-
I received this e-mail from a customer yesterday:
"The lobby card which I bought in the Tuesday February 14 auction arrived today in perfect condition, thanks to your superlative packing. I am delighted with the card, which is my favorite of all lobby cards. In fact, it actually looks even better in reality than in your scans, as the supersize image brings up even the tiniest imperfection very clearly. I know nobody else who provides this enlargement service so you can see exactly what you are buying."
I replied as follows:
"Thank you very much for your kind words! I have been buying through the mail for over 40 years, and I have always been amazed how many sellers would try to deceive you with poor quality photos that hide defects. Now, with modern day scanners, you can make scans that "burn away" defects (including even foldlines and pinholes), and people also use them to "boost" the colors of the item!
Some people seem to feel this is just wise salesmanship, but to me it is both deceptive and thinking for the short term, because you may get the person to pay more THIS time, but you are likely to lose a customer when they see how they were deceived. The way I do things with honest images that show 'even the tiniest imperfection very clearly', as you put it, I know that I gain the customer's trust, and that they are likely to order again and again, so I think those auctions that have the other philosophy are being 'penny wise and pound foolish'."
What is YOUR view on this?
-
Well, it's only honest to show all the imperfections, right? I got a lobby card from Heritage a few years ago that I paid a lot for, when it came in the mail it was packaged perfectly but the card itself had some internal bends which did not show up in the photo they had posted for the auction. I emailed them about it and they said return it for a refund but it was a card I REALLY needed for my collection and the reality was I would probably not find another one for a long time if ever. I kept it, but I wasn't happy about it.
-
We have been having the HA boosted images for some time. I hate to say it is deliberate when it can just be either laziness or lack of skills.
I can take any one of Bruce's or Rich's photos, and either open them in the Microsoft photo editor or import them into iPhoto on my mac. If I then choose to edit them and select autocorrect, I will usually get an image very similar to Heritage's. The default autocorrect settings on both programs boost both color level and contrast. Microsoft and Apple would like you to believe this is 'natural' and correct.
Try it yourself.
-
Jay, I know you are right. Back in the "old days" restorers who were ethically challenged, like the late Joe Hernandez, would "punch up" the colors of posters while they were restoring them! I recall him showing me a silent Thief of Bagdad half-sheet that had been practically duotone, and he added brilliant colors all over it, and it WAS a thing of beauty, but it WASN'T the poster that had been created (and of course there is almost surely a collector out there with this poster on their wall, having no clue what happened).
Now through the wonders of iPhoto and similar programs, they skip that expensive restoration and simply "restore" their images, and when they are caught red-handed, they offer to refund (as Louie says) but that means the buyer still has to pack it up and return it, and they are still disappointed. And you know many buyers (especially the type of rich person who is buying a movie poster for the first time) don't "put it together" and they simply accept their purchase (but I wonder how many of those people ever return to be stung a second time)?
Bruce
-
See: Auctions, Heritage
-
I started advertising some 1930s lobby cards on ebay and was using the auto-correct feature in the picture uploads. When I later viewed the listings I saw how white the borders appeared compared to the actual cards. I stopped using the enhance features from then on. That is a form of deception.
-
You know I did notice the poster I was thinking about bidding on looked quite different in the catalog versus on the screen. My wife and I are going up to Dallas and I am going to really get an idea of how boosted these guys are...
-
Thank you ozcinemagic! My original question only concerned those who enhance their images, like eBay sellers who use the auto-correct feature in the picture uploads, or any other sellers who do the same through Paintshop type programs.
I did not name anyone, and will not. Those who DON'T enhance their images or "boost" the color have nothing to feel bad about, and no one is accusing them of anything. Those who do, know who they are, and they have to live with themselves. No matter how much money they make with their devious methods, they still have to do that.
Bruce
-
What if I put a white card in my photos and use that to correct the white balance? Is that still devious?
-
Oddly enough, using a white card is not a "grey area". You know what is right and what is wrong, and if you make the right choice I applaud you. Those who make the wrong choice are not thinking it is "no big deal". They are choosing to cheat people. They may never get punished for what they do, but they do still have to live with themselves.
Bruce
P.S. The fact that you ask this tells me you know the answer. There is an expression that covers this: "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."
-
P.S. The fact that you ask this tells me you know the answer. There is an expression that covers this: "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."
Ha ha!! So says the person who started this thread!
-
Ha ha!! So says the person who started this thread!
hitself
-
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."
"Ha ha!! So says the person who started this thread!"
It was a rhetorical question
-
Sorry Bruce, but this is BS. As has already been posted, it depends so much on lighting, on display settings, on color balance, etc. Unless you are a professional, it is unlikely you will get it "right" and even then, it won't be "right" on the customer's uncorrected monitor.
The image editors programs actually get it wrong, simply for the sake of convenience. There is no true white, at least not one that can be reproduced on paper. The pros will use a 50% neutral grey card as a reference in film photography and correct to that, but that would be difficult to do in a 1 button solution for correcting the photos of Aunt Mildred holding the grandkids.
Let it go. There is no deception here, just an attempt to present in a positive manner. If you don't like it, feel free to take the image and correct it to your tastes, or better still, go view that $300k poster in person. But you better also insist on seeing it under 500W of color corrected 6500k lighting.
-
When I view my auction images, I know I am looking at what the poster really looks like in person. And the super-size photos show pinholes, tiny tears, etc.
When I look at some sellers' images I see the same. When I look at some others (and I am not naming any names) then I see images where I feel sure that both I am not seeing the item as it appears in real life, and also I can't go in close enough to see tiny flaws.
I could post images of such items, but then I would be accused of attacking those sellers. And 99% of collectors know EXACTLY what I am talking about anyway.
We have to agree to disagree on this one.
Bruce
-
And 99% of collectors know EXACTLY what I am talking about anyway.
Count me in the 99% Bruce...
-
Understood, and yes I do know what you are talking about. But it is kind of the Justice Potter Stewart argument on pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
-
This topic will go round and round, it seems like. It makes for some good discussion and debate.
First, I agree with jay, that yes, there will be differences in the way a poster looks in a photo, based on lighting setup, the kind of lights used, type of camera used, and how the digital image is then loaded and handled in whatever photo program is used.
Hi resolution pictures that can be zoomed in on, to show flaws, tiny pin holes, faint creases or even subtle printing errors at the time of the poster's creation are all great and important to show- there is no doubt about that.
But what it being discussed is the artificial enhancement and saturation of colors to a poster's digital image, in order to make it look more vibrant and "pretty." When someone chooses to perform this function, it is done so with that purpose. (I am not even going to use the word "deceptive" here as that can get tempers and emotions going).
But, if a seller decides, before listing a poster, to play with the contrast and saturation settings on a particular poster, in order to make it artificially "pop," when in reality, the colors are more muted or subdued, he or she is then, not showing a true representation of that particular poster to potential buyers or bidders.
Again, I know variables can be taken into account as reasons to adjust these components. That is not what Bruce, myself and others are talking about. It is the 'over the top' adjustments that make aged/tanned borders look whiter, (and obliterating small flaws from view) or adjusting a setting that makes colorful titles almost vibrate and glow on the paper. That, IMO, is a no no.
As a quick experiment, I grabbed a random poster image of Bruce's from an auction last week. I loaded it into my photo program and only boosted the saturation setting, and did a slight adjust on the contrast. As we know, Bruce prides himself on his images being true representations, showing accurate color, flaws and dings (if any exist). thumbup
Here is a side by side comparison of that same poster. The adjustment I made had Nothing to do with my monitor settings, lighting or camera used. It is about playing with the image's saturation to make it look more appealing. I think most, if not all, (who were interested in this poster) would choose to own the poster on the right:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6816188600_6c1bf09b68_b.jpg)
-
Yes Jay, this IS just like the pornography definition. It may be hard to put into exact words, but we all DO know it when we see it.
And of course, the Dick Whittington example is PERFECT! One image looks like what you see when you open the package, and the other doesn't.
Is it good marketing, and does it get higher bids? Maybe one time, but it causes bidders to strongly distrust you in the future (but if you are seller to endless newbies, then maybe that isn't a problem).
My problem is not whether or not it is good for my business. My problem is that it IS deceptive and dishonest. If I wanted to make a living that way, I would be a used car salesman (or a politician)!
Bruce
-
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
-
*blah
-
Rich, can you clarify your statement?
-
Those who can't find anything wrong in what I say try desperately to deflect my words with obfuscation.
I doubt anyone here is sidetracked by such shenanigans.
Bruce
-
I do think that Dick Whittington is a bad example, as the couple I have of it all look more like the one on the right.....
-
Rich, can you clarify your statement?
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah
-
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah
Damn Rich, I watch the whole scroll hoping something would blow up when the two blahs met. I feel cheated.
-
And I sat ages waiting for them to come back again, and they didn't....
-
Damn Rich, I watch the whole scroll hoping something would blow up when the two blahs met. I feel cheated.
Me too, Space Invaders style....
-
Bruce, again, I do understand what you are saying. Please understand the following:
No two cameras are going to capture the same image.
camera images are useless unless they are imported into a program and converted into an accepted image format (gif, jpg, bmp, etc)
All of these programs use compression, and thus take liberties with resolution, color depth and contrast.
They are then placed on a webpage and displayed on a computer where you have no control of the settings. My computer here at work has twin displays. As hard as I have tried, there is a color and contrast difference between the two. Drives me nuts at times.
It isn't like this "unnamed party" is going into photoshop and erasing foldlines and defects. This is an image file, taken from the camera. You believe he is changing contrast and color saturation. I'm not so sure, and if your photographer is any sort of pro, he is doing it as well. You just believe your choices are more 'natural'. But I can guarantee you that what I see on my screen is not the same as you see on your screen for the same poster. So I am not seeing the real poster anyway. As hard as you try, I am sometimes surprised by what arrives. Usually the colors on the real are more vibrant than on your images, so some could say you mute yours. :)
Now, if you discuss including large images, there is no argument. Nobody includes images as large and detailed as yours. They are appreciated and I wish others did so. Again, that is a bandwidth and money issue though.
OK, this should probably be my last post on this as I suspect we are boring the members. Sorry folks, the engineer in me got tweaked.
-
"Again, that is a bandwidth and money issue though"
Sadly, there is also a morality issue. I know that almost everyone who has ever purchased expensive posters has (on one or many occasions) opened a package and found a poster that was not what was pictured.
You think this is caused by the wonderful cameras they (ALL such sellers, not just one) use. I think they are intentionally deceiving the buyer.
We have to agree to disagree.
Bruce
-
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
-
Well my opinion is sellers should stop relying so much on pictures and typical grades and describe the defects of the posters better. I know Bruce puts commentary regarding scuffs and crease etc. dings... But more would even be better.
The in question just provides a general description of what that grade may be and sometimes describes defects. I once bought an poster from in question and must have passed over some of the defects in the photo, but I sure read the write up. If it would have said "there is a noticeable stain in the freakin center of the poster" I would have looked harder. I was some what disappointed when I unrolled it. But when I checked the photo there it was... So it was on me.
-
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
You should pay attention you boost yours too Rich... My Dirty Harry B2 looked like it had sat over the lazy boy of a 4 pack-a-day smoker for 20 years when I got it... unlike the photo... But I knew it wasn't perfect to start with and got a deal, so I'm happy.
-
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I didn't know it was Xmas already!?
-
Will post Dick tomorrow, gonig to bed early now...
-
Will post Dick tomorrow, gonig to bed early now...
Let's hope this does not start a trend! :o
-
Let's hope this does not start a trend! :o
Or inspire a new thread! laugh1
-
You should pay attention you boost yours too Rich... My Dirty Harry B2 looked like it had sat over the lazy boy of a 4 pack-a-day smoker for 20 years when I got it... unlike the photo... But I knew it wasn't perfect to start with and got a deal, so I'm happy.
Charlie
I don't boost anything. I don't edit anything. I don't do anything other than resizing.
the camera shoots & you get the picture you get. As I said earlier in this thread, I only shoot so you can see condition issues. I'm not concerned if actual color matching can be achieved under these fluorescent lights, and maybe you need to calbrate your monitor.
-
Charlie
I don't boost anything. I don't edit anything. I don't do anything other than resizing.
the camera shoots & you get the picture you get. As I said earlier in this thread, I only shoot so you can see condition issues. I'm not concerned if actual color matching can be achieved under these fluorescent lights, and maybe you need to calbrate your monitor.
I'll take a photo tonight and we can compare. This may be exactly what Jay was talking about. I did notice the other day that some photos looks different from my home monitor hooked up to a HDMI cord versus here at work on typical pin connection.
-
Charlie, if you go back in this thread or where ever this silly discussion started you will find I ran down a whole host of reasons why a picture on my computer looks diff than one on yours.
to think I would take the time to color orchestrate my photos is also silly. You don't really think I have time for such foolishness do you? The only setting in my camera is for lighting & white balance, which the camera does automatically. I don't run any macros or image correction at all other than resizing images. I don't have time for anything else.
Now if I'm shooting for PRINT, like for a book or print ad - oh yes I certainly will edit images to achieve a desired result. That's a different ballgame
-
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241957/how_to_calibrate_your_monitor.html
-
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241957/how_to_calibrate_your_monitor.html
Useful link Rich, thanks!
-
Shoulda known. Full moon tonight. I'm guilty as well.
-
to think I would take the time to color orchestrate my photos is also silly. You don't really think I have time for such foolishness do you? The only setting in my camera is for lighting & white balance, which the camera does automatically. I don't run any macros or image correction at all other than resizing images.
I think you do, Rich. In fact, I have proof -and I am showing it- that you are shamelessly boosting images in the site you run.
I recently bought this at movieposterbid:
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y316/110x75/NS4/z1.jpg)
And this is what I got when I opened the package:
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y316/110x75/NS4/z2.jpg)
;)
-
Fantastic Matias! ;D
-
That's priceless, Matias. Stout and Moss have nuthin' on you! thumbup
-
Yeah sorry my comparison promise fell through; I forgot that we were going to see Star Wars 3D tonight... By the was is now the only way to see it. I know some dogged it, but it was the best looking Star Wars I've ever seen. I got giddy and wanted to applaud when it was over...
-
Oh matias.. I was wondering what happened to that item. We sent yu the wrong piece. The person who won that item was so disappointed to get that Underworld poster & has been asking me every week if the missing item turned up. Can I have you send it to the real winner
-
Oh matias.. I was wondering what happened to that item. We sent yu the wrong piece. The person who won that item was so disappointed to get that Underworld poster & has been asking me every week if the missing item turned up. Can I have you send it to the real winner
So it was a mistake? You are OK in my book now...
I'll ship it back so the true owner can have some piece of mind. thumbup
-
That's priceless, Matias. Stout and Moss have nuthin' on you! thumbup
Thanks Ted, Stout and Moss actually have nuthin' on Mega Ethan
http://megaethan.tumblr.com/ (http://megaethan.tumblr.com/)
-
So it was a mistake? You are OK in my book now...
I'll ship it back so the true owner can have some piece of mind. thumbup
Can you just ship me Beckinsale please? I've already ok'd it with the wife (she just doesn't remember) ;)
-
OK here is the image. It's not as boosted as I remember... But when I look at them, I say to myself "Did I get the right poster?". There was significant browning/yellowing around the edges. And my photo is boosted by auto-correct and white balance. I can't actually find the fing poster (I looked through both Eastwood drawers) but I imagine it would only add to my case... And no Rich I am not unhappy, it was reasonable junked out to begin with. And I am not accusing you of anything malicious. It's just interesting how what you see and what you get are different sometimes...
Rich's from auction: My own photo.
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/sale_198_192.jpg) (http://www.abideposters.com/theposters/galleries/img/PD0013.jpg)
-
As Presented:
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/sale_198_192.jpg)
My Boosted:
(http://www.abideposters.com/theposters/galleries/img/PD0013.jpg)
Completely unaltered in any way:
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0652.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0653.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0654.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0655.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0656.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0657.JPG)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0658.JPG)
-
Charlie, if you took the bottom photo under natural conditions with no enhancements, it sure looks pretty close to my photo.
Keep in mind, if anything my photos are too dark as it's too time consuming for me to adjust light assessments manually for each picture (or to have Anna do same, if she could), so I'm under fluorescent lights, and the camera is making automatic light adjustments. I choose to go a little dark rather than too bright & wash out the image. But it should be obvious to anyone that I don't do anything to my images
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/sale_198_192.jpg)
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/eastwood/IMG_0658.JPG)
-
Charlie, if you took the bottom photo under natural conditions with no enhancements, it sure looks pretty close to my photo.
Keep in mind, if anything my photos are too dark as it's too time consuming for me to adjust light assessments manually for each picture (or to have Anna do same, if she could), so I'm under fluorescent lights, and the camera is making automatic light adjustments. I choose to go a little dark rather than too bright & wash out the image. But it should be obvious to anyone that I don't do anything to my images
It is obvious now that the "boosted" statement was completely wrong; I apologize for that. I would say it is close to your original, but definitely a shade or two off...
As far as not having time. My photos were taken within a few seconds I took it out of the sleeve laid it on the other poster you see on the table... My lights are two studio lights (w/o umbrellas) just pointing across the table. I didn't adjust them at all... Maybe you just took a poor photo. And this seems like an attack I am sure, but this is a perfect example were the seller wasn't trying to do anything malicious and the photo didn't match the product to a keen eye. And this tangent is now not really fitting of the purpose of the thread.
In this case your photo was neither boosted or truly accurate. This goes back to what I was saying, more descriptive language in a listing would help. "Significant yellowing; like it's been sitting over the lazy boy of a 4-pack a-day smoker. Its brittle and full of staple holes. Paper loss on edges; a good candidate for restoration. Photo presents poster slightly cleaner and a tad more white than actual; so don't be surprised when you open it up. But if you are a true Eastwood fan this is the one to own. Bid at your own risk. "
And for the record - "I don't think Rich boosted this photo or others I've seen on his auctions. My apologies for the gross error in my accusation."
-
If you didn't see the yellowing in Rich's photo, you were fooling yourself. It is definitely there. The rest of the analysis just makes my point about camera to camera differences, as well as lighting and background.
-
If you didn't see the yellowing in Rich's photo, you were fooling yourself. It is definitely there.
I don't think it's a question of the yellowing, like I said its a beater. It is the degree of yellow that was not accurate. I was readily accepting of the yellowing presented in the photo. Is the yellowing the same between his and my photo? In my photo, I see significantly more yellowing and as it actually looks like in person. Remember, I had it in front of me. I can't quite figure out how, since he didn't alter it, that the camera washed out most of the yellowing. It does look cloudy like it wasn't exposed long enough or there wasn't enough light.
Anyway time to move on. I don't care, I was planning on having it restored anyway (eyeroll someday). I'll just have to make a note on how he shoots his photos. Wonder if I could have gotten it for less with my photo?
-
This topic will go round and round, it seems like. It makes for some good discussion and debate.
First, I agree with jay, that yes, there will be differences in the way a poster looks in a photo, based on lighting setup, the kind of lights used, type of camera used, and how the digital image is then loaded and handled in whatever photo program is used.
Hi resolution pictures that can be zoomed in on, to show flaws, tiny pin holes, faint creases or even subtle printing errors at the time of the poster's creation are all great and important to show- there is no doubt about that.
But what it being discussed is the artificial enhancement and saturation of colors to a poster's digital image, in order to make it look more vibrant and "pretty." When someone chooses to perform this function, it is done so with that purpose. (I am not even going to use the word "deceptive" here as that can get tempers and emotions going).
But, if a seller decides, before listing a poster, to play with the contrast and saturation settings on a particular poster, in order to make it artificially "pop," when in reality, the colors are more muted or subdued, he or she is then, not showing a true representation of that particular poster to potential buyers or bidders.
Again, I know variables can be taken into account as reasons to adjust these components. That is not what Bruce, myself and others are talking about. It is the 'over the top' adjustments that make aged/tanned borders look whiter, (and obliterating small flaws from view) or adjusting a setting that makes colorful titles almost vibrate and glow on the paper. That, IMO, is a no no.
As a quick experiment, I grabbed a random poster image of Bruce's from an auction last week. I loaded it into my photo program and only boosted the saturation setting, and did a slight adjust on the contrast. As we know, Bruce prides himself on his images being true representations, showing accurate color, flaws and dings (if any exist). thumbup
Here is a side by side comparison of that same poster. The adjustment I made had Nothing to do with my monitor settings, lighting or camera used. It is about playing with the image's saturation to make it look more appealing. I think most, if not all, (who were interested in this poster) would choose to own the poster on the right:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6816188600_6c1bf09b68_b.jpg)
I'm not to good at putting images side by side, hopefully this will work if not, maybe Ted or Mel will do the honours...
This s a quick snap of my Dick Poster.
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0627-1.jpg)
-
Nice poster, Paul. Your copy looks to be in the middle between Bruce's and the more saturated image.
Thanks for sharing! :)
-Kerry
-
Thanks Kerry, it is a jolly nice poster, I may just add the camera I used was a cheap Tesco's own make that I always use to post photos on the forum. If you see the poster in the flesh the colours are very rich indeed...
-
Looking at them again, I think the colours are richer on my pic than the one on the right.....can anyone get them side by side....?
-
Here you go, Paul:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7048/6818726276_5f1795f536_b.jpg)
-
This is most confusing... now my image looks slightly washed out! If you look at the nap-sac it's very red in my first pic, and much more brown in the side by side pic....
I may need to go downstairs on the bigger screen computer. :-\
-
This is most confusing... now my image looks slightly washed out! If you look at the nap-sac it's very red in my first pic, and much more brown in the side by side pic....
I may need to go downstairs on the bigger screen computer. :-\
No, you're right, Paul.
On my computer, yours looks to be the finest of the lot, red nap sack and all.
-
Thanks Ted, I'm downstairs now and you can fit the three above on the screen. I though something wasn't quite right when I saw that side-by-side....
Ted are you on a Mac ? as I think Macs give a much more true colour...
-
I'm still waiting for someone to make a joke about Paul's Dick having more vivid colours than the others posted before... waiting1
-
Paul, I am on a Mac. And your image does look slightly blue, only due to the lighting and white balance. Remember, the image to the right was made to look artificially more saturated by pushing the levels.
I did nothing to alter your image except to grab it and place it side by side, to the other, as you suggested. :)
-Kerry
-
Thanks Ted, I'm downstairs now and you can fit the three above on the screen. I though something wasn't quite right when I saw that side-by-side....
Ted are you on a Mac ? as I think Macs give a much more true colour...
No, I'm on a PC.
Your pic looks richer and more 'real' than the other two and I have never re-calibrated my monitor.
-
No, I'm on a PC.
Your pic looks richer and more 'real' than the other two and I have never re-calibrated my monitor.
Ted, your comment is exactly what this thread was about. Oversaturated or overly boosted images Dont Look Real.
And I agree with you. Paul's image DOES look more real that the one I tweaked with. That was the idea of the taking Bruce's original and boosting it, in the first place.
-
Thanks Ted, I'm downstairs now and you can fit the three above on the screen. I though something wasn't quite right when I saw that side-by-side....
Ted are you on a Mac ? as I think Macs give a much more true colour...
Hey Paul,
Im a mac user. I looked at your first post photo and then the one that was placed side by side with the overboosted poster image. On my laptop, your image looked the same on both. Were you thinking that your image had been altered in some way?
Your poster is in beautiful shape, too. WOW!! It looks like it came right off the presses!! happy1
Jeff
-
Ted, your comment is exactly what this thread was about. Oversaturated or overly boosted images Dont Look Real.
And I agree with you. Paul's image DOES look more real that the one I tweaked with. That was the idea of the taking Bruce's original and boosting it, in the first place.
Understood and agreed.
Quite an interesting exercise. thumbup
-
A very interesting exercise. The image of mine that Kerry posted next to the saturated image looks as though some of the colours have been taken out of it. Yet went I go to my first post you can see all 3 on this big screen and there's most definitely a difference between the first one I posted and the lifted one of mine.....! maybe it's in the forums software...?
Matias, No one is going to top your Underworld Joke, I'm still laughing at it.... laugh1
Jeff, I know a fellow who was first to rummage and hand picked the best of many lots that were sold from Taylor's printers, so I have some very nice examples.... ;)
-
Most people here wouldn't own a monitor worth more than a few hundred bucks so calibrating your monitor is going to add up to a hill of beans, you might get it good enough but it's not going to be anywhere close to what top end monitors can render. Photo editors spend big bucks on their monitors just for the reason we are talking, to present the colours in the most natural state possible, models such as the Eizo monitor and then add in a colour calibration spider and you've got a shot.
If the image 'looks' boosted perhaps we should consider first if it's the camera (model), its set-up and the lighting set up before we point the finger at the person taking it. There are lots of photographers in here (Charlie is an old hand at it) who will tell you the difference between an image shot under natural, fluorescence and incandescence lights with the same setting on the camera is quite marked.
Rich's set-up looks like he has just one set of lights (see shadow) and we don't know what sort of lights they are plus without knowing his camera model and settings I think we may be a little tough in saying he is knowingly boosting, his camera just may be over compensating for the poor light (not saying it is, just one possibility).
-
There are two totally separate issues here:
1) Poor lighting and/or focus that conceals defects and/or improves the appearance of the image
2) Manipulation that occurs AFTER the item is photographed to conceal defects and/or improve the appearance of the image
Some people do one, some do the other, and many do neither.
When either happens to YOU, you will know it, because the poster you receive does not look like the poster you saw, and you will be less inclined to bid (or you will bid less) in the future.
Bruce
-
as someone who does photography, scanning & the like and who knows the vagaries of different processes, I'm far less concerned with whether the the poster not color matched than whethere it is reasonably well represented. I am yet to not get what I was expecting at Heritage just like I am yet to not get what I'm expecting from Bruce. I do not "color match" my poster deliveries with images from any website unless there are serious questions.
-
I don't think ANYONE thinks images should be done in a way to deceive. But all this turns into is a DO YOU LIKE HERITAGE argument, its really quite .... hmmm..... BLAH. ;)
PS- there's certainly many people who do this, one in particular jumps to my mind, a member here, NS4 and Mopo. He never cops flack, I don't think anyone cares that he does it, I sure don't.
-
(Jay J here is not Jay Johannes on MoPo)
Well, actually, we are one and the same. Jay Nemeth-Johannes. Cindy and I combined names when we got married. She supplied the Nemeth :)
-
I'll be darned Jay..
sm1
-
OK so while I was in the viewing room and I mentioned that the colors were off on the screen, he said well some times the images are modified for the catalog. Like I said in an earlier I had the catalog, a print out from my computer and the poster in front of me and they were all different. But right there was the definitive proof that they do something to the images...
-
Anyone who does images for websites and print will have to adjust differently for each, two very different mediums require two different approaches to getting as accurate colour match to the actual item. Even in the most basic level, one uses RGB the other CMYK, of course theres manipulation.
-
Mel.. I think the answer is very obvious.. They boosted the color green because the guy at the bottom right is supposed to have a blue-green shirt
-
oh.. never mind Mel.. I needed to calibrate my monitor and get out my own copy to compare
The image is right.. Move along....
-
OK so while I was in the viewing room and I mentioned that the colors were off on the screen, he said well some times the images are modified for the catalog. Like I said in an earlier I had the catalog, a print out from my computer and the poster in front of me and they were all different. But right there was the definitive proof that they do something to the images...
Thanks for the first hand information Charlie.
Must have been a kick ass experience....Wish I could have made the trip.
-
OK so while I was in the viewing room and I mentioned that the colors were off on the screen, he said well some times the images are modified for the catalog. Like I said in an earlier I had the catalog, a print out from my computer and the poster in front of me and they were all different. But right there was the definitive proof that they do something to the images...
Charlie, were you there for the entire day of auctioning, on Fri? Sounds like a good time.
-
Mel, did you read what Charlie wrote about HA admitting the images are "sometimes modified for the catalogue"
There's your proof that HA's images can be altered/enhanced etc.
No one was saying it was fraudulent (to my knowledge) and no one was saying this took place on every poster they sell.
But I bet when you get your Werewolf in person at least the white border will not appear quite so whitewashed up close...
-
I definitely value Charlie's judgment. Charlie, exactly what are you saying? Which posters looked materially different from the online versions (or catalog version to a lesser extent?) How did they look different?
On NS4 someone said the following: (http://stylec.yuku.com/sreply/111524/The-Berwick-Discovery-of-1931-Posters#.T25_-ZjwcqY)
"I must say that the Berwick posters that I saw in person (including the Public Enemy Style A) all looked fantastic. I did not have a black light with me, but on close inspection, they appeared to be in remarkable condition with vibrant colors...."
-
Neither I nor anyone has ever said that HA boosts EVERY image of EVERY auction that they have held or will hold. All one has to do is peruse the archive and see that this doesn't occur. This discussion centered on, and began with the posting of several of the Berwick posters, as they appeared when first separated from the stacks. Visual comparisons and comments then were made, when the catalog images arrived online, sometime later.
And, of course, HA isnt going to take the time or bother boosting something like that Curse of the Werewolf OS. Why bother? It is a fairly common poster, that appears with some regularity. If HA was doing this to every image, they would never be uploaded in time.
The discussion here (and to some degree over on NSF), referenced this collection of rare and high end posters only, not the more common (or run of the mill) items that appear each week.
And who ever used the word, "fraudulent?"
Not I.
-
And, of course, HA isnt going to take the time or bother boosting something like that Curse of the Werewolf OS. Why bother? It is a fairly common poster, that appears with some regularity. If HA was doing this to every image, they would never be uploaded in time.
It is no bother, it is likely automated. In PhotoShop, run a one click macro (pre-written set of commands) to add saturation and create different sizes for all images in a folder/folders
-
yep, I set up Photoshop to ROTATE 90 degrees clockwise then reduce IMAGE SIZE: 25%, could add whatever I wanted, but its the easiest fastest way to edit a bunch of pics.
-
yep, I set up Photoshop to ROTATE 90 degrees clockwise then reduce IMAGE SIZE: 25%, could add whatever I wanted, but its the easiest fastest way to edit a bunch of pics.
You can set up the computer to do that.....Man I'm so far behind you young fellows with this computermebobs, and interweb thingy....
-
well I do have a degree in Multimedia, (although extremely out of date now).
-
Man, I am such a fool. I shelled out $500 today for a 50 year old Curse of the Werewolf poster from Heritage (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7055&lotNo=83670&lotIdNo=32005#Photo) that is virtually CERTAIN to be deceptively and fraudulently color-boosted.
Mel, you know I luv ya, but that "Dial M for Murder" was not the same in person as it was on the internet or in the catalog. I am not sure about your poster. I even e-mailed Heritages photos to an well known poster dealer to compare to his.
I wouldn't say they were color "Boosted", because the real color was waaaay better. I think they modify the images so they look cleaner on the internet and in the catalog. I actually believe this is not a deceptive practice, because after my experience it would be a moronic one. I think some tech geek got in there and convinced Grey or whoever, that they need to make all the whites match so that the catalog looks good and there is uniformity to the presentation.
The mod wasn't deceptive in the sense you weren't getting the poster, but the color in the 'M' mean a lot because of the reds. On my screen (and I did finally calibrate it Rich), the reds looked caked. In person, the reds were very vibrant. The whites not necessarily bleached out, but I had been looking at the thing for 3 weeks and the first time I noticed the tape was when it was in front of me. The description mentioned tape on the front, but in person, the tape was a good 1.25 inches into the poster and on top of part the red. You can't really make that out on the image. The whites were also turned up versus the real thing, but the poster just showed normal aging where the whites were concerned. And in some ways, the 'in person' viewing helped the poster's cause; because when they turned up the whites, the creases from the folds were much worse on the screen than in person. But the killer was that you don't get to see the back and those smudges on the "M" where actually bleed-through from that black grease pencil...
In my discussion with the guy helping me, he couldn't figure out why they hadn't removed the tape as they usually do this or send them out for repair. The only thing him and I could decide on, was the the colors were so kick ass that they didn't want mess with the originality of it. I think if the tape had been removed we would have bid on it... So that is why I just can't figure out why they would intentionally alter the colors (especially in the case of "M"), when it really didn't need it. The place had such a professional atmosphere I imagine the photos are taken in one group and then just handed off, one set to the catalog people, one set to the website people, and one set to the auction system people. And what they do with these images probably doesn't cross Grey's mind...
Here is the Dial 'M'...
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/032012/DM_CA_Comp.jpg)
-
Charlie, were you there for the entire day of auctioning, on Fri? Sounds like a good time.
Our plan was to be. We arrived early 11AM to view the 'M', originally just to check the colors. Too bad about the tape.. I just kept telling myself why drop $1500 on a poster that you would then need to send out. Your would get home and Bruce would have one in Very Fine condition and then you would be kicking yourself... So after we saw the 'M' he said he could pull a few others and we looked at those. Since we decided against the 'M' and it was the only floor poster we were looking at then no need to stay for the whole thing...
They had a typical professional building Cafe with crappy food; but they had Red Bull to help me settle my impulses to just buy the damn 'M' anyway... wynk I wanted to see the Berwicks go off so we went to the auction room. Now these posters are not there in real life, they just use a screen (may have been a flat screen) to project the lot number and bids. There were two rows of phones and about 5 rows of seating. I was very surprised with the Berwicks going off there were only 6 people in the room when it started. There were about ten when we left... I figured I didn't need a bidder number but then my wife was getting excited and asked to get one. But after Cimmarron went for 90K she clammed up; I've not seen her squirm so much. After half a million was spent on the first 33 she was almost disgusted at the wealth in the movie poster collection world and wanted to leave...
But later I realized a seed had been planted in her brain that movie posters do have value and that I am not the only one buying them and that they may be more stable in terms of longevity then she thought. So I got that going for me....
It was fun, she already wants to go again next time...
-
It is no bother, it is likely automated. In PhotoShop, run a one click macro (pre-written set of commands) to add saturation and create different sizes for all images in a folder/folders
Bingo! I think they probably just have a set and let the catalog folks do their stuff, the web folks do theirs etc. You can batch edit for autocorrect and white balance in minutes for 1600 or more images...
-
OK well I'm going to post Heritage's full 2000x3000 picture (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7055&lotNo=83131#Photo) (in three sections) so everybody can judge. The only alteration I've made is to increase the canvas size to show pure white on the edges.
Overall the poster appears to be pretty dirty with lots of smudges and dirt and the folds look very prominent, which hardly constitutes "deceptive marketing."
You can clearly see the tape on the middle right and - to my eye - clearly extends into the red.
You can clearly see the acid tanning when compared to the pure white.
If grease marks did bleed into the front of the pic, Heritage should have disclosed that but I doubt the omission was "deceptive." Here's the full description:
Dial M for Murder (Warner Brothers, 1954). Insert (14" X 36").....With its distinct, evocative graphics, this poster is ever popular with collectors, especially one in such fine condition. It shows only light left and right edge wear, smudging in the bottom right, a tear in the bottom right with tape on the front, light fold wear, and two extra horizontal creases. Folded, Fine+.
Finally, you really should have taken pictures for a more meaningful comparison. A comparison picture would have been worth a thousand words....
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/0-APF/Mur-1.jpg)
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/0-APF/Mur-2.jpg)
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/0-APF/Mur-3.jpg)
-
Really Mel? Leave it to a lawyer to argue to the end...
So let me clarify:
-The guy at HA in the HA viewing room admitted to HA adjusting the images for the catalog.
-A guy (who I trust to be partial) on the forum made the 3.5 hour trip to HA just to check the colors and verified using two different mediums and the real thing that they are different.
And you want me to whip out a cell phone in a secured viewing room so I can prove this? Should I ask Grey for an autograph for you too Mel? (by the way his hair is much greyer in person; I imagine they 'boosted' that for the youtube video)
I am convinced that if you are dropping serious money on a poster that you should view the poster in person; that is the lesson I learned. Not sure what the price point is but $1000 to $1500 would be enough for me to make the trip.
Mel sometimes you should just consider that you just may not have everything figured out and that other people are not idiots...
-
OK well I'm going to post Heritage's full 2000x3000 picture (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7055&lotNo=83131#Photo) (in three sections) so everybody can judge.
Judge what they weren't in the room with me. How can they judge anything unless they bought the poster... I thought you were a lawyer. Do you want my wife to chime in as a second witness?
-
Charlie, I'm certainly not saying or implying you are an idiot. But you haven't provided any comparison photos, so we're relying on your subjective interpretation. Most people would say that overall you are nitpicking and the pictures and descriptions are overall accurate and fair. And of course no one expects a generic sales catalog (with limited colors) to have perfect renditions but it is fair to expect the large digital images online to be very close to the original.
So just answer these questions:
(1) Do you agree that overall this poster was graded correctly (Fine+)?
(2) Would you say these pictures are an "outright deception"?
(3) Would you say these pictures are a "clever marketing" scheme?
(4) Would you say these pictures have been "boosted"?
(5) Would you have demanded a refund if you had won it at the auction and not seen it in person?
For full disclosure, I have no financial or other connection to Heritage. I have purchased high $$$ posters (including a $1,000+ Barbarella Style B) from Heritage before and have had absolutely no issues with the descriptions, grading, or pictures except for one (Easy Rider), which I returned because it had been trimmed 1/2" from the top and bottom. (I was given a full refund and it was resold with the correct description (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161141&lotNo=51180).) I have received trimmed posters from other sellers, including EmoviePoster, for which I received a full refund.
-
But you haven't provided any comparison photos, so we're relying on your subjective interpretation.
I am not sure that these photos would have helped because then you would say my Driod's camera is not accurate enough to truly depict the poster. Plus, there are no cameras that provide the details of the human eye. So unless you are calling me a liar, or that there is some secret conspiracy (and I am being paid to lean one way or another; I meant impartial in my earlier post) for simply saying "The colors were not the same.", I don't see how a picture would persuade you.
Most people would say that overall you are nitpicking and the pictures and descriptions are overall accurate and fair. And of course no one expects a generic sales catalog (with limited colors) to have perfect renditions but it is fair to expect the large digital images online to be very close to the original.
I would say that the pictures and descriptions are overall fair. However I looked at three posters, the "M", Terminator Quad, and the 40x60 For a Few Dollars More.
None of the pictures or descriptions were spot on; nit-picky or not...
The "M":
vs. Picture - Color much better in person, tape more obvious and distracting, fold lines less obvious and hardly noticeable.
vs. Description - Smudge was grease pencil bleed through.
The Terminator Quad:
vs. Picture - Poster appeared smother in person, corner folds were present but hardly an issue, missing corner in image was there...
vs. Description - Corner bends were correct, crease was on the bottom and not on top.
40X60 FAFDM:
vs. Picture - Poster had substance on the surface; like drops of water or other. Minor tear in bottom and the corner was separating.
vs. Description - Significant tape 5 to 6 pieces on back some paper tape, some ink jet labels.
So just answer these questions:
(1) Do you agree that overall this poster was graded correctly (Fine+)?
(2) Would you say these pictures are an "outright deception"?
(3) Would you say these pictures are a "clever marketing" scheme?
(4) Would you say these pictures have been "boosted"?
(5) Would you have demanded a refund if you had won it at the auction and not seen it in person?
Not sure why I am doing this but WTH...
(1) Do you agree that overall this poster was graded correctly (Fine+)?
I don't focus in on grades, they are too subjective. I don't even know what Fine+ means so I won't dare to agree or disagree.
(2) Would you say these pictures are an "outright deception"?
Nope, as I said earlier:
I wouldn't say they were color "Boosted", because the real color was waaaay better. I think they modify the images so they look cleaner on the internet and in the catalog. I actually believe this is not a deceptive practice, because after my experience it would be a moronic one. I think some tech geek got in there and convinced Grey or whoever, that they need to make all the whites match so that the catalog looks good and there is uniformity to the presentation.
The mod wasn't deceptive in the sense you weren't getting the poster, but the color in the 'M' mean a lot because of the reds. On my screen (and I did finally calibrate it Rich), the reds looked caked. In person, the reds were very vibrant. The whites not necessarily bleached out, but I had been looking at the thing for 3 weeks and the first time I noticed the tape was when it was in front of me. The description mentioned tape on the front, but in person, the tape was a good 1.25 inches into the poster and on top of part the red. You can't really make that out on the image. The whites were also turned up versus the real thing, but the poster just showed normal aging where the whites were concerned. And in some ways, the 'in person' viewing helped the poster's cause; because when they turned up the whites, the creases from the folds were much worse on the screen than in person. But the killer was that you don't get to see the back and those smudges on the "M" where actually bleed-through from that black grease pencil...
In my discussion with the guy helping me, he couldn't figure out why they hadn't removed the tape as they usually do this or send them out for repair. The only thing him and I could decide on, was the the colors were so kick ass that they didn't want mess with the originality of it. I think if the tape had been removed we would have bid on it... So that is why I just can't figure out why they would intentionally alter the colors (especially in the case of "M"), when it really didn't need it. The place had such a professional atmosphere I imagine the photos are taken in one group and then just handed off, one set to the catalog people, one set to the website people, and one set to the auction system people. And what they do with these images probably doesn't cross Grey's mind...
(3) Would you say these pictures are a "clever marketing" scheme?
Nope, I actually think they hurt Heritage. The colors were all better in person for the three I saw. However the flaws were much easier to detect. So I would say that color-wise, you are probably ok. But grind on the details of the flaws (tears, smudges, tape, etc.)...
(4) Would you say these pictures have been "boosted"?
The pictures were modified. Grey's hair was "boosted". For all three that I saw, the colors were much better in person. I also have a theory that they scan these poster on a flat bed and the compression of the poster onto the glass gives it a much different look than what we see from Bruce and Rich...
To put it to bed these are not "Boosted", but they are altered. My hunch like I said earlier is that Grey has no control over the images once they go to marketing... Or it could be flatbed scanning
(5) Would you have demanded a refund if you had won it at the auction and not seen it in person?
This is a good question but as soon as I thought there was something wrong with the colors, I shot off a PM to get a second opinion and then made the trip to Dallas to see it for myself. So obviously I didn't buy it for those reasons and wouldn't be returning it if I did (as you say). However, if I would have bought it just from online and opened it up: first my heart would have sank because of the tape, then depression would set in because of the grease pencil. I would have wanted to return it, but it would have been my fault for not doing my part as a buyer; getting all the information that I could. Then, I would have hung it up and enjoyed it for what it was. It would have also reminded me of what I should have done, driven up to Dallas and looked at it....
For full disclosure, I have no financial or other connection to Heritage. I have purchased high $$$ posters (including a $1,000+ Barbarella Style B) from Heritage before and have had absolutely no issues with the descriptions, grading, or pictures except for one (Easy Rider), which I returned because it had been trimmed 1/2" from the top and bottom. (I was given a full refund and it was resold with the correct description (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161141&lotNo=51180).) I have received trimmed posters from other sellers, including EmoviePoster, for which I received a full refund.
I too have had great success in buying posters from all the dealers we are aware of... I just choose to be cautious when buying a poster that I will only buy once, which is the case on the "M". I will only buy this poster once and I don't think being a bit nit-picky is out of line... I just know that the satisfaction of spending a few hundred dollars more on a better example will hurt less than having to look at one that I settled for....
-
I am not sure that these photos would have helped because then you would say my Driod's camera is not accurate enough to truly depict the poster. Plus, there are no cameras that provide the details of the human eye. So unless you are calling me a liar, or that there is some secret conspiracy (and I am being paid to lean one way or another; I meant impartial in my earlier post) for simply saying "The colors were not the same.", I don't see how a picture would persuade you.
Last time I weigh in on this. If you say that no camera can truly capture the colors and details, how can you say in the next sentence that HA is deliberately misleading by boosting colors? We have enough reports from folks who actually saw the posters in question and reported that they were bright and vibrant.
As I said earlier, no two cameras, no two light stands, no two user monitors, no two user graphic cards and no two picture editing programs will produce the same results. YMMV, and if you are that concerned, buy a plane ticket.
Again, bored now.
-
Last time I weigh in on this. If you say that no camera can truly capture the colors and details, how can you say in the next sentence that HA is deliberately misleading by boosting colors? We have enough reports from folks who actually saw the posters in question and reported that they were bright and vibrant.
As I said earlier, no two cameras, no two light stands, no two user monitors, no two user graphic cards and no two picture editing programs will produce the same results. YMMV, and if you are that concerned, buy a plane ticket.
Again, bored now.
I know that my responses are long, but please read them before making such strong statements. Want to read it and then try again?
-
Charlie, thanks for the first hand account and your own, in person, observations about the condition and appearance of the poster(s) you were interested in. It sounds like you might have been the only APF member to attend (?), so unless someone else was there, with their own camera, or who talked to a Heritage rep themselves, much of the above is nothing more than opinions presented, "from afar." It is easy to do, from the comfort of one's living room, over the interwebs.
You were there, you made the trek, and got up close and personal with the pieces you had interest in. That is certainly better than any hi res image, printed catalog description, or paragraphs of individual's personal opinions (and who were not there). For that very reason, there is No reason to get blue in the face, either.
I'm sure it made for an awesome trip, overall. clap
Jeff
-
Amazing how people can just skim posts and then base an entire argument on words or accusations that were never put forward in the first place eyeroll
The guy Charlie spoke with admitted catalogue photos *can be altered on occasion*. End of story. That's all I was ever trying to get across.
Of course there is no substitute to seeing a poster in person. Any photo, scan etc will look different than the "first hand" poster. But is abundantly clear that some of HA's photos have been altered (and now admitted to) to make the posters appear more uniform and for some perhaps more desirable...
-
As promised, here are photos of my Curse of the Werewolf compared to the Heritage originals.
First, I'm certainly satisfied with the poster and have no interest in returning it. The colors are quite good, especially for a 50 year old poster.
However, it's clear that the colors are substantially different from the Heritage image. Clearly, the colors have been shifted to the red. The woman's dress is orange in "real life" but is red in Heritage's pictures. It also appears the colors in the Heritage pic are somewhat more "saturated."
Clearly Heritage needs to do a better job matching its digital images to the real item.
I'll have to go back and do some more comparative pictures. This is the first time I've ever noticed any distinction between the actual poster and the digital image.
My pic on left, Heritage on right. Note that the "Primary Color" book is true red and the dress is orange.
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/Heritage/Curse-1.jpg)
My close up of the woman in the image:
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/Heritage/Curse-3.JPG)
Heritage image:
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/Heritage/Curse-Her2.jpg)
-
Mel, the point has never been whether the "boosting" helps them in getting higher prices, or is necessarily done to be deceptive.
My point was solely that it IS happening, and that their images are substantially different from ours, and you have just completely corroborated that.
Bruce
-
The jury is out on whether the Signature Auction pics are aberrational.
I can tell you that the Heritage picture (http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161207&lotNo=54086#Photo) for the Butch Cassidy B2 poster I bought from them is right on the money. My camera is not that great so they look slightly different in the below comparison picture but holding it directly to the computer monitor it looks exactly the same:
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE/Butch-compare.jpg)
-
Last time I weigh in on this. If you say that no camera can truly capture the colors and details, how can you say in the next sentence that HA is deliberately misleading by boosting colors? We have enough reports from folks who actually saw the posters in question and reported that they were bright and vibrant.
As I said earlier, no two cameras, no two light stands, no two user monitors, no two user graphic cards and no two picture editing programs will produce the same results. YMMV, and if you are that concerned, buy a plane ticket.
Again, bored now.
I agree with Jay.. especially the "bored" part
-
However, it's clear that the colors are substantially different from the Heritage image.
Are we still on April the 1st? ;)
Now seriously, that's a great poster Mel, one of my favourite wolf man images. Well done. thumbup
-
However, it's clear that the colors are substantially different from the Heritage image. Clearly, the colors have been shifted to the red. The woman's dress is orange in "real life" but is red in Heritage's pictures. It also appears the colors in the Heritage pic are somewhat more "saturated."
Cough, cough. I feel a there is a debt to be paid here...
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/images.jpg)
-
Mel, is that the closest we will ever get to a recantation? ;)
Would have thought HA would have given you the Werewolf for free for all your unpaid defence work...
-
Mel, is that the closest we will ever get to a recantation? ;)
Would have thought HA would have given you the Werewolf for free for all your unpaid defence work...
Hey Chris, 583 daybills for sale (http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/search/daybill/13.html)!!!!!!
Cough, cough. I feel a there is a debt to be paid here...
(http://www.abideposters.com/apf_junk/images.jpg)
You'll get what's coming to you, pal! In the mail....
-
Hey Chris, 583 daybills for sale (http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/search/daybill/13.html)!!!!!!
I was on it at 10:01pm...
-
I was on it at 10:01pm...
Stepped all over me as I waited patiently for the door to open...
-
Stepped all over me as I waited patiently for the door to open...
Don't forget about the dirt I kicked in your face too :-*
-
I love this forum... you lot are hilarious ;D