|
Sir Kodiak posted:You gotta love CineD. My summers playing Zelda left a stronger impression on me than four years of Art History (and also regular History) 
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Woebin posted:Professor Dowell's Testament (1984) Unbelievably strong poster. No details needed, people will search out what on earth is going on with old man science head.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Woebin posted:Professor Dowell's Testament (1984) It's dare!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Side question - if this isn't a reasonable place to ask, I'll bail, but I know people in here will know - I've got a few posters I want to frame, but paying Michael's or whatever to do it will cost an ungodly amount of money. What does it actually take to frame something so it can go up on the wall and stop sitting on top of my bookshelf? Basically, it appears to me I just get the frames (all three posters are 18"x24", so that shouldn't be an issue) line up the mat and the poster, tape it in place or put glue-on corners on the mat, put it into the frame, secure the backing so it's flat behind the glass/plastic, hang it. Am I missing anything important?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
That sounds like a perfect way to butcher your posters. Professional frames are usually metal frames with glass and a good board as backing. You would never want to glue or paste an original poster onto a board as that ruins the value of the poster, especially if it's an original. If all you have are repos then go to town I guess, it's your money. But what happens when down the line you actually get a good line on a cheap pro frame guy (which happens, I got a bulk of posters professionally framed once for like 50 bucks), and you're stuck with your posters glued to ugly poster board?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
If you're that desperate Target sells mid quality poster frames that are slightly smaller than your average poster (36x40?) they usually run for like 15-20 bucks.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Michaels/Craft Stores also usually sell these "frames" for posters that are two pieces of plastic and four things you use to slide over the edges to keep it together. They're not very expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
When you hang the posters, don't forget to make the top of the frame touch the ceiling.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:When you hang the posters, don't forget to make the top of the frame touch the ceiling. Trigger Warning: 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:That sounds like a perfect way to butcher your posters. Professional frames are usually metal frames with glass and a good board as backing. You would never want to glue or paste an original poster onto a board as that ruins the value of the poster, especially if it's an original. If all you have are repos then go to town I guess, it's your money. But what happens when down the line you actually get a good line on a cheap pro frame guy (which happens, I got a bulk of posters professionally framed once for like 50 bucks), and you're stuck with your posters glued to ugly poster board? ...did I say anything about gluing or pasting the poster? Like, the board screws into the frame in the frame I was just looking at. also I have never heard of a cheap pro frame anything ever.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Trigger Warning:
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
I feel like I may have seen this in this thread before, but if not... I came across this image on Amazon Video and something about it definitely looked off. Did a GIS and found another version of the poster that looked fine. You be the judge...  
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Poor apostrophe's. So poorly used.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Seagal runs like Peter Falk falling down a hill: This is from a few pages back but if we're gonna post videos of Peter Falk running...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Antti posted:This is from a few pages back but if we're gonna post videos of Peter Falk running... Truly the precursor to Maggie Grace's weird, lumbering run from Taken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-vA5omI2U
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Peter Falk owns so much
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:I feel like I may have seen this in this thread before, but if not... Which one's which? The only difference I see is the font choice and that one has been desaturated a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Antti posted:This is from a few pages back but if we're gonna post videos of Peter Falk running... Serpentine, serpentine! gently caress, I need to re-watch The In-Laws.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:Side question - if this isn't a reasonable place to ask, I'll bail, but I know people in here will know - I've got a few posters I want to frame, but paying Michael's or whatever to do it will cost an ungodly amount of money. What does it actually take to frame something so it can go up on the wall and stop sitting on top of my bookshelf? After a bad experience at a framers (don't let anyone ever tell you drymounting is ok, kids) I decided to start doing my own DIY conservation framing. It's really easy and you'll save yourself a bunch of money over a 'professional', plus I find it to be a really rewarding hobby. If you want to use a mat: The most basic method is going to be to use mounting strips (I would recommend these, they are conservation quality: http://smile.amazon.com/Lineco-Through-Archival-Mounting-Strips/dp/B000KNNIQU/). Don't use tape or anything else that you can't reverse. Depending on how much of the poster/print that you want to cover up with the mat, you can attach the mounting strips directly to your backing board of choice (I generally just buy 1/8" acid free foam). If your mat is right to the edge of the poster you flip your mat and print over and attach the mounting strips to the backside of the mat instead, so that you won't see the edges of the strips in your finished piece. If you don't want to use a mat: You don't ever want to have your artwork directly touching your glazing, over time it will stick and you'll ruin it. You can get a frame that is the exact same size as the print (plus 1/8" for expansion), and use a spacer to hold everything in place securely without meeting a mat. Check out these different kind of spacers: http://www.artright.com/our-online-shop/art-picture-framing-supplies-hardware-bulk/art-framing-picture-frame-spacers-archival.html I like the FrameSpace the most, you can buy it in clear and then paint or use a colored mat on the inside of the spacer to give it a really nice accent. You can also get them in varying depths depending on the look you want. You just need to cut them to size, attach to the mounting board, and then slide it into the frame. For frames and other materials, I use American Frame (http://www.americanframe.com/) pretty frequently. You can buy acrylic glazing from them too if you want, or I would recommend Hobby Lobby for glass. If you have a big budget, TruVue Museum Glass is the absolute best you can get. It will filter 99% of UV rays, and has a non-glare coating that is so good, most of the time you won't be able to tell there is any glass in front of your art. Its expensive though, probably 3x as much as the next level down, TruVue Conservation Clear. This will block 99% UV, but will have more glare (see manufacturer's example here, this is an accurate representation in my experience). Depending on your lighting situation, it could be fine, but I've had to swap out the glass on a piece before to put in Museum Glass instead. If you go to Hobby Lobby you can use their weekly 40% off coupon on the glazing, which is the best pricing I've ever found on it. I would not recommend Michael's for any framing services or products. Once you've got your frame assembled, use a point gun (for wood frames) or springs (for metal frames) to hold it all in place. You can then use some doubled sided tape and attached craft paper to seal it all up from dust. Add your bumpers and frame wire and you are good to go. Happy to answer any other questions about framing if you have any. Sirotan fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:Poor apostrophe's. So poorly used. Where? They're round the right way in both O'Connell and '71 (hopefully these both come out right, phone posting and only have a straight line apostrophe option)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Ouch. Had any experience with allposters? How's the quality? I haven't bought a poster from them in a long time, so I can't really comment on them currently, but I was happy with what I did get sometime ago. dreadnought posted:Man, there are so many gorgeous posters on that Polish Poster site. I might have to buy this one: http://www.polishposter.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=4917 Years ago, when I first started looking at that site, it was pretty much all original stuff. They've definitely gotten more and more newly designed posters for older movies these days, but at least they label them as originals or prints. The Poles certainly know how to make a good if not bizarre poster.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Where? They're round the right way in both O'Connell and '71 O'Connell is correct but '71 is incorrect. Leading apostrophes should always look like this:  O'Connell is correct because the apostrophe is for the 'O' and not the 'Connell'
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Modern attempts at '80s B-movie style posters always look off somehow, despite the fact that most genuine '80s B-movie posters had problems with lighting, anatomy, perspective etc.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
It's the digital coloring.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's the digital coloring. Yeah, I do digital art and it's hell trying to get a look of physical texture into an image.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
It doesn't scan as an artifact, it's like fake film grain.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Which one's which? The only difference I see is the font choice and that one has been desaturated a bit. Purposely didn't say anything to avoid "power of suggestion" bias, but I feel like in the one on the left, his head is tiny. One on the right looks normal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
I feel like the one slightly more zoomed out is dramatically better in terms of framing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:O'Connell is correct but '71 is incorrect. Pretty sure that's not correct and the poster is using the right one. You use an apostrophe when abbreviating the year because you're leaving out the first two digits, it's a stand in like in don't or can't.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I feel like the one slightly more zoomed out is dramatically better in terms of framing. One has more text than the other, that's what I thought it was.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Peter Falk owns so much He rules. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
From Fox domestic.
kiimo fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
THESE COLORS DON'T RUN
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
kiimo posted:From Fox domestic. Great. Another remake.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
kiimo posted:From Fox domestic. That's some real lazy copy-paste Inzombiac fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Bleeding American flag is just boringsauce for what's supposed to be a pretty radical film
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Bleeding American flag is just boringsauce for what's supposed to be a pretty radical film hmmm look closer Inzombiac posted:That's some real lazy copy-paste yeah, that's true. MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Agree about the copy paste.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
they could've at least mirror flipped one of them
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 02:17
|
|
