|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 22, 2017 2:51:19 GMT -5
wacom-w**kage (or cintiq-suckage) garbage, re inking, will always be pathetic, third-class at best, versus anyone with work ethic enough to bother with learning how to handle a proper nib, or brush. e.g., 'emperor's new clothes cl!tless/c$ckless bull-puckey' vs. any true effort towards making actual comic-book art, or illustration. As 'exemplified' by the w**kage-put-on-paper-then-pixel of THIS guy's utter waste of page-space, vs Adams and Palmer: there, i said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2017 4:35:26 GMT -5
When a mere wee bairn, I couldn't stand the art of Ditko. Even at the age of 9, I ignored his work, to the point of seeking out Frank Brunner Dr. Strange at flea-markets to assuage my 'yuck' response to Ditko's work. But the moment I had to work in a 'DC Style' vs 'Marvel Method', then learning of the woeful printing-quality hurdles faced by Marvel in the early 1960's by Ditko, factoring that into what I and others had to face regarding the pre-digital printing paradigms of the day... ... I 'took things into account', and suddenly embraced Ditko wholeheartedly. His aesthetic still shat me off, but his ACHIEVEMENTS outweighed those aesthetics to a level which (no offence) cannot be appreciated by those whom have never had to tell a 'full story' with a LOT of dialogue in a mere 19 or 20 pages, which was the polar opposite of the 'decompressed-crap' we've all faced for the past 15 years or more. Trying to tell a story that (by all rights) merits 60 pages, then squeezing that into 20 pages, while making the reader feel the entire narrative experience is 'smooth, with no bumps in the road', is an achievement FEW can lay claim to.His storytelling abilities were certainly top notch and I will agree that there was a lot of events packed into the comic of yesteryear as compared to today. I recently read a Ditko Spider-man and it took me about 25 minutes. Even the more recent Valiant books from the 90's were pretty dense reads with pro's like Perlin and Lapham doing the honors.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2017 4:36:43 GMT -5
wacom-wankage (or cintiq-suckage) garbage, re inking, will always be pathetic, third-class at best, versus anyone with work ethic enough to bother with learning how to handle a proper nib, or brush. e.g., 'emperor's new clothes cl!tless/c$ckless bull-puckey' vs. any true effort towards making actual comic-book art, or illustration. As 'exemplified' by the wankage-put-on-paper-then-pixel of THIS guy's utter waste of page-space, vs Adams and Palmer: there, i said it. The shame about it, is that this particular artist usually does a top notch job. I loved his Flash Run. Maybe it was a poor choice of layout for this page.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 22, 2017 5:04:43 GMT -5
wacom-w**kage (or cintiq-suckage) garbage, re inking, will always be pathetic, third-class at best, versus anyone with work ethic enough to bother with learning how to handle a proper nib, or brush. e.g., 'emperor's new clothes cl!tless/c$ckless bull-puckey' vs. any true effort towards making actual comic-book art, or illustration. As 'exemplified' by the w**kage-put-on-paper-then-pixel of THIS guy's utter waste of page-space, vs Adams and Palmer: there, i said it. The shame about it, is that this particular artist usually does a top notch job. I loved his Flash Run. Maybe it was a poor choice of layout for this page. for me, it's not the layout; I respect the layout; it's somewhat halfway between 1969 buscema, and 1967 kirby. for me, it's the fact that his pencils are (presumably) fine, but he has to 'w**k it up' using digital inclines that could have been created by a stoned 4th grader using a 15 year old dell laptop employing a 1996 version of Windows Paint, via a demi-functioning mouse. even THAT is being generous to this 'art'.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 22, 2017 5:08:43 GMT -5
When a mere wee bairn, I couldn't stand the art of Ditko. Even at the age of 9, I ignored his work, to the point of seeking out Frank Brunner Dr. Strange at flea-markets to assuage my 'yuck' response to Ditko's work. But the moment I had to work in a 'DC Style' vs 'Marvel Method', then learning of the woeful printing-quality hurdles faced by Marvel in the early 1960's by Ditko, factoring that into what I and others had to face regarding the pre-digital printing paradigms of the day... ... I 'took things into account', and suddenly embraced Ditko wholeheartedly. His aesthetic still shat me off, but his ACHIEVEMENTS outweighed those aesthetics to a level which (no offence) cannot be appreciated by those whom have never had to tell a 'full story' with a LOT of dialogue in a mere 19 or 20 pages, which was the polar opposite of the 'decompressed-crap' we've all faced for the past 15 years or more. Trying to tell a story that (by all rights) merits 60 pages, then squeezing that into 20 pages, while making the reader feel the entire narrative experience is 'smooth, with no bumps in the road', is an achievement FEW can lay claim to.His storytelling abilities were certainly top notch and I will agree that there was a lot of events packed into the comic of yesteryear as compared to today. I recently read a Ditko Spider-man and it took me about 25 minutes. Even the more recent Valiant books from the 90's were pretty dense reads with pro's like Perlin and Lapham doing the honors. i agree, and think that ppl might want to take a gander at Ditko's pre Spiderman/Dr. Strange/Hulk stuff, his horror stuff pre 1961, before they write him off.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 22, 2017 7:42:04 GMT -5
wacom-wankage (or cintiq-suckage) garbage, re inking, will always be pathetic, third-class at best, versus anyone with work ethic enough to bother with learning how to handle a proper nib, or brush. e.g., 'emperor's new clothes cl!tless/c$ckless bull-puckey' vs. any true effort towards making actual comic-book art, or illustration. As 'exemplified' by the wankage-put-on-paper-then-pixel of THIS guy's utter waste of page-space, vs Adams and Palmer: there, i said it. I always use traditional tools myself, but I've seen some artists do amazing things with a straight-to-computer inking. I think digital inking at this moment is where digital colouring was in the mid-90s: it will take a while for everyone to use the technology properly without simply faking it. (Computer inking makes tracing easy... but as we all know, inking should be much more than tracing. Just as colouring is much more than simply pasting gradient effects and lens flare filters over the line art).
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 22, 2017 7:50:19 GMT -5
You can't read Amazing Spider-Man #33 and not understand what makes Ditko so special. Likewise, you can't look at the shear surrealism of his Dr. Strange without seeing greatness of his art.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2017 8:05:10 GMT -5
I don't love lobster either although many think it's one of the great things to eat. Just a matter of taste.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2017 8:07:25 GMT -5
I do recall one great sequence that Ditko drew that was brilliant. I think Spidey was sick and he was surrounded by opponents and he closed His eyes and kept swinging until they were all knocked out. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 22, 2017 12:35:40 GMT -5
I can appreciate Ditko's work on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, and that B&W page above is well-done. I'm not sure I can say that I like it, in the sense that I am attracted to the style, because I'm not. But I can appreciate the craft and imagination.
But by the time I was reading comics, circa 1980, he was really phoning it in. His stuff looked like the work of a talented grade-schooler.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jun 22, 2017 13:36:00 GMT -5
I can appreciate Ditko's work on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, and that B&W page above is well-done. I'm not sure I can say that I like it, in the sense that I am attracted to the style, because I'm not. But I can appreciate the craft and imagination. But by the time I was reading comics, circa 1980, he was really phoning it in. His stuff looked like the work of a talented grade-schooler. I agree with all this. I started reading comics in the late 70's, and despised the Ditko stuff. As you say, it looks like he was phoning it in at that point. I can appreciate the incredible design talent and storytelling ability, but even now, I find the style extremely off-putting.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,921
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jun 22, 2017 13:41:13 GMT -5
But by the time I was reading comics, circa 1980, he was really phoning it in. His stuff looked like the work of a talented grade-schooler. Memory tells me that a lot of that stuff was also inked by other people. Ditko inked by other people is usually a bad idea, but it's especially a bad idea when those inkers are trying to force his work to fit the mold of the mid-80's Marvel house style. There were some weird combinations that sometimes ended up being interesting as a result, but for the most part, it was just poorly thought out.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 22, 2017 13:59:53 GMT -5
I don't agree with judging an artist by a bad period of his art. (whatever reasons the art wasn't up to snuff) The original post said they didn't understand what made Ditko so special. Amazing Spider-Man and Dr. Strange is what makes him special.
BTW; I thought he did good work on Rom in the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 22, 2017 15:34:56 GMT -5
Memory tells me that a lot of that stuff was also inked by other people. Ditko inked by other people is usually a bad idea, but it's especially a bad idea when those inkers are trying to force his work to fit the mold of the mid-80's Marvel house style. There were some weird combinations that sometimes ended up being interesting as a result, but for the most part, it was just poorly thought out. An FF Annual I found particularly poor was inked by himself. On Rom he did have various inkers, but I recall the drawings themselves looking lazy...all the Spaceknights looking like something a little kid would have come up with in five seconds, for example.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 22, 2017 21:51:46 GMT -5
wacom-wankage (or cintiq-suckage) garbage, re inking, will always be pathetic, third-class at best, versus anyone with work ethic enough to bother with learning how to handle a proper nib, or brush. e.g., 'emperor's new clothes cl!tless/c$ckless bull-puckey' vs. any true effort towards making actual comic-book art, or illustration. As 'exemplified' by the wankage-put-on-paper-then-pixel of THIS guy's utter waste of page-space, vs Adams and Palmer: there, i said it. I always use traditional tools myself, but I've seen some artists do amazing things with a straight-to-computer inking. I think digital inking at this moment is where digital colouring was in the mid-90s: it will take a while for everyone to use the technology properly without simply faking it. (Computer inking makes tracing easy... but as we all know, inking should be much more than tracing. Just as colouring is much more than simply pasting gradient effects and lens flare filters over the line art). Agreed, but inking was always supposed to be 're-creating the pencils, faithful to the idea and aesthetic of the pencils, yet individual art in its own right'. meaning digital inks by Bolland have value because he was one of top 5 traditional-tools inkers of all time; he learned how to draw/ink sans !$%!!! crutches. the sample I posted above is indicative of laziness and pretentious marketing short-cuts/crutches claiming to be 'style', nothing more. Like Ware , Bechdel, Vasquez and literally millions of online pretenders-to-thrones.
|
|