Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Interesting. Sign on the photo margin, or on the matte/mount? The matte/mount may be or may need to be changed, not so much the photo itself. Do you sign the actual work or just the 'packaging'?

Toment Loc: FL, IL

My bad

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

1/50 does not make it an original, just the first of a series, which still adds value. The term print vs original does not have the same meaning in photography. The question you need to answer is whether the photo is unique or one of a series. If it is hand-signed, without a number, it "could" be the original, or first copy. If I were to purchase a piece of art, there are several things I am looking for. Generally, all prints are "signed and numbered" as part of the duplication process, no matter what the mechanism. Those from the artist are "Oversigned" Below the number, it is hand signed. The 2nd thing I want is a certificate of authenticity. This will tell secondary market purchasers if I have one produced by the artist, one of a series of commercial prints, or a unique one of a kind. You cannot tell that from the print. Some of the oversigned prints are just initials, so if you don't like your signature, develop something unique that can be identified by dealers. If you expect your work to increase in value or be sought by collectors, you will need to think of this now. Otherwise, your signature is just used to protect a copywrite. BTW, you should look up photo copywrite threads on this site. There is an extensive discussion on that issue.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

As a buyer, I would still need a Certificate of Authenticity. But then again, is it the picture that is important or the artist? I would pay more for any Ansel Adams print than I would for my best work. But I need to know it is authentic.

lsupremo Loc: Palm Desert, CA

Sorry people, back in the film days we saw something we wanted to work with, we decided what we wanted the image to say, and how to do it (Ansel Adams said "If you can't make it bigger and more importan, then don't push the button ").

We then developed the film of that image in a the way we had previously planned in order to capture that image we pre visualized. Now we have a negative to put into our enlarger and PP it in various ways, like we now do in our computers. NOW we have an ORIGINAL print. All other prints are NOT the original, because had to be PP again and probably never exactly the same. These we could call 1 of xx or something.

Today we end up having digital copy of our work which can be duplicated by our printers, but are they really originals?

I don't know what to call them! We seem to have lots of opinions on that subject.

Frank

alliebess Loc: suburban Philadelphia

I just returned from a brief visit to an art gallery which had some photographs on exhibit. Not all were signed, but those that were had signatures on the lower right border of the photograph.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

The take I've most read and agree with is Numbering prints is to indicate a limited number will be printed. This only really makes sense for a "known" photographer. Limited run prints are also expected to be pricey due to name recognition or fame. Seems egotistical for a beginner (in the photo art sales world).

My signature looks horrible and getting worse due to arthritis. I found a common script font that is not too far different from my best signature in my youth, so I use that on my photos when I do. Seeing as photographs and especially prints are a mechanically reproducible form of art, I often will mark my images with something like this [title of there is one] © [Year] Michael Williams (all in a script font). But I see nothing wrong with a photographer signing their work by hand either.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Sorry Frank!

It was entirely possible to create a proof and then a run of prints, say fifty for example, with the exact same circumstances and chemicals, using the exact same exposures and timing and temperatures. Might there have been minuscule differences, possibly, but probably not detectable or significant in any way.

Digital technology doesn't change that, it is the process and whether or not limitations are put upon it, especially as regards to consistency and the number of copies. There is no need to post process an image multiple times. One print or a thousand prints can be made of the exact same image. They are all original work, and can be identical for all intents and purposes.

That's why signatures - real ones - and a defined, finite set of individually numbered copies is important. Whether people value the work is a different discussion, but if they do then the authenticity, provenance and number of prints are all important.

lsupremo Loc: Palm Desert, CA

how can you duplicate dodging and burning ect. I do agree that if you go through the printing PP each of your prints will be "original", but will it be THE original?

I confess I do nit pick.

Thanks, Frank

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I get your point but it is a bit fuzzy. Even Ansel Adams changed the way he would print the same negative from time to time. Most of his work required a lot of precise dodging and burning as you note. To make things more murky, Ansel let students (people I know in fact) at his workshops print his negatives and keep the prints. Should those be considered "originals" since Ansel did not print them, yet can one tell them apart? In all actuality I would imagine that the backs are stamped in some way to indicate they were not printed by Ansel Adams himself. Another case in point, Cole Weston often printed photographs for his father Edward Weston, and he may have also printed for his bother Brett Weston. What are originals there? Yes, re-post processing a digital image does produce a new version of the image (I've done that myself after learning more techniques and tools in Photoshop) and if you sell your work, to be totally honest the re-edited ones should be called "version 2", "version 3", or "version 2009", "version 2017", etc. Computer printed photos should be nearly identical from print to print on the same paper, size, printer, etc. The tolerances of differences each time a printer runs or photo paper is developed (not all prints need dodging and burning), has standards in the industry. Nothing is perfect except an idea or idealized process. I guess that is where you may be coming from. It is no different from Lithographic printing other than the plate there could and does change over time from use. Likely why in that field they have series, runs, or editions.

You may claim only the first ever print is the original. From the traditional world of painting that might make sense. But even there many famous painters did more than one version of what is essentially the same painting. I'd feel they are all originals but of different versions. I have no idea how that is cataloged in the art world. William Blake for example painted the same watercolour paintings many times. Many different museums have different versions (I've held one myself once), again not sure how they are ID'd to tell them apart. Now looking back I should have asked the curator how museums identify them from one to another. So in the end I'm not being precise or reaching a conclusion either, just pointing out the topic is large and complex and with out first agreeing on terminology we can't tell who is agreeing with who or what is what in this.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It depends upon how much dodging and burning was required. Ansel Adams appears to have managed to make such work a repeatable process, even if he changed his ideas about a single image over time.

Not all images require significant treatment in that way.

With a printing process such as photography one could argue that there is no such thing as 'the' original unless only one print is made.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

All prints are original, not copies. Copies would be copies made from those copies, not the original file.
Any print outputted from a file, would be an original print. If it were outputted again it would be a duplicate original print.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I should have said "photographic prints".

The Watcher

The first print is the original, each print thereafter is considered a copy of the original.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Each print off the original source, be it a negative, a file, a block, an engraving plate, etc is an original print. It is the nature of the beast. A copy is when a different process is used to produce the item in question. Like a forged painting is a copy, or a photographic reproduction of a painting is a copy, or a print made from a photograph of a photograph is a copy of the original photograph. But anything that is printed off the original source is an original print.