Yep, everyone's monitor varies, just a way of taking one variable out
of it, though not that one.
(But I imagine we're all seeing an unusually lurid This Gun for Hire.)
And, wasn't necessarily about the honesty of the sellers, not
Heritage, certainly not Bruce! Just the honesty of the repro process.
But yes, if I was to get another Vertigo 1 Sht, the only way round it
would be to have a conversation, and as long as the seller experienced
and trusted, then "this one is a really strong one" should do it.
On 18 Jul 2010, at 16:34, Kirby McDaniel wrote:
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.
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.
