shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2016 0:36:58 GMT -5
I've seen folks commenting on the passing of Gasper Saladino, some stating that he was the greatest letterer of all time, and (I have to be honest) my first reaction was "someone has a personal list of best letterers of all time???" There's no doubt that quality lettering, coloring, and inking matter in a comic but, unlike scripters and pencilers, their work isn't supposed to stand out when done correctly, so I haven't paid all that much attention to those aspects of my comics. This is all a long-winded way of saying that I'd like an education on letterers, colorists, and inkers. Who are the best, and what makes their work so great? I'd sincerely like to learn more about this from the community. Here's the little I have noticed... Letterers: (and I'm really talking interior lettering here -- not logos and cover captions) I love what Dave Sim did in Cerebus, but he was in the unique situation of also being the writer, artist, editor and publisher, so he had leeway to be experimental and try new things with his lettering style. Todd Klein has also taken brilliant advantage of some of the moodier pieces he's worked on (especially Sandman). But, in these cases, these letterers were afforded more liberty to experiment than most lettering gigs would present. So what makes a Saladino or an Orzechowski all that more impressive than the average letterer whose words look straight enough, neat enough, and contain no typos? Inkers: I struggle to see exactly where a penciler ends and an inker begins on most occasions. All I really know is that, if you have the same artist penciling two issues in a row, and Alfredo Alcala only inks one of them, that issue is going to look light years better than the other. Who are the other great inkers, and what do they do that makes them so great? Colorists: I notice when Adrienne Roy finds unique shades for the night backdrop Batman's always working in front of. I've seen some truly bad colorists that choose colors that don't fit the tone of the scene or pull too much attention away from the foreground, but generally, I don't know what great coloring looks like or how to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 1:01:36 GMT -5
I like to think of inkers like the cinematographers of comics-they don't replace the writers or pencillers, just as the cinematographer doesn't replace the director or actors, but you cannot escape the influence of the inker (or cinematographer) on how you experience the work of the others. Their control or light and dark, black and white, shading, thickness of line or finesse of brush stroke affect every aspect of how the reader experiences the page. We rarely think of the great cinematographers or the bad ones, and most cannot name 5 cinematographers if they had to, but the cinematography can make or break a movie, just as the inker can make or break a comic.
Colorists can have the same effect (especially these days of computerized coloring replacing a lot of what the inker used to do in controlling the shading and lighting of a panel or page).
Lettering meanwhile can affect the pace and impact of how you experience the words of a comic. Just as a writer/penciller can affect how fast or slow your eye moves across a page by panel size and arrangement, the letterer can do the same with caption box and balloon size and placement, choice of font, size of the lettering, style of the word balloon itself (smooth vs. jagged, square vs. round etc.).
These are not things that we as readers often actively think about, we are absorbed by the words and the pictures, but there is a lot of craft in these artforms that have a huge impact on how we we experience those words and pictures that are out of the hands of the writer and penciller.
Scott McCloud and Eisner examine these things quite well in their landmark books on the medium, but fans often overlook these things (just as they overlook things like cinematography, sound editing, etc. that impact how we experience the movies that are out of the direct control of screenwriters, actors, etc. (directors have a little more control as they oversee the final cuts, much like an editor wold in comics).
So in some ways, the best ones are the ones we notice least, but in others ways these are artists in their own right who deserve recognition and acclaim in their own right.
I could make huge lists of great inkers, their work is probably the most noticeable of the 3, but lists of great letterers and colorists are somewhat smaller and harder to identify as these tasks were mostly uncredited throughout much of the Golden Age and into the Silver Age. Some had little tricks to identify their work in the days before their jobs were credited-John Costanza for example would often reverse the coloring of the page number on page 13 of the books he lettered, the 13 would be white and the circle surrounding it black, but only on page 13. Once letterers were credited in the book's credit box, he didn't do this as much and eventually stopped altogether.Sometimes editors corrected this error too, and Costanza's effort for recognition was pasted over. (I think I first read about this in Amazing Heroes #100, the Kirby spotlight issue, in an article by Mark Evanier if memory serves, but it may be failing me). But Costanza was definitely one of those letterers who people wanted on their books because he was so good.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 7, 2016 9:02:49 GMT -5
I think it's interesting to see how each of these professionals are expected to enhance the reading experience.
To me, a good colorist's work should be noticeable in that the art should look better when coloured than when left in black and white. That makes the colouring job very difficult when the line artists are people like Gene Colan or Joe Kubrrt, whose B&W work already looks so good. (Irrespective of the talented people who coloured the mag, I always thought Tomb of Dracula looked better in black and white).
A good inker can either be noticeable or not, depending on their actual role. Many inkers working on tight pencils will try to be as true as possible to the penciller's art (think Sal Buscema working on Barry Smith or on His brother John's pencils). Others are also embellishers, making the final art different from what the pencils alone would have been. These are more of less successful, and often the final judgment really depends on one's personal tastes. (I love the Buscema-Alcala duo, even if Buscema himself hated it).
Letterers can be the hardest ones to judge. I rate letterers based on two criteria : the first is that they should be able to play with letters to incorporate them into the graphic nature of comic-book storytelling, as Dave Sim brilliantly does. (Sim's depiction of a migraine remains one of the best example of lettering I've ever seen). The second is that when the letters are there to be read and not seen, they should not be noticeable at all. To make a parallel with computer fonts: I wish that for ordinary text, everything were in Helvetica. I can't stand Papyrus or Gil sans; even banal fonts like Calibri and Arial can grate my nerves (and yes, I do realize that here's not a whole lot of difference between Arial and Helvetica!)
It's almost absurd to say that the best letterers are those whose work you don't notice, but that's what I believe!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 7, 2016 9:06:06 GMT -5
I am Fairly unsophisticated when it comes to viewing the impact a letterer and colorist makes on a book. The writing and the art are the only thing I care about.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 7, 2016 9:34:53 GMT -5
Letterers are among the unsung heroes of the comics world. 2000 AD, for instance, would have been a lot poorer without the presence of Tom Frame in its early years, the man's output was phenomenal. Likewise Annie Parkhouse and, in more frecent years, Ellie De Ville. And of course, Richard Starkings, the founder of Comicraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 7, 2016 9:36:22 GMT -5
I am Fairly unsophisticated when it comes to viewing the impact a letterer and colorist makes on a book. The writing and the art are the only thing I care about. But the colourist can have a big impact on the art, and the lettering can have a big impact on how the dialogue affects you. It's subliminal, but it's there. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 7, 2016 9:53:22 GMT -5
I'm with Icctrombone on this subject and all I care about is the Story 1st and the Art 2nd and anything else is pretty relevant to me. To me, I don't pay much attention to the letterers, the inkers, and the colorists because they are to me the extensions of the artist. I'm sorry Shaxper, I'm very old fashioned in this subject and it's bothers me that they are giving people too much recognition these days. A perfect example of that is Justice League Midsummer's Nightmare  DC Comics recognizing six individuals for it's work on this book! ... It's ridiculous! In my days of my youth all you need is both Writer and Artist Name ... like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. They are not "giving people too much recognition", they are recognizing the essential contributions of talented professionals without whom these books would look a damn sight less appealing. Sorry, but this attitude really annoys me. In the days of your youth, these people were still just as vital to the end product, they just got no recognition for it while people like Stan Lee and Bob Kane took a helluva lot more credit than was their due. And you actually want to propogate that attitude? Disappointing. You are belittling people who deserve better. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 7, 2016 9:56:43 GMT -5
Bad lettering can ruin a comic for me. Reading all these Golden Age comics has been a frequently trying experience, as much of the lettering in these early books is atrocious. My favorite letterers include Ben Oda, Artie Simek, my pal Tom Orzechowski, John Costanza, Mike Royer (underappreciated for his work in this capacity), Stan Starkman, and Todd Klein. I really dislike mechanical lettering (not to be confused with computerized lettering), like that used in the EC titles, Classics Illustrated and the work of "A. Machine" at Charlton. Give me the organic look of hand lettering every time.
I honestly can't tell the work of one colorist from another. I only notice the color when it's bad.
As for inkers, there are far too many whose work I like to possibly list them all but here are a few favorites off the top pf my head: Wally Wood, Joe Sinnott, Tom Palmer, George Klein, Murphy Anderson, Jerry Ordway, Syd Shores, Ray Burnley, Dan Adkins, Al Gordon, John Severin, Karl Kesel, Dave Hunt, Steve Leialoha, Dave Cockrum, Bill Everett, and Bob McLeod. Sometimes it depends on who they're inking: I like Dick Giordano, Dick Ayers, Alfredo Alcala, Klaus Janson, Ernie Chan, Sid Greene, and Terry Austin over some pancilers, not so much over others. And there are some whose work turns me off regardless of who pencils, such as Mike DeCarlo, Frank McLaughlin, Ricardo Villamonte, and Joe Staton.
Cei-U!
Yu asked, I answered!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 7, 2016 10:04:10 GMT -5
I'm with Icctrombone on this subject and all I care about is the Story 1st and the Art 2nd and anything else is pretty relevant to me. To me, I don't pay much attention to the letterers, the inkers, and the colorists because they are to me the extensions of the artist. I'm sorry Shaxper, I'm very old fashioned in this subject and it's bothers me that they are giving people too much recognition these days. A perfect example of that is Justice League Midsummer's Nightmare DC Comics recognizing six individuals for it's work on this book! ... It's ridiculous! In my days of my youth all you need is both Writer and Artist Name ... like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. They are not "giving people too much recognition", they are recognizing the essential contributions of talented professionals without whom these books would look a damn sight less appealing. Sorry, but this attitude really annoys me. In the days of your youth, these people were still just as vital to the end product, they just got no recognition for it while people like Stan Lee and Bob Kane took a helluva lot more credit than was their due. And you actually want to propogate that attitude? Disappointing. You are belittling people who deserve better. I have to agree. Such an attitude is a slap in the face to the scores of pros who worked long hours for substandard wages over the decades to make the comics you love. Giving them credit isn't "ridiculous." Griping because they're getting it, however, is. Cei-U! I summon the WTF??! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2016 10:17:04 GMT -5
DC Comics recognizing six individuals for it's work on this book! ... It's ridiculous! Do you think it's ridiculous when, at the end of a movie, they recognize more than six individuals for their hard work on the project? I don't understand what's ridiculous about this. If you did work, you deserve credit. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2016 10:18:06 GMT -5
Bad lettering can ruin a comic for me. Reading all these Golden Age comics has been a frequently trying experience, as much of the lettering in these early books is atrocious. My favorite letterers include Ben Oda, Artie Simek, my pal Tom Orzechowski, John Costanza, Mike Royer (underappreciated for his work in this capacity), Stan Starkman, and Todd Klein. I really dislike mechanical lettering (not to be confused with computerized lettering), like that used in the EC titles, Classics Illustrated and the work of "A. Machine" at Charlton. Give me the organic look of hand lettering every time. I honestly can't tell the work of one colorist from another. I only notice the color when it's bad. This is mostly what I understand. bad lettering and coloring is noticeable and disruptive. I just don't notice either when they're done well. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 7, 2016 10:50:10 GMT -5
I really dislike mechanical lettering (not to be confused with computerized lettering), like that used in the EC titles, Classics Illustrated and the work of "A. Machine" at Charlton. Give me the organic look of hand lettering every time. Likewise, though I was always willing to give Charlton some leeway simply because the credit "lettered by A. Machine" made it obvious that they were actually aware of the deficiency and not above mocking themselves for their cheapness. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2016 10:51:08 GMT -5
I really dislike mechanical lettering (not to be confused with computerized lettering), like that used in the EC titles, Classics Illustrated and the work of "A. Machine" at Charlton. Give me the organic look of hand lettering every time. Likewise, though I was always willing to give Charlton some leeway simply because the credit "lettered by A. Machine" made it obvious that they were actually aware of the deficiency and not above mocking themselves for their cheapness. I could not stand that typed lettering! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2016 10:55:40 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I just found this:  I love that, in order to make the job sound more important, he compares it to inking. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Aug 7, 2016 11:16:45 GMT -5
Learning to recognize inkers was a real light-bulb moment for me in my development as a comic book aficionado. I'm not sure when it happened; when I started collecting in late 1971, I was a long way from being able to distinguish their contributions. I quickly saw that there was some difference between the style in reprints (like Sekowsky's JLA) and then-current comics, but I couldn't put my fingers on just what, because I was just following the action, recognizing the characters, and reading the words. Kirby was the first standout--despite being highly imitated, he remained unique. Aparo was next, partly because I liked his work so much that I started copying it in my own drawings. My skill at spotting pencillers snowballed: Ditko, Kubert, Dillin, Buscema, but the inkers took a while. It may have been 10 years before that light bulb clicked and I was recognizing the inkers at a glance. Stronger inkers probably came first, with the dominating inks of Wally Wood, the distinctive lines of Vince Colletta, and the notably transformative work of the Filipino artists that were increasingly appearing, like de Zuniga, Alcala, and Redondo. By the early 80's I was pretty sharp on the roster of talent in the mainstream. I remember one of my favorite challenges was to glance at each page of DC's Who's Who and try to immediately name the penciller and inker (the penciller was usually easy, because they tried to pair the most appropriate, highly associated penciller with each subject).
I think my appreciation skyrocketed only when I was able to make those kinds of identifications, because only then could I have any justification for preferences. And I think my preferences are based on genuine aesthetic evaluation rather than just going along with whoever is highly acclaimed, because I often find that I have lesser appreciation for some of the highly-praised inkers. For example, I loved Tom Palmer's inks on Tomb of Dracula, but I find his work detracts from many other artists, for example John Buscema. Joe Sinnott may have helped to define the standard look of Fantastic Four, and I do like it, but I find it fairly generic and ordinary. Dick Giordano gets nothing but praise, but I just don't see him as one of the great inkers--his work clarified but never seemed to really enhance the pencils. I was once among the many Colletta detractors, but now I find his work fascinating, and actually enjoy it in certain places, particularly on Kirby.
Classic masters of inking for me include Murphy Anderson, Wally Wood, Alfredo Alcala, but there are many others I usually like. Some that tend to turn me off are Joe Giella and Frank McLaughlin.
For letterers, I think the best way to appreciate them is to start with those artists who letter their own work, because they are intentionally bringing in an aesthetic that they think is important to their output. Dave Sim is a great example, but self-lettering was also an important component of the work of Alex Toth, Jim Aparo, and Pat Boyette. Their lettering, though, would probably look out of place on another's pencils/inks, particularly, I would think, Boyette's. I believe comics rarely suffer from "merely competent" lettering, and in that sense the unnoticed letterer is indeed an asset. Bad lettering can of course be distracting, and I remember several examples in 70's Marvel's that suffered bad lettering, probably rookies at the craft. It can be kind of fun to learn to spot letterers, but I don't find it as rewarding or important as spotting inkers.
Saladino's letters were always strong, and Klein is terrific. I found Bob Lappan's letters too tiny and quirky, and thus distracting.
I've never had much skill at recognizing colorists. I could associate some names with consistently satisfying work, such as Tatjana Wood, but I was never able to pinpoint her style enough to recognize it on sight. Adrienne Roy did a lot of work over Aparo, so I did come to recognize many of her trademark coloring choices, such as violet skies. One way to appreciate coloring is when a color artist does a major work using unconventional choices, with John Higgins' colors on Watchmen a prime example. He relied mainly on a secondary color palette--purples, browns, oranges, golds, and consequently you can spot a Watchman page when it's held up across the street from you!
I've no real favorite colorists from my formative years. With the limited range of four-color press, it was hard to be a standout colorist. I was usually tolerant of "bad" coloring, which I usually attributed to error in the complicated cut-out process they used to use.
These days, I'm out of touch with the current talent, so my art-spotting skills even on pencilers are weak, except for the still-working veterans of the 80's.
|
|
