I trust you and believe you Ron. But why are the reds on the poster unlike the reds on any other example of this poster I have seen? Is it possibly from a variant printing? Or maybe I need to adjust the colors on my screen?
Bruce On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Ron Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Bruce! > > I was at the Heritage auction on Friday and Saturday. Dallas is so close to > Austin so it's easy for me to travel there and actually attend. If you had > come to the show, you could have actually compared the This Gun For Hire one > sheet to the photo in the catalog- which I did. The colors were'nt "punched > up". Since the poster passed at the sale, there's still time for you to go > to Dallas and check it out for yourself! I daresay you'd lose your $100 bet. > > Ron > > > --- On *Sun, 7/18/10, Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MOPO] The Scandal-plus cut, pressed washed, starched & > dried.... > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 8:57 AM > > > I had a chance to look at the This Gun for Hire image, and I will bet $100 > that either the image or the poster itself (or both!) have had mucho > "punching up"! > > When you say, "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?" know that our > goal is ALWAYS to present an image that accurately represents the item you > will receive. I have SO often received purchases where the buyer > photographed it in such a way that defects were hidden or obscured (my > favorite was one where the seller placed a drumstick on the top border, > ostensibly to "hold it down", but it also served to hide the rat chews in > that area!). > > Of course, there is also the issue of auction images where no matter how > much you "zoom" or "pan and scan" you still can't see the pinholes or > foldlines that somehow magically disappear (until of course you get the > actual item). > > I think this proves to be "penny wise and pound foolish". If you are solely > looking to sell one item, it may benefit you on that one item, but if you > are in this for the long term, then you have to wonder if such deceptive > advertising doesn't lose you the trust of many bidders, causing them to bid > less on your items (or not bid at all) due to the "fear factor". > > Bruce > > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Evans > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> 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]<http://mc/[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]<http://mc/[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]<http://mc/[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 ListSend a message addressed to: >>> [email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> >>> In >>> the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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. > > 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.
