Monday, December 07, 2009
Return of the Stripper
Sorry to have been gone for a week. I've been working my tail off, both at my 'real' job and finishing up material for the Stripper's Guide book. By the way, still no definite title -- publisher is currently pulling hard for one that includes the word 'encyclopedia' -- I'm against the idea because it's not what I think of as an encyclopedia. Besides, that term has been used at least three times before in our genre. I think it will create confusion with book buyers -- "hey, this must just be a new edition of one of those old books". There's certainly one particular 'encyclopedia' I don't want people to confuse me with, if you know what I mean.
Last week I spent all my non-work hours gathering together the images for the book. Would you believe that the final image count is over 3000, representing over 2300 separate titles? And that's after having to very reluctantly dump most of the material I scanned back in the 1990s. Back then with 640 x 480 displays those scans looked just fine, but with today's higher resolution monitors many of them looked more like postage stamps than comic strips. Yeah, I know, comics today ARE the size of postage stamps, but try showing a classic era Sunday at that size. Yuck. I probably rejected at least 500 images, a process that was just as depressing as it sounds.
Luckily I've gotten much smarter about archiving my scans since those days. Here's a tip for my fellow scanners. Pretty much everything I scan these days I archive both as a screen-quality version and a print-quality 600 dpi image. The next time screen resolution takes a jump I'm safe from another process of weeding out material that's no longer up to snuff. All I'd have to do is run a Photoshop batch process to resample those high quality versions for whatever is appropriate screen resolution at the time.
Tomorrow be prepared for an extravaganza -- the Stripper's Guide blog returns with eight, yes, eight, obscurities all in one post!
By the way, on my computer the Stripper's Guide blog page has been REALLLY slow to load the past few weeks. Are you guys having the same problem?
Last week I spent all my non-work hours gathering together the images for the book. Would you believe that the final image count is over 3000, representing over 2300 separate titles? And that's after having to very reluctantly dump most of the material I scanned back in the 1990s. Back then with 640 x 480 displays those scans looked just fine, but with today's higher resolution monitors many of them looked more like postage stamps than comic strips. Yeah, I know, comics today ARE the size of postage stamps, but try showing a classic era Sunday at that size. Yuck. I probably rejected at least 500 images, a process that was just as depressing as it sounds.
Luckily I've gotten much smarter about archiving my scans since those days. Here's a tip for my fellow scanners. Pretty much everything I scan these days I archive both as a screen-quality version and a print-quality 600 dpi image. The next time screen resolution takes a jump I'm safe from another process of weeding out material that's no longer up to snuff. All I'd have to do is run a Photoshop batch process to resample those high quality versions for whatever is appropriate screen resolution at the time.
Tomorrow be prepared for an extravaganza -- the Stripper's Guide blog returns with eight, yes, eight, obscurities all in one post!
By the way, on my computer the Stripper's Guide blog page has been REALLLY slow to load the past few weeks. Are you guys having the same problem?
Comments:
Hello, Allan---Here are some titles: Pretentious: COMICS--THE BOOK. Intellectual: INTERTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEQUENTIAL IMAGE NARRATIVE. Ethnic: COMICS, BUBBELAH! Juvenile: FUNNIES R FUN! Miscellaneously awful: I'M MAKING A NOISE LIKE A COMIC STRIP HISTORY, ENCYCLO-COMICO-PEDIA AMERICANA, LITTLE IODINE AND ALL THE OTHER COMIC STRIPS, THE AMERICAN COMIC STRIP WITH NO RUBBISH ABOUT PITIFUL FOREIGN CRAP THAT COULD BE COMPLETELY MADE UP ANYWAY FOR ALL ONE COULD CARE....Cole Johnson.
# posted by 
: 12/07/2009 1:25 PM
: 12/07/2009 1:25 PM
You made my day Cole. I think that last title may just have to go on the A-list.
Y'know, I seriously considered not including Little Iodine in the listings. I love comic strips, good and bad. The good ones I enjoy, the bad ones have me pulling for them to get better. But I truly loathe Little Iodine. I'd rather eat a meal of liver and cauliflower, both of which make me retch, to reading a Little Iodine strip. The Orlando Sentinel ran that damn thing every Sunday, and every Sunday I'd read the stupid thing just so I could yell "THAT'S NOT FUNNY ... AGAIN!" to no one in particular. Why did Bob Dunn, a very funny guy, write that crap? Why did Hy Eisman, a fine cartoonist, draw it? I was certain that it was specifically created just to torture me. Thirty years later I still get the heebie-jeebies when I see red-headed little girls. And if they turn out to be precocious ... well ... let's just say the jury would be in for an entertaining trial.
Y'know, I seriously considered not including Little Iodine in the listings. I love comic strips, good and bad. The good ones I enjoy, the bad ones have me pulling for them to get better. But I truly loathe Little Iodine. I'd rather eat a meal of liver and cauliflower, both of which make me retch, to reading a Little Iodine strip. The Orlando Sentinel ran that damn thing every Sunday, and every Sunday I'd read the stupid thing just so I could yell "THAT'S NOT FUNNY ... AGAIN!" to no one in particular. Why did Bob Dunn, a very funny guy, write that crap? Why did Hy Eisman, a fine cartoonist, draw it? I was certain that it was specifically created just to torture me. Thirty years later I still get the heebie-jeebies when I see red-headed little girls. And if they turn out to be precocious ... well ... let's just say the jury would be in for an entertaining trial.
The Comic Strip Companion?
/s/
E.O. Costello
(who wrote the Warner Bros. Cartoon Companion, years ago)
/s/
E.O. Costello
(who wrote the Warner Bros. Cartoon Companion, years ago)
# posted by : 12/07/2009 6:38 PM
: 12/07/2009 6:38 PM
Honestly, there are so many strips much worse in art, storyline,and subject matter than poor little Iodine. I can't believe after all this time dealing with exceptionally obscure items from the past and present, you have this fixation on LI. It ran for so many years, spawned tons of comic books and even a film, if that's a measure of it's popularity. Perhaps the 40's ones were best, but scientifically speaking, wouldn't you say it slipped into mediocrity more than remarkable badness? Look at other strips that outlived their creator that went south- Is Iodine really worse than post-Bushmiller Nancy or post-Montana Archie? I say not!
maybe a reader survey( in at least a semi-serious vein) of what the worst may be could be taken. I think few will pick on the little Tremblechin brat.
Yours truly,
Jimmy Hatlo
Post a Comment
maybe a reader survey( in at least a semi-serious vein) of what the worst may be could be taken. I think few will pick on the little Tremblechin brat.
Yours truly,
Jimmy Hatlo
# posted by : 12/08/2009 3:51 PM
: 12/08/2009 3:51 PM 