How do old comics get reprinted?

[ohmshalone]

Hi guys, I recently purchased "Superman - The Golden Age Omnibus" and "The Avengers Omnibus" and I was wondering: how do these old comics get reprinted? Are old issues scanned and then digitally remastered, or does Marvel and DC still have the exact submissions that they gave to the printers, going all the way back to Action Comics #1 (and possibly before)?

Don't know why I need to ask this, maybe because I've been involved in printing before, but it's a question that's eating at my brain. I also noticed some definite digital re-colouring in the Superman Omnibus, which I'd prefer wasn't there. How often is this done?

One collection I've always been dying to get is Marvelman, but since it's been reprinted, I've decided that I hate the new colouring and am wondering if Marvel will reprint these issues in their original colouring.

Thanks if any of you guys can help with these questions. Love these collections, by the way. I prefer them nowadays over single issues.

[edit: Woops! I meant Miracleman, not Marvelman]

[Fan of Bronze]

You have asked such a broad question!

There is no one answer that covers all of comics history. There have in fact been, broadly, three means of reprinting comics since the periodical comic as we know it was introduced in 1935: 1) plates, 2) film, and 3) digital.

The age of reprinting by re-use of printing plates began at least as early as 1939 (Superman #1 had three printings). There are tales of other comics that were reprinted, not always with strict adherence to copyright laws, after plates were found, abandoned, in some storage facility. Of course, printing plates are big, bulky things, and most were not preserved. Thus, for many years it was not practical to reprint most comics, and for many years, most comics were never reprinted.

This changed, at least at DC Comics, in the early 1950s. My best guess is that this is when production of a film negative became part of the pre-press process, and someone got the bright idea of saving all the negatives so that, down the road, they could publish comics filled with reprints without having to pay writers or artists! (It's possible that film negatives were being produced and discarded prior to the early '50s; I just don't know printing history well enough to say for sure.) DC started publishing all-reprint giants ca. 1960, but they couldn't go back any earlier (at first) than the earliest negatives they retained. Film remained part of the pre-press process until about the turn of the current century.

Comics today are produced digitally, of course. We have all heard that digital production promises perfect reproduction, preserved forever. Well, that's the claim. In fact, fulfilling that promise depends on rather expensive techniques of preservation of data carriers (tapes, CDs, etc.) that may not have been designed for long-term storage of data; also on updating of digital files to keep pace with development of new versions of software. There is ample evidence that publishers, blind to these problems inherent in digital production, have converted thousands of pages of classic comics to digital storage and discarded the film negatives (I weep for the loss).

Digital production has also permitted "restoration" to publishability of old, pre–film age comics. If you ever get the chance, compare a modern reprint of any golden age comic to the original printing. To say that something gets lost in the process is being charitably understated.

This is only the briefest gloss of a very complex subject (that I can tend to get passionate about). There are enough subtleties and special cases that this thread could become very, very long if there is interest in discussing it all. Let me know if you want more.

[icctrombone]

I think over the years some publishers took the cheap way out . I remember reading a collected Edition of Marvels Captain Marvel and was shocked at the poor reprint quality.

[CrazyOldHermit]

It depends.

On The Avengers omnibus Marvel still had the photostats, which were the sheets used for the original printing. They just scanned those and cleaned up any scratches or damage. They also send out calls to owners of the original artwork. If the owner agrees then they scan from the art and get what is the best image possible (a first generation reproduction).

On the Superman omnibus the process was different. The files used for that book are old. While Marvel continually upgrades and remasters their material DC doesn't. When DC started doing their DC Archives program in the late 80s they used original copies and gave them a chemical bath that bleached all of the color out to give them original line art. Yes, that is as awful and destructive as it sounds.

Thankfully times have changed. When Marvel reprints a Golden Age Comic and they don't have the stats or original art they just scan the comic and alter in Photoshop.

As for coloring, in the 80s and 90s it was in vogue to used fancy computer coloring to "improve" the originals. This happened with both the DC Archives and the Marvel Masterworks. When Cory Sedlmeier took over as editor of the Masterworks and began reprinting them in 2003 he not only went back and remastered the line work, he also redid all of the coloring to accurately match the originals. DC never bothered so there are random gradients in their books.

[NZ_InFerno]

You have asked such a broad question!

There is no one answer that covers all of comics history. There have in fact been, broadly, three means of reprinting comics since the periodical comic as we know it was introduced in 1935: 1) plates, 2) film, and 3) digital.

The age of reprinting by re-use of printing plates began at least as early as 1939 (Superman #1 had three printings). There are tales of other comics that were reprinted, not always with strict adherence to copyright laws, after plates were found, abandoned, in some storage facility. Of course, printing plates are big, bulky things, and most were not preserved. Thus, for many years it was not practical to reprint most comics, and for many years, most comics were never reprinted.

This changed, at least at DC Comics, in the early 1950s. My best guess is that this is when production of a film negative became part of the pre-press process, and someone got the bright idea of saving all the negatives so that, down the road, they could publish comics filled with reprints without having to pay writers or artists! (It's possible that film negatives were being produced and discarded prior to the early '50s; I just don't know printing history well enough to say for sure.) DC started publishing all-reprint giants ca. 1960, but they couldn't go back any earlier (at first) than the earliest negatives they retained. Film remained part of the pre-press process until about the turn of the current century.

Comics today are produced digitally, of course. We have all heard that digital production promises perfect reproduction, preserved forever. Well, that's the claim. In fact, fulfilling that promise depends on rather expensive techniques of preservation of data carriers (tapes, CDs, etc.) that may not have been designed for long-term storage of data; also on updating of digital files to keep pace with development of new versions of software. There is ample evidence that publishers, blind to these problems inherent in digital production, have converted thousands of pages of classic comics to digital storage and discarded the film negatives (I weep for the loss).

Digital production has also permitted "restoration" to publishability of old, pre–film age comics. If you ever get the chance, compare a modern reprint of any golden age comic to the original printing. To say that something gets lost in the process is being charitably understated.

This is only the briefest gloss of a very complex subject (that I can tend to get passionate about). There are enough subtleties and special cases that this thread could become very, very long if there is interest in discussing it all. Let me know if you want more.

That's a very interesting read and topic, I would have thought Digital would be a preferred backup method for ease of duplication and 1:1 backup.

[ohmshalone]

Wow, thanks for the info. So I was right in thinking some of the colors in the Superman Omnibus were changed. Very sad indeed, but I guess it's better than not being able to read these comics at all.

Any info on the original Miracleman coloring? Or should I move that question to another thread? I know I'm not the only one who would still like the original colors, even though most people on the internet (as far as I've seen) say that it's better they've been updated. I really like this series a lot, but the new colors for me just ruin the experience. Sorta like what Lucas did to his original trilogy, only worse.

[Rheged]

Thank you for all the great info in these posts!

Thankfully times have changed. When Marvel reprints a Golden Age Comic and they don't have the stats or original art they just scan the comic and alter in Photoshop.

As for coloring, in the 80s and 90s it was in vogue to used fancy computer coloring to "improve" the originals. This happened with both the DC Archives and the Marvel Masterworks. When Cory Sedlmeier took over as editor of the Masterworks and began reprinting them in 2003 he not only went back and remastered the line work, he also redid all of the coloring to accurately match the originals. DC never bothered so there are random gradients in their books.

I'll have to double check, but I've found most of the coloring in the Marvel Masterworks to be far less subtle and with a smaller palette of colors than the original bronze and silver age books. And the Golden Age books are pretty awful -- with blobs of bright color. I was hoping they would have fixed that for Golden Age Omnibus, but it isn't that much better.

[banky]

I'll have to double check, but I've found most of the coloring in the Marvel Masterworks to be far less subtle and with a smaller palette of colors than the original bronze and silver age books. And the Golden Age books are pretty awful -- with blobs of bright color. I was hoping they would have fixed that for Golden Age Omnibus, but it isn't that much better.

This needs some clarification.

"Re-coloring" is viewed with almost universal negative connotations. What people neglect to mention is the fact that old colorist techniques are obsolete in today's printing standards. All the way up until the early-1980s bronze age, color palettes were limited to approx. 255 colors using traditional 4-color processes with a halftone screen. While many fans long for the muted colors of their childhood or adolescent memories, often the re-colorists do a more thorough job of coloring panels with digital palettes of 24-bit( 16.8mil) color. The procedures are less visible, (approval from the original creators are undoubtedly part of this) though results are varied. The most contentious re-coloring from the BA being the Simonson Thor visionaries editions and the Miller Daredevil. Without getting too detailed, the newer books have benefited from modern recoloring, imo. Often the original creators took the off-white newsprint as a separate background shade, whereas the reprints opt for more specific color. The argument whether they have "improved" the old colors is a subjective one. I've compared the BA books I own to the reprints and can say the modern books look superior to the old colors. There are exceptions, the creative effect of fire in Christie Scheeles's fire from Thor vs. the Midgard serpent being one.

[Fan of Bronze]

That's a very interesting read and topic, I would have thought Digital would be a preferred backup method for ease of duplication and 1:1 backup.

There are two problems, as I understand it, with digital. Neither is insurmountable, but both can be labor-intensive to overcome.

The first problem is instability of the data carrier. Specifically, consider the writable CD. Consumers may assume that such discs are good "for life," but in fact, depending on them to store data more than 3–5 years is a big roll of the dice. (Note that this applies only to writable CDs. Prerecorded, manufactured-in-a-factory music CDs are good for decades.) DC is already having problems in this area. A year or two ago, I read an obit for a DC employee who worked in production. The employee was commended for his ability to coax usable imagery from a CD that was going bad. While it was some comfort to know that skill could overcome failings of a dicey carrier, the sad fact is that those CDs are only going to get worse. At some point, all the skill in the world won't be able to pull data off an old writable CD.

The answers are 1) more stable carriers, or 2) more frequently making fresh copies. Neither option comes without cost.

The second problem is that software file formats are constantly changing, and there is no guarantee that Photoshop of 2099 will be able to read a file created in Photoshop in 1999 (even if the bits are immaculately preserved on a stable carrier).

The answer to this problem is to open and re-save your data every time your software vendor offers a new release. For one file, that's not a big deal. Multiply it by the number of pages DC has published, and you're talking about a department of employees.

Quite apart from concerns about preservation of comics pages, all this isn't without implications for consumers. Few photographers use film anymore. People save their photos on computer hard disks, a notoriously unstable medium (who here hasn't suffered a disk crash? only newbies, I expect). People think they can get around the risk of hard drive storage by saving to a photo website; some sites save storage by downgrading image resolution. That image that looks great on screen may not look so great when you try to print it on photo stock.

[Fan of Bronze]

Wow, thanks for the info. So I was right in thinking some of the colors in the Superman Omnibus were changed. Very sad indeed, but I guess it's better than not being able to read these comics at all.

Any info on the original Miracleman coloring? Or should I move that question to another thread? I know I'm not the only one who would still like the original colors, even though most people on the internet (as far as I've seen) say that it's better they've been updated. I really like this series a lot, but the new colors for me just ruin the experience. Sorta like what Lucas did to his original trilogy, only worse.

Recoloring comics in reprint is not a new thing. From the start, when publishers started saving film, they tended to save only the film for the black plate. They probably figured it would be cheaper to pay colorists for a re-do than to pay for preserving all the film; they were probably right. So right from 1960's Superman Annual #1, reprint comics were re-colored.

I knew about this from about my second year of collecting, and it never bothered me. Also, I have seen reprints with breathtakingly better color than the first publication. I respect your wish to see comics in original color, but I am more worried about the impending loss of years' worth of line art.

With the advent of digital coloring (ca. 1990), things have changed. The color is seen as a more integral part of the art, and reprints of comics digitally colored on first publication are much more likely to be reprinted with original colors. Publishers are probably storing only the digital files anyway (probably either not saving film, or producing plates without any film at all).

Re: Miracleman: Personally, I am thrilled with the new color. Consider: The first publication of the first few issues was in black & white (the prevailing practice in the UK at the time, if I am not mistaken). First color publication was by Eclipse in the 1980s. I was (and am) thrilled that Eclipse brought the material to North American audiences, but the coloring was just sad. The current series looks much better. Any color at all is a departure from "original intent," and faithful reproduction of Eclipse's colors would probably have resulted in low sales for a product that deserves the widest possible readership.

[Fan of Bronze]

This needs some clarification.

"Re-coloring" is viewed with almost universal negative connotations. What people neglect to mention is the fact that old colorist techniques are obsolete in today's printing standards. All the way up until the early-1980s bronze age, color palettes were limited to approx. 255 colors using traditional 4-color processes with a halftone screen. While many fans long for the muted colors of their childhood or adolescent memories, often the re-colorists do a more thorough job of coloring panels with digital palettes of 24-bit( 16.8mil) color. The procedures are less visible, (approval from the original creators are undoubtedly part of this) though results are varied. The most contentious re-coloring from the BA being the Simonson Thor visionaries editions and the Miller Daredevil. Without getting too detailed, the newer books have benefited from modern recoloring, imo. Often the original creators took the off-white newsprint as a separate background shade, whereas the reprints opt for more specific color. The argument whether they have "improved" the old colors is a subjective one. I've compared the BA books I own to the reprints and can say the modern books look superior to the old colors. There are exceptions, the creative effect of fire in Christie Scheeles's fire from Thor vs. the Midgard serpent being one.

255 colors on pre-digital comics? You're being generous.

Prevailing practice was to have cyan at 100%, 50%, and 25%; magenta at 100%, 50%, and 25%, and yellow at 100%, 50%, and 25% (an early issue of Marvel Age covered this in some detail). Some publishers, at some times, chose to pay for black at 50% and 25% in addition to the 100% required for the line art, but I'm not sure I saw such black tones prior to digital coloring, except on early silver-age Marvel covers published years before I started collecting. And for a time, it became prevalent to drop one shade of yellow (50%, I think), just to reduce cost further (it has been said that this decision at DC is responsible for Batman's costume going from 1950s grey to 1960s purple).

Anyway, four colors, at three shades each, offered a theoretical palette of (4 to the 3rd power) 64 colors. (We had it rough those days, let me tell ya).

Edit: Even as I was typing the paragraphs above yesterday, something was telling me I was getting the calculation of the number of colors in the palette wrong. Sure enough, when I checked, I found that the theoretical 64-color palette was achieved only with cyan, magenta, and yellow (and not with shades on the black plate). The corrected calculation is: Four shades in each of three colors (to do the math properly, you have to count 0% as a shade) offered a theoretical palette of (4 to the 3rd power) 64 colors.

Thanks to Walter Simonson for pointing out (below) that the practical palette was even more severely limited (and for graciously not raising objection to my use of his art for my avatar).

[Jim Kelly]

For the black and white reconstruction, the pages have sometimes been re-inked by someone essentially tracing over a copy of the original. Even when digital processes are used, there's often someone who has to fix some of the inks that have fallen out in the process. If you look in most DC collections, you'll see credits near the beginning of the book for black and white reconstruction and for colour reconstruction. I would imagine that in many cases some of the lettering has to be re-done, as well. I think for those comics where the original inker used tone this presents a distinct problem. Hard to process out the colours, while still keep the grey scale tones. In those instances it looks to me like some production person has put in new tone--not always with the same skill or finesse as the original inker.

Of course, other reprint books just scan the original pages, do some photoshopping to brighten the colours, and leave it that way with no real reconstruction.

[CrazyOldHermit]

255 colors on pre-digital comics? You're being generous.

Prevailing practice was to have cyan at 100%, 50%, and 25%; magenta at 100%, 50%, and 25%, and yellow at 100%, 50%, and 25% (an early issue of Marvel Age covered this in some detail). Some publishers, at some times, chose to pay for black at 50% and 25% in addition to the 100% required for the line art, but I'm not sure I saw such black tones prior to digital coloring, except on early silver-age Marvel covers published years before I started collecting. And for a time, it became prevalent to drop one shade of yellow (50%, I think), just to reduce cost further (it has been said that this decision at DC is responsible for Batman's costume going from 1950s grey to 1960s purple).

Anyway, four colors, at three shades each, offered a theoretical palette of (4 to the 3rd power) 64 colors. (We had it rough those days, let me tell ya).

Todd Klein has a great blog post about this.

This is what the guys had DC had to work with:



In the 80s they added a fourth value, 75%, and the palette expanded to this:

[Walter Simonson]

Todd Klein has a great blog post about this.

This is what the guys had DC had to work with:



In the 80s they added a fourth value, 75%, and the palette expanded to this:

One additional historical note. I did a little of my own coloring in my early days at DC. I was given one of the color charts (the one at the top) to show me what colors were available. Whoever gave it to me (don't remember any longer who that was for sure) then 'X'ed out about 6 to 8 of the colors in the lower right of the chart. These were mostly various shades of brown that did not look, in print, as far apart in hue as they appear here on a monitor. I was told not to use any of those combinations, because they pretty much looked the same in print. So as a functioning palette, we were really looking at about 30 colors total to cover the entire spectrum with hue, value, and saturation.

Best/Walter

[CrazyOldHermit]

One additional historical note. I did a little of my own coloring in my early days at DC. I was given one of the color charts (the one at the top) to show me what colors were available. Whoever gave it to me (don't remember any longer who that was for sure) then 'X'ed out about 6 to 8 of the colors in the lower right of the chart. These were mostly various shades of brown that did not look, in print, as far apart in hue as they appear here on a monitor. I was told not to use any of those combinations, because they pretty much looked the same in print. So as a functioning palette, we were really looking at about 30 colors total to cover the entire spectrum with hue, value, and saturation.

Best/Walter

I don't envy the brave souls who had to work with such a small palette (exacerbated by the crappy printing and the crappy paper) but I must say I really want one of those cigar boxes with all the little bottles of Dr Martins dyes: