Kodachrome or Koda-crap?

At Autograph Magazine Live, there are reports of in-person autograph hounds getting signatures on blank 8x10 computer photo paper. Why would anyone do this? First, this way the autograph hound does not have to pay in advance for a real 8x10 glossy that may or may not ever get signed. Secondly, it allows the hound to later print a photo that a celebrity would not normally sign, for instance, a nude pose.


Apparently, many of the eBay sellers who subscribe to this practice are also not disclosing to their customers that the item in question is not a real photographic print.

Of course there are problems with this. The most obvious is that it is not a “real” photographic print on quality photo stock. I suspect computer printed photos are highly likely to fade much more rapidly than a real photograph. Would you pay as much for a computer printed photo as you would for a quality print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper?

The next problem is the signature itself may be underneath the photo, which is printed on after the signature. Yuck.

And finally, it’s about ethics. It’s a sneaky way to get a signature on a pose that a celebrity would not typically sign. Why support this type of behavior? Reportedly some celebrities have caught on and are now refusing the sign blank photo paper. Good for them.

Lesson learned: Before buying a signed photo, ensure it is a real photographic print on quality photo stock.