Now everybody go and check their AKOM Deluxe Editions:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the "totem lady"-image on the backside of the back cover inlay is actually printed upside down!?
vonkeil
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Pim Derks
Yes, it's on my copy as well.
cmsdrums
But of course - I'm beginning to think that QPL put a few annoying errors in either the audio or the artwork with every release just to test us. Alternatively it could just be that they continue to employ a bunch of amateurs who simply can't do their jobs. Mmmm....which is it!???
rhyeking
There's actually a clever built in correction for this "error":
1) hold the book open in front of you.
2) Rotate the booklet to the left 180 degrees so the image is still facing you.
3) Look at the image again and it will have "magically" righted itself!
Here's the extremely clever bit, too, it works by rotating it to the right as well.
(Okay, yeah, I'm a smartass)
Believe it or not, these laspes in quality control sneak in everywhere, it's not just QPL at fault. One of the Star Trek DVDs has the image printed under the text upside down (text is right-side up, image is upside down). One of the old editions of a "Bill & Ted 1" DVD had two Keanu Reeves on the spine, instead of KR and Alex Winter.
These things happen because company don't tend to do these sleeve layouts in-house, they farm them out to graphics companies. And yes, someone screwed up. The person who layout that image was probably staring at 6" x 6" image on a screen and didn't look closely at the actual image (amateur-hour mistake). It's possible the scan of the image was sent to him up-side down and he just thought it was meant to be like that. It probably never occurred to him to look up the correct orientation on previous releases ("They ain't paying me enough for this. If it's wrong, they'll catch it in the proof"). The real fault of the mistake is that someone at QPL ought to have checked the proof of the sleeve . A 'proof' in this case is a test copy sent by the graphics people to the client (QPL) to get it approved, done before millions of sleeves are printed. It's a step necessary to catch mistakes and protects the graphics people from bearing the full weight of responsibility for mistakes ("You approved the proof, sir, don't blame us for this mistake!"). If there's a mistake like this on the proof, QPL should catch it at this stage. They didn't. Maybe the next pressing will correct it.
Like I said, these things happen, though.
1) hold the book open in front of you.
2) Rotate the booklet to the left 180 degrees so the image is still facing you.
3) Look at the image again and it will have "magically" righted itself!
Here's the extremely clever bit, too, it works by rotating it to the right as well.
(Okay, yeah, I'm a smartass)
Believe it or not, these laspes in quality control sneak in everywhere, it's not just QPL at fault. One of the Star Trek DVDs has the image printed under the text upside down (text is right-side up, image is upside down). One of the old editions of a "Bill & Ted 1" DVD had two Keanu Reeves on the spine, instead of KR and Alex Winter.
These things happen because company don't tend to do these sleeve layouts in-house, they farm them out to graphics companies. And yes, someone screwed up. The person who layout that image was probably staring at 6" x 6" image on a screen and didn't look closely at the actual image (amateur-hour mistake). It's possible the scan of the image was sent to him up-side down and he just thought it was meant to be like that. It probably never occurred to him to look up the correct orientation on previous releases ("They ain't paying me enough for this. If it's wrong, they'll catch it in the proof"). The real fault of the mistake is that someone at QPL ought to have checked the proof of the sleeve . A 'proof' in this case is a test copy sent by the graphics people to the client (QPL) to get it approved, done before millions of sleeves are printed. It's a step necessary to catch mistakes and protects the graphics people from bearing the full weight of responsibility for mistakes ("You approved the proof, sir, don't blame us for this mistake!"). If there's a mistake like this on the proof, QPL should catch it at this stage. They didn't. Maybe the next pressing will correct it.
Like I said, these things happen, though.
Benn
Rhyeking,
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit.
Queen had been resepected widely for their in-house quality control - since Freddie's deathe the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon and the contents are spilling out all over the place.
It says much for the people currently at the helm that things like this continue to happen. Attention to detail is reflected in product quality.
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit.
Queen had been resepected widely for their in-house quality control - since Freddie's deathe the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon and the contents are spilling out all over the place.
It says much for the people currently at the helm that things like this continue to happen. Attention to detail is reflected in product quality.
emrabt
Queen had been resepected widely for their in-house quality control - since Freddie's deathe the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon and the contents are spilling out all over the place.
======================
since john quit.
======================
since john quit.
paulosham
vonkeil wrote: Now everybody go and check their AKOM Deluxe Editions:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the "totem lady"-image on the backside of the back cover inlay is actually printed upside down!?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's ruined the album for me, thanks a bunch.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the "totem lady"-image on the backside of the back cover inlay is actually printed upside down!?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's ruined the album for me, thanks a bunch.
AlbaNo1
I think Rhykings post might contain an explanation of what might have happened , but a mistake is a mistake and there should be an overall review process for every product release. Really there are too many little blips in recordings and packaging in what has been coming out the last 20 years which points to a lack of care in the whole organisation entrusted with maintaining the legacy of Queen. Im sure the posters on this forum would do a far better job in quality review .
GinjaNinja
It's the right way up inside the booklet. Might just be for aesthetic reasons.
vonkeil
GinjaNinja wrote: It's the right way up inside the booklet. Might just be for aesthetic reasons.
--------------------------
If so - mission failed I'd say...
--------------------------
If so - mission failed I'd say...
rhyeking
Whoa there, cowboys!
All I did was explain what might have occurred. Don't going firing out "bullshits!" at me just because I understand the process. Even if it was an in-house job, the same checks and balances apply. The graphics department whips up the sleeve image, sends the proof to their department head, who sends it to the project manager, who approves it or sends it back with corrections. I didn't just pull this system out of my ass, this is how every company functions. Tickets, show programs, record sleeves, DVD sleeves, book covers, you name it, they all use a system like this. Jim Beach himself did not create this cover on Photoshop in his office (I'm reasonably certain of that), he had others do it.
Now, go back and read my post again and highlight the part where I acknowledge that a mistake got made. I think I say it every few sentences. Here's a little advice for when someone tells you what's going on: Knowing how the system works and knowing where it broke down is not condoning, excusing or ignoring the mistake.
Besides, if you didn't want a possible explanation, why is this thread here? To bitch about it? Be honest.
If it's keeping you up nights, package up your copy of AKOM with a detailed description of its flaws, mail it to QPL's office and tell them you want your hard-earned money back.
All I did was explain what might have occurred. Don't going firing out "bullshits!" at me just because I understand the process. Even if it was an in-house job, the same checks and balances apply. The graphics department whips up the sleeve image, sends the proof to their department head, who sends it to the project manager, who approves it or sends it back with corrections. I didn't just pull this system out of my ass, this is how every company functions. Tickets, show programs, record sleeves, DVD sleeves, book covers, you name it, they all use a system like this. Jim Beach himself did not create this cover on Photoshop in his office (I'm reasonably certain of that), he had others do it.
Now, go back and read my post again and highlight the part where I acknowledge that a mistake got made. I think I say it every few sentences. Here's a little advice for when someone tells you what's going on: Knowing how the system works and knowing where it broke down is not condoning, excusing or ignoring the mistake.
Besides, if you didn't want a possible explanation, why is this thread here? To bitch about it? Be honest.
If it's keeping you up nights, package up your copy of AKOM with a detailed description of its flaws, mail it to QPL's office and tell them you want your hard-earned money back.
Thistle
What? Is this thread for real? A "totum-lady" is upside down? And that was noticed, and has been criticised? I know all my sentences here are in the form of questions, but I truly am flabbergasted at the lengths some people will go to just to have a moan. Does it affect the album in any way? Who *actually* cares? If the Freddie and Brian caricatures were upside down and John and Roger were fine, if the album had been renamed "it's Kind of A Magic" or something, then fair enough - but a "totum-lady"???? FFS.
dysan
Can someone upload a scan of this? I got The Miracle and DC3. I'd say The Miracle os quite poorly printed with the back cover quite washed out.
Thistle
dysan wrote: Can someone upload a scan of this? I got The Miracle and DC3. I'd say The Miracle os quite poorly printed with the back cover quite washed out. =============================================================================================
Now THAT is a problem worth complaining about. A wee woman upside down is nothing, but crap print altogether is an issue.
Now THAT is a problem worth complaining about. A wee woman upside down is nothing, but crap print altogether is an issue.
vonkeil
OK friends...just to make one thing clear:
I, for myself, never raised any complain about the album, the reissues, QPL or whatever - I was just wondering whether this misprint is present in every copy and, therefor, is an obvious mistake in terms of graphical production.
and believe it or not - I sort of do care about things like that, because for me proper artwork is part of the actual product. that is why I buy a CD instead of downloading it from the internet.
I, for myself, never raised any complain about the album, the reissues, QPL or whatever - I was just wondering whether this misprint is present in every copy and, therefor, is an obvious mistake in terms of graphical production.
and believe it or not - I sort of do care about things like that, because for me proper artwork is part of the actual product. that is why I buy a CD instead of downloading it from the internet.