I'm not automatically assuming that example was punched up, it may
well just be the case that the reds were originally extremely strong
and have remained so, and that the online reproduction is accurate,
(within it's limits).
Washing, bleaching etc may have had the effect of intensifying the
colours, dunno.
(Though if that is how This Gun for Hire appeared when it was fresh
off the press, in this instance I certainly prefer a little faded
grandeur.)
Generally, and especially with something in this price range I still
think using some kind of a colour correction system like Pantone would
be more professional, (with the colour bar appearing beside poster)
rather than relying on adjusting by eye.
I know you err well on the side of unflattering in your listings, and
I think it's a smart policy.
And though you wouldn't "punch up" pics, I assume you still have to
adjust for accuracy?
Even if you don't go near photoshop, presumably in some way, like
adjusting lighting so repro appears true to the eye, as in the case of
the Vertigo?
On 17 Jul 2010, at 17:11, Bruce Hershenson wrote:
I actually had one of my employees suggest to me that we should
"punch up" the images of items we sell, and I told him that we NEVER
do that (he is new, or he would have already known that). Of course,
there is no way to know if others feel the same way (at least until
you get your package and compare the item you get to the image you
saw).
Bruce
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Richard Evans <[email protected]
> wrote:
I thought the This Gun for Hire went beyond strong colours and
looked unflatteringly garish.
Presumably not a result of restoration judging by the listing, but
was it really actually that vibrant, or did the colour reproduction
exacerbate it online?
On 17 Jul 2010, at 16:44, Bruce Hershenson wrote:
I personally agree with this. I didn't like the "make it look
perfect" school of restoration even BEFORE the Haggard scandal broke.
First, because the restorers were in effect hiding their
restoration, making it impossible to see exactly what was done (and
a long time pro like myself could spot some restoration that most
amateurs would never see, creating a "fear of restoration" among
many collectors).
Second, because many of these items were SO restored that they
looked almost like "recreations". I LIKE the items in my collection
to show at least SOME signs of age, unless they are in truly mint
unrestored condition, because that is part of the joy of owning an
original, knowing that it survived all these years. If you want a
perfect looking item, why not just get a reproduction? But don't
take your "very good" condition and have someone make them look
like new. If you MUST restore, why not simply do minimal
restoration to the areas that most need it?
Bruce
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM, glenndamato <[email protected]
> wrote:
Regarding the Heritage auction: I do believe the fakes scandal hurt
the hobby, plus many of the restored posters look like they were
cut, bleached, washed, starched & dried. I'll take old Igor back
anyday.......
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
