Inking question
Brandon Blatcher
From a historical aspect, has inking always been considered an art form in
comics? My vague understanding is that inking was originally started to
enhance pencil art, since the printing technology could not reproduce
pencils well or perhaps not well and cheaply. Over time it developed into
the art form of todays comics, but originally was in more of an actual
tracing function? No flames please!
So fast forward to now, where pencils can be faithfully reproduce, and you
can technically say, (this is NOT flamebait, just me thinking outloud,
don't you inkers take it personally) that inking is not needed for a comic
book. That an artist can just do tight pencils and be done with it?
Or am I missing something here?
Robin Riggs
> From a historical aspect, has inking always been considered an art form in
> comics? My vague understanding is that inking was originally started to
> enhance pencil art, since the printing technology could not reproduce
> pencils well or perhaps not well and cheaply. Over time it developed into
> the art form of todays comics, but originally was in more of an actual
> tracing function? No flames please!
The quality of the line has been a traditional aspect of illustration
for centuries. The only thing that's fairly unique to comics, and for
the most part US comics is the division of labor between penciller and
inker. Newspaper strips that predate comic books, like Flash Gordon and
Tarzan, featured wonderful ink work.
> So fast forward to now, where pencils can be faithfully reproduce, and you
> can technically say, (this is NOT flamebait, just me thinking outloud,
> don't you inkers take it personally) that inking is not needed for a comic
> book. That an artist can just do tight pencils and be done with it?
>
> Or am I missing something here?
Not really. There are some things that are easier to acomplish with ink
and there are some things easier with pencil. It's all drawing and if
it's good and it works there can't be anything wrong with it.
The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
to do something good.
--
Robin Riggs
Rob
Brandon Blatcher wrote in message ...
>
<snip>
>
>So fast forward to now, where pencils can be faithfully reproduce, and you
>can technically say, (this is NOT flamebait, just me thinking outloud,
>don't you inkers take it personally) that inking is not needed for a comic
>book. That an artist can just do tight pencils and be done with it?
This is the rub, you see. Many pencilers now, with an inker in place. have
a bit of a hard time making deadlines with pencils that aren't so tight.
And the pencilers who do make deadlines often leave a ton for the inker to
embellish. John Romita Jr.. is an example of this. His pencils look like a
life drawing class gone awry. They're good (I like his stuff) but there's
not a lot of _finished_ work on them.
Dale Hicks
>
> This is the rub, you see. Many pencilers now, with an inker in place. have
> a bit of a hard time making deadlines with pencils that aren't so tight.
> And the pencilers who do make deadlines often leave a ton for the inker to
> embellish. John Romita Jr.. is an example of this. His pencils look like a
> life drawing class gone awry. They're good (I like his stuff) but there's
> not a lot of _finished_ work on them.
First, the man is drawing two books monthly, Thor and one of the Spidey
books.
Second, after seeing his pencils in the Thor rough cut, it seems that
he draws everything, including little bits in the characters and all
of the backgrounds. Granted, there were a lot of lines, but they
were all action lines in the mighty marvel manner. And inspection
reveals that the inker followed those lines.
He leaves a lot of the shading, and the pencils were sketchy, but not
everyone is a Perez. I'm sure that the pros will step up and say that
he's doing full pencils on both books. There's something for the
inker to do, but it's only adding solidity.
--
Norman Brain icono...@mail1.surfnet1.net
Mike Manley
Brandon Blatcher wrote:
> From a historical aspect, has inking always been considered an art form in
> comics? My vague understanding is that inking was originally started to
> enhance pencil art, since the printing technology could not reproduce
> pencils well or perhaps not well and cheaply. Over time it developed into
> the art form of todays comics, but originally was in more of an actual
> tracing function? No flames please!
>
> So fast forward to now, where pencils can be faithfully reproduce, and you
> can technically say, (this is NOT flamebait, just me thinking outloud,
> don't you inkers take it personally) that inking is not needed for a comic
> book. That an artist can just do tight pencils and be done with it?
>
> Or am I missing something here?
As I understand it inking was developed as a separate discipline back in the
40's when there were shops run by guys like Eisner, Victor Fox , Simon&Kirby,
etc. Having somebody do the inking allowed the pencilers to draw more pages.
The most difficult part. It was instituted to speed up production. Comic
art has it's roots in pen and ink Illustration from the turn of the century.
The early strip artist were influenced by the big time and popular
illustrators like Charles Dana Gidsons and AB Frost, Flag etc. These artists
influenced the first straight artists in comics like Foster and Sickles,
Caniff and Raymond who really invented the realistic comic strip style. And
every body from Kirby, Kubert, Toth on down is beget by them.
Now today the inkers job is basically the same as in the 40's. Some
pencilers draw very tight, and some kinda loose. So not all pencilers would
be served by shooting from their pencils. They need the inker to embellish
and polish it up. Add blacks and textures etc. The best inkers draw very
well. They add something to the job. Look at John Romita JR inked by Dan
Green, Al Williamson, Klaus Janson or Scott Hanna. It looks different with
each inker. They bring their own "thing" to it. The finish product's
hopefully better. Each Inker has his own gifts, Williamson textures, Klaus,
boldness etc.
I think of Joe Sinnott inking Kirby on the FF, (my personal fave Kirby
inker). is a great example of this. He adds a polish, a slickness that
enhanced the science fiction feel. Then look at Colletta inking Kirby on
Thor. NUFF SAID! MY EYES- MY EYES!
I've been inked by the best, and some of the worst. A bad inker can ruin
a job! Just suck all the life and drawing out. A great inker can take so-so
pencils and make them look great. I've saved more than one sorry pencilers
ass in my day. So no flames here.
Mike M
--
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Action Planet Comics- a galaxy of talent just a mouse click away! Home of
Mike Manley's Monsterman and the NEW weekly On-Line Comic G.I.R.L.
Patrol! Featuring work by Ordway, Blevins, Hester, Heebink, Parks and
Villagran. Pull up a comfy chair, sit and read our comics at:
http://www.actionplanet.com
Snail mail at: P.O. Box 2129 Upper Darby, PA 19082
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Rob
Dale Hicks wrote in message
<01bdde0d$0ce4bc20$f979...@iconoclast.clis.com>...
>Rob <HKMA...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<6tcb71$71jm$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>> This is the rub, you see. Many pencilers now, with an inker in place.
have
>> a bit of a hard time making deadlines with pencils that aren't so tight.
>> And the pencilers who do make deadlines often leave a ton for the inker
to
>> embellish. John Romita Jr.. is an example of this. His pencils look
like a
>> life drawing class gone awry. They're good (I like his stuff) but
there's
>> not a lot of _finished_ work on them.
>First, the man is drawing two books monthly, Thor and one of the Spidey
>books.
Yes... Me not live under rock.
>
>Second, after seeing his pencils in the Thor rough cut, it seems that
>he draws everything, including little bits in the characters and all
>of the backgrounds. Granted, there were a lot of lines, but they
>were all action lines in the mighty marvel manner. And inspection
>reveals that the inker followed those lines.
Yeah, but, the inker (Klaus Janson?) cetainly didn't act as a xerox machine
with the contrast turned up. If you compare the printed page and the
penciled version you will see that many a choice was made about which
infomation was important and which wasn't.
>
>He leaves a lot of the shading, and the pencils were sketchy, but not
>everyone is a Perez. I'm sure that the pros will step up and say that
>he's doing full pencils on both books.
I'll say it for them. JRJR is kicking butt and taking names. He's
producing two books a month that, when inked, kick booty. He's a highly
paid professional and if you ask me he deserves every penny. He's great,
blah, blah, blah. What does that have to do with anything? The original
post was about the usefullness of an inker. His pencils are _helped_ by the
presence of one.
There's something for the
>inker to do, but it's only adding solidity.
The point I was stumbling for is that there are very few people who are like
Perez, etc. and really draw everything. By this I mean, the only thing the
inker has left to play with is (maybe) line weight and minor textural
questions. You look at a penciled Perez page and there are very few angles
you can safely take without screwing around with his vision big- time.
Romita doesn't mimic the printed line the way Perez does. Romita just
_draws_ and then allows the inker to do his job. There are options galore
available when looking at a Romita Jr. page. "Hmm, maybe I'll use a Sharpie,
a crowquill and a sponge. Or maybe I'll just do a bunch of drybrush..."
That said, I'm not really sure what you are defending. If the "only" thing
that the inker has to do is add solidity (by that you mean tightening
everything up and strengthening the illusion of three dimensions?) then he
really isn't producing camera- ready artwork. That's fine because that's
not his job. You've also said that he leaves a lot of the shading (out?)
and the pencils were sketchy (which is what "life drawing class gone awry"
refers to in my post) which lends more credence to the fact that an inker,
in that situation, is _needed_ .
(I'm not sure where I defamed the honor of John Romita Jr. BTW. I said I
liked the guy and in no way implied that he was lazy.)
Bradly E. Peterson
deal:
>The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
>used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
>to do something good.
When Mike finishes the Catwoman stuff and later my script, then I
guess we'll find out, huh? heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Brandon
robin...@soulmate.u-net.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>
>The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
>used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
>to do something good.
and then you can get into different kinds of digital inking. Is it just
turning tight pencils into "ink" exactly? or is it someone go over pencils
digital with a pen tablet? Have you ever tried the later Robin? If so,
what do you think of it compared to traditional, non digital inking?
-Brandon
Brandon
I agree that inking is an art and that an inker has to know how to draw.
I'm just looking at most of the comics put out these days and noticing how
much of it is done the same way i.e penciling, inks, letters, colors.
While there's lots of various different styles, I was wondering what it
would be like just to take out a step. You can already take out coloring
for B&W, I've seen issues that don't have any lettering or minmal, and one
of the things I like about Matt Wagner is that he seems to do very little
penciling, just rough layouts and does all his drawing at the inking
stage. So now I'm wondering about inking.
Hiroki Smura's Blade Of The Immortal has some great art which varies in
its approach at times. Sometimes he'll use pencils for a panel, sometimes
inks, and sometimes a mixture of both. The final effect is quite nice. If
you haven't seen it, do check it out.
-Brandon
GrapeApe
>inker). is a great example of this. He adds a polish, a slickness that
>enhanced the science fiction feel. Then look at Colletta inking Kirby on
>Thor. NUFF SAID! MY EYES- MY EYES!
Anyone else share the feeling that Colettas inks might have influenced Kirby to
do slightly tighter pencils? Some of those Thor Pencils are as slick and
finshed as if they were Sinnott Inks.
( I would argue that Kirby has almost always been a tight penciler so don't let
that confuse the question. Did he pencil tighter on work he knew would go to
Vinnie?)
Mark Evanier
>Anyone else share the feeling that Colettas inks might have influenced Kirby to
>do slightly tighter pencils? Some of those Thor Pencils are as slick and
>finshed as if they were Sinnott Inks.
>
>( I would argue that Kirby has almost always been a tight penciler so don't let
>that confuse the question. Did he pencil tighter on work he knew would go to
>Vinnie?)
ME: No. In fact, I don't think Jack ever paid enough attention to the
inking on his work. Until I pointed it out to him, he never noticed
that Colletta was leaving out background figures and simplifying
backgrounds. And he didn't even know who had inked certain issues of
his work.
---------------------------
Mark Evanier - 363 S. Fairfax Ave., #303 - Los Angeles, CA 90036
Dale Hicks
> >books.
>
> Yes... Me not live under rock.
_I_ didn't know this. I assumed that he was on Thor, and I
kept seeing him do an issue here and there on Spidey, and I
slowly pieced together that he was doing two books. It
surprised me.
> Yeah, but, the inker (Klaus Janson?) cetainly didn't act as a xerox machine
> with the contrast turned up. If you compare the printed page and the
> penciled version you will see that many a choice was made about which
> infomation was important and which wasn't.
I was surprised that so much of what made it in the finished work
was in the pencils. In fact, all of it is. I assumed that given
his situation, that he would do pencils on the foreground and just
do layouts for the background. But no, he actually details which
way to crosshatch the background.
> The original
> post was about the usefullness of an inker. His pencils are _helped_ by the
> presence of one.
I'm saying that while I assumed that was the case, the rough cut showed
that the inks did little more than to get it ready to print. IMO, the
inking here was tracing.
> That said, I'm not really sure what you are defending. If the "only" thing
> that the inker has to do is add solidity (by that you mean tightening
> everything up and strengthening the illusion of three dimensions?) then he
> really isn't producing camera- ready artwork.
What I meant there was adding the line weight needed to "solidify" the
image on the page. And no, is isn't camera-ready art.
> That's fine because that's
> not his job. You've also said that he leaves a lot of the shading (out?)
I'd like to recant on that. Looking at the art, I see that JR Jr
does quite a bit of the blacks, and his background shadings are there
as well, although the line weight isn't.
> and the pencils were sketchy (which is what "life drawing class gone awry"
> refers to in my post) which lends more credence to the fact that an inker,
> in that situation, is _needed_ .
True.
> (I'm not sure where I defamed the honor of John Romita Jr. BTW. I said I
> liked the guy and in no way implied that he was lazy.)
Perhaps I took umbrage at the "not a lot of _finished_ work" phrase.
He's very much finished for pencils, and he has the capability
(given time) to produce camera-ready art, paying attention to line
weight. Thorion is an example, although if I were to judge by that
attempt, I'm glad that he has the benefit of an inker in his regular
work, as his style isn't a "clean" one.
--
Norman Brain icono...@mail1.surfnet1.net
Ramhog
> ME: No. In fact, I don't think Jack ever paid enough attention to the
> inking on his work. Until I pointed it out to him, he never noticed
> that Colletta was leaving out background figures and simplifying
> backgrounds. And he didn't even know who had inked certain issues of
> his work.
This, of course, begs the question- So how _did_ Jack react when he
realised what was happening with his art?
--
-Later, R.
Mark Evanier
ramhog@POTTED_MEAT_FOOD_PRODUCT_swbell.net (Ramhog) posted:
>This, of course, begs the question- So how _did_ Jack react when he
>realised what was happening with his art?
ME: As I said, Jack never paid that much attention to the inking that
his work got. He had certain favorites -- Sinnott and Royer, mainly
-- but he accepted anyone. He didn't believe that inking could make
or break a comic and that no professional inker ever ruined a story
that was well-drawn. He also had a powerful aversion to ever doing
anything that would affect the livelihood of another professional.
Several of us who felt that Vince Colletta was doing a bad job on his
work began lobbying him to ask for a different inker. We got him to
the point where he started politely requesting a change...but when the
folks in charge at DC told him, "Vince needs the work," Jack said,
"Oh, okay." Again, he respected the need of another pro to earn a
living.
Eventually, Jack went back to New York for some conferences and, while
there, he had a personal meeting with Colletta. The inker offended
Jack with his attitude about the work...so Jack finally demanded his
choice -- Mike Royer -- and DC gave in and the change was made. Even
then, when Jack spoke to folks at DC for a time, he'd ask, "Is Vince
getting enough work?"
Ultimately, his problem with Colletta's inking was that he realized
that parts of the drawings were being omitted or simplified. I think
that, if Colletta had inked everything Jack pencilled, he never would
have been replaced.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: robin...@soulmate.u-net.com (Robin Riggs) done said this here
: deal:
: >The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
: >used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
: >to do something good.
: When Mike finishes the Catwoman stuff and later my script, then I
: guess we'll find out, huh? heh...
Mind you, I can't be sure, but I think Robin meant "likely to be used BY
AN EDITOR" rather than by the artist in question.
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Robin Riggs
> robin...@soulmate.u-net.com (Robin Riggs) done said this here
> deal:
>
> >The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
> >used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
> >to do something good.
>
> When Mike finishes the Catwoman stuff and later my script, then I
> guess we'll find out, huh? heh...
I take it you mean Mike Netzer. He's said that he's not really digitally
inking, he's completely digitally drawing. No paper involved. Most
"digital inking" is just scanning pencils and cleaning them up though.
--
Robin Riggs
Robin Riggs
> In article <1df7mx9.1am...@p32.nas1.is4.u-net.net>,
> robin...@soulmate.u-net.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>
> >
> >The only problem I see with "digital inking" is that it's likely to be
> >used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
> >to do something good.
>
> and then you can get into different kinds of digital inking. Is it just
> turning tight pencils into "ink" exactly? or is it someone go over pencils
> digital with a pen tablet? Have you ever tried the later Robin? If so,
> what do you think of it compared to traditional, non digital inking?
Most digital inking thatI've seen published is just scanning and
cleaning up with no real attempt to "ink" the art. Check out the last
few issues of Pitt to see how it can work quite nicely. You do need very
tight, finished, consistent pencils for this and there are not that many
artists who seem capable of doing that without taking longer to do
pencils than they would with pencil AND ink. This is nothing new by the
way. Back around '82-83 DC were so impressed with Brian Bolland's
pencils that they asked him to do them a bit darker so they could shoot
directly from them. The results are the first couple of pages of Camelot
3000 #2. They look just like inked pages but apparently took him longer
to produce than if he'd inked them himself.
I have tried inking with a graphics tablet. In Painter or X-res you can
quite easily program a brush to produce an imitation of an ink line. It
would take a fair amount of practice but I'm sure you could produce good
pages that way. I can't really see the point though unless it's
something like Mike Netzer says he's doing and drawing the whole thing
straight into Painter. In most of the art I've done straight on computer
I've tried to get more of a painterly feel than an inked look. I do like
computer art that doesn't look like it's been done on computer though.
All in all, for linework, at this point it's far quicker and easier for
me to continue working by hand. Maybe with the new pens that Wacom are
just realeasing it'll become easier but I'll wait a few months till I'm
in the States for good before I start checking them out.
--
Robin Riggs
Bradly E. Peterson
deal:
>Bradly E. Peterson (dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net) wrote:
>: robin...@soulmate.u-net.com (Robin Riggs) done said this here
>: deal:
>
>: >used as an expedient or a cost cutting measure rather than as an attempt
>: >to do something good.
>
>: guess we'll find out, huh? heh...
>
>AN EDITOR" rather than by the artist in question.
Well, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with that, then. heh... Not
likely at THIS point, until it's all proven out, anyway. Having
seen thumbnails that Mike's done as well as a finished sketch,
I'm fully convinced that digital inking can be done effectively.