|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:52:27 GMT -5
I am sure this has been discussed to some degree here, but I decided to start this thread and provide some examples. I have noticed that DC does a lot of touch-ups/recoloring when taking their old newsprint classics and publishing in Trade/HC editions and then later converting to digital copies. Marvel doesn't seem to do this from what I can tell. If you look at the examples below, Marvels digital reprints maintains the same color schemes as the original newsprint and looks superior to the original. DC seems to mess with the colors in abundance and often the choices are in very poor taste! I find it sad when the old newsprint with often faded colors and color/ink smudging looks far superior to the glossy digital counterparts. The Marshall Rogers run on Detective Comics overall looks far better in the original newsprint as well as most of the Neal Adams Batman issues. I was particularly disgusted with a lot of the digital reworking on Neal's Batman as he also went in a redrew a lot of his old work and actually made it worse!! I own the 3 volume "Batman Illustrated" volumes and hope to GOD that someday these will be re-released without ANY alterations or recoloring. Anyway, tell me what your views are.  I do not like how the werewolf is now just 1 shade of brown when the original was of 2 shades and looked much better  This one isn't too bad, some color variations but it looks fine except for the last panel where the people are now purple and you cannot make out their faces anymore  Silver St. Cloud looks like she has a heavy tan or is of another race  PERFECT!! Colors the same as original & you can see all of the detail in the inks/line work  Again...PERFECT!! |
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Oct 9, 2015 18:19:22 GMT -5
See for me though, even when the colours are perfect to the original - there is still a tangible quality to the original that makes it look better. Everything is too flat looking in the digital recoloured versions, there isn't that paper grain that helps add depth and texture to the scans of the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Oct 9, 2015 19:34:16 GMT -5
It depends on the original, I guess.
A lot of Shooter-era Marvel comics look awful - there seemed to be a general mentality at the time period that production values don't matter and the "little f%^s" (to use Shooter's own delightful turn of phrase) would buy it anyway so let's color all the background characters purple or whatever and get the issue to the printer.
I wouldn't mind an improved version of some of those, if only to better reflect the creators original intent. The original Marvel Two-In-One # 75 is damn near unreadable due to sloppy coloring and I was glad to see a decent version of the story in the last Marvel Two-In-One Essential.
Still, if the original colorist was doing their job and doing it well then I'd rather see their vision adhered too in the final product, as the Marvel Comics above.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 9, 2015 20:10:36 GMT -5
The monotone werewolf aside, if we're going to get the books recolored I generally prefer the DC examples from above. That's not to say DC is with out fault, there are plenty of times where the new coloring is terrible but those examples above seem the norm in terms of the quality I've seen. At least to my eye, while those DC samples are clearly different than the originals the coloring itself looks like it was done by a professional(except for the werewolf) where as the Marvel coloring looks like something I might do with a coloring program; it's just way too saturated and there is no gradient which creates a very flat look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 20:19:28 GMT -5
The monotone werewolf aside, if we're going to get the books recolored I generally prefer the DC examples from above. That's not to say DC is with out fault, there are plenty of times where the new coloring is terrible but those examples above seem the norm in terms of the quality I've seen. At least to my eye, while those DC samples are clearly different than the originals the coloring itself looks like it was done by a professional(except for the werewolf) where as the Marvel coloring looks like something I might do with a coloring program; it's just way too saturated and there is no gradient which creates a very flat look. Well, the colors for Marvel are naturally going to look brighter on the improved paper stock...I do not personally think they look too saturated, but that is just my opinion. I see nothing but improvements when I look at the FF & Avengers pages. To me the colors are vibrant & the line work is ultra sharp & devoid of any bleeding problems. They stayed true to the original colors, that is how I prefer it. DC seems to think they have to constantly change colors for no apparent reason & try to modernize everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 3:05:47 GMT -5
I've never liked four color on pulp at all. But modern recoloring is something that requires more skill than is often given. My preferred option is a black and white reprint on a bright white paper. Fantagraphics EC reprints are my favorite way to view EC comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Oct 10, 2015 6:40:12 GMT -5
I think digital remasterings/recolors should replicate the original colors.
I'm not a huge fan of "upgrading" the colors with modern effects but there are exceptions, like the Simonson Thor remaster. Usually they overdue it and make the artwork much slicker than they would with modern work. Lots of airbrushing and gradients in an apparent attempt to compensate for the less detailed artwork. Thats the wrong way to approach it. Colorists like Javier Rodriguez and Matt Hollingsworth know how to handle that sort of artwork and the key is to match the stark art with stark colors.
Basically, stick with the original colors unless you really know what the hell you're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 10, 2015 10:03:31 GMT -5
Preference would only matter to those that have seen the originals. I would assume that all the efforts to "modernize" old comics is for the benefit of new readers , watching recent super hero movies and wanting to check out their stories.
As for me personally, I've probably haven't/can't tell the difference until a side by side comparison. But when I started reading in the 90's news print and colorist were being fazed out for gloss stock and digital coloring. So I'm okay with both.
And like dupont, for some material, I'm thankful for the B&W reprints like Showcase and Essentials.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 10, 2015 10:51:57 GMT -5
The monotone werewolf aside, if we're going to get the books recolored I generally prefer the DC examples from above. That's not to say DC is with out fault, there are plenty of times where the new coloring is terrible but those examples above seem the norm in terms of the quality I've seen. At least to my eye, while those DC samples are clearly different than the originals the coloring itself looks like it was done by a professional(except for the werewolf) where as the Marvel coloring looks like something I might do with a coloring program; it's just way too saturated and there is no gradient which creates a very flat look. Well, the colors for Marvel are naturally going to look brighter on the improved paper stock...I do not personally think they look too saturated, but that is just my opinion. I see nothing but improvements when I look at the FF & Avengers pages. To me the colors are vibrant & the line work is ultra sharp & devoid of any bleeding problems. They stayed true to the original colors, that is how I prefer it. DC seems to think they have to constantly change colors for no apparent reason & try to modernize everything. It's the original colors, sure, but there is no nuance to it which isn't true of the originals. You look at Ironman's armor and it isn't the same exact shade of red throughout, there's a deeper saturation in the middle and it gets slightly less so as it moves to the edges giving it a hint of dimension and with out that you get a very flat look. You don't see that issue at all in the DC examples. |
|
|
|
Post by JKCarrier on Oct 10, 2015 10:52:18 GMT -5
I'll agree with bry that the Avengers and FF examples look the best, although I would prefer that they dial the intensity of the colors down a notch, to take into account the difference between gray newsprint and slick white paper. I'm not categorically against recoloring, but those Neal Adams pages are just overdone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 13:12:08 GMT -5
I prefer the original look anytime - why bother enhancing it because of this when you enhance something it's destroys the beauty of the original unblemished art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 14:25:39 GMT -5
Here is a page from NTT annual #1. I much prefer the digital version, mostly true to the original colors. The color purple in Blackfire's cape has been lightened & also her earring, but this color works better...notice in the original how her earring almost blends in with her hair color? Also in the original there is an obvious color bleed over Starfire's chin in the 3rd (center) panel where her hair color overlaps. Doesn't the original newsprint in this example just appear dirty looking?  |
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Oct 10, 2015 23:37:30 GMT -5
While the newsprint looks a little dirty, once again to my eyes the ordinal has much more texture to it (some of which comes from the inky look) - And in all honesty, sometimes the ultra sharp line work doesn't look as good as the softer originals, imo for example in the Starfire pages the line work on the trees looks better softer in the original (sorry for any typos or bad punctuation am typing on my phone when I should be working)
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 11, 2015 1:06:04 GMT -5
I prefer the softer shades of the pulps to the point that I can't really stomach the brighter reprints at all, no matter how close they try to stay to the original colours. For a while I was buying the Marvel Masterworks of things I couldn't afford to buy back issues of, like the early FF, DD, Dr. Strange, etc, but once I realised a lot of those issues were reprinted very early by Marvel in various reprint series, back-issues of which are usually priced pretty reasonably, I gave that up.
I do think that the brightness of the modern re-colouring doesn't look nearly as bad on the computer (and presumably IPad, etc) screen as it does on the page, so if I'm ever forced to get into digital back-issues that'll be of some consolation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Oct 11, 2015 7:51:34 GMT -5
Really depends
I've seen plenty of re-colorings that look great, then again I've seen some that are so oversaturated that it hurts my damn eyes and gives me a headache.
|
|
