Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave B on March 2, 2017 at 12:59pm

I think my prints look better than anything I can get at Walmart.

Just got this yesterday.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 2, 2017 at 2:08pm

I also prefer to have as substrate a photograph whose qualities (lab print, double weight paper, copyright, label marked etc.), independent of the signature, has inherent value and qualities that will increase the "value" and desirability of the autographed item in question.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 2, 2017 at 2:33pm

I agree with you Eric, there is much more to a photo than just the signature and pose. I think that appreciation comes with being exposed to many photos over the years. Advanced collectors begin to notice the subtle differences that add to the heritage of the photo. I understand that using a printer is not the best option but does allow someone who mats photos a greater flexibility to create a unique display piece. I see so many stock photos being used it bores me to no end!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 2, 2017 at 2:56pm

I usually try to get something unique signed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to print it yourself. A number of the photos I've gotten signed I have gotten from Walgreens. It's really on and off how stingy they get with copyrights. In the event that they do raise an issue, you can usually just ask the photographer if it's okay - i.e. on Flickr. Concert photos are almost never questioned I've discovered. 

I guess the question I have is what is the difference between the way Walgreens prints photos vs a decent home computer. I mean, they don't really seem to have a "lab" anymore. The photos are printed on real photo paper (I think usually Fujicolor) and almost always look fantastic, whether it's glossy or matte.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Strecker on March 2, 2017 at 4:36pm

I wonder how times changed, I'm guessing mid to late 2000s, with ttm collecting. When I first started every site I got addresses from, the people sent just the SASE and letter and got signed photos in return. By mid to late 2000s it seems the majority of collectors switched methods and sent their own photos.

Obviously, it's a good idea for older, lesser known stars who may not keep stock photos or want to charge to sell their own photos but a lot of the bigger stars will certainly send photos. I'm guessing it's also a good idea for stars who may normally send pre-prints but may sign what is sent to them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MutantMike on March 2, 2017 at 4:41pm

Is there any way around the copyright police using the Walgreens kiosk?

Y'all are scaring me with the talk of fading picks done at home!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MutantMike on March 2, 2017 at 5:05pm

Also just read a disturbing article about the longevity of home printing fading after 3-5 years and that's with good ink. I'm sweating bullets now!

Would b&w prints do the same?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 2, 2017 at 8:35pm

Better, possibly - many "black" inks are not carbon - a lab photo can't be beat IMO. And the qualities, the paper weight, the development, the finish, the copyright, the artist/label...a Bowie photo, nameless copy print w/o stamps, info or copyright, signed personally to me in 24kt gold ink, would be passed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 4, 2017 at 6:07pm

Trying out Shutterfly for 11 x 14s for a couple of upcoming M&G's. Hopefully I won't run into any issues with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 4, 2017 at 6:13pm

Let us know how that works out, Rich. I tried Walmart one time and they gave me a hard time!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 4, 2017 at 6:48pm

Walgreens does some really nice work when they don't give a hassle - they printed all of these 11 x 14s for me, and the quality is just about perfect (though my photos of the photos don't reflect that):

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page