Jump to content

Home

LucasArts Posters: The Revenge


Laserschwert
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, thanks for your awesome work @Laserschwert! I'm going to have some of the LucasArts posters printed out for my new retro-gaming room in the near future.

 

Which brings me to my question: are you planning to create variants with more subdued colours, similar in style to your old posters? For the MI2 poster, I vastly prefer the old and more painterly "v2 Dark version" colours, and I like the old "v2 colours" better for MI1 too. For me personally, the new colours are just too way too vivid, but I appreciate the extra details you've added.

 

Interestingly, you've made the new version of the Zak poster less vivid than the old one, so for Zak I prefer the new colours, actually.

 

For my own purposes, I've done some quick global colour alterations on the new images so they resemble the old v2 colours. I'm personally fine with this for myself, but you might want to consider adding these "v2 colours" variants, others might be interested in them too.

 

Thanks again for your great work!

 

 

monkey-island-1.jpg

monkey-island-2.jpg

Edited by Rincewind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variants are a double-edged sword, as they quickly clutter up the thread (MI1 is already a beast in that regard), and adding color variations on top of layout variations multiplies the problem. The v2 variant for MI2 was never really close to the original coloring, so I ditched it for the updated version. I might revisit MI1 to slightly desaturate the coloring, and maybe adding more variants as smaller thumbnails might be an option? I'll think about it.

 

Edited by Laserschwert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laserschwert said:

The v2 variant for MI2 was never really close to the original coloring, so I ditched it for the updated version.

 

Yeah, I was kinda thinking you've changed the colours due to being more faithful to the originals.

Well, it's up to you really; I'm fine with tweaking the images to my liking for my own personal prints. I just really like that slightly aged oil painting look. I mainly raised this for other people's benefit who don't feel at home at image manipulation, etc. Thanks again, it's really nice to be able to see the texture of the brush strokes now.

Edited by Rincewind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2022 at 8:40 AM, Rincewind said:

Which brings me to my question: are you planning to create variants with more subdued colours, similar in style to your old posters? For the MI2 poster, I vastly prefer the old and more painterly "v2 Dark version" colours, and I like the old "v2 colours" better for MI1 too. For me personally, the new colours are just too way too vivid, but I appreciate the extra details you've added.

 

If you're extremely fussy about colour representation then let me tell you: There's no way your screen representation (which will look different to my screen representation, which will look different to Laserschwert's screen representation) is going to be representative to what anything looks like PRINTED. 

 

Not least because LS works in RGB... which means your chosen print shop is going to run their own RGB -> CMYK conversion process on it before printing. That process is not standardised. It's just a best guess, and so each print shop could produce a differently coloured PRINT from same RGB file.

 

Plus those vivid RGB colours can't be represented in CMYK anyway... they'll look far more muted on paper.

 

cmykrgb5.png

 

Basically, if you're extremely concerned about colour representation, trying to make colour modifications based on an RGB file, and then sending that RGB file off to a printer, is folly... Sorry! Your best bet is trying to work in CMYK, but even then it'll take some rounds of printing to fully understand how your screen is going to represent what the printer gives you back.

 

That all said, the good news is that printers these days are pretty good at guessing what you "meant", and... most people aren't going to notice.

 

(When I used to design cinema posters and DVD sleeves, nearly 20 years ago, I'd have been fired -- or at least severely reprimanded -- if I'd sent an RGB file off to a printer. Even working in RGB was a big no, no. When I last worked in an agency (5 years ago) everyone worked in RGB, but did the CMYK conversion as part of their InDesign export process.)

 

image209.png?w=840

 

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

 

If you're extremely fussy about colour representation then let me tell you: There's no way your screen representation (which will look different to my screen representation, which will look different to Laserschwert's screen representation) is going to be representative to what anything looks like PRINTED. 

 

Not least because LS works in RGB... which means your chosen print shop is going to run their own RGB -> CMYK conversion process on it before printing. That process is not standardised. It's just a best guess, and so each print shop could produce a differently coloured PRINT from same RGB file.

 

Plus those vivid RGB colours can't be represented in CMYK anyway... they'll look far more muted on paper.

 

cmykrgb5.png

 

Basically, if you're extremely concerned about colour representation, trying to make colour modifications based on an RGB file, and then sending that RGB file off to a printer, is folly... Sorry! Your best bet is trying to work in CMYK, but even then it'll take some rounds of printing to fully understand how your screen is going to represent what the printer gives you back.

 

That all said, the good news is that printers these days are pretty good at guessing what you "meant", and... most people aren't going to notice.

 

(When I used to design cinema posters and DVD sleeves, nearly 20 years ago, I'd have been fired -- or at least severely reprimanded -- if I'd sent an RGB file off to a printer. Even working in RGB was a big no, no. When I last worked in an agency (5 years ago) everyone worked in RGB, but did the CMYK conversion as part of their InDesign export process.)

 

image209.png?w=840

 

 

In short... if you want subdued colours, just print the damn thing! 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, color reproduction is a very fuzzy subject. I've found an online printing service here in Germany that matches my monitor's calibration quite closely, but it'll be different for everyone. But as much as you'd want a "correct" color on all the posters, I can tell you, it's impossible. A prime example is Monkey Island - here are scans of several different releases:

YWJfqGd.jpeg

Good luck, telling the correct colors from that.

  • Haha 1
  • Wow 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually just spent like £100 getting Laserschwert's latest version of the MI2 poster printed on canvas and framed. It looks fucking great. I went to a professional place and the digital art guy there talked it through with me and did a couple of test prints and stuff so I could see how all the digital and physical processes interacted and thereby control exactly how I wanted the colours. If you want that level of precision, either you'll have to get it printed somewhere that you just provide the file to, and factor in the cost of potential repeat requests to get it right, or pay more to go somewhere that you can play about with a lot beforehand but they charge you for the extra care and attention and expertise...

 

Here's a photo I took just now, this is 70cm x 50cm excluding the frame. The lighting's not perfect here, but in person it looks amazing.

 

mi2.jpg

Edited by TimeGentleman
  • Like 1
  • Chef's Kiss 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, what would be the best lighting for this? It's a digital copy of an acrylic printing (iirc), printed on canvas.
 

I've got daylight coming in from the right, and various house lighting, plus a ring light with various settings if necessary. Would be nice to get a really good photo to share on Mastodon or whatever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Laserschwert said:

Yeah, color reproduction is a very fuzzy subject. I've found an online printing service here in Germany that matches my monitor's calibration quite closely, but it'll be different for everyone. But as much as you'd want a "correct" color on all the posters, I can tell you, it's impossible. A prime example is Monkey Island - here are scans of several different releases:

YWJfqGd.jpeg

Good luck, telling the correct colors from that.

 

Yeah, I guess outside of the original painting, the original US release is likely to have been the one that had most eyes on it, and so is the most "correct" reference. But it won't help if you're looking at a copy that's been sat in direct sunlight for 30 years!

 

Using CMYK fixes things from out an output POV. CYMK is CMYK (setting aside colour profiles for a moment), and using that gets you most of the way towards standardisation. But people looking on their monitors would probably think it looked too subdued... even though it's actually more accurate. (Part of the reason professional printers/publications insist on PDF X1a:2001 is it that it doesn't even support RGB -- and so it forces the designer to do the CMYK conversion process before submitting.)

7 minutes ago, TimeGentleman said:

Would be nice to get a really good photo to share on Mastodon or whatever...

 

What is Mastodon...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professionally I haven't worked much with CMYK outputs. First and foremost I produce for screen, so that's what I usually color-correct for: my calibrated screen. And I'm pretty sure most of this project's potential audience doesn't know about CMYK, and is perfectly content with what a regular printing services produces out of my files.

 

Those who DO care about it enough to preferably send a CMYK file to the printer, are most likely proficient enough to convert it properly themselves. That being said, most of the tools I use for retouching, upscaling, etc. don't even work in CMYK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had to Google "stans" 😬

 

5 minutes ago, Laserschwert said:

Those who DO care about it enough to preferably send a CMYK file to the printer, are most likely proficient enough to convert it properly themselves. That being said, most of the tools I use for retouching, upscaling, etc. don't even work in CMYK.

 

Yep, CMYK conversion seems to be the final step in the process these days. From my limited recent experience even print designers work in RGB, and do the CMYK output with a calibrated colour profile. Makes sense because RGB leaves the door open for working with particular tools, and also stop you having to worry when you're doing adapts for socials/online, etc.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of printing and colour variation, as Laserschwert pointed out there's loads of variation even in official output. I think it comes down to personal preference and what image you are used to.

 

I also had the new MI1 poster professionally printed, on fancy paper with a Giclée process. For me it came back extremely over saturated, luckily the printers had a no quibble happiness deal, I de-saturated the image to be more inline with my own IBM boxed version from BITD (which is how it should look in my head 🙂).

 

Looks stunning tbh, it's ~60x20 cm and the detail is fantastic!

MI1.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re on a roll there, Jan! It’s looking fantastic, like artwork that’s from a brand new game! The colours especially turned out beautiful!

What I love the most about your recent restaurations is that the smudginess is gone, (I think that had to do with a photoshop filter you previously used?) They look so bewilderingly sharp, it’s unbelievable!

 

I know we’re spoiled rotten over here so no pressure, but any chance of you giving the Edisons portrait by Steve Purcell another go? Or are there too few sources for that one to make a sharper restauration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! And I see I even commented on it myself! 🙈

 

I just saw it again today and I noticed the “smudginess”, by lack of a better word, your older restaurations have. But I guess that’s because there’s not too many sources for that poster, right? I’d love to take a look at the original painting, I love it to bits and pieces!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2022 at 11:43 AM, Laserschwert said:

Hot on the heels of my Zak McKracken posters, I've finished my re-do of the Maniac Mansion artwork as well. Provided with two different logos and a marble frame version, there's a lot to choose from. Enjoy!

ijmq79m.jpeg

Hi Laserschwert,

 

I have notice some little differences in width between the new framed/clean versions and  the others with text

It seams the framed and marble one looses some width.  If you see what I mean :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bennywhitebread said:

I have notice some little differences in width between the new framed/clean versions and  the others with text

It seams the framed and marble one looses some width.


Welcome to my world. Image aspect ratios are tricky all the time, but in this case the clean and framed versions actually have MORE width than the other versions. The original poster was more of a 3:2 aspect ratio, so that's what I cropped them to. Most of my other posters usually stick to a 4:3 ratio, and that's what I picked for all the other framed posters (MI1, MI2, Zak). So to stay in line with them, the one for MM became 4:3 as well. For that, I needed to expand the artwork a bit on the sides (and the bottom), which is why I could just offer the clean version at 4:3 as well. If there was a question somewhere in your post, I hope this answers it.

 

15 hours ago, Lagomorph01 said:

I just saw it again today and I noticed the “smudginess”, by lack of a better word, your older restaurations have. But I guess that’s because there’s not too many sources for that poster, right? I’d love to take a look at the original painting, I love it to bits and pieces!

 

If smudginess refers to just lack of detail, then that's just because back then I couldn't do better. Sure, for many of the updated posters, more and better sources have turned up. But also the tools I use (and probably my skills) have improved over the years, so that even when using the same old sources, the results are considerably better today. I think the Zak poster - for the most part - uses the same source scan I used back in the day. It's just that I am now using a lot of machine learning tools and models to clean them up, fake detail or remove artifacts. See this post on the very first page, where I mentioned it briefly.

Edited by Laserschwert
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...