Thanks for your feedback Leif. And humbled you'll brave kickstarter for the first time, thank you
Yes the battle I had early on was how close do I try to stay to the originals, and I found it was going to make for some pretty clunky art. Probably followed some of the feedback on the early posts. So while I have tried to retain the same elements and details as the originals, I'm careful to say the deck is 'inspired' by. The goal was always a modern deck and a modern take. My thought process was that the artists of the 16th century were working with wood, stencils and brushes, which limited what they could create. If they had our tools, what might they produce.
Hopefully I won't get trouble for showing these images but you can see some of my workings.
You're right on the colours, the originals were bright. I decided to keep the colour monotone originally to tie in with the tuck and keep the focus on the detail. Also didn't want to open a gold foil tuck, and be hit with fluro red cards. Artistic license
The color fade or gradient is something I'm revisiting. I think monotone it adds depth. With extra colour perhaps it doesn't need it so much, and more importantly from a production stand point, if you use a gradient, you can't use metallics. Which would kill my options to an extent.
The borders, if you look at the historic art they are just inside the edge, no squeezers of course, so they don't feel as dominant as modern cards and the art basically uses the entire card. So I think there is some play there. All of my art is stand alone like this, so not a lot of work to remove borders, but it is another step away from the cropping of the originals. Too far? Undecided