Forum:No colourised pics, but what about comics?

Index → Panopticon → No colourised pics, but what about comics?

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

So here's a thought. Our MOS and/or image use policy forbids the use of colourised photos. And that's right and proper. But by that logic, should we not also forbid colourised comics. For instance on the page Voord, there's an image purportedly from The World Shapers, a monochromatic comic. It's no doubt taken from the IDW colourised reprints. I think we should disallow them, because there's no guarantee that a colourist 30 years after the fact is going to use the colours that the original artist would have requested of his colourist, and, more to the point, no guarantee that a 21st century digital colourist is going to use the same shades that were available to a 1980s publisher.

In some cases, there's also going to be a bit of conflict between the various colourists through the years. Perfect example is The Star Beast. It's been coloured by three different artists —just like almost all the Tom Baker and Peter Davison runs — so which do we regard as "definitive"? Charlie Kirchoff's IDW efforts? Andy Yanchus' work for the Marvel US run? Or Paul Vyse's work for DWCC? Put them side-by-side and you'll see an entirely noticeable difference.

I think because of this wide variability, and the fact that it's simply not the way of the original printing, we need to strictly disallow comic colourisations.

Thoughts?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Hmm, I would say keep colourised comic pictures. Some of the comics that came out back in the 60s and 70s are of really poor quality with age and the colourisations bring back what has been lost with age. I understand the arguement that there has been many colourisations to some strips but in all honesty I don't see how that matters too much, if theres a better quality picture available, why not use it? --Revan\Talk 18:47, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but now you're being selective. It's one way or the other and I think it should be the original images.--Skittles the hog--Talk 20:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue of better or worse image it's how true these colourisations are to the original artists' vision.

I think we should stick to the original black and white versions of the comics, but somewhere on the story article pages there can be come images noting the differences between the original and the colourised versions.

For a few comparisons of the old and new side by side (though all these were colour covers originally), from Charlie Kirchoff's deviant art page; Dr. Who Classics 2 compare, Dr. Who Classics 5 Compare, and Dr. Who Classics 6 Compare. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:54, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed allowance of colourised versions on story pages would be in direct opposition to our position on photographs. We don't allow non-monochromatic pics on, say, The Smugglers. So why make an exception for comics? Surely the most comprehensible, easily enforceable rule is "no colourised images at all, period."
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Hmmm, just re-read your comments. I guess I could understand, and make an exception for, a comparison of colourised comics on an in-universe page if the colour choice made a narrative difference. Like, if one artist coloured Beep the Meep red and another coloured him green, that would be important to note on Beep's page.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

If we had the multicoloured Meep images, using your example, we'd put it in the behind the scenes section, noting the colour differences, rather than in the main body of the article.

On the story pages, I meant not in the body of the summary or whatever, but in the subsection dealing with re-prints, there could be an image or two highlighting the differences in the various reprints and their colourisations. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:28, February 15, 2011 (UTC)