another sort of strange question
Hi again ladies and gentlemen.
Well, just did about 25 new waterdrop notecards that the lady from the art gallery requested from me. Time consuming to say the least.
But here is my question, when her and I met, (the owner of the art gallery) she advised me that I should sign my name directly on the photos as she says this makes them more valuable,,,(uhhuh), so I just sat and signed all 25 cards. But my question is this, I do my enlargements and prints through mpix, which automatically puts my copyright on each and every one of them on the back. So what would be the reasoning for signing even these small notecards directly on the picture. I, personally, think it takes away from my drops. Maybe it's just me..Let me know what you all think...thanks friends.
#1. "RE: another sort of strange question" | In response to Reply # 0
elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Wed 06-Jun-12 06:50 PM
Hard to say really; a signed print from someone famous is more valuable than an unsigned print.
Side story thats sort of associated. I took pics of the Space Shuttle Enterprise flyover the Hudson River recently. I printed out some shots to show the staff at the Treatment Center I was going to and gave them to the receptionist being that she has three young sons. They loved them, but then asked her why I didnt sign them. I was puzzled stating that Im not famous or anything, but she said they like to have them signed by the person who created them. I told her no problem, just bring them in and Ill sign them.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: another sort of strange question" | In response to Reply # 1
Wed 06-Jun-12 07:48 PM
Well there ya go then Pete, WE ARE SOMEBODY!!!!!!!!!!! But on the other hand, why isn't it enough especially in my situation to have my copyright on the back? Of course, then too, I guess for someone to see who did the work they would have to tear my picture from the frame and look,,,,duh!!! But I was more wondering about signing the notecards on the front of the picture because I didn't want to draw the attention away from the picture with my crappy handwriting.....hehehe
#3. "RE: another sort of strange question" | In response to Reply # 2
michaelhager Registered since 15th Feb 2007Thu 07-Jun-12 02:03 PM
For whatever reasons, there is value associated with a signature on any artwork.
Whether you are "somebody" or not, potential buyers of your photographs perceive that there is a higher value with a real signature. They don't know if you are "somebody" or not, so just in case you might be, they will be more likely to pull out their wallets for your print over the one next to it without a signature. This, of course will increase the possibility that your prints will sell and isn't that what you really want?
Secondly, as you sell more prints and more people see them and word of mouth spreads, people will go looking for prints that can be verified to be your originals by your signature so after awhile you will start to become "somebody" and eventually when you ARE "somebody" those little prints will be worth a lot more than what they originally paid for them.
Then you can make bigger prints with your signature and sell them for a lot more than you can today and retire a rich "somebody" in high demand and I can claim I once gave a very famous "somebody" strategic advice when they were first starting out and get my picture in People Magazine!
C. Michael Hager
Your most important piece of photo equipment is built into your face.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: another sort of strange question" | In response to Reply # 3
Fri 08-Jun-12 01:30 PM
HEY MICHAEL!!! THAT'S THAT'S THE KIND OF REPLY I LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankyou, and I'll be sure to remember you and sign your copy of People magazine.....!!!!!!!!!!!!