Digital BW, The Print

Hi,
I've been in a quandary about whether I should date my prints by the capture date or the printing date - to give both dates is rather cumbersome, although I'm signing my exhibition prints on the back, so there's room for both dates.

Any thoughts?

thanks in advance,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough 
   for me!"
   --"Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas

Hi Richard - If you're signing your prints on the back, why not put all the
information there?  The convention in the art world is for work to be dated
from the time the work was completed, which in the case of photographs would
generally mean first printed.  Many photographers, though, are attached to
dating the work from when it was shot.  Either way, you could put a title
(if any) on top, then your signature, then a legible version of your name
(in case your signature can't be read, like mine) and then a line that says
"© 2005  print: 2006" for example.

Stephen Petegorsky

At 11:29 PM Sunday 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>Either way, you could put a title
>(if any) on top, then your signature, then a legible version of your name
>(in case your signature can't be read, like mine) and then a line that says
>"© 2005  print: 2006" for example.

The copyright date is an interesting question: although you could copyright it from the date of capture, why not from the date of editing of the print in question? You may re-edit it to look different in the future, in which case it could be deemed a new work, could it not?

On CDs there are two dates: one marked (p) and one marked (c) - (p) seems to date the recording and (c) the publishing date.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

many thanks,
Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 
   Language is not simply a reporting device for experience but a 
   defining framework for it."
   --Benjamin Whorf