Tintin Forums

I've noticed that my older Tintin albums are printed on matte paper, while the more recent printings are on shinier (but thinner) paper. I was wondering if Tintinologists had any views on which they prefer? A disadvantage of the older matte-style paper is that it yellows over time, while the more recent glossy paper is much whiter which shows colours off better. Any opinions on this?

The shiny paper is better I think. As you said it reproduces colour better and I noticed that the albums look much brighter and more colourful in the "new" print.

The matte versions might become collectibles over time, I think.

I'm sorry but the matte versions are much more beautiful and subtle- I still have these and if I ever wear them out will ALWAYS seek out the older 80s editions and not the cheap looking new ones
the shiny ones are garish, ugly and really plastic and well - if you couldnt tell already - I hate it ;)

sorry harishankar! :P

I'm with thmthm on this one. That flat, lucid style of colouring that Hergé and his team excelled at looks so much better on matte. I can't help thinking he'd hate the new shiny printings (though we can't know, of course), which to me look a bit cheapo - kind of sticky and blotchy.

And very importantly, you just don't get that lovely new Tintin book smell with the new shiny ones.

Admittedly though, the paper was sometimes too thin in the old editions, and they did yellow and fade badly if left out open.

And there were usually one or two pages in any copy of the old matte editions where the black line had slipped out of register with the blue-line and colour layer underneath, giving a blurred effect, and I think this was a problem particularly associated with the two layer "blue-board" colouring technique. You don't seem to get this colour-registration problem with the new shiny editions, though I'm sure the shininess itself can't be essential to achieve this tightness. Surely a high-quality, perfect-colour-registration, thick-papered matte edition would be possible with today's printing technology - that would be my ideal edition.

Incidentally, unlike the actual Tintin books, all the Moulinsart-connected books about Tintin (Michael Farr's Complete Companion, Tintin at Sea etc), and a lot of Moulinsart's merchandise (calendars, desk diaries etc) seem to have all their illustrations recoloured from scratch digitally. It's been done very faithfully, and actually I think the totally even flatness possible with digital colour probably gives just the sort of effect Hergé was after with his paint, but once you notice it, you can spot little differences from the hand-colouring used in the books. Does anyone know the reason for this? Does Casterman own the colour plates of the books and not like to share them with Moulinsart?

I believe that Casterman and Nick Rodwell have struck a more cordial co-operation deal recently, so maybe this will lead to the sort of best-of-all-worlds book editions I'm hankering after. I can but hope!

Balthazar
Does anyone know the reason for this? Does Casterman own the colour plates of the books and not like to share them with Moulinsart?

I think it's to allow them to reproduce the images at any size without losing clarity. The enlargements in Tintin and the World of Hergé and Hergé and Tintin Reporters were photographed from existing books (I presume), with the dot printing clearly visible. If you compare those to the Complete Companion enlargements, you can see difference - the flat tones remain, and the black lines still crisp and sharp.

Thanks, Richard. I hadn't thought of that reason, but your explanation makes perfect sense.

Like I said, I actually like the look of these digitally coloured frames, and I wouldn't actually mind seeing the actual Tintin books coloured this way. It would upset the purists, who wouldn't want to lose Hergé's original colourists' actual brush work. But I wonder if the current faithful reuse of the original coloured plates might be one of the reasons why the new shiny editions look a bit tacky - ie: the fact that the publishers are using artwork designed for one printing process in a new printing process to which it's not well suited. Unplanned tone variations and slightly darker blotches which never really showed up in the old matte editions now seem to show up prominently in the ink-heavier shiny editions.

A complete digital recolouring (based faithfully on the original colouring of course) might enable the sort of bright-ink, satin paper quality that the publishers seem to be aiming for, whilst maintaining that flat colour look many of us think Hergé's work needs - ie: all the Tintin books printed to the same coffee-table book quality as The Complete Companion.

I'm sorry but the matte versions are much more beautiful and subtle- I still have these and if I ever wear them out will ALWAYS seek out the older 80s editions and not the cheap looking new onesthe shiny ones are garish, ugly and really plastic and well - if you couldnt tell already - I hate it ;)

I quite understand what you mean. As you said, they are less like comics and more like art, but my concern is more practical - they don't last and the colour fades over time. Yes, I have the some of the old ones and I had to bind them to preserve them. But even so the paper is still so fragile that I'm afraid of tearing them... I hope the new glossy finish preserves them better.

I live in a climate that's dusty, hot and humid so paper does age rather more quickly.

fair play roman tintin

I see it like this 'if it tintin its tintin' who really gives a toss about what sort of paper its on.

Like I said, I would, because I want it preserved and the quality of the paper does matter in that case.

I think the quality of the medium does matter (to some of us anyway) so don't knock those who want to discuss it.
Personally I think it's a bit like the 'cd or vinyl' debate for music ..
better perceived quality vs vintage appeal and a feeling of authenticity