Autograph or Selfie
 

There is a decent chance that this fall due to my business I will have the opportunity to meet a very famous American singer/songwriter from the 1960s-70s. I am not sure if the venue is proper for autographs/selfies as it will be one on one. If you had the choice to get a selfie or an autograph which would you opt for?

Picture every day and twice on Sunday.

Autograph. I know what I look like - scary! I usually take my own photos of musicians with a real camera, not a phone. I have had plenty of opportunities to have my photo taken with presidents, astronauts, musicians etc. and have passed pretty much all the time.

I never really understood the photo thing. I guess people who take photos don't understand the autograph thing either but to me, a photo isn't going to let people know you met a person any less than an autograph would.

Best of both worlds: get a selfie of yourself as the subject is signing an autograph. You get both, plus a little proof the auto is legit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

....interesting post as my wife and I had a similar conversation a couple of weeks ago when we saw Springsteen on Broadway on her birthday. We opted not to stand for 3-4 hours for the chance to get a signature or photo pre-performance. She wanted birthday hug and/or selfie. I would have opted for a signature on a custom photo of some sort.

If I had a guaranteed opportunity to meet him I'd want both a photo and an autograph.

In your situation you'll have to gauge how receptive the celebrity is to either. If it's me and not an intrusion I'd go for both.

Have fun!!

You mean because of photo-shopping? Because otherwise, unless it's a photo-bomb, you generally have to meet someone if you're standing next to them in a photograph.

Attached is one of my favorite photos: me and my girlfriend 'meeting' Mike Trout. I have conveniently blacked out all the other people we 'met' that day. The word blob 'proves' that he at least knew we existed. As an aside - although Trout's autographs are more valuable, I would much rather have this picture.

Scott <=== "Babe Ruth signed that autograph for me."

Yes I'm aware of photography. What I meant was the motivating factor behind the photo: here's me meeting so and so. If you acquire a signature in person it's the same thing. But I'm not a photo guy and don't understand the selfie just the same as photo people probably have no need for an autograph.

This.

Always good to get something of some sort of monetary value. Even if you don't intend to sell it yourself....you can't take it with you...

And in my case, no one would give a nickel for a picture of a celebrity with a goofy faced fat guy.

Don't they have mini-printers that can print right from your phone? Take the picture - print it out and have them sign it.

Autograph, no question.

I've actually heard that some celebs do not do selfies but will sign. They think of the photo as an inappropriate intrusion.

I think it may have a lot to do with the celebrity wanting to control their image as well. Often, selfies do not portray people in the most flattering light… Bad lighting… close up… The last thing some celebrities want floating around the Internet.

If I can't get the celebrity to write out an inscription with a sentence or two either as a personalization, quote, doodle, or funny saying along with the signature...

I'd rather have the picture.