Image Depository * Contribute a pic to our Gallery

[Morkai]

If you are interested I can add these...
They are the Far Boys, a "Bad copy of the Airgam Boys, and here are the 2 Monsters packs from the years 80's. Made in Spain.
These Retro-Monsters were very populars and nowadays are more hard to find and more interested that the Airgam Boys.

[darkmonkeygod]

Ug! No! Never! I hate other objects in the picture! I'll paint 'em right out!

Well, as I wrote, I'm interested in it for scale and generally dislike having photos heavily photoshopped.   

That's because it is real. When you look at a real object your brain compensates and the object doesn't look distorted. A distorted photo is not more realistic. The real box does not have one side that is twice as tall as the other.

Hmmm. I don't think I'm getting my point across.  What I'm trying to articulate is, given the choice between a museum or auction catalog, with all the items photographed as objects, vs. a compendium of the graphics used on those objects, I'd choose the museum presentation hands down.  Mind you, I'd like both, but one is of far greater interest and value to me as an aficionado and as a reference.  That experience, for me, is the difference between having the UMA toy tour being cabinets full of cool objects as opposed to a binder full color corrected print-outs.

Also, a number of people, myself included, aren't to into having their photos or collections co-opted uncredited.  There's a long history in the collecting communities of the inclusion of a "courtesy of..." or "From the collection.." that the internet makes difficult.  Presenting items in the context of the collection helps to cut that down.  I was rather disappointed to literally see photos I took of some of the things I own show up in the under researched Tomart's Horror books, to the point that I stopped posting photos for almost two years.  Now that images are easier to attain and it is less likely someone can turn a buck off of it, I'm more into sharing them but wary of it when I see elements added digitally that are untrue of the actual object.

[Mike Scott]

Well, as I wrote, I'm interested in it for scale

For scale, you put in the description that it is 10x14, or 12" tall, etc.  If you put another object in the photo, for scale, how will we know how large that object is? Unless you're talkin' Coke can, or something.

What I'm trying to articulate is, given the choice between a museum or auction catalog, with all the items photographed as objects, vs. a compendium of the graphics

That would be fine, if we had a professional photographer taking the pictures, but I'd rather see a scan (where possible) that's in focus, with no light reflection or uneven color, than a photo with all those things.

Also, a number of people, myself included, aren't to into having their photos or collections co-opted uncredited.

We'll be happy to add credits to all photos. If I forget, just remind me.

[The Phantom Creep]

If it's only about a perfectly cleaned up image, then why do any of us even bother to collect these things? Why don't we all just print out perfect images of these items and keep them in a binder on the shelf? I know it sure would save me a lot of room.

[The Phantom Creep]

I'm sorry Mike but I'm tired of arguing this point with you. Obviously you are not going to budge on this issue and are going to do things however you want so I see no need in discussing this any further.


I strongly think that the gallery is going to suffer as a reference guide because of this.

[Dr.Terror]

I prefer photos of the items myself, scans are cool for repo-ing etc..but not archiving.

Here is an idea..how about both.

[Eye of Kharis]

Here's a correction and some pics for the 1960s Mummy Toy Gallery...

The gumball charm found at http://universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=918 is not the Mummy (I always considered this charm to be some weird "Voodoo Zombie" with a little Phantom of the Opera thrown in the design).

Here's the real Mummy Pencil Topper:



As you can see, this is clearly Kharis! And here is his larger Finger Puppet counterpart:



Both are molded in black plastic and hand painted, with the Finger Puppet being a darker shade of purple. Only markings are "Hong Kong".

Richard and I have been trying to determine a year for these but there's so many variations (there's silver & gold plated black plastic versions, etc.), it's proving difficult. My theory is that the charms were made for years and years in different variations/materials, starting with the black plastic painted versions in the 1960s and then going to the unpainted different brightly colored plastic and rubber versions when hand-painting was no longer cost-effective (even for a Hong Kong sweat shop!)

I mean, think about it  - that's quite a bit of handwork for a 1 cent item!

As of now, the only ones Richard and I can safely say are bonafide 60s vintage are the painted black plastic versions - not only because those are the ones always seen attached to the vintage header card examples (I've never seen a 60s header card with the erasers, etc.), but mainly because we both remember buying them in our 60s childhood!

Enjoy, and if anyone has additional info on dating these charms, please post!

[Mike Scott]

Here's a correction and some pics for the 1960s Mummy Toy Gallery...

Wow! Those are the best photos of the 60s charms/toppers/erasers and finger puppets I've ever seen! Got any more?

I agree that other thing isn't a Mummy. A Phantom, at best.

[Monster Bob]

This Mummy/Phantom/"thing" charm is supposed to be a Maori Head, a mummified, tattoed human head from 1800s New Zealand, sort of a cousin to a shrunken head.

Here is Horatio Robley, and his world-class collection of Maori Heads...



Sweet!

[Eye of Kharis]

Now that's a header card!

Sorry, couldn't resist - and thanx Monster Bob for the info on the Maori Head charm! I've wondered about that character since I was a kid...

[misterhorror]

That 1st head looks like it had belonged to a white man???

[fmofmpls]

If it's only about a perfectly cleaned up image, then why do any of us even bother to collect these things? Why don't we all just print out perfect images of these items and keep them in a binder on the shelf? I know it sure would save me a lot of room.

LOL! It would save us all a lot of money too! Listen guys. I hear what your saying. A scan many times removes the three dimensional qualities from an item. I think what I'm after is the best looking picture available that best and most accurately represents the item. If this happens to be a scan, then so be it. But really, how many collectibles can even be scanned unless it's a card or a paper item? I guess, I'm not getting it. What is  being questioned here? If a picture comes by scan, digital camera, or even by slow boat from China .. what difference does it make? Sometimes, we're lucky to even have a picture of the item at all yet alone making personal preferences a requirement. Tomland Wolf Man? Hell, just having a pic of that figure is a treasure all by itself. And yes, photoshop should be kept at a minimum. Never to remove blemishes unless clearly stated in the picture's description. And of course, with credit being given to the item's owner whenever possible.   

[The Phantom Creep]

My problem here was not with scanned items but with taking photos of an item, say the Mummy Mystery board game, and then photoshopping them to death to make the image "perfect" but for lack of a better word, flat. You no longer had a photo of the item but just of the artwork cover. I'm also against photoshopping out price tags or other "imperfections" or adding to the image such as the border on that Jaymar puzzle which then changed the actual item. I just don't understand the idea of "cleaning up" the item. It's the same as how I don't like when they photoshop out all folds and tears on movie posters in book collections of them. These items be they posters, toys or whatever have led a life of there own and show the wear and tear that goes along with that life. I for one like to see that life in the representation of that item.

[Mike Scott]

It's the same as how I don't like when they photoshop out all folds and tears on movie posters in book collections of them. These items be they posters, toys or whatever have led a life of there own and show the wear and tear that goes along with that life. I for one like to see that life in the representation of that item.

Maybe Photoshop in more wear and tear and make them even better!

[The Phantom Creep]

Ah and once again I'm reminded why I stopped posting on this topic.