What's /co/'s take on the digital coloring of older comic books? I can't really put my finger on it, but sometimes it just feels a bit off
>>78257593
post the original for comparison
>>78257632
>>78257593
It lacks character.
The problem is wanting to put old comics on new glossy paper, the old colors become more bright and often garish since they aren't fading into the cheap paper
>>78257715
I like unrestored art better.
>>78257593
But a cleaned-up restoration is still easier to read, especially the word bubbles.
>>78257775
Yeah, people complained about the paper quality on Jack Kirby's Fourth World trades but I thought that was great for the coloring.
>>78257593
They make the colors brighter when they do that but it's still better in my opinion. I can't stand those ugly, dull colors and unclear lines.
>>78257593
I think it's a great idea to go back and draw over top of everything ever!
>>78257593
It looks shit. Apart from when, say; Fantagraphics do it, like the Rich Tomasso Duckbooks restoration--very close to the originals but without the "smudginess". Mind you Fanta always shoot the lineart from original negs whenever possible, most publishers aren't as exacting in their requirements (not namng names!.....) and foist that shit shiny shite on comic buyers.
>>78257593
It lacks the texture of the original, but I do appreciate the art being able to be observed as the original artist had seen it.
>>78257988
Restoring comics isn't the same as coloring B&W movies
>>78258124
Pics? I haven't seen Fantasgraphics Donald Duck
In this case the original ink on paper gives Groot texture, since it has no shading, it's just flat solids.
So when done digitally it looks what it is: solid color with black lineart. So it's ugly and boring.
>>78258319
>restoring
>>78257775
But that can be adjusted for in the coloring process. Purists might this is too much deviation from the original art, but I think it can be made to work. I loved Marvel's Conan books as a kid in the 70s, but I was blow away by the more recent Dark Horse reprint volumes; the color was just astounding! John Buscema and Ernie Chan never looked better.
>>78257847
David Mazzucchelli came out telling people not to buy the one of the reprints for the Batman Year One trade because it used glossy paper that he believed ruined the art
http://comicsalliance.com/david-mazzucchelli-batman-year-one-reprint/
>>78257593
High quality scans > Digital recolour > low quality scans
It looks good on some of the campier silver age titles though
>>78258481
You mean those Chronicles of Conan collections? I thought they looked awful, I'd rather they just be black and white like the Savage Sword collections
>>78258371
>>78257593
old black and white comics were drawn with being black and white in mind, so everything is high contrast
coloring it undermines that contrast, making all the shadows seem unnaturally deep
The problem isn't the color, I love a good restoration, its that they most often do completely inaccurate colors that look nothing like the original and go overboard with the brightness.
I will post my favorite example. I love this comic but the recoloring completely fucking butchered the art, making it tacky and distasteful for seemingly no reason at all.
>>78259510
>>78258720
>>78259555
fuck man, those colours are dumb, but I think I rage at Nick's hair the most
>What? He has like, a white stripe or something in his hair, right?
although I also gotta give a wewlad for the decision to make the text panel graffitied on the bright yellow wall.
>>78259555
Wow, usually recolors go the other way and make everything dull. The first picture looks much more cohesive.
>>78259510
I think they should try stick to the original colors as much as possible. I didn't like the sandman or killing joke recolors.
>>78259584
Eh. I don't know what your trying to prove here. I was showing not all restorations is bad.
>>78261048
your filename seems to disagree with you.
have you been fighting with your folders again?
>>78261232
Nah. That filename was a play on the previous one.
>>78258481
>Dark Horse Conan
>good coloring
You mean this shit? I mean, maybe it's gotten better since these were done all those years ago, but this right here is bordering incompetence and completely put me off buying anything but the B/W reprints.
>>78258562
Basically, this. It's really down to how whatever method best captures the spirit of the original work without ruining immersion.
>>78259555
This? Garish, but not completely ill-fitting for the bombastic psychedelic tone of the comic.
>>78263154
This is unnerving, if not for the very basic digital color and gradient shading giving everything a greasy quasi-realistic look, then just for reminding me of Batman: Odyssey.
>>78263154
>you can even see the holes of the bridge still
Holy shit.
>>78263154
The only thing that really looks off is the water is literally the same as the grass on the bottom panel. Otherwise it looks alright.
Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The flaws of the original medium are required to fully appreciate the art as a whole, but for actually reading and being able to see the pencils and inks the restoration is usually better. Some scans of Golden Age stuff are nigh unreadable now.
>>78258720
The restored painting lacks grit, soul, is overdesigned and looks like a Digimon.
the incal got a shitty recolor, thank god they still print the original
>>78259555
If nothing else the energy around the ankh looks much better.
>>78264267
>>The restored painting lacks grit, soul, is overdesigned and looks like a Digimon.
Heh. Funny guy.
>>78265117
The comixology version has the original coloring now.
>>78264192
>The only thing that really looks off is the water is literally the same as the grass on the bottom panel
You don't think that's a pretty glaring error to make? And the new coloring also sucks the energy out of BWS' art, like seen in this image. Digital coloring looks almost always horrible on old comics.
>>78259510
>>78259555
Am I missing some thought process that leads people to recolor old things with the exact opposite colors?
I like it, but I don't want to see the "restored" versions displace the originals. I'd hate it if in 50 years time the only copies in digital archives were the recolors.
>>78258557
Yeah...plus, isn't the colourist his missus?
>>78258319
There ya go friendo. Thoughts?
>>78258371
Either that's a shoop or it was restored by a trainee on his first day. How many international art establishments who restore frescoes would let that fly?! Plus, restoring egg tempera (?) is supposed to be a double-bitch to do. If that's real though, Christ on a crutch that person should never be let near a fresco again! But it's apples and oranges--that's restoration of the object itself--comic restoration is about improving the source for print, two vastly different things.
>>78258599
Shit I used to love those Savage Sword mags as a kid, do the collections have the back-up stories in there? As >>78258481 said, Ernie Chan was fucking wicked, I even preferred his Conan to Buscema's...that chunkier look...brilliant artist.
>>78264192
This. It's not the WORST recolour I've ever seen...but bridge over...grass? I hate it when there's no attention to detail. So yes >>78265222, a glaring as fuck error. And the BWS recolour just looks weird...maybe it's an age thing? I think generally if you're old enough to have bought comics in the pre-Baxter era a LOT of recolouring is going to look downright bizarre. Or even if you're NOT old enough but buy a lot of old comics, I dunno, that's my tuppence, anyway. I'm not sure if under 25 non-artists are bothered about that sort of thing? Maybe?
>>78266463
There was a great article on the old comicscomics blog about exactly this, I'll see if I can find it.
>>78267363
>Either that's a shoop or it was restored by a trainee on his first day.
Do you not go outside?
>>78267363
>Shit I used to love those Savage Sword mags as a kid, do the collections have the back-up stories in there?
Don't think so. They're still pretty meaty collections regardless.
>>78259555
I love how vibrant this looks.
>>78267478
Uhhmmm....that's a pretty firm "yes" from me, Anon.
>>78267494
Never mind. I remember the run I collected had a lot of Solomon Kane backups, one of which scared the absolute crap out of me, I had to go to bed with the light on for weeks.
>>78267560
>Uhhmmm....that's a pretty firm "yes" from me, Anon.
It was world wide news not that long ago.
>>78267850
Really? Well I'll be buggered. I'm fucking surprised I never heard about it, my family follow "the fine arts" fairly closely, even though he's not artistically inclined at all my Dad would have told me about something like that...have you got a link please Anon? Honestly I'm shocked I never saw that...
>>78267850
>not that long ago
It was 2012, Anon! I think I remember my Dad or Granddad mentioning it to me at the time but I never saw the actual picture. Just read an article on it, I kek'd at some of the stuff she came out with, oh man. Thanks for the laugh Anon!
>>78267560
The Solomon Kane stuff got collected into a volume (and even included the Conan/Kane crossover)
>>78267363
>>78263154
The problem I think is that BWS' art doesn't mesh well with modern "realistic" computer coloring since his style is detail-oriented.
>>78268784
So, how are the Savage Sword collections? Have they shrunk the page size or reprinted them at magazine size? Cheers for the info re: the Soloman Kane stuff, will have to keep an eye out for that, Anon. Do you own the SK collection yourself?
>>78268832
Yeah, that's a fair point...but, referring to OP's original question, do you think that digital recolouring looks crappy on comics that were originally printed on newsprint or Baxter paper in general? But yeah, you're right, BWS's style is detailed with loads of rendering (too much in his more recent stuff, I think...still a great comic artist though, no doubt) and that has an undeniable effect on the colouring (and vice versa).
>>78270699
>Do you own the SK collection yourself?
I do. I didn't read the magazines when they were out but I think the Solomon Kane trade is the size of a Marvel Essential, so I assume that it and the Savage Sword of Conan ones may have been shrunk down.
>>78268832
I thought it didn't mesh well with the new coloring because he specifically did the art in a way that worked well with the past coloring capabilities as opposed to the more evolved coloring system.
>>78270699
I don't think digital coloring as a method is the problem so much as knowing how to effectively use color. So sometimes it may not neccesarily be the colorist's fault but the people who approve it.
>>78259510
That's not the original coloring though. This was.
So >>78259555 is actually pretty accurate. The one you prefer may have been from the baxter reprint from the 80's (a lot of the baxter reprints did some recoloring).
Sometimes it works. But it works when obvious care is put into it.
>>78270999
>>78270999
>>78271011
In the restored version it look like peoples skin is made of pastel, plus the style of shading doesn't mix at all with the drawing, it look like they smeared some black ink where there's supposed to be shadows, causing it to look off. I mean no shadows, no matter how powerful the light is or thick the darkness may be has 100% opacity, especially toward the edge. They probably took this into considerations in the original version by adapting it to the paper, which make the transfer from light to dark gentler, like a simple gradient effect.
Simply put, original look like a genuine drawing while reproduced look like a pastel colored photo with wonky shadows.
>>78270748
Cool man. I suspected Marvel probably would shrink it down, I see the uniformity of Marvel's collections in the shelf threads. It's a bit of a bummer in my opinion...are those dope Earl Norem covers included..wait, stupid question, sorry, they're not gonna reprint Conan covers in a Solomon Kane book are they?! Norem's Savage Sword covers were something to behold though, man...I remember his paintings for the (original) Masters of the Universe toy packaging used on the Greyskull and Snake Mountain boxes...wicked.
I forgot something I was meaning to ask you in my last comment--have you seen any of Mike Mignola's run on Solomon Kane and is that included in the collection you have or is it solely the b & w Savage Sword stuff?
>>78270800
Okay Anon, that's certainly a fair point, mate. Personally I don't think there are many great colourists in contemporary mainstream comics, that's just a personal opinion, though. Most seem to overdo the most garish aspects of colouring, then when you factor the digital medium into it....urgh. Again, not saying at all that they're all shit, there's some really talented people--I notice it more in those artists who pencil, ink and colour their own stuff. Just a personal perception, though; I don't really buy cape/ms stuff regularly at all but I read storytimes on here that look interesting.
>>78271011
Mike. Fucking. Zeck. What a great page. What an artist. I know he's done loads but I particularly remember his Deathstroke: The Terminator (or am I getting him mixed up with Deadshot? I don't know, anyway the guy had a blue and orange costume with just eyeslits on the mask, and a big fuckin' gun--it was a great comic, anyhow), I want to say mini-series? Anyway, there was nothing he couldn't draw well.
What people don't get is these old scans aren't quite the originals. They weren't yellowing or almost unreadable when they were first printed. The comics have deteriorated over time due to cheap paper and sometimes other factors.
http://www.wymann.info/comics/042-StoringComics.html
>>78274228
>http://www.wymann.info/comics/042-StoringComics.html
The more you know, I guess.
>>78271556
The book collects just the backups from Savage Sword so it doesn't have the Mignola stuff. I haven't read the Mignola stuff yet. The collection did include to Savage Sword #219 but obviously since it's black-and-white it's not quite as good a reproduction as it would be in color.
>>78274281
I hear you, if you've got a good LCS with a good selection of back issues they might be able to point you in the right direction..if not, E-Bay, I guess? I really dig early Mignola when he was doing a lot more rendering and stuff but you could tell he was starting to settle into his trademark chiaroscuro-heavy style...his Cloak & Dagger run was WICKED, too, there's one that's almost like "Cloak & Dagger In: The French Connection 2" when they go to Marseille to fuck up this gang of heroin dealers and find their lab and shit...so, so good.
Old comics had a very limited selection of colors to use and the art had to accommodate that. Art from adversity you know?
Digital coloring and modern printing take away the absolute need for thought and finesse in the coloring.
>>78275250
Not THAT limited...check out this article for some great insights, funny anecdotes and lots and lots of discussion about colouring comics in the pre-digital age (it's Dave Sim interviewing Neal Adams and I promise you if you're even the least bit interested in colour process before digitisation, you'll enjoy it).
http://comicscomicsmag.com/?p=508
I think it might be a case similar to Greek statues, where people are so used to seeing them in their worn-out state that people think they look cheap when they try to restore the original paint on the things.
>>78265117
Absolutely_Disgusting.jpg
>>78265117
Didn't they also censor some pages? I swear I've seen a page where in the modern coloring nudity was covered up by coloring clothes onto a body
