Which is the best, Yea Forums
>A) Original Newsprint scans with all printing errors intact (colors visible through ink, colors not lined up properly) and the dot patterns vissible
>B) Accurate recolor over original inks, using original color guides
>C) Recolored entirely
If you dont pick A you're a fucknig faggot
>B
>A
>C
I'm afraid you're dangerously queer, sir.
Usually A, but sometimes scans are so bad B is preferable.
I like patina on old comics, so A.
Yes, imperfections are desirable and add character to a work.
Accepted, gentleman.
I like the look of A, but the techniques of the time limit how well the colours reflect the original guides IMO.
I do wish they had a middle ground with a "fake" dot matrix but I like seeing the old stuff with modern printing. I prefer it on newsprinty paper, but I'll take what I can get if the colours are right
B is the only answer. Picking A is paramount to saying that a VHS recording is more accurate than the original film
>praising accuracy over aesthetic
Shameful.
A>C>>>>>>>B
Both B and C look good for different reasons, I like the solid colors and contrasts of B, but the more muted colors of C also look good
There are plenty of examples of things designed for 480p and VHS format, that have been "remastered" and blown up in resolution that look awful.
Basically this. You want to keep the quirks of the medium it was originally presented in, but at the same time a straight up scan of a page just introduces generation lost from scanning in addition to the damage accumulated over the years on the page itself
A - only if it's actual paper.
B - never
C - looks great on a screen.
Since I download everything anyways, my answer is C.
i would prefer C if they actually followed the original color guide. It looks like it's on an actual piece of paper rather than floating on a computer screen
B isn't like a remastering though. It's much closer to taking the original film, digitizing it at a high resolution, and leaving it at that
Except film has grain.
Of the 3, I prefer the look of C. It just looks so much better
But the original is drawn with the expectation of details being muddled by print, hence why things are so simple, drawn with broad strokes and plenty of empty space.
It wasn't until the 70s that the average book was reliably printed at a high enough quality that pencillers didn't have to take the reproduction into consideration.
It depends on many factors.
If pushed I'd say B
Lol I just go to readcomics and take whatever is available.
based
For this case, I pick A. C improved on the vulture's head, and has nice effects on Doom's metal parts, but the problem with it and B is that the entire image is now having things compete for attention.
Image A deliberately gives a cooler blues and violets for everything to the side so that the reader's attention focuses on Doom at the Fantastic Four. B tries to get the hues correct, but the problem is it makes the mistake of having the books colored too closely to the Fantastic Four's uniforms. C makes the mistake of having the books in warm colors because now it's competing for attention with the main focus of the panel, Doom and the Fantastic Four.
The digital recolors of Ditko ASM are horrific.
Pretty much. Hence, I personally think B's the best option overall. I accept other people disagree
A, they are the most comfy ones to read
Here's what I kinda mean, I feel like the recolors have a few good ideas, but they miss what made the original effective.
A.1 (A unless quality's bad)>B>A.2 (A but quality's bad)>C>A.3 (quality's really really bad)
I think page flow's also important, user. Not that I'm trained in this but the flow is.
>Title
>Speech bubble
>Mask
>Arms
>FF Pieces/board
>Books
Even with the books being brighter, possibly a shade or two closer, they aren't where the eye's naturally gonna track IMO. Again, I may be off track
That's a good point, the vulture head brings the eye down to the "Part 1."
That said I dislike having the book and general recolours in C. My choice is B. I agree that the books draw too much attention in C and I dislike the liberties taken.
I wouldn't mind A online at all though
I have some 80s comics where, even without scanning - just picking up the comic and leafing through it - they're barely readable. So, B.
A lot of 80's comics have more garish colors than prior decades' comics. Case in point: a lot of mainline Marvel around 1986.
70s artists demanded higher printing standards (in color and line fidelity), but editors cheapened out elsewhere, which makes 70s to early 90s comics look VERY confusing.
Good thread OP, but needs more examples to keep conversation going.
Anyways, A forever.
You've never seen the Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs, have you?
Does OP have the Galactus one? he wears like different suits throughout the issue with no sleeves too.
A for physical copies, B for digital, C for the trashcan.
They reprinted Kirby's Race for the Moon and the company did a really good job to kept the original Harvey comic paper and color quality but with a nice retouch of new color.
One of Thors 60s comic colored Galactus as if he was completely purple. The epic collection collecting said issue didnt fix that
Sweet thanks for that insight with a 4 dub as an added bonus for the Fantastic Four. Here's the issue in question
thedailyrios.com
thedorkreview.blogspot.com
How do you all feel about Doom's hands? Should they be armored? Does one Doom with out without metal hands?
B. Normally I prefer, A, but there are many cases where the original newsprint is so badly mangled due to printing errors and age that they're harder to read. B's really the best for archival.
C would be fine if they didn't arbitrarily ruin as much as they fixed in the process of recoloring the page. They fixed the coloring of the vulture, books and chessboard and added sheen to Doom's armor, but painting Doom in his usual colors in panel 3 completely kills the atmosphere of the scene.
Not OP, but here.
1) Not the correct usage of "paramount", you're thinking of "tantamount"
2) No, you're retarded, preferring B is like preferring "remastered" CD albums to original vinyls
>those gloves that clip into his cape
has to be bait
So...not going to lie, I like the overall look of the last one the best but I'd rather have a collection that's trying to be historically accurate compared to something that sits well with modern designs.
bump
For downloads, whatever is available
B for physical collections
A
As someone who reads a lot of old DC comics, original newsprint is always preferable to the fucking hack jobs of the modern collections. It's fucking abysmal.
Comic book coloring is a lost art. They used color more effectively back in the day.
I think we can all agree that Comics switching to Glossy Paper instead of Newsprint was a huge mistake, as was digital coloring to a lesser extent
I'd prefer B if done properly, but that has literally never happened. The coloring always looks like someone let a pack of crayola markers bleed all over the page.
B for classic (Gold and Silver eras)
A for everything else. 70's onward.
Only reason for B for classics is because a lot of scans are just terrible looking.
I like the look of C, which version is this? Is there a certain collection I could look into to find more of this?
If they were unarmoured in his first panel, keep it accurate IMO. It's better to see early quirks in design than see attempts at fixing them.
Maybe Doom took off the gloves to set up his board
Yeah, I actually love seeing character designs evolve over the years.
C's the original Marvel Masterworks version, I think. I'm not sure what later reprintings may have used.
its all in the execution
I think they should do both. One version is the original, accurate version with flaws and all, other edition is a good recolor if neccesary.
No replies, but this post is absolute truth.
I wish that floppies could be printed on late 80s paper again, while paperbacks would be considered the "remastered" blu-ray version with digital coloring. I would definitely support the industry monthly if that were the case, rather than just waiting for reprints of older material. Digital coloring is the main reason I cannot relate to artwork anymore.
I wouldn't say they were huge mistakes in themselves. Rather the design "philosophy" that they could get away muddier, sloppier coloring and excuse it with "realism" and higher production values is more to blame. But that kind of segues into another discussion entirely.
That'd require scanning decades old comics that were printed using now-outdated methods/hardware, which would be affected by compression and so on.
An upcoming Atlas print is attempting a remaster/reprint from Mint condition copies but I imagine it's more like Epic Collections. Colour masters weren't really a thing till digital came in afaik. Masters are colourless.
Companies like Kellustration colour from scans of original inks or pencils. Worst case scenario is getting an old, worn copy and removing colour pixel by pixel if the original pencil or inked isn't available, then recolouring it digitally.
>Demons
>Science and Sorcery
What the fuck is this? Where does he get books like that with covers like that and in mint conditions?
Does his local library have freshly updated
>Forbidden knowledge
section?
B is a lot easier on the eye but I am an authenticityfag so I have to go with A. Errors, in particiular, are a part of the original product and fixing them ain't okay. Cfags are full homo, George Lucas level heathens.
He was taught forbidden arts in Tibet. He probably stole themq
B is probably the highest quality file so I'll take that
B is best, but thats because im a zoomer who cant stand to look at pages.
A is next best because it has soul, and C the recolors are shit.
Reminder that C should NEVER be an option.
i like the texture on the far left (A), the vulture's head, and the muted yellow on the figure in the doorway -- most importantly Doom's face in A has more depth of character, seeming more expressive
so yeah, the first one on the left just works better
B because I'm a pirate scanlator that translates murican comics into my native language and working with old scans in Photoshop trying to make them look good with Topaz and shit is fucking suffering, most of the time they just end up like fucking smears and you're sitting there wondering if it looks better than the shitty original scan. For years now whenever I had to translate something old, I've looked for B first and foremost. So I guess I'm just used to their extra-bright colors now and they don't seem like a big deal to me.
It’s crazy though cause if I stare at it long enough I can see the original glove lines but to be honest, I like the bare hands.
Props to ya for doing the work tho I only read English. It's a good POV to hear from
Doom didn't wear the gloves in the original version of the panel. C had colour changes made to make the hands and forearms look like gloves
I see what you mean but Does Doom have no fingernails?
I’m joking of course, my previous post was kind of to say that after see C and compared to A it was kind of cleaver to do that on hand closest to the bid becuase Kirby drew a sleeve all weird cutting in to his wrist. Now I can’t unsee C even though A is the better choice of the three.
A>C>B
IMO Accurate recolors look bad, because original colors were picked with printing errors and low quality paper in mind plus, thay are too much vibrant for my tastes.
B>A>C
Best to read it the way it was intended to be.
Let the mistakes be washed away.
Option A is akin to raw source material without restoration work.
Option B is akin to a digital transfer of that source material scanned at a high resolution, touched up and restored through modern tools, and scaled back down to preserve sharpness and clarity.
Option C is that time Ted Turner thought that black and white movies should be colorized for modern audiences.
Personally I'd prefer B, but there are elements of A that are not replicated in B that could be preserved, like dot patterns. If there was some kind of filter that could replicate dot patterns, that would be awesome.
>C should NEVER be an option
If you mean C as it complete recoloring, what about Flex Mentallo?
C replicating A, then A, then C then B
>Recoloring the individual background parts
I fucking hate when they do this.
That's not Ditko's, it's Romita or maybe even later. Come on, man.
That's fucking Deb Whitman for Christ's sake.
Definitely post-Romita. The captions are more like 70s or 80s Marvel
C takes too much liberty with the coloring--sure it may look nicer with the vulture but did the books really need to be recolored too? And why is the third panel's ground gray? And the title is all magenta.
B is more faithful to the original, but it's too bold and saturated. I wish it simulated older printing techniques a bit and it'd be on top easily.
A bothers my OCD a bit with Doom's upper arms/shoulders but it's arguably the best. If I had this in actual print, I probably wouldn't read it out of fear of damaging the book. Not gonna go all gloves and tongs on it but I'd probably just read it online and admire the physical cover.
C < literal shit
C can fuck right off.
I love option B, /when done well/. It is easy for B to be as bad as C.
When done well, B is glorious. Take the Uncanny X-Men omnis. Due to the digital remaster, we get to see Storm's nipple in #123.
I think newsprint is much easier on the eyes and the errors in printing give it that level of authenticity that come with how stories were made back in the golden, silver, and bronze age of comics. That said, there's definitely room for improvement between both A and B.
No matter how authentic the scans for A are, we'll never achieve that same effect and look of the book when it was originally printed. That takes such effort that nobody will ever want to put in for a quick recolor / edit and publish, errors and all.
And no matter how pretty and updated B is, they'll never be 100% accurate because the people in charge of them take the colors literally. The white background in the OP comes to mind. Like I said earlier, I find newsprint easier on the eyes. Part of that is that the paper is more off an off-eggshell white than just a straight up glossy, eye-fucking white. #ffffff is pure shit.
See pic related for C.
B is the best of both worlds.
Either A or C is acceptable, depending on the quality of the original vs the recolor.
B is never acceptable. It misses the point of the original as well as the point of recolors, and ends up being worse than both.
A when it is readable, otherwise B.
iirc, brian bolland didnt like the colorist for tkj (who was the colorist for watchmen) so bolland re-released it in the black and white/sepia tone.
As a fan and collector of silvrr and bronze age singles, there is one thing no reproduction can ever replicate:
The smell.
That wonderful sweet and sour smell, sometimes with a smokey hint like a good scotch. NOTHING matches that wave of childhood that hits you from taking a good whiff of the old pulp.
iktf
Funny thing is that there's a Noir edition of Killing Joke, which is in black-and-white. Someone could probably come along and try to do their own colorization.
This fucker is NOT wrong....
what are your all's thoughts on Marvel's facsimile editions? do they fall under B or C?