We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
Authenticity is Everything
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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rich on
-
I'll be the guinea pig here and give sharpprints.com a go. I'll let know know what the result it.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
No surprise here. However, I have found that by asking the rights owner, one can sometimes secure the right for a single print. Life magazine did this for me for example for an autograph - a photo of Jackie, Audrey and Joyce at 21 in 1985. I was even allowed to color correct it. The recent thread about the supposed photographs of Howard Hughes has some data about copyright and authorship. Someone thought owning a print gave you the right to the image and its use for example.
-
-
Some of them were actually promo pics from their label site, but I kinda forgot which were which (and I ordered a bunch of photos). So I just went ahead and canceled the whole thing - this was just kind of an experiment to check out the quality anyway.
In some instances, you can find great pro-level photos on Flickr, and then just contact the photographer. Many of them take top rate photos but do it for fun and are more than happy to let you use it for whatever.
-
-
You can't blame them, they could get sued. I once saw work of mine used a part of a book w/o permission...other work licensed from me in to be reproduced in one medium and then used as a digital display - solved with an invoice.
-
-
No, I definitely get it. Strange some of the things I've been asked about and some that I haven't. I've gone into Walgree with releases, image purchase details, etc, fully prepared that they'd ask questions, and - nothing.
-
-
Every once in a while, I'll find a pro photographer who actually has an option to buy prints, which is always helpful (as long as the price is reasonable).
-
-
Okay, Shutterfly did a nice job on the 11 x 14s. Rolled up like posters and packed in tissue paper and triangular mailers, they arrived in perfect shape. A couple of them are noticeably over exposed, though that doesn't make them unsightly or unusuable.
-
-
Great! :) I'm glad that worked out. There are so many choices out there I would not know where to begin. That is another reason that, for me, I find it best (and, truthfully, easiest) to just buy period images of the highest quality I can. Permanence/stability is either already proven or not controllable beyond selecting the best I can from what is around. Exposure, color, paper weight/type...again, I am limited by choice to vintage and just making the best choice there. And the vintage - worth more IMO. To me, it is win/win. And upon resale whenever, another win with the right collector. :)
What can be really bad it seeing your own work printed by another like for a promo poster or book. Even Yale Univ. can't control color properly. Eventually I started placing things in the images like "if you can see this it is too bright!". Now, I REALLY prefer b/w! Even "sepia" is a nightmare with some publishers, even if they are in Italy or France.
-
-
It might not be as apparent what the difference is, as my photos of the photos are obviously going to leave an impression of lesser quality. But, again, there is some noticeable overexposure on the two brightest photos I had printed. Note: The graininess you see in a product of my camera and is not on the image itself. Here are the results for those two:
Original Image:
Shutterfly 11 x 14
Original Image:
Shutterfly 11 x 14
-
-
IMO, quality would be considerably higher if they would stop cropping and enlarging - it is making things twice as "hard" and may be the single thing that would improve what I am seeing here. In this case, the devil really is in the details! ;)
-
-
I don't think it's it, really. The cropping was necessary for 11 x 14 images, as they are too wide (the other options being simply selecting different dimensions or doing the ugly "white bar" or "black bar" thing on the image to fit it to 11 x 14 proportions. The image isn't really blown up, as the actual size of the original image is quite large (exceeding 11 x 14 proportions). Again, my photos of the photos don't quite catch the over exposure aspect and also suggest a graininess that is not there. The actual photos in person are quite crisp.
What is probably also throwing the perspective off is the fact that the photos aren't flattened yet and are arching upwards a bit.
Here are a couple more I got that didn't suffer as much, as they are somewhat darker (or busier) images.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Blog Posts
Gold & Pawn Trading Center Sells Forged Mickey Mantle Photo COA GFA
Posted by CJCollector on November 27, 2024 at 2:23pm 0 Comments 1 Like
Ebay Seller Smpsportscards Sells Forged Counterfeit Willie Mays 1996-97 Topps Autograph Card
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
COA CSA Authentic Forged Babe Ruth Cut Autograph Laughable
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
Photos
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
