Live on Two Legs reissue looks like a bootleg

The reissue arrived and had the chance to watch them side by side, after it had been noted about the difference about the print. The difference in brightness and saturation is very stark. Starker in real life than in images. The reissue is noticable dull.
It must be an error.
Was the original artwork lost and they had to do a reproscan like bootlegmakers do? Or has there been some error along the way by the art director/final art or the printer?



This can not be intentional?
Curious on the reason for this mishap.
It must be an error.
Was the original artwork lost and they had to do a reproscan like bootlegmakers do? Or has there been some error along the way by the art director/final art or the printer?



This can not be intentional?
Curious on the reason for this mishap.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
0
Comments
I think proportionately they missed the mark on the art more than they did on the pressing. I still prefer the sound of the OG, but it’s closer
Or is it just my original that has a clear yellow push in the skintones?
On the Clear and gold a lot of the image fades into the black background same as yours
This isn't new though. There are other Pearl Jam records where the sleeve hasn't been the best. Some of the reissued singles had blurry text and stuff.
I've also got loads of records from the 90s where the reissue is no where near as sharp as the original with definition lost. Technology has changed a bit in the past 25-30 years. Opening files from that time is going to be a problem so who knows how they recreate these. Spend enough time and they could get it spot on but we know that doesn't happen.
Complains about there not being enough pressings, complains about show length, complains about the color of vinyl, complains about the cover.
Do you even like Pearl Jam or do you just use them as a vehicle to complain? Mostly about their merch, it seems.
ain't that somethin
PJ Chi 2--08-24-2009
SG Chi 1--01-23-2013
PJ Wrigley--07-19-2013
CCornell Chi--10-06-2015
PJ Wrigley--08-20 & 22 2016
PJ Wrigley--08-18 & 20 2018
Denver— 09-22-2022
how big of a deal it is depends on the individual
the art is just as important as the music on a physical release (especially vinyl) to a lot of people. Most of the audiophile reissue labels (I know this isn’t that) spend a lot of time focusing just on getting the art right. Tip on jackets vs printing directly on the sleeve etc
My guess isnthe old art source is long gone
Its a bit easier to open slightly older files these days if Hi Res PDFs are saved etc, they usually preserve layers, fonts, colour info.
Printer calibration, inks, digital or 4 color process all come in to play as well.
Printers still do that.
I fail to see how this would be a "defense" or reason for the end result, in this case?
Look no further than to KISS, where pretty much all the 2014 re-issues of the catalog were based off scans of commercial copies (older than 1998 too). So?
There were still color and brightness in those releases, that matched the original releases. With the obvious changes in temperature, contrast, brightness or whatever that comes with printing and different printers.
Having or not having the original artwork is a moot point, to why these are so dark and colorless. The text would have been re-set anyways logically. So them being so much darker on the US release, to the degree that it is now hard for people to read the text is one thing on this board that can not be explained away by "it's not the 90s anymore".
Not a 100 copies printrun of a local Punkbands 7'' with a cover sent in as a RGB JPEG made in MS Paint.
Would love to see the process of what goes into doing sleeves for reissues as I've seen some shockers. Sometimes they get it spot on, others they don't.
The one that really has me scratching my head is the Save You clear 7". I know that the official and bootleg are both based on the CD artwork but why do the official 7" copying the bootleg with clear vinyl. Very strange.