Live on Two Legs reissue looks like a bootleg

Spiritual_Chaos

FR181798 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

FR181798 said:

hrd2imgn said:

You have to figure that these are repressed by different manufactuers than the originals.  They probably scanned the old one to create the new graphics
  My guess isnthe old art source is long gone

1998, they were probably using Quark Xpress 3 or 4 for layouts back then. Even if they did still have the files I'm not sure they would be able to easily open up 20+ year old files to work from.
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.

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". 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

And this was a big 20.000+ copies relrease by a major rockband.

Not a 100 copies printrun of a local Punkbands 7'' with a cover sent in as a RGB JPEG made in MS Paint.

Not disagreeing, the quality definitely isn't great for such a big release and not a cheap one either. It was more a comment about whether they could use the original artwork which in theory should have lead to a really decent print close to the original unless the printer wasn't well calibrated etc.

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.

Tom Jermann mentioned his work on the 2014 KISS reissues briefly on a podcast. On the scanning of old covers. A bit on finding old fonts, and redoing some of the graphics (like the KISS logo with the different gradients). Wish someone would do a podcast specifically on the work with those, or about some other artist's reissues. It's very interesting.

FR181798

Spiritual_Chaos said:

FR181798 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

FR181798 said:

hrd2imgn said:

You have to figure that these are repressed by different manufactuers than the originals.  They probably scanned the old one to create the new graphics
  My guess isnthe old art source is long gone

1998, they were probably using Quark Xpress 3 or 4 for layouts back then. Even if they did still have the files I'm not sure they would be able to easily open up 20+ year old files to work from.
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.

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". 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

And this was a big 20.000+ copies relrease by a major rockband.

Not a 100 copies printrun of a local Punkbands 7'' with a cover sent in as a RGB JPEG made in MS Paint.

Not disagreeing, the quality definitely isn't great for such a big release and not a cheap one either. It was more a comment about whether they could use the original artwork which in theory should have lead to a really decent print close to the original unless the printer wasn't well calibrated etc.

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.

Tom Jermann mentioned his work on the 2014 KISS reissues briefly on a podcast. On the scanning of old covers. A bit on finding old fonts, and redoing some of the graphics (like the KISS logo with the different gradients). Wish someone would do a podcast specifically on the work with those, or about some other artist's reissues. It's very interesting.

Sounds like they were done properly and a lot of work went into them. From some of the stuff I see on the shelves they don't seem to spend that time on a lot of reissues. If its a big reissue they seem to hype it up, remastered, restored artwork etc.

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.