• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / “Staccato” exhibition, part 7

“Staccato” exhibition, part 7

January 10, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

If I had any sense, I’d farm the big print out to a service bureau. I really like to do all my printing myself. It may be that I’m a photographic control freak, or maybe just overly perfectionistic, but there it is. So I’m committing myself to the time consuming and expensive operation of changing the 9800 over to Photo Black ink. I’ve ordered a roll of Exhibition Fiber and the ink.

While I’m waiting for the supplies to arrive, I’ve got time to consider the signatures. When I dry mounted silver prints, I signed the mat lightly in pencil. That worked great; it was archival, and didn’t draw attention to itself. When I started making inkjet prints on matte paper, I just signed the print itself in pencil. That technique doesn’t work on the glossy paper I’m using for the Staccato series. I’ve been signing prints using Millenium Zig pens. I can get a nice fine line, but the signature is so dark that it draws attention to itself. I’d really like to get the pens loaded with grey ink instead of black, but they’re not made that way. As far as I can tell, there are no similar archival pens available with grey ink.

There are many soft-tip archival pens, but I haven’t found any with a tip fine enough for signing prints.

To show you how desperate I’ve become, I even considered signing and dating several pieces of blank paper, scanning them, and incorporating the scanned signature into the printed image. I could sign the image on the back for authenticity. However, this somehow seems like cheating, even lying; the signature is supposed to be a holographic marking.

I signed all the prints using the 01 and 005 Millennium pens. They produce lines on the Exhibition Fiber that look about the same width to me. Being so fine, both pens tend to skip when you sign at normal speed. Slowing down makes the signature look stilted, but that’s the only choice; the wider pens are too bold. By the way, I practiced on normal glossy paper, and the pens have smoother flow on that paper than on Exhibition Fiber.

I had to reprint about a third of the prints because I flubbed the signature. Then I took a good hard look at the ones I thought were OK.  They weren’t. There were skips and inconsistencies in the lines. I decided to reprint the whole set and sign them in wide pen on the back. They’ll look naked on the wall, but it’s better than having a sloppy signature on the front.

I’m not particularly happy with this solution to my signature problem, but it’s the best I can do for now.

The Last Word

← “Staccato” exhibition, part 6 A vacation from “good enough” →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.