This whole issue of comparing the colors on a computer image to a real poster is dicey. While sellers can make every attempt to be accurate, unless sophisticated monitor calibrations are made, there is no way to send out an image that will look the same to everyone and that will conform to the reality of the poster itself.
We use "auto smart fix" on Adobe Photoshop Elements, and I find the image more accurate to the poster than a simple white balanced photo. "Auto levels", not the same as "auto smart fix", will sometimes "punch up" a poster, it's true, but then I have no idea what that image looks like to someone sitting at their computer at home. The color settings, the contrast, the brightness -- all that is adjustable on their computer as well -- and without the two being calibrated, it is useless to ascribe too much accuracy to a photo. Both Bruce and Grey can testify that I've bought plenty of posters from both of them, and rarely, if ever, have I received a poster from either of them that I thought was misrepresented by the photograph. Both emovieposter and Heritage do very good photographs. More than I can say for some dealers who don't seem to have a clue that their photographs are crap. I don't think a crappy photo helps sell a poster at all. Having said all this, some posters photograph better than others. I can't explain this, but I do know that, at least for me, some posters are "flattered" by photography while other posters are much nicer than a photograph can impart. But that's another issue. At MovieArt I generally talk to the buyer about a poster he is buying before his money is ever deposited in order to avoid unnecessary returns. This is productive for us, as our return rate is small. This doesn't negate our return policy, which is very fair, but it does minimize returns. Kirby McDaniel www.movieart.net On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Bruce Hershenson wrote: > 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]> > 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]> >> 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. > > > 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.
