When I'm making (inkjet) prints for gifts (or someday maybe to sell?), I've been sizing the image so it fits with some margin within a standard mat. [I hate cutting mats, but if I ever go into the business I guess I'll have to learn. The pre-cut mats I've been using are relatively inexpensive, $5, and they *say* Museum Mat, so would hope they are somewhat archieval, but true archieval boards do cost 3X this.] I then add a thin black border around the image area in Photoshop. I sign the print by hand, with the date, using a Sharpie permanent marker. I think the result looks kind of classy, but I'm wondering what you-all think? I've seen some folks use pencil instead of permanent pen. Lots of times with a numbered series there will be a series number.

Having been the recipient of not one but two Misha original prints... I must say I thought they look rather classy....the way you did them up... and they look great in frames! I do think that images I've seen in galleries and the like have been signed in pencil, on the matte edge. Dated usually and if it's a limited edition the number of the print in relation to the total printed. I've been able to buy matt board for $5 for a fairly large piece at craft stores like AC Moore... is it archival? Well I'm not sure.....hmmmm......

Misha, what do you use to "seal" the injet prints? Anything? Does look classy I must admit!

...hmm. On the matte edge... I've seen that also. Wonder which is the preferred technique? For display, inkjet prints need to be sealed from atmosphere. This arrangement pressed tightly against glass, and in a frame, may work OK. I think the real fastidious will seal the back of the frame with Kraft paper and glue around the frame rectangle. For generall passing around and showing, I'll sometimes sandwitch the print between two sheets of plexiglas, and duct-tape the edges. Not classy, but cheap. Effective???

Misha, this looks fine, most of the signed prints I've noticed use pencil, but I've never seen a rule where you have to use pencil, I may use one of those big kindergarden crayons myself! What matters the most, the image or the signature medium? Jack

don't think it really matters either whether you use pencil or marker... personally i would like to be able to see the signature these look great Misha! :D *wistfully... i hope Santa gets my letter asking for a photo printer this year... i've been a good girl...

Ok...I can't take it anymore. I laugh every time I read it (I just have one of those minds). I think there's a really big difference between "Mating and Framing" and "Matting and Framing". :) Hehehe ... anyway, from what I've heard, the camp that gos with pencil does so mainly because the light grey of the pencil kind of blends in. It's not as noticable as black ink and therefore it doesn't draw attention from the composition of the photo. So I guess what they are saying is that having a signature in ink could lead the eye to the signature disturbing the way your eye would normally travel through the photo. I have no idea what is the right or wrong way; or if there even is a right or wrong way. Hehehe...he said "mating". :) -=>Donald

This looks pretty classy to me Misha, I would buy one of your prints, anytime!

LOL! No Donald you weren't the only one laughing about Mating... Shows you where my mind is....I just didn't want to be the one to point it out!! Hehehehe.....

I never seen your images...at least I don't think I have. So, I'm going to jump in your gallery and serf. Jinx

i'm with 'chelle... i wasn't going to point it out either... leave it to Donald! hehe :]

Sigh Mat? Matt? Matte? Anyhow, got your attention!

The black ink is perhaps more noticable than it really should be. Pencil looks nice, but seems to indent photo paper, and does not stick too well with glossy. I've seen it signed on the mat (matt, matte) board, but I've also heard folks argue that it is best to sign on the actual print as the framing can be replaced.

Cyn - BAH! This coming from miss "Shake Shake Shake - They appear to be doing some strange mating ritual!" HA! I scoff at your allusion ... ha I say!! Was that indignent enough? Did you see my nostrils flair? huh? Didja? Misha - I think, like everything else in art, do what -you- think looks best and to heck with what others think. I know some people use a softer pencil like a 3B or softer while others like to use a harder pencil (3H or harder). They say that it doesn't write as much as indent and looks almost like embossing. shrug again If you like the way you are doing it, then do it that way. How and where you sign your art is as much a part of the presentation as the cropping and framing that you do. Just don't do any mating in a public place, can get you in trouble. Bahahaha :) -=>Donald

that's what i meant- strange matting ritual smirk :D

i say do what you feel works for you. afterall, it can become your "signature". lol...how (and why) would you frame mating anyway?

The general rule of thumb that I've seen (I've been reading way too much about the subject), is that artists will sign their mattes in pencil to help with the archival quality. Apparently there are things in ink that can cut down on the archival life of a print.

On the other hand, it looks to me like anything that touches, surrounds, breathes near, looks at, etc. a print will bring down the archival quality. So I'd sign it however you like.

-Taltos

Sorry I'm late on this one, but I hope I can help seeing as I worked for a company that framed pictures. (No, buttmunch, not a kwikky-frame type outlet, this did the real McCoy, framing like 100000000000+ originals and restoring those 10-inch thick nasty big frames from 'Country Houses' and museums and the like. Still got the scar on my thumb from where I chopped the tip off concentrating on a VERY expensive bit of frame while cutting it.....a couple of hundred quid a foot it was, really special stuff.....looked crap though.) Anyways, this may be out of date and not 'chic' as it was way back then (16 years or so), but in general if it was an original the artist would sign the print. The medium used to sign and how much it showed depended on how 'flashy' the artist was and how much they wanted people to notice it. "Prints" on the other hand (ie, reprints of the original picture by a printing company as opposed to the artist) generally showed the signature already from the original and would therefore be signed on the 'mating' (snigger) or the board on the back of the frame if a sticker or something similar was used to show the authenticity and number. As for the air getting to it I personally wouldn't worry too much about that anyways - from what little I know of inks, most of the damage is probably done within the first few minutes of it being printed as it dries.... Regarding the back of the picture, I would personally always use the gummed paper around the edge. No matter how good the frame makers are, it still looks neater. Plus in the future when they become valuable (ie. after you die, usually) it means someone will be pleased that the valuer is easily able to tell that the picture hasn't been tampered with in any way....... If you want to have a chuckle to yourself, hand-scribble a message on a bit of paper and put it in with the print... different message every time..... then seal it ;) If you ever do get famous you can let people know that the messages exist, and have them battle with their own curiosity to see what they say vs devaluing the picture... ROFL.... (",)

Ooh! I like that!

-starts scribbling-

"I ripped open my valuable print, and all I got was this lousy scrap of paper..."