You got a variant for sale?vtswordfish wrote:Ooof.
That timed edition looks pretty rough, the lettering looks really muddied up.
The Dark Knight Rises 12 Moss
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
- jumpinjeza
- Art Expert
- Posts: 1517
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:29 pm
- Location: Perth Western Australia
trarex wrote:I find this very disturbing.
The only adult in that video is a black guy hanging out with the whitest 12 year olds on the planet.
- ottomatik71
- Art Expert
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:33 pm
It doesn't look halfassed or incomplete.omyweenis wrote:I'm bitching about looking at something half assed or incomplete. For the amount of money I payed also,in comparison to the people who got variants. I didn't care not having it signed, different color, different size, whatever. But an incomplete version. You have to get within a foot of the thing to see barely. Everyone got ripped off IMO.ottomatik71 wrote:Why are folks bitchin' about not seeing the mouth?
Do you really need to see his lips to tell that it's batman?
It looks exactly like the close-up photos of the SDCC edition.
I wasn't expecting A masterpiece. It is from Mondo after all.
Even the Stouts aren't amazingly executed when it comes to the printing quality.
I like the print.
I loved te movie, so I'm happy to have this.
Besides, it was only $40!
I'm sure someone on this forum would take it off your hands for the cost you paid.
Because the print doesn't have that much detail staying with a larger print is better for ollys style. Why do you think ollys 24x36 have better color separation.
Smaller jpeg = compressed pixels = crappy print if there's not a lot of detail.
Larger print = allows pixels to expand, creating better image.
Smaller jpeg = compressed pixels = crappy print if there's not a lot of detail.
Larger print = allows pixels to expand, creating better image.
Codeblue wrote:That might be one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I've ever read.
^I'm not sure I can agree with that.^
If you lack details (take a smaller video resolution), doesn't it look better the smaller you view it and more harsh the bigger you try to expand it?
If you lack details (take a smaller video resolution), doesn't it look better the smaller you view it and more harsh the bigger you try to expand it?
Kramerica wrote:There are a ton of really nice people who come across as complete dickheads on EB.
Exactlytranito wrote:^I'm not sure I can agree with that.^
If you lack details (take a smaller video resolution), doesn't it look better the smaller you view it and more harsh the bigger you try to expand it?
Same fudge, different drop.
Didn't his Simpsons print fall the same faith?
I have my best friend and Wife who does graphic design. They all agree moving the image to a smaller print compresses the image, causing this effect where the print is too dark in all areas.
I work in Radiology and it goes the same way. Smaller x-rays prints are better for detail better black and whites. Large film is better for shades of Gray (ie this batman print is not detailed)
Im not saying I know everything, but I just apply what I know in my job and from people who actually work in the graphic design field.
I have my best friend and Wife who does graphic design. They all agree moving the image to a smaller print compresses the image, causing this effect where the print is too dark in all areas.
I work in Radiology and it goes the same way. Smaller x-rays prints are better for detail better black and whites. Large film is better for shades of Gray (ie this batman print is not detailed)
Im not saying I know everything, but I just apply what I know in my job and from people who actually work in the graphic design field.
Codeblue wrote:That might be one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I've ever read.
Hard to say since there is no 24x36 Simpsons poster, but yeah, they're in the same style and I hope it's not a surprise to anyone if these 2 are kind of similar.itschris wrote:Didn't his Simpsons print fall the same faith?
Kramerica wrote:There are a ton of really nice people who come across as complete dickheads on EB.
We can all agree that this print has NO detail or very little, thats why its better viewed in larger format.gonzo303 wrote:Exactlytranito wrote:^I'm not sure I can agree with that.^
If you lack details (take a smaller video resolution), doesn't it look better the smaller you view it and more harsh the bigger you try to expand it?
Take a piece of paper you spill a blotch of ink it spreads and the ink gets lighter in certain areas...you spill it in a concentrated circle...the ink is darker no place for it to spread.
Codeblue wrote:That might be one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I've ever read.
Yeah I agree, I had the simpsons print..imo...that print was HORRBILE print wise. Style is the same like you said, but print wise..I wouldn't even pay $15 for that simpsons print.tranito wrote:Hard to say since there is no 24x36 Simpsons poster, but yeah, they're in the same style and I hope it's not a surprise to anyone if these 2 are kind of similar.itschris wrote:Didn't his Simpsons print fall the same faith?
Its too bad, it seems like the batman print fell to the same faith. Not to be mean, but I wouldn't even pay $50 for this batman print.
Codeblue wrote:That might be one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I've ever read.
Good thing for everyone, they were priced @ $40.itschris wrote:Not to be mean, but I wouldn't even pay $50 for this batman print.
Kramerica wrote:There are a ton of really nice people who come across as complete dickheads on EB.
LOL aye, Im pretty sure it was more of a "gambling" for the golden ticket then actually liking the image.tranito wrote:Good thing for everyone, they were priced @ $40.itschris wrote:Not to be mean, but I wouldn't even pay $50 for this batman print.
Codeblue wrote:That might be one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I've ever read.
- ottomatik71
- Art Expert
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:33 pm
I actually like the image. The 'grain' of the image adds to it.itschris wrote:LOL aye, Im pretty sure it was more of a "gambling" for the golden ticket then actually liking the image.tranito wrote:Good thing for everyone, they were priced @ $40.itschris wrote:Not to be mean, but I wouldn't even pay $50 for this batman print.
If you ran into batman in a dark alley, he wouldn't look crisp and sharp.
As far as bigger being more crisp, maybe so... However, when using photoshop you just have to change the pixels when going smaller to make it remain crisp.
- jesseindisguise
- Art Expert
- Posts: 3676
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:05 pm
- Location: Bed-Stuy
matowest wrote:Mine arrived today, but the golden ticket was missing. Print looks much better in person, in my opinion.
Blake wrote:Always Be Tubing.