I suppose I haven't been as clear about my overall opinion on these sets as I should have been. My view is that these are a major improvement over previously available copies of most of these cartoons, and despite the flaws these sets are worth supporting; this series is an unexpected and welcome change from the prior years of these and other WB cartoon properties remaining in unreleased limbo. But the evidence contradicts the idea that these presentations picture-wise are flawless, accurate representations of how these films are supposed to look, which just about everyone has been praising them as.
Of course a dupe negative and the original are going to look different. But this is where timing comes in to compensate. An example is the washed-out Paramount titles compared to Steve Stanchfield's transfers (or a photo of a 35mm nitrate print), while some scenes in the cartoons themselves aren't so bad. The titles are dupe footage due to the optical effects needed. In the release prints the exposure timing was adjusted scene-by-scene so that everything looks right. The original negatives do not have these adjustments built-in and it is necessary to implement them in remastering to get the proper look. So they say that they consulted original prints when creating these masters - does that mean they actually followed through with conforming them to the proper look? The final products don't support that conclusion.
A prior poster raised the question of how we should respond to flaws in these sets. The least we can do is be honest about the shortcomings, while still buying the sets to support future releases. If Warner Archive really cares about the quality of the releases, they'll listen without any boycotting needed. I get the impression they don't, but at least buyers would know what they're getting. Glossing over problems and pretending things are better than they are does no one any good.