"49th Street Stompers" colored

[Abnormal Freak]

So I'm flipping through the third First Comics TMNT TPB, and notice it features a colored version of the short "49th Street Stompers". I compared it with the version featured in Eastman's 25th anniversary book, and notice that it kind of seems to be the same coloring...and yet not.

http://whooties.homestead.com/files/stompers-firstcomics-1000.jpg
First Comics

http://whooties.homestead.com/files/stompers-heavymetal-1000.jpg
Heavy Metal

You can tell that the brush strokes are in the same places, so they don't appear to be completely different coloring jobs, but the two look so wildly different. The Heavy Metal version has deeper, richer colors, while the First Comics one looks like pastels. (It's why I don't like the First Comics TPBs beyond the first one, because two through four all look like Easter coloring books.)

Yet you'll also notice the ink work is more clearly defined in the First version. The Heavy Metal inks look all muddied and thick, possibly due to how it was scanned and then printed. (I actually really, really hate this about the short in this book; I first looked at it and wondered if my eyes were going kooky, 'cos it's really "out of focus" and muddy.)

Anyone know what's up with these differences? Is it possible that the First books originally looked much richer in color but the inks and paper were poor and the colors drastically faded? Or is the Heavy Metal version a "direct copy" of the bluelined colors? (Whatever that means; I'm just making stuff up.)

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this. It's really bugging me!

[Powder]

To me, it looks like someone just turned up the contrast in photoshop a little bit, & then maybe put a filter on it (causing that muddy look).

[Abnormal Freak]

Sounds reasonable. (Dunno why I hadn't thought of that.) Tinkered with the contrast, brightness, and color of the First Comics image above, and got similar results.

http://whooties.homestead.com/files/stompers-firstcomics-1000.jpg
First Comics

http://whooties.homestead.com/files/stompers-firstcomics-mess.jpg
poop

http://whooties.homestead.com/files/stompers-heavymetal-1000.jpg
Heavy Metal

Except the inking in mine isn't all muddled like what's in the 25th anniversary book, ha. But it looks worse in other ways. (Me no know Photoshop workings!)

I'm not very fond of the scan/print quality of that book. It looks too digital and the ink work and tones don't look as clean as they should. Issue #18 looks more like a blow-up than a proper scan of original materials (though I assume the original pages weren't available). Just not a quality product in a lot of ways, but, I still like it. Seeing the sepia tones on issue #14 is certainly cool (though I don't like the blue color editing on the photographs).

[DrSpengler]

When I reviewed (http://tmntentity.blogspot.com/2010/05/49th-street-stompers.html) "49th Street Stompers" a little while back, I got all three versions of the story together and actually came out preferring the black and white version from "Shell Shock". It mostly came down to those damn purple latex bodysuits looking so stupid in color.

[Abnormal Freak]

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of any of the colorized comics. Eastman's coloring on issue 1 is definitely cool, but I still prefer looking at the B&W toned versions. It just adds to the grittiness of the artwork; I feel a lot of that is lost when the DuoShade tones are done away with, and when lighter colors are applied. Again, Eastman stuck with a pretty dark, gritty coloring job, which is why I think that issue looks so cool colored; but, in the end, I still prefer it B&W.

I just don't get why the 25th anniversary print of the short has to look so muddy. The color differences I'm fine with—I like that it looks darker—but why the line art is so messy is a mystery to me. If some kind of filter was applied, I don't see a reason for it.