Mirage Vol. 1 #5 Reprint Shading Issue

[liugeaux]

I was sifting through my old Vol. 1 issues the other day and noticed a weird problem with the second printing of #5. As you can see the shading is pretty much missing and it continues through the rest of the book like that. I can't imagine it's exclusive to my copy but it's definitely odd.



My question is, has this ever been mentioned and if so what's the story behind it? I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before but searching for something like this in the forums is a nightmare.

[Roseangelo]

Picture doesn't show.

[liugeaux]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Picture doesn't show.

Edited...does that work?

[frank_one]

All copies of Vol.1 #5 2nd printing I've seen so far don't have toning. I don't know why and I'm happy we're finally talking about it.

[DrSpengler]

I've only ever owned a second printing of #5, so I never knew about the toning thing until someone pointed it out in the comments section of my review.

I really don't know why they editted the toning for the second printing. And I've never heard an answer for it, either.

The guide on Miragelicensing.com makes no mention of the toning change and they usually list variations, too. Weird.

[Roseangelo]

Hah, go figure. I never noticed that before, either. It doesn't look like something that would be done on purpose. If it were color I'd say the printer forgot a plate, but I don't know if that would apply to black and white printing.

[MrPliggins]

Weird..the toning is even on the original art. I wonder what the 2nd printing was made from..

[oldmanwinters]

Yeah, I was absolutely shocked when I finally tracked down a 2nd print of this issue. All the toning details of the original print was gone and the issue looked a little naked without it.

My mind is boggled as to why they would decide to change all that for the 2nd print.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by MrPliggins

Weird..the toning is even on the original art. I wonder what the 2nd printing was made from..

Did they scan the art before applying the tones, maybe? Because they used untoned art for the First colorized versions. Maybe they just sent the wrong files to the printer.

I just can't see it being a situation where they purposely omitted the tones from the book.

[CyberCubed]

Which version of the comic is in the IDW collections?

[liugeaux]

I checked all other B&W copies I have (Mirage collected books and IDW reprint) and they are all properly shaded.

[Raven]

I kinda of like seeing it without the tones

[liugeaux]

Originally Posted by MrPliggins

Weird..the toning is even on the original art. I wonder what the 2nd printing was made from..

What do you mean the toning is on the original art? Do you have the original art?

I can see this being a plating issue, if that's how the tones are printed. This was originally reprinted in 1987, would it have been files they sent to the printer? Imagine how many floppies that would have taken.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by liugeaux

What do you mean the toning is on the original art? Do you have the original art?

That's the way DuoShade worked. The toning was done by brushing a special liquid on the duoshade page. The inked art was on the same page.

[MrPliggins]

I have one page, and have seen others from this issue. The art has duoshade as frank described. It's probably just as Rose said: they accidentally used the duplicated pre-toned art from the First Graphic Novel. I don't know enough about the process to be sure.