Photos during signings

[steevofromglasgow]

Hi

 

I'm setting myself up here to be flamed, but here goes....

 

We attend many of the events and spend a lot of money at these (we've spent close to £500 in just over a week at LFACC and Collectormania Glasgow).

 

We collect autographs but also collect photographs of our son (who is 5) with the stars. This may be a posed photo with some of the "not so popular" guests, the photoshoot itself or photos of our son in the same shot as a signer if things are busy or allowed. Obviously we save money if we can avoid the photoshoots.

 

At previous events, photographs have been allowed where popular guests are signing (i.e. Brandon Routh, Andy Serkis, etc) but this is gradually disappearing. I'm not always seeking a posed photo either, just a shot during the signing.

 

I've noticed over the years that there's more emphasis on no photos at the main signing area and more photoshoot tickets being sold. I don't think this is a coincedence. This hasn't been a major problem for us in the past and I know LFACC was busy.

 

I'm aware of comments made elsewhere about all the camera flashes, etc but wanted to raise this.

 

What this means for us (and possibly others) is that to get an autograph and a photo, we now need to spend double for the privelage. While this brings in more coffers for Showmasters or whoever else benefits from the photoshoots (and good luck to them) what it means is that the average fan is left with less money to spend at the stalls. I know not everyone will agree with this and I know what's coming.

 

At Collectormania Glasgow we spent £50 on autographs/photograpsh and £150 on the stalls. At LFACC, we spent £200+ on autographs/photographs and £5 on the stalls.

 

We wanted to spend more money on the stalls at LFACC but we were broke at that point. We'd rather have spent the £90 on photoshoots at the stalls and saved us a few hours standing in the queue if we were able to get a photograph near the signing (and it doesn't need to be posed either - just so long as our son and the star are in the same shot).

 

Other factors influenced our lack of spend on the stalls, i.e. running about daft trying to find VT queue numbers or spending so long in photo queues.

 

The place was mobbed, so realistically the dealers should have done well, but I wonder how many would read this post and may consider that other attendees feel the same as us. We go to these events with a fixed budget but Showmasters are starting to monopolise our daily funds as we are effectively paying double for what we used to at other events. Like I say, good luck to them.

 

I know the backlash that's coming (budgets differ, we chose to come, we chose those autos, etc).

 

I'm not complaining about spending a lot of money at the events, I just wanted to make it clear that for us we have less "cash" to spend at the stalls when we are paying more for the photographs. I'm not suggesting the photo-ops stop as they have their advantage as well (i.e. professionally taken, etc) I just wanted to express my opinion on this and see if anyone out there has considered this.

 

Thanks for reading this far.

 

Steve

Edited September 4, 2007 by steevofromglasgow

[DavidB]

I do understand what you're saying, and in fact it was probably exactly the same for me - I don't usually get photo shoots but I did for all the Heroes ones, and ended up buying nothing from the stalls.

 

However I suppose it differs from one event to the next - I've never had photo shoots before because I wasn't interested, so I could spend stuff at stalls.

 

So for each person it depends on what they specifically want. I know some people who are happy to just attend an event to look round the stalls for example, so anything going on with the guests doesn't matter to them.

 

You will have a point for some people certainly, but I know so many people that end up going over budget anyway. I'm sure we've all come away from events wishing we could've got something but couldn't afford it etc. And there's no guarantee there'd be anything you or I would want on the stalls anyway.

[Persephone1]

I don't really think there is much of a correlation between the increase in photo session sales and the income that the dealers make on the stalls. If you want photo sessions you'll factor that into your budget before you attend the event - the dealers will always know that they're getting the money that people have left after they've paid for autographs and photo sessions so I don't think that they're going to be ganging up en masse and insisting that Showmasters sell less photo session tickets!

 

In an ideal world you would be able to have the choice of photos over the desk or a professional photo session but this just isn't always feasible for the big signers. Refusing posed photos AND photos taken from the queue does speed the queues for the most popular signers up immensely. Then there is the fact that some actors simply don't want people shooting candid shots of them all the time as its a little bit like being stuck in front of the paparazzi for hours on end and they're not keen on candid shots of them not looking their best appearing on the net. Also I found it very interesting reading in another thread about how William Mapother had taken his lead from Robery Englund and hadn't allowed posed photos as he was doing a professional photo shoot and felt that it was unfair for everyone who had paid out to have a photo with him if he also allowed people to have posed photos for free.

 

Ultimately everyone attending the event makes the decision about what is the priority for them as to what to spend their money on, be that autographs, the stalls or professional photo sessions.

[steevofromglasgow]

DavidB and Persephone

 

Thanks for your replies and I appreciate your comments.

 

I feel more time is lost at the signings with people chatting for ever (as was witnessed in the Hayden queue before her photo sessions) than any photos being taken but I know fans go to chat to the stars as well.

 

At the Glasgow event where photos weren't taboo - we were able to spend more at the stalls. I'd probably still have bought a ticket for my son at the Hayden shoot anyway as she was terrific.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

PS: William Mapother is one of the nicest people we've met and really brightened our day

[ptenbob]

Well,

 

Speaking as someone who had the dreaded job of informing the attendees on Dom's queue that photos were not allowed at all, I can see both (though one side stronger than the other) sides of the argument.

 

When the guest (and I'm not saying that this was or wasn't the case for Dom) asks that no photos be taken at all, there is nothing any of the crew can do to change his mind.

 

When the guest's PA or Security asks that no photos be taken at all, even if the guest says yes, we still have to say that no photos be taken.

 

When we realise how busy a guest is going to be, there are two choices open to the crew of a busy queue.

 

1. Allow posed photos, and turn 500 attendees away unhappy.

 

2. Not allow photos, and make sure that 1000 attendees get to meet the guest.

 

As I've said on many an occasion, if you were desperate to meet someone and necessity left you with the dreaded ticket number 1000, you'd be *very* glad that no photos had been allowed all day, as it's that simple fact that allows you to meet the guest in the first place.

 

 

 

Brendon.

[steevofromglasgow]

Hi Brendon

 

Taking photos (non-posed) takes no time at all while a guest is signing an autograph. Taking posed photos (if allowed) takes a few seconds.

 

What does take time is the chatterboxes spilling their life history as was witnessed early in the Hayden queue when no photos were taken. I'm not suggesting fans can't talk to the guests, I just think it should be monitored more tightly when guests are busy. As a result of the early chatter, most of the later fans only got her first name on the autograph and/or no personalisation (and we were only number 450 odd).

 

I'm detracting from my original point - I see dealers in the Glasgow forum praising the event but there's been not a peep in here. From a fans point of view, I missed out on the stalls as all my funds went on the photoshoots because I couldn't take any shots at all during the signing.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[Persephone1]

Can I just say that NOONE was chatting forever to Hayden! I saw her very early on the Sunday and the queue was moving very quickly. I know quite a few people were quite disappointed meeting Hayden because she was more focused on signing than interacting with the person in front of her (my friend had a number of photos signed by her and she spoke to Dominic Monaghan about them and barely looked up at my friend - she spoke to me but then I often feel that the attendee needs to spark the conversation rather than simply waiting for the guest to say something) It simply wasn't that case that the first 200 people spoke to her for ages and that this was the reason why photos weren't allowed.

 

You just can't have photos, posed or otherwise for the massively popular signers (even assuming that they allow it which I understand several of the actors over the weekend didn't) because people take for ages fiddling with their cameras and then they're not happy with the shots that have been taken and want another one and if you allow photos from the queue it means that the queue is held up while people are focused on taking photos and you'll have tons of people crowding the signing area snapping away. All of which results in queues moving at a snail's pace and people being turned away.

 

I still think that most of the problem stems from people failing to understand the difference between a convention and a signing event. Events like Collectormania and LFCC are signing events - the focus is on the autograph and whilst a picture and indeed a bit of banter with the guest is an added bonus it should never be expected. If you want a better all round experience meeting the guest, being able to chat to them for a while, ask questions, have a professional photo shoot in a slightly more relaxed manner go to a convention like Eclipse or Lockdown which Showmasters are running next year. I think that people come to these events with skyhigh expectations that could never possibly be met.

[sydney_bristow]

This is something that has worried me since photoshoots were introduced, we were told it was an enhancement and wouldnt stop people having photos over the table etc. Aside from expected the photo ban on the heroes guests, which is logical I cant understand why other guests such as William Mapother had this? Even when they had no queue? Last year the top guests such as Jorge Garcia never had these.

 

I also think about the people who were shunted through the heroes signing queues, and the people who couldnt meet them, yet people could have the professional photo shoot which took up time they could have been signing. Not saying its a bad thing, as I paid for the professional photoshoot. Just something to bear in mind.

 

Another show has simply banned all posed photos completely, even if a guest is sitting on their own all day, one such guest told me that they put them under contract not to do it.

 

I would hate showmasters to go the same way as the other event.

 

When we realise how busy a guest is going to be, there are two choices open to the crew of a busy queue.

 

1. Allow posed photos, and turn 500 attendees away unhappy

 

2. Not allow photos, and make sure that 1000 attendees get to meet the guest.

 

Then why allow a photo shoot that takes up 1-2 hours when time could be spent could be signing? once again not trying to cause trouble, just curious

Edited September 4, 2007 by sydney_bristow

[Persephone1]

I understand that William didn't allow photos as he didn't think it was fair on those who had paid for a photosession with him - that was his choice and its actually rather sweet if you think about it that he wanted to be fair and not allow posed photos for free if some of his fans had made the decision to pay for a photo session.

[jos]

I agree with steevofromglasgow at least a little bit.

I completely understand why there were no posed fotos allowed, but not being able to take some while waiting forever in the queue is something I didn't get.

Ok, if all the stars asked for "no fotos at all" there is not much Showmasters can do about it, but I somehow can't believe that all Heroes guest asked for that, cause I saw Hayden allowing some fans to take fotos while she signed the picture. We had the chance to take a lot of pics from Dom during his talk, but I have none with the Heroes people (only my official with the Petrelli brothers *g*)

 

Hope during future events we are allowed to take pictures from the "main stars".. cause it is such a nice memory.

[ptenbob]

I still think that most of the problem stems from people failing to understand the difference between a convention and a signing event. Events like Collectormania and LFCC are signing events - the focus is on the autograph and whilst a picture and indeed a bit of banter with the guest is an added bonus it should never be expected.

 

Persephone - You summed it up perfectly.

 

With these events becoming bigger and bigger, with Showmasters' ability to get increasingly bigger guests (c'mon, four of the main cast from *the* breakthrough smash hit of the year), the demand for a piece of them will also increase. There are only so many hours in a day, and the needs of the many (wanting the autograph) will be outweighed by the needs of the few (wanting a posed photo at the same time).

 

So, Showmasters put these photo sessions together, to offer the fans who really can't live without a photo with their favourite star, the chance to have this memento.

 

However, this still isn't apparently good enough now.

 

I appreciate that the photo sessions cost money, and I appreciate that the autographs cost money - but all of it is your individual choice.

 

I personally make the choice not to have the photo sessions - which is a shame, because I'd love to add to my collection of photos with the really big stars.

 

You, however, choose to have that photo - and then blame Showmasters because you have no money to spend on the stalls.

 

Can anyone see a way to turn this into a win/win situation? I certainly can't.

 

 

 

Brendon.

[God L'Eponge]

Well everyone has its priorities and I think should act in consequence...

I don't agree with people saying that photoshoots are useless as for example, I don't really give a damn about autographs... What I like IS indeed to have a photo taken with the guests and that's the main reason I was at LFCC this year.

Photoshoots don't always prevent fans to take pictures with the guests on the table, as I had an excellent one with Nana Visitor who was doing a photoshoot... I guess it depends on the guests and, in the case of William Mapother, I'm sure that was his choice like it has been said before not to let people think they spend money for nothing in a photoshoot with him. He's too humble and nice to prevent people taking a pic with him in other circumstances.

And, honestly, I would have make the same choice.

I'm not an autograph collector, but a photo collector, I don't spend money in the stalls whether I spend a lot in photoshoots or not.

Please don't put anybody in the same bag by saying "you should let the guests sign more and don't waste time in photoshoots" or "I would buy more if...".

As far as I'm concerned, I would have spend more money in photoshoots if there were more, but I wouldn't have made the trip only for autographs. When I paid for an auto, I was only looking for a posed picture and the auto was just an extra. I took my precautions by preordering photoshoots tickets as I could guess not all guests that were doing one would allow it while signing.

So really I think the organisers try to satisfy as much people as they can as they know all people don't have the same interests.

Edited September 4, 2007 by God L'Eponge

[abstractharmony]

What I've been doing is this :-

 

1. Getting my photo session tickets as soon as they go on sale (freeing up more 'on the day' cash).

2. Waiting to see how much the autograph is/what the rule is on photos/queue time etc.

3. Make a decision as to whether I get an autograph as well or wait 6 months and buy it from Mick at MSPG on one of his sales.

 

That way I get both a photo and an autograph and everyone is happy.

 

Job's a good 'un

Edited September 4, 2007 by abstractharmony

[Neurie]

Most people were shunted through the photo shoots too from what I saw.

[Idrillia]

Hello :)

 

I have a genuine question.. I'm not being awkward.. it's just I'm quite new to this type of thing and I am confused:

 

"I still think that most of the problem stems from people failing to understand the difference between a convention and a signing event. "

 

Now I get that Collectormania is a 'collecting' event, whether it be for signings or photos or Collectables. I went to Collectormania 12.. the talk I wanted to see cost extra, but entrance was free to the stalls and so on, hence making it very clear that this was a 'collecting' event. However I thought that the 'Con' in Comic Con stood for Convention, just that it was a large one with a general remit for many shows. I therefore expected it to be more 'convention like', especially as there were free talks and so on included for different shows and movies.

 

So in essence.. when something like this is advertised as a 'Con', or 'convention', and indeed has that word in its name, how does one know if it is a convention or a collecting event? For example.. Ring*Con* It is called a convention, as with LFCC. There are included talks and events, as with LFCC. There is an entrance fee, as with LFCC. How do I know it is actually a convention or if it is, in reality, a collecting event as people seem to be indicating LFCC actually was?

 

Yours,

 

Humbly Confused

[lee1987@mac.com]

Of course they are going to allow less of us to have photos over the table and push official photoshoots becuase Showmasters will make a killing off them. Simple as

Edited September 4, 2007 by Mr Bennet

[mpharris]

Hello :)

 

I have a genuine question.. I'm not being awkward.. it's just I'm quite new to this type of thing and I am confused:

 

"I still think that most of the problem stems from people failing to understand the difference between a convention and a signing event. "

 

Now I get that Collectormania is a 'collecting' event, whether it be for signings or photos or Collectables. I went to Collectormania 12.. the talk I wanted to see cost extra, but entrance was free to the stalls and so on, hence making it very clear that this was a 'collecting' event. However I thought that the 'Con' in Comic Con stood for Convention, just that it was a large one with a general remit for many shows. I therefore expected it to be more 'convention like', especially as there were free talks and so on included for different shows and movies.

 

So in essence.. when something like this is advertised as a 'Con', or 'convention', and indeed has that word in its name, how does one know if it is a convention or a collecting event? For example.. Ring*Con* It is called a convention, as with LFCC. There are included talks and events, as with LFCC. There is an entrance fee, as with LFCC. How do I know it is actually a convention or if it is, in reality, a collecting event as people seem to be indicating LFCC actually was?

 

Yours,

 

Humbly Confused

 

Whilst I agree that the argument about this being a Signing Show not a convention when the word convention is in the name of the event is confusing, I can clarify about the charging etc. Collectormania has free entry because it is in a shopping centre and so Showmasters can't charge an entry fee. Talks cost at Collectormania because SM have to hire a venue in which to hold the talk. The other "Signing Shows" SM hold (CM Glasgow, GMEX, LFACC) charge an entrance fee to cover the cost of SM booking the venue, but as there are no additional costs for holding talks, the talks are free. Ring Con (and Eclipse and Lockdown) are conventions where a fee is charged for attendance which covers all the events over the weekend including talks etc. and usually includes some autographs in the price.

[dijon1322]

you know guys and dolls we are all really lucky what ever you decide to spend your money on be it photos or autos, bare in mind this the stars your meeting are fantastic try saying this to a work colleague for instance "oh this sunday i met superman!!" or "i met charles xavier" their reaction is priceless they are dumb struck... just be proud your a part of it however much you spend

[Adz931]

All I have to say is this:

 

Banning us from taking a photo of the guest, whilst in the queue and whilst the signing takes place, with the flash OFF, is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

It takes no more time up!!

 

Fair enough if it is the guest who actually comes out and states this request for no photo's, but otherwise, come on!!!

[nenya]

completely agree, i don't always want a posed photo's and am never that bother when it used to say 'no posed photo's'. my problem is i like to take photo's of the people signing my item as prove that it was them and i have met them. it was a REAL shame i couldn't get one of Dominic as i've got Elijah, Sean and Billy all siging my balck and white photo's of the hobbits but unfortunatly don't have a pic of him.

 

why is it we can't take photo's whist queuing? and when standing by their desk whilst their signing?

[TerraHawk]

Banning us from taking a photo of the guest, whilst in the queue and whilst the signing takes place, with the flash OFF, is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

 

I agree, a sign saying no flash photography would have made more of an impression.

 

As it is I got one autograph for my sister. She'd have no proof other than my word it was signed by the person in question without a photo.

 

Still there were ways....

 

Short of confiscating everyone's cameras - and for that matter mobile phones. And do hidden cameras cost that much these days? All they can do is ask, or throw you out.

[TommyT]

Taking posed photos (if allowed) takes a few seconds.

Unfortunately a few seconds multiplied by several hundred people is an appreciable amount of time.

If you've got a guest who can do simple signings at 150 people an hour (900 over 6 hours, which is far from unheard of), then suppose loads of people want to take a posed photo. Even at an average of six seconds (and for everybody who has their camera on and ready and knows how to use it, and quickly, there will probably be another who has to get it out, turn it on, generally fanny about, so six seconds may well be way under the average time...) - if you get 600 people each taking 6 seconds for a photo, that's 3600 seconds , or an hour. Or 150 people who won't get any autograph at all, because lots of people in front of them just took "a few seconds" to get a posed photo. How happy would you be to be in that 150?

Unposed photos from the queue shouldn't take up time, so long as they're not being taken by the next person in line, who consequently is still fiddling with their camera when they should be stepping up to the table to get stuff signed. All those little seconds add up over the day.

And I guess it's far from the realms of possibility that a guest might start off saying they're happy with unposed pictures from the queue, but after a while say "you know, I didn't think there were going to be so many flashes going off all the time, and it is starting to give me a bit of a headache - do you think we could stop any more being taken, please?"

 

This is something that has worried me since photoshoots were introduced, we were told it was an enhancement and wouldnt stop people having photos over the table etc. Aside from expected the photo ban on the heroes guests, which is logical I cant understand why other guests such as William Mapother had this?

See the third post in this thread.

When we realise how busy a guest is going to be, there are two choices open to the crew of a busy queue.

1. Allow posed photos, and turn 500 attendees away unhappy

2. Not allow photos, and make sure that 1000 attendees get to meet the guest.

Then why allow a photo shoot that takes up 1-2 hours when time could be spent could be signing? once again not trying to cause trouble, just curious

Because the photoshoot genie is out of the bottle. I'd bet a lot of those people who bought photoshoot tickets would have done so even if "over the table" shots were allowed. The difference between a professional photo of you stood next to somebody, as opposed to a snap of you reaching over a table like you're saying goodbye at a prison visit is considerable.

So if you cancel the photoshoot you can get another 240-300 autographs signed (depending on whether over the table photos are signed, but 400 people don't get a pro photo, and probably over half of them are hugely disappointed about it and consider an over the table shot no substitute.

 

Of course they are going to allow less of us to have photos over the table and push official photoshoots becuase Showmasters will make a killing off them. Simple as

Not. And I'm somebody that does love a conspiracy theory too.

Just do the maths on the time saving, and getting customers through.

And if it was just about making money, since you can take more photos in an hour than get things signed, if they were really in it for the money they would have more photoshoots and less signings (since there always seems to be excess demand for photoshoots).

[theentsrgoingtowar]

All I have to say is this:

 

Banning us from taking a photo of the guest, whilst in the queue and whilst the signing takes place, with the flash OFF, is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

It takes no more time up!!

 

Fair enough if it is the guest who actually comes out and states this request for no photo's, but otherwise, come on!!!

 

 

I totally agree with this, all I wanted was a pic of Dominic Monaghan signing my books - but this was not allowed!! I got told to put my camera away!!!!!! which i wasnt happy about at all!!!! I have had a photo of every other guest signing my book except Dominic Monaghan, I even have a photo of Christopher lee signing it!!!!! I have over 40 signatures in the book, this is the 1st time there is no photo with the signature!! Not Happy!!!!!!!

[Persephone1]

So in essence.. when something like this is advertised as a 'Con', or 'convention', and indeed has that word in its name, how does one know if it is a convention or a collecting event?

 

A convention is a two (or three) day event which you normally pay between £70 or £80 for a ticket for usually held at a hotel somewhere. Your ticket includes a free autograph from each of the guests attending, talks with the guests and normally a party each night. There is also the opportunity to pay for professional photo sessions. Conventions are usually far more relaxed as you have a couple of days to meet the guests, hear their talks, get photo sessions and autographs etc. Lockdown and Eclipse will follow this model.

 

Events like Collectormania and LFCC are signing events - they are all about the autograph. The problem is that people go to the likes of LFCC expecting the relaxed easy atmosphere of a convention. They want to get everything that would normally take a weekend to get in one day or hell sometimes in a couple of hours. So they go with sky high expectations thinking that they'll be able to chat to the guests for a decent time, get multiple photos etc and that just isn't feasible.

 

Both types of event are great - its just that people need to manage their expectations a little better as to what they are realistically going to be able to get out of the day.

[CurlyKirsty]

I just missed out the whole thing about meeting the big stars and focussed on getting quality time with the (not so popular) guests cos I got more out of meeting Robert Rankin and his wonderfully chatty wife and Henry Davies, who drew a comic character for me, than 5 seconds of standing in front of Hayden or Dominic whilst they totally blanked me and chatted to someone else.

 

Honestly, the process has just totally got out of hand so limiting numbers of people to say 500 autos a day would give more back to the paying customer than rushing through 1000 and leaving everyone or a vast majority feeling cheated. You may as well have bought the autos from a dealer judging by some of the comments about the "meeting the stars". So contrary to the comment made about more people being able to say they "met" this or that person, they did not actually meet them, they were herded past them would be a more honest statement.

 

I speak from experience as I have been to LFCC and others before and have decided not to join in the madness whenever a big star is announced. I went to the last Collectormania thoroughly enjoyed that because more time was allowed and the guests actually spoke to me, even if it was to say rather charmingly "no".