Displaying prints with a watermark rather than being signed etc

[AJQS]

In a couple of weeks I have a small display going on locally and am just having a play with regards framing and display options. would be interested in your thoughts on displaying like this:

SUNSET YR EIFL S5_DSF1075-2 (C) R A JONES QUARRYSCAPES by Alan Jones, on Flickr

Good Idea or not?

Originally the plan was to crop all the images to fit the mounts I had and then the text would be hidden by the mounts once framed (I still wanted the un-mounted images to look quite sleek rather than just being a bog standard print) like this:

_DSF2351 by Alan Jones, on Flickr

Now I'm thinking maybe do away with the mounts and just display like that in the frame?

Would appreciate any feedback, my main area of concern is whether the use of a web address detracts?

(excuse massive JPEG compression, forgot to change it from facebook settings!)

 

[boliston]

do you mean a watermark on the image itself?

i think the white mount looks fine but id avoid the black frame - never been overly keen on frames

 

[simonblue]

about the black frame (n)

 

[AJQS]

OK will ignore that, since it's staying! What about the way the image is presented with the text watermark? Would you be instantly turned off putting it on your wall because of it?

This is how it will look on the wall:

FRAME4 by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

[droj]

The web address is maybe just a bit too prominent in the mix and I feel it would be better if you took its text size down a point or two. Could you also centralise the vertical divider bar?

Where's the show to be?

 

[ChrisR]

Alan, I know very little about framing and display, but having three fonts and three styles looks very odd to me. Have you tried reducing the web address to the weight and position of the current title, then having title and artist on the same line below, same font and weight? I agree a bit with Rog about centralising the divider (at least as it's currently arranged), but that's not going to work with my suggestion (but might matter less if the title comes first?).

Another suggestion: title centred below the picture (maybe stronger?), artist name and web site lighter, same font, under the right hand edge (fairly conventional for artist's signatures). ETA: for a show, every picture has a different title (probably), but the same artist and web address. So the title conveys more information to the viewer for each picture, and deserves to be stronger. Viewers can gather the artist and web info subliminally from all the pics, even if it isn't plastered elsewhere in the show, so they can be weaker on any individual image.

BTW, I think the black line works in this case. Should be a great show!

PS... I don't think of those texts as watermarks; I thought a watermark was text superimposed over the image itself.

 

[AJQS]

Good point on the divider, it was centred, but then I adjusted the kerning in the Script font which appears to have affected the bar too. Both are the same size font. It's a variation on my standard image watermark for the web which appears in the lower right corner normally. I want to use that rather than doing what I'd consider the 'norm' of signing the mount/print border in my own handwriting because my handwriting makes a 5 year old look like a calligrapher.

It's only a local thing, I'm not even sure where exactly as I'm not going to be there (I'll be at the WRGB). I was asked to supply a selection of pics, some local and some a bit 'different', so I agreed and it kinda spiralled a bit (There's also going to be slate art on there too so I really want to maximise the mileage out of the quarry theme). As I'm not there I really want the web address available so people can at least look me up before deciding to change the frame and add a mount!

 

[StewartR]

As I'm not there I really want the web address available so people can at least look me up before deciding to change the frame and add a mount!

It's still "available" if you put it under the right hand edge in a smaller/lighter font, as @ChrisR suggested. In the current position it's dominant, which I don't think is appropriate.

 

[simonkit]

Signature is a good idea Alan but lose the web address, stick a printed label on the rear of the frame with that info instead. It's not a good idea to put paper prints straight into a frame if you want them to last either, contact between the glass and photo will cause issue over time

Simon

 

[Pookeyhead]

@Alan Clogwyn

Are you exhibiting these to actually sell them, or is it just an exhibition? If it's just an exhibition, then don't put anything on them at all. I've been to hundreds, if not thousands of photography exhibitions... curated a fair few myself, and exhibited in many. No one ever puts watermarks on the displayed work. Display the work simply, and use separate text panels if you need to annotate the work in some way - whether it be titles, print medium description, or artist's statement. Do not deface the work in this way though for an exhibition.

If they're being sold in a shop or something, sure..., but not for an exhibition. If someone buys one, then sign it... but sign the print matte, or the reverse of the print.