Photographic print signing

[xles]

Greetings from Sweden!

 

I'm an amateur photographer and self proclaimed fountain pen enthusiast.

I've had this idea of signing photographic prints, and as such, I would need to find an ink that can be considered of "archival grade", so that it doesn't ruin the prints. And waterproof so it doesn't turn to smudge in case of an accident. The optimal ink would be one that worked equally well on both RC (Rosin coated, "plastic") and FB (Fiber based, "paper") photographic paper, on both the backside as well as the emulsion side.

 

Any ideas? It would be a pity to have to get a special kind of felt pen or whatever to do it.

 

Either way, lovely little community you have here, a lot of good stuff.

[ZeissIkon]

Ansel Adams (who lived and worked through the core of the fountain pen era, from the 1920s through the 1970s) always recommended using only a soft pencil to sign prints, and recommended signing only on the front, in the extra wide border (an inch or more all around) that he always recommended for archive or mounted prints. Graphite from a pencil won't interact chemically with either the emulsion or the paper, works on both RC and fiber papers, won't come off in water, and ought to outlast even a selenium or gold toned image. Sharpie markers are specifically a bad idea; not only not archival (the marker ink itself fades with light exposure), but chemicals in the ink can affect the silver image, and can transfer from the back of one print to the emulsion of another (especially on RC paper).

 

If you must use a fountain pen, I'd recommend signing only fiber paper, only on the back, and using a bulletproof Noodler's ink in a fairly dry pen, blotted after about ten seconds to remove ink pooled on the surface (which could smear or transfer). Any water based dye ink will penetrate the emulsion gelatin, but the most permanent dyes aren't archival compared to toned silver image and there's no way to be certain a particular dye won't react with the image silver. Further, gelatin can scrape off the emulsion and lodge in the slit, requiring frequent cleaning of a pen used to sign the emulsion side.

 

Edit for typo.

Edited March 3, 2010 by ZeissIkon

[desertsquid]

Greetings from Sweden!

 

I'm an amateur photographer and self proclaimed fountain pen enthusiast.

I've had this idea of signing photographic prints, and as such, I would need to find an ink that can be considered of "archival grade", so that it doesn't ruin the prints. And waterproof so it doesn't turn to smudge in case of an accident. The optimal ink would be one that worked equally well on both RC (Rosin coated, "plastic") and FB (Fiber based, "paper") photographic paper, on both the backside as well as the emulsion side.

 

Any ideas? It would be a pity to have to get a special kind of felt pen or whatever to do it.

 

Either way, lovely little community you have here, a lot of good stuff.

 

I saw a photo of William Eggleston signing a print the other day. He was using a Sharpie to sign the white border around the front of the photo. I don't think I'd want a photo signed there though because I'd want to display it without the signature distracting the viewer. Perhaps it would be OK if the signature were far enough away from the image to allow the signature to be covered by the mat. An alternative would be to sign the back, but ink tends to show through. I've found that a very soft pencil (6B) is a better choice, and it works on shiny surfaces.

 

It's hard to write on RC paper with a fountain pen because it's so shiny. And you might not find a fountain-pen ink that is truly waterproof (or even smudge-proof) on that surface. The ink would sit on the coating and not penetrate as far as the paper, so even Noodler's Bulletproof ink would not have a chance to bind with the cellulose of the paper. From what I remember of FB papers, writing on the back would work OK but you'd still have the problem of the ink showing through.

 

If you are signing the front edge, the Sharpie ink is a good choice for the shiny surface because the ink is alcohol-based and is reasonably stable once the alcohol has evaporated. I would go with the soft pencil on the back of the print, but it is a personal choice.

[xles]

I saw a photo of William Eggleston signing a print the other day. He was using a Sharpie to sign the white border around the front of the photo. I don't think I'd want a photo signed there though because I'd want to display it without the signature distracting the viewer. Perhaps it would be OK if the signature were far enough away from the image to allow the signature to be covered by the mat. An alternative would be to sign the back, but ink tends to show through. I've found that a very soft pencil (6B) is a better choice, and it works on shiny surfaces.

 

It's hard to write on RC paper with a fountain pen because it's so shiny. And you might not find a fountain-pen ink that is truly waterproof (or even smudge-proof) on that surface. The ink would sit on the coating and not penetrate as far as the paper, so even Noodler's Bulletproof ink would not have a chance to bind with the cellulose of the paper. From what I remember of FB papers, writing on the back would work OK but you'd still have the problem of the ink showing through.

 

If you are signing the front edge, the Sharpie ink is a good choice for the shiny surface because the ink is alcohol-based and is reasonably stable once the alcohol has evaporated. I would go with the soft pencil on the back of the print, but it is a personal choice.

 

Yeah, I know that pencil is probably the best option, but the problem with pencil is; It's erasable. And I don't want to sound like I have a huge ego here, but I know from experience that when looking at a photograph printed 100 years ago, it's a damned shame when you can't read what it says on the back. But if one intend on having a print last for that long, RC paper is out the window anyway.. Not saying that any of my photography will last that long, but what if?

Either way one wouldn't sign it anywhere where it'd be visible to the public, that's just egotistical (and rude to the person purchasing the print, if you sell prints that is). So it'd be on the border behind the matt or on the backside of it.

 

I don't know about the "archivalness" of sharpie ink though, I'll have to look into that. Not a big fan of felt pens in general though, which is why I went on looking for an appropriate ink for my Good pens in the first place. Thanks for the suggestion though!

[xles]

If you must use a fountain pen, I'd recommend signing only fiber paper, only on the back, and using a bulletproof Noodler's ink in a fairly dry pen, blotted after about ten seconds to remove ink pooled on the surface (which could smear or transfer). Any water based dye ink will penetrate the emulsion gelatin, but the most permanent dyes aren't archival compared to toned silver image and there's no way to be certain a particular dye won't react with the image silver. Further, gelatin can scrape off the emulsion and lodge in the slit, requiring frequent cleaning of a pen used to sign the emulsion side.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. Seems pencil is the go to choice everywhere. Pity it's erasable though, although, that could be a good thing in some cases. Bad for the "artist" though.

 

I will have to try the bulletproof Noodler's ink on FB paper though, give it some harsh lab testing and evaluate the concept.

[Bill]

Zeissikon is correct. But do keep in mind that skeptics will say that resin-coated paper is not archival enough to bother about using only soft pencils. I used to make RC prints for resales of published photos and would write on pre-printed adhesive labels before affixing them to the back of the photos. Only a couple of times did anyone ask for my signature on the front. Typically, they were more interested in getting the autograph of their hero in the photo which would likely be done with a Sharpie anyway!

 

 

For art prints, I prefer pencils on the fiber surface as well as on the mats for double-signed prints.

 

You might also consider the fine-point Pilot "archival safe" gold and silver markers for RC surfaces. I have a couple of triple-signed P. Buckley Moss prints where she used them on the glass about 15 years ago and they still look fine. However, I used a silver one on a digital fiber print that has been in an office hallway for about 7 years and the signature is now a muddy gray color.

 

Bill

[xles]

But do keep in mind that skeptics will say that resin-coated paper is not archival enough to bother about using only soft pencils. ... For art prints, I prefer pencils on the fiber surface as well as on the mats for double-signed prints.

 

You might also consider the fine-point Pilot "archival safe" gold and silver markers for RC surfaces. I have a couple of triple-signed P. Buckley Moss prints where she used them on the glass about 15 years ago and they still look fine. However, I used a silver one on a digital fiber print that has been in an office hallway for about 7 years and the signature is now a muddy gray color.

 

I did evaluate the cost difference between RC and FB prints, FB is about twice the cost (at 24x30cm prints anyway), but considering the quality you get the price is a justified expense, in my opinion at least. So I don't think I'll be making many RC prints at all, but we'll see about that. Not too sure about the fine point Pilot pens though. I've heard a lot of mixed reviews on those from photographers.

[psfred]

If you are considering long term stability, soft pencil is probably the best. For a signature in the image area, an archival carbon ink would probably be a good choice, since it's unlikely to contain reactive materials and the carbon will "stick" pretty well to the gelatin. The only way to find out, unless someone else has done the work before, is to try it. India inks (see below) will also work well.

 

You will not be able to use Noodler's (or any other fountain pen ink) on the BACK of an RC print -- it's coated with polyethylene (plastic) and it won't wet worth diddly. Use a dip pen and india ink for that (not the acrylic inks, you want one of the old style inks with shellac or gum arabic in it).

 

Fiber base paper is the way to go for permanence IF you are very careful to get it washed correctly, tone with selenium for pollution resistance, and are VERY careful to avoid any acid paper in mounting (which means watch out for tape, glue, cheap mat board, acid paper frame backing, and so forth). We had a pile of family photographs I need to finish scanning and labeling before my mother can't help me identify people going back almost 100 years now, and some of them are in poor shape from being put in albums with acid paper. The albums have disintegrated, and the prints are badly sulfured.

 

Peter

[xles]

If you are considering long term stability, soft pencil is probably the best. For a signature in the image area, an archival carbon ink would probably be a good choice, since it's unlikely to contain reactive materials and the carbon will "stick" pretty well to the gelatin. The only way to find out, unless someone else has done the work before, is to try it. India inks (see below) will also work well.

 

You will not be able to use Noodler's (or any other fountain pen ink) on the BACK of an RC print -- it's coated with polyethylene (plastic) and it won't wet worth diddly. Use a dip pen and india ink for that (not the acrylic inks, you want one of the old style inks with shellac or gum arabic in it).

 

Hmm, I didn't consider dip pens and india ink. I have that on hand actually (and a decent variety of nibs for it too). Very interesting idea I must admit, I have to try that some day! If that doesn't work, I guess pencil is the way to go.

 

Thanks for all the great replies everyone!

[bluemagister]

Use a silverpoint pencil?

[FPFan]

I just happened to have a couple of trash prints from my Epson Picture Mate printer, on Epson paper sitting here and grabbed up my M200 loaded with Noodler's Heart of Darkness and much to my surprise as I wrote on the image the ink took rather well to the paper. Also have a pen filled with J Herbin Vert Empire I wrote on the photo with that, too. Moistened my finger and the HOD speared, but the Vert Empire stayed put. These are rather surprising results to me.

 

When working with photographs I have always used a black china marker type pencil. Graphite lead does nothing on color papers except make an impression in the image. The only reason Ansel Adams was able to use graphite was because of the nature of the black and white papers of his time. They were a more fiber based paper with a slight tooth to them.

 

I was in a scrapebooking store yesterday and picked up a Phone Marking pen by Kurtake, but I haven't taken it out of the package yet to see how it works.

 

Secondly, I always thought that when signing a "print" it was more appropriate to mount the photo and then sign under the photo on the mounting board.

 

Just my humble opinions here.

[xles]

I just happened to have a couple of trash prints from my Epson Picture Mate printer, on Epson paper sitting here and grabbed up my M200 loaded with Noodler's Heart of Darkness and much to my surprise as I wrote on the image the ink took rather well to the paper. Also have a pen filled with J Herbin Vert Empire I wrote on the photo with that, too. Moistened my finger and the HOD speared, but the Vert Empire stayed put. These are rather surprising results to me.

 

When working with photographs I have always used a black china marker type pencil. Graphite lead does nothing on color papers except make an impression in the image. The only reason Ansel Adams was able to use graphite was because of the nature of the black and white papers of his time. They were a more fiber based paper with a slight tooth to them.

 

I was in a scrapebooking store yesterday and picked up a Phone Marking pen by Kurtake, but I haven't taken it out of the package yet to see how it works.

 

Secondly, I always thought that when signing a "print" it was more appropriate to mount the photo and then sign under the photo on the mounting board.

 

Just my humble opinions here.

 

I personally wouldn't ever sign a print anywhere publicly visible, unless specifically requested to do so by the purchaser. (Engraved brass plate on the frame maybe, but that's most often way too tacky.)

 

As for the ink on paper trial you did, I appreciate the though, but pardon me saying so. Isn't that just high resolution inkjet printer paper? That is to say, paper specifically designed for absorbing and retaining inks? I was rather referring to "real" photographic paper (D76-ish or RA4 processing) if you catch my drift. Interesting trial nonetheless though!

[PhotoJim]

When working with photographs I have always used a black china marker type pencil. Graphite lead does nothing on color papers except make an impression in the image. The only reason Ansel Adams was able to use graphite was because of the nature of the black and white papers of his time. They were a more fiber based paper with a slight tooth to them.

 

The time has not ended. Such papers are available today. I use Ilford's wonderful Multigrade IV FB for a lot of my work. Graphite will write on the less glossy surfaces better than on glossy paper, but it will work to some degree on all of them. It's not as cooperative with resin-coated papers, which are more popular but less archival.

 

A print on a properly-processed piece of fibre paper will probably last a couple of hundred years or more. There are extant prints on primitive versions of this paper from the 1830s.

[Koyote]

Pencil.

[xles]

The time has not ended. Such papers are available today. I use Ilford's wonderful Multigrade IV FB for a lot of my work. Graphite will write on the less glossy surfaces better than on glossy paper, but it will work to some degree on all of them. It's not as cooperative with resin-coated papers, which are more popular but less archival.

 

A print on a properly-processed piece of fibre paper will probably last a couple of hundred years or more. There are extant prints on primitive versions of this paper from the 1830s.

 

I'm glad to hear that the general consensus of using graphite works perfectly on Ilford MG IV FB papers, since that is the paper I have access to as well.

 

I think that settles it then, pencil it is. I can use my Faber-Castell 2mm mechanical sketching pencil to satisfy my hunger for good pens I guess.

[jleeper]

I don't think I'd want to put anything on the front or the back of a print that sunk into the surface of the print. That basiclly means using a pencil.

[hamadryad11]

Either way one wouldn't sign it anywhere where it'd be visible to the public, that's just egotistical (and rude to the person purchasing the print, if you sell prints that is). So it'd be on the border behind the matt or on the backside of it.

 

Although I had heard that a soft pencil on the back is best, I'm not sure why it's more egotistical or rude for a photographer to sign the front of a photo than it is for a painter or printmaker to put their signature on the front. It's standard for them to do so. I don't believe it's at all unreasonable for a photographer to include the title of the piece, the number (if it's a numbered edition) and a signature on the front. That's the same information a printmaker will include on a limited-edition print, and it's done in pencil. I don't think an artist needs to be worried that someone will erase the signature/title/number on a photo or other artwork. What are they going to do, spend all kinds of money to get a picture from an artist they admire and then claim it's their work? That would be silly.

[FPFan]

I just happened to have a couple of trash prints from my Epson Picture Mate printer, on Epson paper sitting here and grabbed up my M200 loaded with Noodler's Heart of Darkness and much to my surprise as I wrote on the image the ink took rather well to the paper. Also have a pen filled with J Herbin Vert Empire I wrote on the photo with that, too. Moistened my finger and the HOD speared, but the Vert Empire stayed put. These are rather surprising results to me.

 

When working with photographs I have always used a black china marker type pencil. Graphite lead does nothing on color papers except make an impression in the image. The only reason Ansel Adams was able to use graphite was because of the nature of the black and white papers of his time. They were a more fiber based paper with a slight tooth to them.

 

I was in a scrapebooking store yesterday and picked up a Phone Marking pen by Kurtake, but I haven't taken it out of the package yet to see how it works.

 

Secondly, I always thought that when signing a "print" it was more appropriate to mount the photo and then sign under the photo on the mounting board.

 

Just my humble opinions here.

 

I personally wouldn't ever sign a print anywhere publicly visible, unless specifically requested to do so by the purchaser. (Engraved brass plate on the frame maybe, but that's most often way too tacky.)

 

As for the ink on paper trial you did, I appreciate the though, but pardon me saying so. Isn't that just high resolution inkjet printer paper? That is to say, paper specifically designed for absorbing and retaining inks? I was rather referring to "real" photographic paper (D76-ish or RA4 processing) if you catch my drift. Interesting trial nonetheless though!

 

I forget there are people who still have access to Black & White photo processing labs. I assumed you were talking about modern color and digital printing. It has been over twenty years since I have had access to a place where I could print black & white. I don't even buy the film anymore. My Toyo 4x5 sits quietly in its case and never gets a work out. . .

 

This has been a nice topic and I've enjoyed reading it.

[dcwaites]

Rotring drafting pen and Rotring black drawing ink.

 

The ink is basically a suspension of carbon and so won't sink into the emulsion or react with it, it won't fade in a thousand years (literally) and will stick to both RC and FB papers.

 

You will be able so sign wherever you want on the print - front, back, white margin.

[PhotoJim]

I forget there are people who still have access to Black & White photo processing labs. I assumed you were talking about modern color and digital printing. It has been over twenty years since I have had access to a place where I could print black & white. I don't even buy the film anymore. My Toyo 4x5 sits quietly in its case and never gets a work out. . .

 

There's no digital imaging technology that can come close to the resolution of a 4x5" piece of film. Dig it out and find a darkroom to borrow or rent.

 

I do a lot of colour work too but I do it traditionally as well. If I did a bunch of digital photography, I wouldn't want to spend even more time on a computer reading web forums.