Author |
Message |
Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,621 |
| Posted: | | | | Well, a bit of brown hue and 3 no votes got me declined on this submission. But there were 34 yes votes, some saying they loved them. I tried tweaking them to remove the brown hue, but ended up getting way too dark when doing so. I'd try and rescan them but my front cover has many scuffs, scratches and dents. Not willing to do another hour plus in photoshop to touch this up again. Since what I submitted was the best I can get, and they got zapped, here's the scans for anyone who wants them for their local: Front: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/bigdaddyhorse/jackiea.jpg Back: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/bigdaddyhorse/jackieb.jpg Kinda surprised these didn't get accepted. I thought the proper first release (with major differences) would trump slightly off color. Those who liked them, enjoy the scans. |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,730 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting bigdaddyhorse: Quote: Kinda surprised these didn't get accepted. I thought the proper first release (with major differences) would trump slightly off color. Those who liked them, enjoy the scans. Just looked at your scans and still have my jaws wide open: These got declined? Then the existing scans must be brillant, or the screeners were somewhat blind. Change your flag and move over to R2 (Germany), I don't think you would have gotten any NO-Vote here (Especially if the existing scan is wrong, as you said) | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up! But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 453 |
| Posted: | | | | thanks Ill use them! |
|
Registered: March 18, 2007 | Posts: 130 |
| Posted: | | | | I'll be using them too, thanks |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 1,777 |
| Posted: | | | | Yeah, I'm for them. Just the proper cover art alone is worth it to me and the scans were pretty good. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 1,777 |
| Posted: | | | | I wouldn't feel bad at all, I get stuff dumped all the time. Just had a new profile for an old catalog title denied for not citing sources, even though I grabbed everything from the credits. Silly stuff happens, it's no big deal. In my case it's even dumber, because I only submit once. After I do a submission, I tweak my cast/crew for linking and lock the whole thing down. I'm not about to undo all that just for the online, so it's kind of a one-shot deal with me. I don't lose any sleep over it. |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Posts: 445 |
| Posted: | | | | Since the wrong scans are in the database I would resubmit them and site that as the reason for the contribution. It boggles my mind how the screeners would turn down a 34-3 submission. It turns the voting process into a complete joke and just discourages people from submitting cover scans. Why do all this work when it gets turned down so easily? |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | Your Jackie Brown scans were great. I did notice a very slight difference in shading on the banner...but it was actually closer to actual color than the exsisting image....AND they were the proper covers. I don't understand why they got declined . Resubmit them. | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 1,777 |
| Posted: | | | | I've noticed often times folks will complain about new scans because they differ from old ones. However, they don't bother to actually compare any of them to the actual cover art. I remember having one declined because folks were complaining about loss of detail. What nobody bothered to check was, the old scans artificially cranked up the brightness/contrast to pull out detail that was never particularly visible in the first place. Often times, folks are simply comparing two images side by side and picking their favorite. There is no point of reference. |
|
Registered: March 16, 2007 | Posts: 278 |
| Posted: | | | | I liked your scans, too. |
|
Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,621 |
| Posted: | | | | Thanks for the kind words everyone. I'll go ahead and try to resubmit it in a day or 2 with new notes including a link to this thread. I really only made this thread as part of a new tradition for any contributions that have split votes then end up declined or withdrawn. Since it's easy and free to link to photobucket, I can then let those who liked the scans still get them, and those who don't can have whatever's in the DB. While I don't really understand why these were denined, I am not and will never say the screeners made a bad call. I'm sure they had a reason, maybe looking to hard for the brown. I will say they crazy once in a while though. |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Posts: 445 |
| Posted: | | | | Sometimes they do make mistakes for whatever reason...just last week I had a submission declined with 0 'no' votes and I figured it was just a mistake...I resubmitted and it got accepted. So just because something gets declined does not automatically mean it got declined because they don't want it in the database...errors do happen.
For your next contribution don't even bother saying anything about improved quality. Just mention that your scans are the proper first released scans and that's it...the current ones have no business being in the database. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 762 |
| Posted: | | | | I hope they will get accepted when you submit them again. Thanks for uploading.
Dirk |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 585 |
| Posted: | | | | Gerri's mentioned several times that when it comes to cover scans, unless you're replacing something that is obviously low res or lacking, make sure your description is as detailed as possible. They don't own all the movies obviously so chances are they have no cover to compare themselves. All they have to go by is the side-by-side comparison and the comments from the voters. You don't want to write a book, but at least describe why yours is better, why the original is wrong (as in this case), and point out any subtle details (like the lack of compression artifacts around text, more detail visible in certain parts, better color, etc) that show your improvements. From what I remember with this one you did describe the differences, but you didn't explicitly say the current image is incorrect. The rear cover scan does not appear to be a scan of the slipcover so that right there makes it wrong. The only flaw I recall is the face of Jackie Brown through the bullet hole is black&white is but yours have a brownish hue to it, but I did vote Yes due to the overall improvement. Looking at the scan posted in this thread I don't really notice the brown hue as much so I don't know if you touched that up or resizing it to the 500x700 brings it out. Quoting bigdaddyhorse: Quote: I'd try and rescan them but my front cover has many scuffs, scratches and dents. Not willing to do another hour plus in photoshop to touch this up again. This one has been on my list to rescan for awhile and this is exactly why I've been putting it off. I don't know what it is about this movie but my slipcover is banged all to hell at the corner edges. Worse, I don't know if it was the original manufacturer or the store I bought it at, but they actually put one of those stickers they place across the seams of plastic keepcases over the opening of the cardboard slipcover. That was the stupidest thing I'd ever seen and I was as careful as possible in removing it but it still tore some of the back cover and left adhesive all over left side of it. It also peeled a pretty good size section of the spine as well. And this is supposed to be a "Collector's Edition"! -edit- And thanks for the scans, I took them and locked my profile.. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams | | | Last edited: by Vega |
|