Alan Fox [whose question started all this —Ed.]: "Super thanks Mike."

Clayton Jones: "I make B&W prints, but on matte paper. My favorite paper is Epson's Hot Press Natural, which accepts a signature beautifully with a #2 pencil. This means a light signature can be applied. My favorite pencil for this is the Papermate Sharpwriter #2, an inexpensive mechanical pencil that can be purchased at CVS and Walgreens (just about anywhere).

"During the short period when I used glossy papers, I used a Staedtler Marsmatic 700 refillable pen which was loaded with the same light gray pigment ink I used in the printer, so I knew it would last as long as the print. I have never liked bold, black recto signatures which pull the viewer's eye and compete with the picture. I like the signature to be there, but not draw attention to itself."

David Paterson: "Messing up prints while attempting to sign them is definitely an issue with me, so for some time now it has been my habit to print a digital signiature and abbreviated date in the bottom right-hand margin of each print. I don't sell a huge number of prints but I have never had a complaint since I started doing this."

Comments

[Gato]

FWIW, when I print on the back I always print the back first - that way I have not wasted the ink and time to do the photo if anything goes wrong.

I've never printed the back as an artist's signature, but have printed contact info on commercial prints.

Thanks, Mike, for putting together this info. I'll be watching for the results of your survey. And will order a few pens as well.

[hugh crawford]

FYI running a print through the printer to print on the back cost me about $3500 last year.

American Express extended warranty covered a couple thousand dollars of out of warranty repairs on my printer, then I had to buy a new one for $2500 out of pocket and throw away a thousand dollars worth of ink and a pair of perfectly good $450 printheads since the printer writes its info to the printhead when you install it and then no other printer can use it.

Roll fed large format printers really don't like any reverse curl in the paper. at least the Canon IPF series.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

While I agree that the printer ink on the back is not very likely to lead to a bad outcome (other than transfer to other sheets if they touch before it's dry), from what little I think I understand about the complex system of layers on the front of modern printing paper, I'd have to say that the interaction of ink with those layers could conceivably have different archival properties than the ink standing more alone on the backing paper.

It's amazing that pencil is acceptable. In legal and financial contexts I've been taught all my life that pencil is never acceptable, because it's not permanent (too easily altered). And I never felt they wrote well on the back of RC paper. (Mostly one wouldn't use RC for art prints, but I was marking commercial prints where RC was perfectly fine.)

[Davida]

I have been thinking for some time that a thumbprint with permanent ink on the back would be a better solution to the signature issue. A bit of dna would guarantee authenticity, hopefully.

[ShadZee]

You should change the title of this post to:
"After Much Consideration, I've Decided on The Best Pen for Signing Prints and Photographs"

And also link to the previous posts on this discussion. I'm sure lots of people could use, and will use the information in these posts. I will be much easier to find them on the "internets"

[Jim Bullard]

After years of trying different things I sign and date my prints on the back with a B or HB pencil. I also sign in the lower margin on the face, again with pencil, if the surface of the paper will accept it. Many years ago (wet darkroom days) when I was shooting news photos I used to rubber stamp the back and the old stamped images still in my possession do not show any problems from the stamping them. I have not however tried stamps on digital prints. If I were to try it I would do so on the back in the margin, not on the back of the print area.

[Stan B.]

I was always under the impression that signing a photograph on the front was a tad... tacky. Don't rightly know since I'm not exactly versed in that... experience. It certainly would seem odd to view an exhibition of "signed" photographs- as opposed to paintings.

[Jerry Stachowski]

I like the solution that Ken Tanaka came up with. With the print, he sent a separate sheet describing the printing process. It was from a TOP sale, so I was happy to assist both Ken and Mike.

[Mathew Hargreaves]

Thanks for the great work guys. The information you are passing along is appreciated. I tried to come up with a new variation of "The Pen is mightier than the Sword" but could not. Sigh.

[Michael Farley]

I once inadvertently put a sheet of RC paper through my Epson 3800 the wrong way up. There was no absorption of inks into the surface and the image took on a surreal appearance due to the different colours bleeding into each other. Much to my wife's dismay, I left the print out to see how long it would take to dry, which was around six months.

[Pete Smith]

I like the idea of not signing at all. After a similar quest for a suitable pen when I switched to a baryta paper (because my ancient Epson 2200 has gotten very cranky about changing PK to MK) I almost ruined one finished print making a very sloppy signature! I'm all for soft pencil. And while on this whole subject, do we really need titles? Either the image speaks for itself or it doesn't...

[Wayne Fox]

I’m not sure why collectors would care if the print was signed on the front, artists signing their work predates photography by several centuries. But from a practical perspective, the vast majority of photographers trying to earn income from their work are not being “collected”, and the buyers know little else other than they really like the piece. So the signature really is intended to identify the work to all who view it, and some part of that is hoping it will entice others to consider purchasing, or at least googling the name and looking at the work. (in other words, marketing).

I would suggest that incorporating the signature by scanning an actual signature and then adding it to the file so it is produced during the inkjet printing process seems quite acceptable. Not much different than stamping it, and most likely the most archival and least hazardous method. OK, maybe that isn’t “hand signed”, but the signature is accurate and identifies the artist. I use “archival pens” as mentioned in this post, but as stated, I’m not really sure how archival they really are, so I’ve resigned my self to the scan/print method.

[Andrew Hughes]

OK, if we are going to go with verso pencil (Hooray as my hand writing is truly horrible), what is the best pencil? Is 3B about right or should we be looking at 6-7B?

I realise that there is no standard for pencil hardness but guess that one 3B is pretty similar to another if you buy a reputable brand.

[Julius]

It would seem embossing could be a good way to go instead of signing. No ink or other fluid, and not easily copied. Embossing machines with your presonal seal are relatively cheap these days. The seal can even be your signature.

[Dan]

Regarding pens:
I create art prints for weddings (wedding contracts called ketubahs) which the bride and groom sign at the ceremony. I always recommend that they use the Sakura or Zig pigment ink pens to sign. As long as they are "pigment ink" (and therefore roughly akin the Ultrachrome inks), I feel they are as good and archival as we can get. In over 10 years, this has worked well for my customers.

For my fine art prints:
my standard practice has bee to sign my name on the front in pencil (I print on cotton-rag matte papers). I am careful when signing to leave a gap between the signature and the print, so that they can mat the signature out (or in) as they wish. Then on the back I write (again in pencil) title, date, name, signature. Canvas prints only get signed and titled on the back.

But I'll be very interested in hearing the results of your survey!

[james rhem]

Not that anybody wants or cares about my prints, but I've taken to printing my impressive right thumb print on the back (verso) in addition to signing in pencil. I use a small ink pad to ink the thumb. I got the idea thinking of Japanese printmakers red signature blocks and of course living in Wisconsin of FL Wright's adaption of that as a red signature tile on his buildings. (So why don't I use red ink for the thumb print? I don't have it around)

[Peter Randall]

I would be concerned with a stamp bleeding through the paper especially as I mostly use matte finish paper. I usually sign on the front with a #2 pencil, but i made a label to use on the back of a matted print. Hard to find archival label paper and i wonder about labels bleeding through through on front of the print. Any thoughts?

[Mark Johnson]

Great idea Ctein - however rather than printing on the back AFTER the image is print on the front, perhaps try printing on the back BEFORE printing the image on the front. This way if a smudge occurs you are only out the cost of paper, and not much ink or time.

Just a thought.

[Anthony.]

On one occassion I accidentally printed on the wrong side of a glossy photo sheet. My Epson 3880 pigment certainly made a mess as it just sat on the surface and smeared around. That said, it's certainly one very expensive way of making a source of ink for a rubber stamp.

[robert e]

Thanks again, Mike, for the tips on pens (pun unintended) and on this particular paper. Assuming the paper and I get along, what a great excuse to go pen shopping!

I obviously have a special interest in this topic, but I have to say that in general I both expect and welcome TOP's occasional geekings out over an obscure nook or cranny of photography. Besides, we were due for a post about gear.

[robert e]

FWIW, my favorite paper so far is Canson Infinity Rag Photographique, a textured matte paper. Besides good weight, feel and texture, it's the brightest of all the non-chemically-brightened papers that I've sampled. I'm also a fan of their drawing and watercolor papers. But I think some photographs call for something a bit punchier, and I'm hoping the Baryta is it.

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

I have just visited the Demarchelier exhibition at camera work in Berlin.
Prices up to 88000 Euros per print (don't worry, the cheapest ones are only 4500).
He signs recto, apparently with pencil.
His BW prints are silver gelatin, often selenium treated, or platinum print.
The colour prints are inkjets, called "archival pigment prints".

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Embossing is an interesting idea. Doesn't, as Julius said, add additional chemistry to the already complex mix.

The embossers I know seem to be intended for 20 to 24 pound paper, though. Does anybody who has one (for other purposes, presumably) want to try it on the weight paper we use for collectible prints, something around 300GSM (sorry for mixed unit systems, but writing paper is normally speced one way and serious inkjet print paper the other) and report how it goes?