OK, in that case, I'm not the expert on this stuff, but my concern with any kind of permanent marker pen would be that they contain solvents which may well be absorbed by the coating on the paper, and in time could migrate through the coating causing a visible stain to spread out. Same comment for gold ink, which definitely contains a strong solvent. If you are selling these photos with any kind of lifetime guarantee, or they are intended for long-term or archival purposes, then my own instinct would be to stay away from anything solvent-based.
I have several limited print run pictures at home signed by various artists, always in pencil, or else the signature is part of the print itself. Presumably the graphite is reasonably inert, and sits on the surface of the paper instead of being absorbed. The only pictures I have that were signed in marker pen are oil paintings, which are fairly impermeable compared to the swellable coatings on inkjet paper, and even then I can't be sure that this hasn't damaged them in some way that will only become apparent over a longer period of time. Archival pens could have very stable ink - and are presumably designed for this kind of thing. Never used one myself though. The Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths here in the UK uses a fountain pen filled with an ink that is presumably archival-quality, it is pale blue (much paler than standard fountain pen ink). The paper copies (yes, we still have them) are expected to last the lifetime of a person, so they must have a cetain level of confidence in them, and the Register entries (also hand-written) are expected to last much longer than that. F On 12/21/07, Michael Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talking about a signature on the front, thanks for the suggestions. > >
