I've been looking at Sunday pages of PRINCE VALIANT from the '40s and the colouring on these is amazing. Easily just as good as any computer separated offset modern printings I've seen. This puts the lie to the notion that letterpress comics could not employ a wide range of hues and shades.
Yes, that is an oversimplification (that I am probably guilty of propagating). What really limited comic-book publishers well into the 1980s was the cost of more elaborate separations, and budgets that prohibited such separations. The fact that better separations were technologically achievable didn't mean that publishers were ever willing to pay for them. Digital coloring and separations revolutionized the cost structure, and vastly improved the finished product.
I've got a small collection of 1950s Prince Valiant full pages. Gorgeous coloring, and spectacular art. Today's Sunday comics sections are thin gruel by comparison.
I don't think the way Marvel Masterworks does colors look. Bring back the ben-day dots and the yellowish background. Newsprint was sort of like analog tv. There was something alive about it. Too bad it doesn't age well. Marvel Masterworks looks like old 4:3 tv channels do on HD TV.
In defense of dots: the lost art of comic books
http://4cp.posthaven.com/in-defense-...-of-comic-book
Ew god no. Dots and faded newsprint belong in the past with powdered wigs and leisure suits.
Miller was right.
The only thing about old comics that I am NOT nostalgic about is the coloring.
I absolutely love the Chronicles of Conan reprintings of Marvel's Conan comic with all-new computer coloring. Buscema never looked better!
I'm noticing that my old comics are looking muddier all the time. They're just not staying crisp-looking like they did when I bought them. Something about the slowly rotting newsprint, I guess.
I don't consider this "art" any more than the use of newsprint for paper. It was an ugly, unavoidable choice due to limitations of the medium. Comics were cheap reading, so high grade coloring processes were out of the question (as was slick paper).
The only redeeming quality of the old coloring/printing process was the necessity of quality, bold inking. If today is any indication, upgrading the printing (unnecessarily) means downgrading the line quality and therefore downgrading the art. Oh how I miss the likes of Tom Palmer and Dick Giordano!
You can't reproduce the original comics without those printing machines. That cost tons of money ( maybe not too much ) and a garage space, or area not damp, nore too hot or too cold like a warehouse.
You also need the exact paper. Same with CD's. You can make a copy, but the discs made at X time has values on them that would not register today. You could make a print but people would catch you, especially those with copies.
Also showing yellow is not the original intention of the books, that is aging of color.
Printing books nowadays you want a laser printer ( not bubble-jet ), that prints beneath the actual paper. This prevents running of inks. Try going to a printer and asking about the printer being used, and printing a
small run. All of those prints will run if you let water hit them, or get soaked enough. I have some books with this problem. In fact the printing of magazines and coupons is far better quality now with printing that is lacking acid and light safe.
Many of my reprint comics from the 70s and 80s (Marvel Tales, etc) have thick, almost blurred lines that simply didn’t present that way in the original published comics - what would the reason for this be? Poor photocopying of the original images? Thank goodness I don’t see that heavy line blur on anything reprinted recently.
"Face Front... Nuff Said?"