NoMan Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 If original artwork is given back to the artist and a reprint of that book is happening, does that original artwork have to be retrieved from artist? I'm guessing some sort of internegative is made of original art at time book is originally published and that internegative is used for reprinting purposes. However, at least in film, an interneg in considered a generation removed from original camera neg. Which is why Criterion Collection tries their best to go back to original camera negative, so...... are reprint books a generation removed art wise, making them, well, a generation removed and the negative things that come with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, NoMan said: If original artwork is given back to the artist and a reprint of that book is happening, does that original artwork have to be retrieved from artist? I'm guessing some sort of internegative is made of original art at time book is originally published and that internegative is used for reprinting purposes. However, at least in film, an interneg in considered a generation removed from original camera neg. Which is why Criterion Collection tries their best to go back to original camera negative, so...... are reprint books a generation removed art wise, making them, well, a generation removed and the negative things that come with that? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMan Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said: No. so there is an internegative and it is a generation removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, NoMan said: so there is an internegative and it is a generation removed? Comics aren't film, so, no... Deadpoolica 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMan Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Comics aren't film, so, no... a negative is a negative. and when it's used repeatedly decompensation occurs. So an interneg is made, but over many uses that deocmpensates. But whatever, just thought some genius out there may know. Moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, NoMan said: a negative is a negative. and when it's used repeatedly decompensation occurs. So an interneg is made, but over many uses that deocmpensates. But whatever, just thought some genius out there may know. Moving on. ur a negative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMan Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said: ur a negative i've been told this many times over my lifetime so there is probably some truth to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveinthecity Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 Interesting question. @RCheli , @Shrevvy , any ideas about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCheli Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 There was a lot of ways that they made reprints of these older comics. For a lot, there were photostats available. Comic companies have been reprinting stories forever, and I suspect nearly none of them are made from the original art. I mean, when DC published the Famous First Editions in the 70s, they certainly didn't have the original art still available. For others, if they didn't have photostats or plates any more of the originals, they would use photostats of the later reprints. (You can see in a couple of instances where they missed a "Continued in the next issue of Marvel Tales" and not Amazing Spider-Man.) And with others -- most notably the early DC Archives -- they physically bleached the color out of actual Golden Age Comics, rescanned it, made a photostat, recolored and printed. Thankfully, they don't have to do that any more. Those poor comics... Now they tend to do it all by computer. They take a scan of the comic page, drop out the color, clean up the lines, and recolor digitally. It's a painstaking process for sure, and if the proper time isn't taken, it looks terrible. (Some of those IDW reprints of newspaper strips are atrocious because of the slapdash way they scan the newsprint.) steveinthecity and theCapraAegagrus 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMan Posted March 13, 2020 Author Share Posted March 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, RCheli said: There was a lot of ways that they made reprints of these older comics. For a lot, there were photostats available. Comic companies have been reprinting stories forever, and I suspect nearly none of them are made from the original art. I mean, when DC published the Famous First Editions in the 70s, they certainly didn't have the original art still available. For others, if they didn't have photostats or plates any more of the originals, they would use photostats of the later reprints. (You can see in a couple of instances where they missed a "Continued in the next issue of Marvel Tales" and not Amazing Spider-Man.) And with others -- most notably the early DC Archives -- they physically bleached the color out of actual Golden Age Comics, rescanned it, made a photostat, recolored and printed. Thankfully, they don't have to do that any more. Those poor comics... Now they tend to do it all by computer. They take a scan of the comic page, drop out the color, clean up the lines, and recolor digitally. It's a painstaking process for sure, and if the proper time isn't taken, it looks terrible. (Some of those IDW reprints of newspaper strips are atrocious because of the slapdash way they scan the newsprint.) thanks for the answer. I love the idea of some of those Yoe (forgot his first name) reprint books of old forgotten strips but you pick them up and you can't make out a damn thing. It's just all bleed or whatever. Except Fletcher Hanks reprint books. Don't know who Fletcher Hanks is? Only the greatest talent in the history of comics. Puts Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Ditko, all of them to shame. Read all about him. Study him. Sell all your comics and just get Fletcher Hanks stuff. In the meantime You shall die by your own evil creation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_Hanks Edited March 13, 2020 by NoMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCheli Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, NoMan said: thanks for the answer. I love the idea of some of those Yoe (forgot his first name) reprint books of old forgotten strips but you pick them up and you can't make out a damn thing. It's just all bleed or whatever. Except Fletcher Hanks reprint books. Don't know who Fletcher Hanks is? Only the greatest talent in the history of comics. Puts Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Ditko, all of them to shame. A lot of the cheaper reprints just take scans of the actual comic pages and end it there, and they don't recolor or do much touchups. That makes them seem more authentic, for sure, but it also makes things messy and more difficult to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 All (or most) of the PCH reprints I have are scans provided by Heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randilee Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 On 3/12/2020 at 1:48 PM, NoMan said: If original artwork is given back to the artist and a reprint of that book is happening, does that original artwork have to be retrieved from artist? I'm guessing some sort of internegative is made of original art at time book is originally published and that internegative is used for reprinting purposes. However, at least in film, an interneg in considered a generation removed from original camera neg. Which is why Criterion Collection tries their best to go back to original camera negative, so...... are reprint books a generation removed art wise, making them, well, a generation removed and the negative things that come with that? nope once printed it no longer belongs to them... they have all original prints and art work for anything put out and they would print original and do a new artist rendering of said photo like this is what it would be now they cant copy any of the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
