From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 05/27/00-08:48:29 AM Z
Hi Brian
Thanks!
Anyway, I understand what you mean about wanting to sign the overmat- I've
seen this done by others too, and it can indeed look very well. The problem
is that it would be all too easy for the overlay to become separated from
the print, and then we would have an
unsigned print, which is not very professional.
I do understand the concerns both you and Jonathan have about signatures
and titles in the borders of prints, and Jonathan is absolutely right- a
perfectly valid method, with plenty of antecedents within photography, is to
sign and date the back of the print. I did study printmaking when I was at
art school though, and I got used to the idea of signing on the front. I
(personally) think it adds a nice touch.
Perhaps you should consider a variant of Jonathan's technique, and sign the
back of the print in pencil and repeat the signature on the overmat. That
way the print itself will be permanently signed, and your aesthetic concerns
will be addressed too.
I agree with Jonathan BTW that the best thing to do if someone tries to
persuade you to adopt another method is to show that you have considered the
issue and have arrived at your conclusion as a result.
Regards
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Ellis" <bellis@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 03:21
Subject: Re: a question...
> Hi Rod - What a terrific message. Thanks for posting it. One question
> though: why must one never sign the overlay? I've always preferred that
just
> because I like to keep the writing as far out of the way of the image as
> possible. I know that isn't the "standard" way but I've never had an
> objection (then again I'm not selling to MOMA nor are people paying
> thousands of dollars for my prints, unfortunately). Thanks again for a
very
> interesting and informative message. Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST