We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Acquiring photographs for autograph purposes

Hi Guys

I'm new to the collecting of autographs and would welcome advice on the following please. What I want to do is obtain photographs from the likes of Google Images or Yahoo Images and getting them printed by a 3rd party ( Aldi, Lidl ) I have seen previous results from a friend along time ago and they were fantastic however I've had a go and despite an online warning they all came back blurred! Unfortunately I no longer have contact with my friend therefore if someone can advise where I'm going wrong I'd appreciate it. I tried various size of image, as high as 6 mega pixels in some cases but to no avail, I'm not doing it for financial gain but I do attend sporting events regularly and I'd just like to start my own small collection of signed photographs if at all possible. Many thanks

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by wascher on March 5, 2017 at 8:53am

This thread is recent and may help regarding printing companies that do a good job. http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/do-you-print-you-own...

You could drop a line on that thread as well to ask sizes that work best.

-w

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 5, 2017 at 9:35am

I think getting sports photos printed can be a bit trickier, since there seems to be a bigger deal with licensing in the sports photography world. Like I say in the other thread, Walgreens has typically done a very nice job for me - high quality products. I think most locations will raise an issue with sports photos, unless they're your own or you have explicit photographer permission. I think the better option is just to buy them. For the most part, I don't think that standard licensed sports action photos are very expensive.

To answer your question though, when I do search Google for images, I typically filter the image results to 2MP or larger. These should be good for 8 x10s or 11 x 14s.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 6, 2017 at 1:37pm

I saw a couple recommendations for http://sharpprints.com (not sure about the quality, but they seen to have good prices and don't raise issues with copyrights) and https://www.mpix.com (who seems to offer a high quality product but somewhat pricey shipping). Both these recommendations came for collectors.

Shutterfly processed my order for some music 11 x 14s I am bringing to upcoming shows, so I think they might be another good option.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 6, 2017 at 3:37pm

It says "cheap prints". Literally. Blurry?

43 cents for Fujuifilm 5x7 prints, same day service (you just know that is going to be perfectly calibrated every other day...), with - do they even mention the dyes or stability? I called and they don't know or wont say, but they regurgitated a guarantee of 100 years. I have not heard any quality manufacturers actually guarantee dyes for any length of time, esp cyan. I don't know, But it seems something is amiss if the pen is significantly more expensive that the substrate all of this is going on. Build a house with a good foundation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 6, 2017 at 3:56pm

Maybe it's worth trying out at these prices?

I stumbled upon this last night - it's a photographer's studio comparing her processed image with the results from other labs - Costco, CVS, Walmart, Shutterfly, MPix and Snapfish. The changes aren't incredibly drastic, but she mentions a few things you can't pic up in the online images (i.e. paper quality).

http://www.kayenessphotography.com/consumer-photo-lab-comparison/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 6, 2017 at 4:35pm

I would think against Costo and CVS, photography houses like Burger Brothers, where the equipment is properly calibrated and yes, you will pay for this, would provide better developed images (aka not by a 17 year old eating a burger while texting ) with a greater range of light and dark properly expressed, rich saturation, clarity, and pearl or matte finish or double weight paper if so desired. Not snobbery, logic. If I was to paint a great painting, I would not use plywood or cheap paint etc. Copper sheet an hand ground - they have lasted 500 years.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 6, 2017 at 4:44pm

I was surprised she was that high on Costco and that low on CVS. I expected them both to fall in the "mediocre category."

I'm seeing more and more people who like Mpix, so maybe I'll give them a go in the near future. As it stands, Shutterfly didn't raise any issues with the Bebe Rexha and Bishop Briggs 11 x 14s, perhaps in part because they just aren't super recognizable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 6, 2017 at 5:10pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 6, 2017 at 5:46pm

Those predate the modern era of hi-def, hi-res photography. Additionally, photo copying back then involved a much different sort of technology. Seems like today, even if someone does a bad job, it's probably not going to be that bad, as long as you provide a quality digital image.

Of course, I haven't used much beyond Walgreens - perhaps CVS and Walmart once or twice.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 6, 2017 at 5:48pm

Yes, but the one on the right is a modern 11x14 (enlarged no doubt to bring higher $). I believe the original was struck from an 8x10 negative. The last site you linked to seems decent, BTW.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 6, 2017 at 5:56pm

Ah, I get you. Yeah, Mpix seems to have plenty of widespread praise.

I'm a bit surprised that while the Shutterfly order was (supposedly) shipped today, it's not expected to arrive until next week Thursday. Are they shipping via Pony Express? For $8.99 in shipping flats, I'd love to know how they can possibly be that slow.

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on May 8, 2017 at 5:33pm