shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 23, 2014 14:44:35 GMT -5
In photography, I'm well aware that there are those who readily accept digital photography and photoshop editing as useful tools, while there are others who view this as cheating, inorganic, and otherwise less pure than shooting through an analog camera and developing on film.
I'm curious if the same backlash exists against comic book pencilers, inkers, colorists, and letterers who work digitally. Is this generally accepted as the way the industry is moving?
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jul 23, 2014 15:55:34 GMT -5
even in film photography there were a zillion processing effects one could use - lots of photoshop filters just mimic traditional dark room techniques.
as with everything its your skill in handling the tools. I like hand drawn pages, inky lines, watercolours, washes, splatters, etc but some people can draw crazy on a tablet. Vector art can have a lovely folkart feel to it too when its done a certain way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 17:12:18 GMT -5
If you can tell by looking at it, there's a problem. That was the problem with DKSA for me. It was pixelated. I've seen several pixelated comics, that looked like they were inked and colored in MSPaint. That's no good. Others can look fantastic, and if they want to, perfectly emulate ink and paint on board. That's fine with me. It all depends on how it's executed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 17:57:42 GMT -5
If you can tell by looking at it, there's a problem. That was the problem with DKSA for me. It was pixelated. I've seen several pixelated comics, that looked like they were inked and colored in MSPaint. That's no good. Others can look fantastic, and if they want to, perfectly emulate ink and paint on board. That's fine with me. It all depends on how it's executed. I'd prefer well done digital art than poorly done pencils. I'd also prefer Greg Land's tracing to Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane and Humberto What's-his-name. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 18:03:29 GMT -5
Pretty much agree with the sentiment already expressed. If it looks like they jusy opened an image in MSPiant and just used the fill tool to color I'm not going to be able to get past it.
edit: That's usually in indie books. I can't recall the artist's, name but the coloring on Fraction's Iron Man had some shading but is an example of a mainstream title with the kind of stuff I hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 18:13:09 GMT -5
I'd also prefer Greg Land's tracing to Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane and Humberto What's-his-name. I'd prefer none of the above, which is what I've chosen. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,401
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 23, 2014 18:58:47 GMT -5
In photography, I'm well aware that there are those who readily accept digital photography and photoshop editing as useful tools, while there are others who view this as cheating, inorganic, and otherwise less pure than shooting through an analog camera and developing on film. I'm curious if the same backlash exists against comic book pencilers, inkers, colorists, and letterers who work digitally. Is this generally accepted as the way the industry is moving? I'll always remember what Berni Wrightson said about art: as long as the result is there, the way you did it doesn't matter. I personally love coloring with Photoshop, and more and more of my cartoons are planned with the possibilities of the program in mind. The pencil art is definitely not the same when I intend to color it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 23, 2014 18:59:32 GMT -5
If you can tell by looking at it, there's a problem. That was the problem with DKSA for me. It was pixelated. I've seen several pixelated comics, that looked like they were inked and colored in MSPaint. That's no good. Others can look fantastic, and if they want to, perfectly emulate ink and paint on board. That's fine with me. It all depends on how it's executed. Funny, but I actually have the opposite concern. Sometimes, digital art just looks too clean, lacking some of the texture that came from the old school. In some ways, it's like listening to a pristine but flat MP3 recording versus the rounder, more organic sound you get out of a quality vinyl. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 20:15:08 GMT -5
Every time I think about digitally created comics I immediately picture this:  It hasn't aged well at all. But I believe that with today's technology the potential for amazing all-digital comic books is definitely there. After all, Jack Kirby showed us how it could be done using just photocopied collages.  |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 23, 2014 21:06:36 GMT -5
I have some trouble with it, mostly because it was so present in comics over the past decade (mostly Marvel) and there was a wide variety of quality amongst the artists. Someone like Clint Langely in Slaine: Books of Invasion really set a high bar for digital art, and I don't think that anyone is working at the same level as him. That said, I'll always prefer more stylized art. Today, for example, I picked up Walt Simonson's Ragnarok and Scott Hampton's GI Zombie, and I was blown away by the quality of the art. (Although, Hampton's looked somewhat digital, but his line was still present. He's always been a painter who gave a stong sense of his linework.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 23, 2014 21:10:02 GMT -5
Every time I think about digitally created comics I immediately picture this: I could have sworn Digital Justice was the first computer-generated graphic novel. What gives?  |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 23, 2014 21:46:46 GMT -5
It kinda depends on what you mean by "graphic novel". If you're using it in a broad sense, First's Shatter would have been the first totally computer-generated comic. It originally ran as monthly issues, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 23:34:35 GMT -5
If you can tell by looking at it, there's a problem. That was the problem with DKSA for me. It was pixelated. I've seen several pixelated comics, that looked like they were inked and colored in MSPaint. That's no good. Others can look fantastic, and if they want to, perfectly emulate ink and paint on board. That's fine with me. It all depends on how it's executed. Funny, but I actually have the opposite concern. Sometimes, digital art just looks too clean, lacking some of the texture that came from the old school. In some ways, it's like listening to a pristine but flat MP3 recording versus the rounder, more organic sound you get out of a quality vinyl. Yeah I think I know what you're talking about. I rarely run into it though. When I was reading the first couple Marvel Noir minis I saw what seemed like movie special effects on the page. I wasn't a fan of that either. Mostly because it clashed with the rest of the art that was obviously hand drawn. I don't know if it was drawn on paper or on a Wacom, but it wasn't CGI like the little magic orbs and stuff were. Not sure an all CGI comic would look great either. But sometimes the color can obviously be computerized and still work, as long as it's a high enough resolution or whatever. I think a lot of these new Image comics are computer colored and they look pretty good. I think a large selection of colors rather than the 25 or so standard low resolution shades I'm used to seeing in low end webcomics makes a big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 23:36:15 GMT -5
After all, Jack Kirby showed us how it could be done using just photocopied collages. This reminds me of a comic I really like called The Sound Of Drowning. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jul 26, 2014 15:29:15 GMT -5
The only real concern I have is that there's no "original art" to buy.
|
|
