I had a chance to look at the This Gun for Hire image, and I will bet $100
that either the image or the poster itself (or both!) have had mucho
"punching up"!
When you say, "I know you err well on the side of unflattering in your
listings, and I think it's a smart policy. And though you wouldn't "punch
up" pics, I assume you still have to adjust for accuracy?" know that our
goal is ALWAYS to present an image that accurately represents the item you
will receive. I have SO often received purchases where the buyer
photographed it in such a way that defects were hidden or obscured (my
favorite was one where the seller placed a drumstick on the top border,
ostensibly to "hold it down", but it also served to hide the rat chews in
that area!).
Of course, there is also the issue of auction images where no matter how
much you "zoom" or "pan and scan" you still can't see the pinholes or
foldlines that somehow magically disappear (until of course you get the
actual item).
I think this proves to be "penny wise and pound foolish". If you are solely
looking to sell one item, it may benefit you on that one item, but if you
are in this for the long term, then you have to wonder if such deceptive
advertising doesn't lose you the trust of many bidders, causing them to bid
less on your items (or not bid at all) due to the "fear factor".
Bruce
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Evans <evan...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
> I'm not automatically assuming that example was punched up, it may well
> just be the case that the reds were originally extremely strong and have
> remained so, and that the online reproduction is accurate, (within it's
> limits).
> Washing, bleaching etc may have had the effect of intensifying the colours,
> dunno.
>
> (Though if that is how This Gun for Hire appeared when it was fresh off the
> press, in this instance I certainly prefer a little faded grandeur.)
>
> Generally, and especially with something in this price range I still think
> using some kind of a colour correction system like Pantone would be more
> professional, (with the colour bar appearing beside poster) rather than
> relying on adjusting by eye.
>
> I know you err well on the side of unflattering in your listings, and I
> think it's a smart policy.
> And though you wouldn't "punch up" pics, I assume you still have to adjust
> for accuracy?
> Even if you don't go near photoshop, presumably in some way, like adjusting
> lighting so repro appears true to the eye, as in the case of the Vertigo?
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2010, at 17:11, Bruce Hershenson wrote:
>
> I actually had one of my employees suggest to me that we should "punch up"
> the images of items we sell, and I told him that we NEVER do that (he is
> new, or he would have already known that). Of course, there is no way to
> know if others feel the same way (at least until you get your package and
> compare the item you get to the image you saw).
>
> Bruce
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Richard Evans <evan...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought the This Gun for Hire went beyond strong colours and looked
>> unflatteringly garish.
>> Presumably not a result of restoration judging by the listing, but was it
>> really actually that vibrant, or did the colour reproduction exacerbate it
>> online?
>>
>> On 17 Jul 2010, at 16:44, Bruce Hershenson wrote:
>>
>> I personally agree with this. I didn't like the "make it look perfect"
>> school of restoration even *BEFORE* the Haggard scandal broke.
>>
>> First, because the restorers were in effect hiding their restoration,
>> making it impossible to see exactly what was done (and a long time pro like
>> myself could spot some restoration that most amateurs would never see,
>> creating a "fear of restoration" among many collectors).
>>
>> Second, because many of these items were *SO *restored that they looked
>> almost like "recreations". I *LIKE *the items in my collection to show at
>> least *SOME *signs of age, unless they are in truly mint unrestored
>> condition, because that is part of the joy of owning an original, knowing
>> that it survived all these years. If you want a perfect looking item, why
>> not just get a reproduction? But don't take your "very good" condition and
>> have someone make them look like new. If you *MUST *restore, why not
>> simply do minimal restoration to the areas that most need it?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM, glenndamato <glenndam...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the Heritage auction: I do believe the fakes scandal hurt the
>>> hobby, plus many of the restored posters look like they were cut, bleached,
>>> washed, starched & dried. I'll take old Igor back anyday.......
>>>
>>> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>>>
>>> Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
>>> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>>>
>>> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
>>>
>>
>> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
>> ___________________________________________________________________How to
>> UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to:
>> lists...@listserv.american.eduin the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
>> MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
