'Pam-A Roses & Lilies' pics in good quality are now available!!

kenji

At last, the eldest of PAM sisters is out...:)

By courtesy of truelighth, I have uploaded the pics of all the 78 cards of a 'Roses & Lilies' deck in her collection. So now all the five PAM sisters are shown in my place, which is my great honour.

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/valet_de_coupe/e/10b39ab41d023e6b44bb7d7b7209c772

They are 300dpi JPEG images, around 2.5 MB each.
I hope they will be helpful for sincere RWS students in the world, along with my pics of the other 4.

Again, I express my sincere gratitude for the kindness and generosity of truelighth!:D
 

Abrac

Got 'em downloaded. Many many thanks to both of you! :)

In this post, truelighth said:

"In my opinion, the commemorative/centennial deck of US games is as close as you can get to an original, except for the backs. What some call muddied colours, actually helps to properly represent the colours of the Roses&lilies deck."

Do these scan accurately represent how the cards look or is the lighting a bit bright? The scans don't look muddy at all and they certainly don't look like the Smith/Waite Centennial, at least the scans I've seen of it. Just curious.
 

Sumada

wow! thanks truelighth and kenji. These are wonderful :)
 

truelighth

Got 'em downloaded. Many many thanks to both of you! :)

In this post, truelighth said:

"In my opinion, the commemorative/centennial deck of US games is as close as you can get to an original, except for the backs. What some call muddied colours, actually helps to properly represent the colours of the Roses&lilies deck."

Do these scan accurately represent how the cards look or is the lighting a bit bright? The scans don't look muddy at all and they certainly don't look like the Smith/Waite Centennial, at least the scans I've seen of it. Just curious.

Hello Abrac,

Sorry I am replying so late. I only just saw this post.

You are asking a good question. When I received my Smith/Waite Centennial, I compared it to the actual deck. And I think I should have chosen my words a differently. The colours of the Centennial are certainly not exactly the same as the real Roses&Lilies. However, I do believe they used the more muddied colours to try and emulate the real colours as closely as possible.
(although there is always room for improvement. I would love to see a real actual reproduction with the line printing visible).

Having said that, I do want to address the scans. Your question made me think and also look at them again. The problem with scans is, that when they show on your monitor, they will always seem lighter, because of the light source. I have had this problem when designing cards for collaborative decks. The online image looks fine, but printed it can be a bit dark.

The same is true for these scans. Viewing them online makes them appear lighter and brighter then the actual deck is. For reference I printed out some of the cards: the Star, Moon and Sun. I choose those, because the blue on the Star and Moon are the colours that are harder to emulate (which is why I think they used the more muddied look).

Anyway, here is what I noticed when comparing the print-outs of the scans to my actual deck. First of all, the print-outs are darker then the scans online. Simply because they are on paper and don't have the light source behind them.
Secondly, the colours of the printed cards are very, very close to the original. Except that the actual Roses&Lilies is actually a bit more greenish then the scans. I don't know why the scanner hasn't picked that up.

So the scans are accurate in their colours, but you need to print them out to truly see them. And then add a slight greenish hue to truly match the real deck.

I hope this answers your question.

P.S. It is not that the scans online are not at all accurate in their colours, they are just lighter then the actual cards.
 

AJ

Thank you both
 

Abrac

I appreciate the feedback, it gives me a better idea of how the cards look in person. The scans are great though and much appreciated. :)
 

Debra

This is really interesting. When the Centennial came out, people wondered about the color choices. Looks like US Games used the oldest known version as the model. :)
 

Richard

.......Anyway, here is what I noticed when comparing the print-outs of the scans to my actual deck. First of all, the print-outs are darker then the scans online. Simply because they are on paper and don't have the light source behind them.
Secondly, the colours of the printed cards are very, very close to the original. Except that the actual Roses&Lilies is actually a bit more greenish then the scans. I don't know why the scanner hasn't picked that up.

So the scans are accurate in their colours, but you need to print them out to truly see them. And then add a slight greenish hue to truly match the real deck.

I hope this answers your question.

P.S. It is not that the scans online are not at all accurate in their colours, they are just lighter then the actual cards.
That's interesting information. When preparing scanned images for web use, I always make adjustments so that the images on the monitor approximate the original images. I assumed that everyone did that. This explains why so many scans on the web appear "off." Thanks!
 

Richard

......Secondly, the colours of the printed cards are very, very close to the original. Except that the actual Roses&Lilies is actually a bit more greenish then the scans. I don't know why the scanner hasn't picked that up........
Green can be due to a darkened yellow (which can be tested in a good photo editing program by reducing the value/lightness/luminance of yellow), so if a scan appears lighter than the original, the greenishness due to a darkened yellow will diminish. This is a strange peculiarity of yellow, which probably has something to do with the sensitivity of our color vision to green wavelengths. Artists often take advantage of this by mixing yellow with black to produce dull olive greens.
 

truelighth

That's interesting information. When preparing scanned images for web use, I always make adjustments so that the images on the monitor approximate the original images. I assumed that everyone did that. This explains why so many scans on the web appear "off." Thanks!

I have to admit, I actually didn't really give it much thought how it would look on a monitor when I made the scans. I just thought, I will make scans, so I can look at them myself for references and send them out if needed. I never really made them with the intention to publish on the web. But even then I probably would not have thought about it.