Full Process Color question
Chris M.
I have a couple of comic book coloring questions. Exactly what does "full
process color" mean, and physically how is it done? I assume that the actual
printing is still being done with cmyk plates, but is this not the case?
--Chris M.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Tom127
>I have a couple of comic book coloring questions. Exactly what does "full
>process color" mean, and physically how is it done? I assume that the actual
>printing is still being done with cmyk plates, but is this not the case?
Full process color is exactly that- full color.
The process varies by the job and publisher. It can either be painted, and
the artwork is then scanned with a laser to break the color into its CMYK
components, or it can be done directly on the computer with a program like
Photoshop.
Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
unlimited palatte.
the actual printing is still done with CMYK plates- that's the only way to
get a full range of color down on paper, unless you want to custom mix
every single color by hand and then run the page through the press about
twenty million times.
--
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Chris M.
In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>#1/1,
tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Tom.
> Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
> colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
> unlimited palatte.
I'm assuming then that the difference is computers, and that pre-1990 whatever
process was available to generate the cmyk plates from your artwork became
increasingly more expensive if you wanted more than 64 or 132 colors. Is that
right?
Todd VerBeek, gwm
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>> Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
>> colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
>> unlimited palatte.
My pal Chris M. said:
>I'm assuming then that the difference is computers, and that pre-1990 whatever
>process was available to generate the cmyk plates from your artwork became
>increasingly more expensive if you wanted more than 64 or 132 colors. Is that
>right?
In olden days, the color separations were done mechanically, with a sharp
knife and sheets of film with different densities of dot patterns on them.
That's why the number of combinations was so limited.
I don't know when exactly that process fell out of general use (it can't
have been too long ago, judging by the cut-out colors of the books I read
as a kid), but it's definitely too labour-intensive and complicated to
work that way when you want more and more colors and more and more
gradations... and have the means to do the job more quickly, effectively,
and cheaply with the aid of either photographic or digital processing.
Cheers, Todd
--
"...It was the year everything changed."
Tom127
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>#1/1,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply, Tom.
My pleasure, Chris.
>> Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
>> colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
>> unlimited palatte.
>
>I'm assuming then that the difference is computers, and that pre-1990 whatever
>process was available to generate the cmyk plates from your artwork became
>increasingly more expensive if you wanted more than 64 or 132 colors. Is that
>right?
Yeah, pretty much. When I was doing work for Comico, Murphy Anderson's shop
used to do our seps. (Art Director Gerry Giovinco, who had been to Murph's
shop, once described it to me as "a bunch of ladys in bowling shirts)
Anyway, they'd cut rublylith to block in the colors- one person would do
the 20% yellows, another the 50% yellows, another for the 70%, and a final
one for the 100%. Once this was done, each one would individually be
screened, shot with a camera, and then composited. This step had to be
repeated for each of the CYMK plates. Whenever you increased the number of
colors, it added more steps to the production line, thus greater expense.
Marvel used a separation shop called Chemical Color. Here, instead of
cutting rubylith (which, if you've ever done it, is a real PIA), they used
a sort of liquid rubylith which they painted on. It was a lot quicker than
cutting, as well as easier on the fingers and easier to make curved lines.
Otherwise the process was the same.
While I was with Winsdor-Smith Studio, Barry told me how he'd gone to
chemical one day with a bunch of other Marvel people, and his description
was pretty much the same as Gerry's (except Chemical at the time was using
a lot of recent immigrants as opposed to ladies in bowling shirts) Barry
described it as "People sitting at this long table, with little signs at
their place saying 'Y2, Y3', etc." No one knew exactly how the pages would
look until the color proofs were in, but by that time the books was already
on its way to the printer.
With computers, it allowed you to see what the [finished] page would look
like, although the early days of computer seps were nothing to brag about.
Marvel started using them in about '89 or so, and we used to cringe at the
results. We were still limited to the 64 colors (for reasons of economy-
don't forget, in '89 a 25 MHZ computer was fast, and a machine like mine
which can take 512 MB of RAM was unheard of), but the edges from one color
to the next couldn't curve without a holding line (they were jagged "kinda'
curves"); nothing was anti-aliased, so you had these pixillated little
"stair steps" all over the place. Pretty ugly stuff, to tell you the truth.
Tom127
In article <355672eb...@news.newsguy.com>, ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd
VerBeek, gwm) wrote:
>> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>> Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
>>> colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
>>> unlimited palatte.
>
>My pal Chris M. said:
>>I'm assuming then that the difference is computers, and that pre-1990 whatever
>>process was available to generate the cmyk plates from your artwork became
>>increasingly more expensive if you wanted more than 64 or 132 colors. Is that
>>right?
>
>In olden days, the color separations were done mechanically, with a sharp
>knife and sheets of film with different densities of dot patterns on them.
>That's why the number of combinations was so limited.
First off... The "OLDEN days???" (heh, heh)
Pretty close to the mark, but not quite on it, Todd. They used rubylith,
which is a consistant density. (it's like a sheet of tacky red cellophane)
Once this was cut, it would then be "screened" (photographed with a screen
of differing density- 20%, 50% etc.). Occasionally the screen would
misalign, resulting in moire patterns. (Which sometimes improved the look-
almost like an accidental special effect)
>
>I don't know when exactly that process fell out of general use (it can't
>have been too long ago, judging by the cut-out colors of the books I read
>as a kid),
They were still being done this way at the close of the 80s.
> but it's definitely too labour-intensive and complicated to
>work that way when you want more and more colors and more and more
>gradations... and have the means to do the job more quickly, effectively,
>and cheaply with the aid of either photographic or digital processing.
Believe it or not, because the actual process (see the full description in
my second reply to Chris) was such a low skill job, it was actually cheaper
to do stuff this way than to photograph and scan the original color page.
In the late 80's, full color drum scanning ran about $80/page, while hand
cut seps ran about $35-45, depending on the shop and number of colors used.
I understand some shops were even doing it for as little as $20/page.
Francis A Uy
>my second reply to Chris) was such a low skill job, it was actually cheaper
>to do stuff this way than to photograph and scan the original color page.
>In the late 80's, full color drum scanning ran about $80/page, while hand
>cut seps ran about $35-45, depending on the shop and number of colors used.
You left out the sentence that begins "Whereas today," ...
Hmm... a monthly 24 page comic would be 288 scans per year
minimum, adds up to about $20k, which is the going rate to
buy a pro-quality drum scanner right now.
-F
.
WindyTWise
>With computers, it allowed you to see what the [finished] page would look
>like, although the early days of computer seps were nothing to brag about.
>Marvel started using them in about '89 or so, and we used to cringe at the
>results. We were still limited to the 64 colors (for reasons of economy-
>don't forget, in '89 a 25 MHZ computer was fast, and a machine like mine
>which can take 512 MB of RAM was unheard of), but the edges from one color
>to the next couldn't curve without a holding line (they were jagged "kinda'
>curves"); nothing was anti-aliased, so you had these pixillated little
>"stair steps" all over the place. Pretty ugly stuff, to tell you the truth.
>
>
One of the more interesting magazines (and one of the hardest to find of it's
kind) here in America is a British mag called Computer Arts magazine.
I'm too cheap to buy a script, but am going to have to; the damn thing sells
out within five days here in Houston.
A short article in this month's issue discusses Computer-To-Plate, which is to
say going from layout on the computer directly to Plate (I am assuming the four
plates used with full color processing) and most of that process is being done
with PDF files. (Acrobat).
Obviously, the industry isn't there yet. Apparently, the big houses are going
to be going there soon enough, but until then, few will be doing 100% of their
work without anything touching film.
Walt "I'm learning as fast as I can!" Stone
**
The T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS have done a partial revamp of their primary website.
We hope to make it more complete over the next few weeks.
New items will include covers from the original Tower series.
http://members.aol.com/thunderagt/index.htm
katzenjammer
> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>#1/1,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply, Tom.
>
> > Ten years ago, the vast majority of comics were printed using only 64
> > colors. By 1990, that was up to 132 colors. Now, most comics offer an
> > unlimited palatte.
>
> I'm assuming then that the difference is computers, and that pre-1990 whatever
> process was available to generate the cmyk plates from your artwork became
> increasingly more expensive if you wanted more than 64 or 132 colors. Is that
> right?
Computers have made it increasingly easy and cheaper for color printing.
Mostly by taking the manual labor out of the equation. In the past colors
were specified by percentages (as they are now) the difference being in
the process of generating the plates in the proper percentage. It was (and
is) tedious work and you never got exactly the color you wanted. Although
usually only the printer could tell. Nowadays you specify a color of blue
for example: 80% cyan, 40%magenta 0% yellow & 5% black. Before you had to
create those four layers, register them, paste them up and off to print.
Now the computer will output four pieces of film with the proper
percentages and already registered! Of course that's if your setup is
correct! We still have setup time for color jobs no matter which way you
do it.
So yes, it is less expensive now as far as labor goes, but the setup time
defrays some of that savings. In the past, custom colors could kill a job
faster than anything else around. Nowadays, bring in that sample and we'll
match it no problem!
brett - I'll never get the inks out from under my fingernails!
--
Brett George/Banzai Productions/Graphic Design & Illustration
5020 N. Alameda Blvd. Spokane WA 99205 USA
br...@ior.com
Chris M.
In article <6iq9ft$t...@umbc8.umbc.edu>#1/1,
Wow. I knew color was more expensive to produce, but I didn't realize it was
*that* expensive. How does anyone other than Marvel and DC or the major
indies afford to publish comics in color?
Tom127
>Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote:
>>They were still being done this way at the close of the 80s.
>>Believe it or not, because the actual process (see the full description in
>>my second reply to Chris) was such a low skill job, it was actually cheaper
>>to do stuff this way than to photograph and scan the original color page.
>>In the late 80's, full color drum scanning ran about $80/page, while hand
>>cut seps ran about $35-45, depending on the shop and number of colors used.
>
>You left out the sentence that begins "Whereas today," ...
I think today, the scanning price is more in the range of $120-140/ page,
but it's done so rarely anymore I can't be certain.
> Hmm... a monthly 24 page comic would be 288 scans per year
> minimum, adds up to about $20k, which is the going rate to
> buy a pro-quality drum scanner right now.
hey, I'd be all for that. I'd take a hand painted book (or work) over
computer stuff any day. I like doing digital work and all, but I *love*
airbrushing and hand painting.
Tom127
In article <199805070329...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
windy...@aol.com (WindyTWise) wrote:
>A short article in this month's issue discusses Computer-To-Plate, which is to
>say going from layout on the computer directly to Plate (I am assuming the four
>plates used with full color processing) and most of that process is being done
>with PDF files. (Acrobat).
Someone on the Comic Colorists Untie! web board was mentioning sending
their work to the printer as PDF files. Apparantly, the printer's loved it
(they didn't have to worry about missing fonts and stuff, as can some times
happen with Quark or PageMaker files) They gave him a 15% discount.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>In article <199805070329...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>windy...@aol.com (WindyTWise) wrote:
>
>>A short article in this month's issue discusses Computer-To-Plate, which is to
>>say going from layout on the computer directly to Plate (I am assuming
the four
>>plates used with full color processing) and most of that process is being done
>>with PDF files. (Acrobat).
>
>Someone on the Comic Colorists Untie! web board was mentioning sending
>their work to the printer as PDF files. Apparantly, the printer's loved it
>(they didn't have to worry about missing fonts and stuff, as can some times
>happen with Quark or PageMaker files) They gave him a 15% discount.
PDF is like a postscript file now: if you don't set it up right, you can
still screw things up.
Computer to plate is wonderful way to get rid of all those craftsmen who
have spent 20-30 years painstakingly learning their craft.
And all their wisdom and experience.
------------------------------------------
noma...@mindspring.com
Many people hear voices when no-one is there.
Some of them are called mad and are shut up in rooms
where they stare at the walls all day. Others are called writers and they
do pretty much the same thing.
-Meg Chittenden
Tom127
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
>Computer to plate is wonderful way to get rid of all those craftsmen who
>have spent 20-30 years painstakingly learning their craft.
>
>And all their wisdom and experience.
I know what you mean. It's kind of like ink to computer getting rid of all
those colorists and painters who have spent years learning their craft.
Not being glib- I'm definitely on the side of the craftsmen here.
Brandon Blatcher
>In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
>nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Computer to plate is wonderful way to get rid of all those craftsmen who
>>have spent 20-30 years painstakingly learning their craft.
>>
>>And all their wisdom and experience.
>
>I know what you mean. It's kind of like ink to computer getting rid of all
>those colorists and painters who have spent years learning their craft.
>
>Not being glib- I'm definitely on the side of the craftsmen here.
Yah. Dere be a lotta wisdom in dem der bones.
The printing plant where I work rudely laid off platemakers once we got a
Computer to Plate system, thinking just anybody could just drop a plate in
the machine.
Surprise! With no dedicated platemaker, lots of spoilages occured because
no one was checking the final plates. Also, plates were bent, mangled an
such because other people didn't know how plates were to handled.
2 of the 3 laid off platemakers were rehired. The third cheerfully said
screw you and moved out of state.
What is it about the computer that makes people think wisdom from
experience no longer counts?
------------------------------------------
noma...@mindspring.com
What if there were no hypothetical situations?
Andrew Kohlsmith
yet another from the damon feed
Kirk Chritton
Chris M. wrote:
> Wow. I knew color was more expensive to produce, but I didn't realize it was
> *that* expensive. How does anyone other than Marvel and DC or the major
> indies afford to publish comics in color?
Ah, and therein lies the rub.
They can't. At least not for long. (We've not even discussed the costs
of turning on the printing press yet...)
Kirk Chritton
Chris M.
In article <3557E5...@iland.net>,
I'll buy that. So what are all the costs involved? I'm not talking specific
price quotes (although ballpark estimates would be nice), I'm talking what all
do you have to pay for (assuming you've already got a computer on which you
can do quality coloring work on)?
Off the top of my head I would guess you have to pay for the computer-to-plate
process for c,m,y, and k and then any spot colors you want to use (do comic
books use spot colors?). Do you have to pay for paper and ink seperately or
is that part of whatever per-page fee the printer charges you based on how
large your print run is?
What other costs are involved?
--Chris M.
Brandon Blatcher
>In article <3557E5...@iland.net>,
> kel...@iland.net wrote:
>>
>> Chris M. wrote:
>>
>> > Wow. I knew color was more expensive to produce, but I didn't realize it
>was
>> > *that* expensive. How does anyone other than Marvel and DC or the major
>> > indies afford to publish comics in color?
>>
>> Ah, and therein lies the rub.
>>
>> They can't. At least not for long. (We've not even discussed the costs
>> of turning on the printing press yet...)
>
>I'll buy that. So what are all the costs involved? I'm not talking specific
>price quotes (although ballpark estimates would be nice), I'm talking what all
>do you have to pay for (assuming you've already got a computer on which you
>can do quality coloring work on)?
>
>Off the top of my head I would guess you have to pay for the computer-to-plate
>process for c,m,y, and k
computer to plate isn't the only way to go. You might go the traditional
film route, depending on cost.
> and then any spot colors you want to use (do comic
>books use spot colors?).
Do they? Not usually. Can they? I don't see why not. There are several two
color books floating around.
> Do you have to pay for paper and ink seperately or
>is that part of whatever per-page fee the printer charges you based on how
>large your print run is?
I don't understand what you mean here.
Price is usually a factor of what kind of paper you're using (do you want a
thicker stock for the cover?), how many pages the book is, how many color's
you're using, how many copies your're printing, prepress charges and how
quickly you want it printed.
>What other costs are involved?
Your best bet would be to find a printer an ask them. All the info you get
from third parties might not mean squat when you talk to a printer.
------------------------------------------
noma...@mindspring.com
When in doubt, make a fool of yourself. There is a microscopically thin
line between being brilliantly creative and acting like the most gigantic
idiot on earth. So what the hell, leap.
-Cynthia Heimel
Kirk Chritton
Chris M. wrote:
> I'll buy that. So what are all the costs involved? I'm not talking specific
> price quotes (although ballpark estimates would be nice), I'm talking what all
> do you have to pay for (assuming you've already got a computer on which you
> can do quality coloring work on)?
Every thing is multiplied or more.
OVERHEAD: You're paying for the use of a much
more expensive printing press and the time of a more highly paid
operator.
You're also paying for a bigger chunk of the printer's building
overhead,
because color operations require more floor space, more environmental
controls, and just plain more support.
PREPRESS: Everything is multiplied. Four times as much film, four times
as many plates, much more extensive film stripping. If you're going
computer-to-plate or computer-to-press you're paying for a very
expensive hardware and software investment.
PRESS: Set-up charges. It takes some expertise to print black ink on
white paper correctly. It takes a lot more time and a lot more
expertise to print four inks – one at a time - and get them
properly aligned, and properly adjusted to create the right blends
to simulate millions of colors. There's a set-up charge for each
color of ink based on the typical amount of time and waste created
in set-up. This is what I really meant by "the cost to turn on the
printing press".
Also, press clean-up time is increase by a factor of four. This is
really a factor if, for some reason, you're printing a job with
special inks.
SCREW-UPS: There's a lot more opportunity to screw up a color print
job and end up eating the cost of reprinting it. Printers have to
cover this cost by having higher gross profits built into the bids.
I know I'm forgetting some expenses.
> Off the top of my head I would guess you have to pay for the computer-to-plate
> process for c,m,y, and k and then any spot colors you want to use (do comic
> books use spot colors?). Do you have to pay for paper and ink seperately or
> is that part of whatever per-page fee the printer charges you based on how
> large your print run is?
I've don't remember any comics using spot colors on the interiors, but
you
do see them on covers from time to time... especially metallic inks.
Kirk Chritton
WindyTWise
>SCREW-UPS: There's a lot more opportunity to screw up a color print
>job and end up eating the cost of reprinting it. Printers have to
>cover this cost by having higher gross profits built into the bids.
>
>I know I'm forgetting some expenses
Like getting a quality printing press, like a Heidelburg
.>I've don't remember any comics using spot colors on the interiors, but
>you
>do see them on covers from time to time... especially metallic inks.
Spot varnish works very well on solid black ink cover spreads.
Walt "cut a rubylith once or twice" Stone
**
Rock Me, Armageddon!
Godzilla Must Die!
...or at least the 40% of movie merchandising, 'cuz that's what is sold before
most movies.
Dale Hicks
Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
<tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>...
> In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> >Computer to plate is wonderful way to get rid of all those craftsmen who
> >have spent 20-30 years painstakingly learning their craft.
> >
> >And all their wisdom and experience.
>
> I know what you mean. It's kind of like ink to computer getting rid of all
> those colorists and painters who have spent years learning their craft.
IMO, you can not replace a good painted job with the crappy computer
coloring (TM). The normal coloring can be replaced, as they're pretty
much fills, but painting is something subtle that has no match.
I love the Kabuki art, and I discovered that one of my draws to the
Milestone series "Shadow Cabinet" was the painted colors. I'm surprised
that more colorists don't pull out some watercolors. Maybe this is part
of the process, as well.
--
Roman Numeral One icono...@mail.clis.com
Tom127
In article <01bd810c$1e995d80$4633...@iconoclast.clis.com>, "Dale Hicks"
<icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
Trust me, there's a whole bunch of us that would if we could.
But we can't.
Editors want "crappy computer coloring (TM)" because the fanboys have
demanded it; fanboys turned "artists" have demanded it, and as we all know,
in comics, fanboys rule.
Bradly E. Peterson
Kirk Chritton <kel...@iland.net> done said this here deal:
>Chris M. wrote:
>> Wow. I knew color was more expensive to produce, but I didn't realize it was
>> *that* expensive. How does anyone other than Marvel and DC or the major
>> indies afford to publish comics in color?
>
>
>Ah, and therein lies the rub.
>
>They can't. At least not for long. (We've not even discussed the costs
>of turning on the printing press yet...)
So, tell me, Mr. Owl... How much does it cost to turn on the
printing press?
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Patrick Daniel O'Neill is
Gareb Shamus's love monkey"
Kevin J. Maroney
armedamon
> <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
> >I love the Kabuki art, and I discovered that one of my draws to the
> >Milestone series "Shadow Cabinet" was the painted colors. I'm surprised
> >that more colorists don't pull out some watercolors. Maybe this is part
> >of the process, as well.
>
> Trust me, there's a whole bunch of us that would if we could.
>
> But we can't.
>
> Editors want "crappy computer coloring (TM)" because the fanboys have
> demanded it; fanboys turned "artists" have demanded it, and as we all know,
> in comics, fanboys rule.
and here i was all set to post a post on computers in comics;
great examples.
hmm, answerit here ot wait....
...
i will say that there ARE good examples of it, so maybe editors want
it because it's a tool that can be used well.
and then they get crappy results because all colorists stink.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6jnokr$s7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> >
> > In article <01bd810c$1e995d80$4633...@iconoclast.clis.com>, "Dale Hicks"
> > <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
> ....
> > >I love the Kabuki art, and I discovered that one of my draws to the
> > >Milestone series "Shadow Cabinet" was the painted colors. I'm surprised
> > >that more colorists don't pull out some watercolors. Maybe this is part
> > >of the process, as well.
> >
> > Trust me, there's a whole bunch of us that would if we could.
> >
> > But we can't.
> >
> > Editors want "crappy computer coloring (TM)" because the fanboys have
> > demanded it; fanboys turned "artists" have demanded it, and as we all know,
> > in comics, fanboys rule.
It's the man, trying to keep you down, Tom! Evolve my brother. Fight Da
Future (1)
> and here i was all set to post a post on computers in comics;
> great examples.
>
>
> hmm, answerit here ot wait....
>
>
> ...
> i will say that there ARE good examples of it, so maybe editors want
> it because it's a tool that can be used well.
>
> and then they get crappy results because all colorists stink.
trollybolly.
This brings up a point though. How often did you find a well colored comic
before computers? If it was often, then has it changed for the better or
worse? Whatever the answer, why? If it wasn't often then why are we
expecting the coloring to done so well now?
1. Mulder wants you to. Sculley isn't convinced though.
-----------------------------------------
nom...@mindspring.com
After ecstasy, The laundry.
Zen Saying
Tom127
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
>before computers? If it was often, then has it changed for the better or
>worse? Whatever the answer, why? If it wasn't often then why are we
>expecting the coloring to done so well now?
I think you found a lot of well colored comics pre computer, and there's
actually a very simple explanation for it:
There were only 64 colors and aside from the occasional color holds, no sfx.
Why would this make a difference? Because with such a limited palatte, you
ha to do more with less, and you concentrated on using color to advance the
story as opposed to looking kewl.
In order to keep the separators from going nuts, you had to plan out your
page in such a way that there would always be one consistant, underlying
color throughout most of the panel. Ever wonder why Hulk always wore those
purple pants, and that very same color scheme was also found on not only
the Skrulls, but Braniac as well? There was a continuous 20% blue. For
backgrounds in particular, this meant a much more "holistic" appearance.
Insofar as using the color to advance the story instead of serving itself,
the limited palatte forced you to be more creative in your application to
keep all the pages from looking the same, so there were panels which would
be all shades of red, or shades of blue, or magenta or what have you. You'd
use these judiciously to emphasise what was happening in the story.
With computers, suddenly everyone's an accountant, so to speak. There's
software that will help you do your taxes step by step, answer queries,
query you on your income, holdings etc.
Same thing with graphic arts. With all the software available, everyone's a
designer or artist. What was determining who got what work early on was not
who had the skill, but who had the hardware. The lack of skill was
compensated for by using all kinds of whiz-bang sfx to hide the fact that
they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
By the time the rest of us got the hardware, shops like Digital Chameleon
were so firmly entrenched, you couldn't shake them loose with dynamite.
Publishers are also REALLY reluctant to give a full color job now to an
individual colorist, so the work is now farmed out to shops like Chameleon
(something I warnded about here some three years ago), with the result
being stuff is no longer done by individual colorists with a distinctive
style for using color to advance a story but a studio with fast machines
and tonsa sfx.
I think the ideal thing would be to combine the two- hand painting and
computer manipulation of the work- sort of like how sfx are now done in
movies. SF flicks may use a lot of computers for backgrounds and the like,
but they didn't stop using the miniatures. Comics have done the equivilant
of stopping the use of miniatures, and the results have been less than
satisfactory.
I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
the timeline here
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
>
> It's the man, trying to keep you down, Tom! Evolve my brother. Fight Da
> Future (1)
>
> > and here i was all set to post a post on computers in comics;
> > great examples.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ...
> > i will say that there ARE good examples of it, so maybe editors want
> > it because it's a tool that can be used well.
> >
> > and then they get crappy results because all colorists stink.
>
> trollybolly.
nyah nyah.
> This brings up a point though. How often did you find a well colored comic
> before computers? If it was often, then has it changed for the better or
> worse? Whatever the answer, why? If it wasn't often then why are we
> expecting the coloring to done so well now?
i never really saw much distinguishment except
in painted comics before computer coloring.
the painted comics were al god coloring jobs, but
*i* didn't see much difference in the styles
for regular superhero comics with the flat cmyk[?]
painting of yore.
armedamon
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> >
> >This brings up a point though. How often did you find a well colored comic
> >before computers? If it was often, then has it changed for the better or
> >worse? Whatever the answer, why? If it wasn't often then why are we
> >expecting the coloring to done so well now?
>
> actually a very simple explanation for it:
>
> There were only 64 colors and aside from the occasional color holds, no sfx.
>
> Why would this make a difference? Because with such a limited palatte, you
> ha to do more with less, and you concentrated on using color to advance the
> story as opposed to looking kewl.
> Insofar as using the color to advance the story instead of serving itself,
> the limited palatte forced you to be more creative in your application to
> With computers, suddenly everyone's an accountant, so to speak. There's
> software that will help you do your taxes step by step, answer queries,
> query you on your income, holdings etc.
>
> Same thing with graphic arts. With all the software available, everyone's a
> designer or artist. What was determining who got what work early on was not
> who had the skill, but who had the hardware. The lack of skill was
> compensated for by using all kinds of whiz-bang sfx to hide the fact that
> they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
necessarily bad--
in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
look better than a poorly done job
not on computers, simply because
that flashy shit looks nice.
these extra little effects that allow 'everyone' to be an accountant
have their optimal use in allowing the dave sims
o the world to self publish a colored book, without
expenditures on colorists...
and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
[we're ignoring black and white here only because that
adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
especially since a sim would be expected to get better
at coloring as he oges along.
[oges-- neat].
for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
artwork..
i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
[the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
or i might try to learn as i went along,
in which case i would use computers, and probably add some painting
at the same time.
> I think the ideal thing would be to combine the two- hand painting and
> computer manipulation of the work- sort of like how sfx are now done in
> movies. SF flicks may use a lot of computers for backgrounds and the like,
> but they didn't stop using the miniatures. Comics have done the equivilant
> of stopping the use of miniatures, and the results have been less than
> satisfactory.
>
> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
> the timeline here
next you'll be telling me how vince foster was murdered.
Kirk Chritton
Tom127 wrote:
> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
> the timeline here
I don't think you're way off base. I think one of the major factors
that is hurting comics sales is that many mainstream comics are
hard to read. That's due to over-the-top, non-stop, wall-to-wall
computer color, full bleeds on most pages, and some artists who
can't tell a story to save their soul (but sure draw purty pin-ups).
IMHO, of course.
Meanwhile, Archie comics plug along with more "traditional" coloring
and you can still read the stories.
BTW, what technology is Archie using these days to color their comics?
Anyone know?
Kirk Chritton
Dale Hicks
Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
<tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>...
> In order to keep the separators from going nuts, you had to plan out your
> page in such a way that there would always be one consistant, underlying
> color throughout most of the panel. Ever wonder why Hulk always wore those
> purple pants, and that very same color scheme was also found on not only
> the Skrulls, but Braniac as well? There was a continuous 20% blue. For
> backgrounds in particular, this meant a much more "holistic" appearance.
This is great info. You're saying that for the most part, except for
the whites, most of the books were printed with a 20% blue, right?
Thus the only work that the people who cut the rubylith had to do was
trim the whites?
> I think the ideal thing would be to combine the two- hand painting and
> computer manipulation of the work- sort of like how sfx are now done in
> movies. SF flicks may use a lot of computers for backgrounds and the like,
> but they didn't stop using the miniatures. Comics have done the equivilant
> of stopping the use of miniatures, and the results have been less than
> satisfactory.
Y'know, while I hate crappy computer coloring, I do see its potentials.
When someone does the shading on a character, it helps if the original
art is too busy. Porter's art, when colored is putrid (well maybe before
coloring, too, but ...). Whereas I thought that the coloring job on
Immomen's Inferno series was top notch. Stuart was obviously complimented
by someone (forgive me, I know no colorists that don't help write the
Legion :) who added form to his simplistic yet strong lines.
Also, I do see a use for the process whereby inks are recolored from
their original black. In Avengers (#6 I think) Cap's past acrobatic
selves were faded blue. This was a nice usage of the effect.
Unfortunately, the same effect ruined Neal Adams' work on the X-Men
book when it was done in the Visionaries TPB.
> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
> the timeline here
This is a stretch. Comics are dying because paper costs skyrocketed
and Nintendo stole the kids away. Plus, the writing caters to adults
instead of the growing kid base. That's my theory, anyhow.
Tom127
In article <6jq9f2$b1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>
>> In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>> >
>> >This brings up a point though. How often did you find a well colored comic
>> >before computers? If it was often, then has it changed for the better or
>> >worse? Whatever the answer, why? If it wasn't often then why are we
>> >expecting the coloring to done so well now?
>>
>> I think you found a lot of well colored comics pre computer, and there's
>> actually a very simple explanation for it:
>>
>> There were only 64 colors and aside from the occasional color holds, no sfx.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Same thing with graphic arts. With all the software available, everyone's a
>> designer or artist. What was determining who got what work early on was not
>> who had the skill, but who had the hardware. The lack of skill was
>> compensated for by using all kinds of whiz-bang sfx to hide the fact that
>> they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
>.....
>
>
>well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
>necessarily bad--
Of course . You think a machine can be a drummer, why wouldn't someone with
the right software be an artist?
>in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
>look better than a poorly done job
>not on computers, simply because
>that flashy shit looks nice.
I'll give you that. The difference here, though, is that without all the
flashy shit, poor coloring was recognized for what it was, and really poor
colorists didn't last too long as a rule- unlike now.
>
>these extra little effects that allow 'everyone' to be an accountant
>have their optimal use in allowing the dave sims
>o the world to self publish a colored book, without
>expenditures on colorists...
>
>and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
>lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
>than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
>
>[we're ignoring black and white here only because that
>adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
I was all set to say that this doesn't apply to Sim 'cause he publishes in
b&w. Since you want to ignore that fact, I'll ignore the entire example,
since it clearly has no bearing on what we're saying.
>for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
>going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
>artwork..
I think this is a mistake. A better solution would be to either A) learn to
draw, or B) work with someone who can.
>> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
>> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
>> the timeline here
>
>next you'll be telling me how vince foster was murdered.
He was- by himself.
Tom127
In article <01bd82be$3cb78860$5233...@iconoclast.clis.com>, "Dale Hicks"
<icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
><tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>...
>> In order to keep the separators from going nuts, you had to plan out your
>> page in such a way that there would always be one consistant, underlying
>> color throughout most of the panel. Ever wonder why Hulk always wore those
>> purple pants, and that very same color scheme was also found on not only
>> the Skrulls, but Braniac as well? There was a continuous 20% blue. For
>> backgrounds in particular, this meant a much more "holistic" appearance.
>
>This is great info. You're saying that for the most part, except for
>the whites, most of the books were printed with a 20% blue, right?
No. You missed seeing the word "most" in sentence one quoted above.
>
>> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
>> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
>> the timeline here
>
>This is a stretch.
What's a stretch? That comics dying and the widespread use of whiz-bang
computer colors on everything increased? I never said there was a cause and
effect. I said the timelines paralleled.
> Comics are dying because paper costs skyrocketed
...at the same time that publishers switched over to glossy, more expensive
paper to accomodate the fancy colors.
>and Nintendo stole the kids away.
...so comics tried to adopt the "look and feel" of violent video games...
> Plus, the writing caters to adults
>instead of the growing kid base. That's my theory, anyhow.
This I agree with you completely on, although I think the use of the word
"adults" is overly gererous.
Tom127
>
>BTW, what technology is Archie using these days to color their comics?
>Anyone know?
Believe it or not, they're using computers. They're just using them in the
same restrained fashion as the old hand cut seps were done.
Brandon Blatcher
> In article <3560C6...@iland.net>, kel...@iland.net wrote:
>
> >
> >BTW, what technology is Archie using these days to color their comics?
> >Anyone know?
>
> Believe it or not, they're using computers. They're just using them in the
> same restrained fashion as the old hand cut seps were done.
In other words, they have taste.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>> page in such a way that there would always be one consistant, underlying
>> color throughout most of the panel. Ever wonder why Hulk always wore those
>> purple pants, and that very same color scheme was also found on not only
>> the Skrulls, but Braniac as well? There was a continuous 20% blue. For
>> backgrounds in particular, this meant a much more "holistic" appearance.
My pal Dale Hicks said:
>This is great info. You're saying that for the most part, except for
>the whites, most of the books were printed with a 20% blue, right?
>Thus the only work that the people who cut the rubylith had to do was
>trim the whites?
Not quite that extreme. It means that the person doing the seps could cut
out a single piece of rubylith to cover all of the Hulk - and =maybe= even
the whole panel, if the scene had a compatible background - rather than
having to cut out a piece of 20% for his skin, and a separate piece of,
say 50% for his pants, and 10% for the background around him. So the only
fiddly little bits for that panel would be the different-colored overlays
to turn that 20% blue into green and purple. The next panel, in which the
Hulk is back to being Bruce and standing in front of a yellow building,
might not have much blue in it at all... in fact, the building might "just
happen" to be the same shade of yellow as the yellow component of Bruce's
skin tone. Voila: a single piece of yellow rubylith!
>Y'know, while I hate crappy computer coloring, I do see its potentials.
>When someone does the shading on a character, it helps if the original
>art is too busy. Porter's art, when colored is putrid (well maybe before
>coloring, too, but ...). Whereas I thought that the coloring job on
>Immomen's Inferno series was top notch. Stuart was obviously complimented
>by someone (forgive me, I know no colorists that don't help write the
>Legion :) who added form to his simplistic yet strong lines.
It was Lee Loughridge.
Cheers, Todd
--
"...It was the year everything changed."
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>In article <3560C6...@iland.net>, kel...@iland.net wrote:
>>BTW, what technology is Archie using these days to color their comics?
>>Anyone know?
My pal Tom127 said:
>Believe it or not, they're using computers. They're just using them in the
>same restrained fashion as the old hand cut seps were done.
I would assume this restraint also translates to lower production costs
than for unrestrained coloring. After all, it's gotta take less time to
do straight color fills than to putz around with lots of special
effects... and time usually means money.
armedamon
> >>
> >> Same thing with graphic arts. With all the software available, everyone's
a
> >> designer or artist. What was determining who got what work early on was
not
> >> who had the skill, but who had the hardware. The lack of skill was
> >> compensated for by using all kinds of whiz-bang sfx to hide the fact that
> >> they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
> >.....
> >
> >
> >well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
> >necessarily bad--
>
> Of course . You think a machine can be a drummer, why wouldn't someone with
> the right software be an artist?
yes. finally you get it.
now if only you got it.
> >in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
> >look better than a poorly done job
> >not on computers, simply because
> >that flashy shit looks nice.
>
> I'll give you that. The difference here, though, is that without all the
> flashy shit, poor coloring was recognized for what it was, and really poor
> colorists didn't last too long as a rule- unlike now.
i'm not advocating hiring poor colorers.
certaily, if it's within on'es wherewithal, it's
better to get someone good.
> >
> >these extra little effects that allow 'everyone' to be an accountant
> >have their optimal use in allowing the dave sims
> >o the world to self publish a colored book, without
> >expenditures on colorists...
> >
> >and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
> >lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
> >than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
> >
> >[we're ignoring black and white here only because that
> >adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
>
> I was all set to say that this doesn't apply to Sim 'cause he publishes in
> b&w. Since you want to ignore that fact, I'll ignore the entire example,
> since it clearly has no bearing on what we're saying.
well, i wasn't talking about sim;
i was talking baout some hypothetical sim
like being, who decides for artistic reasons
that he must include color in his work.
but go ahead and ignore it anyway.
> >for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
> >going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
> >artwork..
>
> I think this is a mistake. A better solution would be to either A) learn to
> draw, or B) work with someone who can.
ummm, [1] learning to draw does not preclude using
computers as tools.
[2] using shortcuts to cover inadequate ability
is NOT uncommon, irregardless of the shortcut.
[3] anything that maks a finished product better is fair game,
imo.
> >> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales
are
> >> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
> >> the timeline here
> >
> >next you'll be telling me how vince foster was murdered.
>
> He was- by himself.
just what exactly are you hiding, you fob?
fil...@aol.com
Damn! This thread is getting interesting -- So in hopes that by stirring up
the shit, the stink won't go away -- here's my two cents:
I think we're spending a lot of time discussing a symptom of what's wrong with
comics, instead of looking at the underlying illness. Most coloring
pre-computer was crap -- the technology applied was whatever was the cheapest
beacuse comics were cheap entertainment. That said, I'll stipulate that most
coloring post-computer is crap. So are most comics.
I believe, though, that very little of what's been blamed so far for the death
of the industry is really at fault. The real problems are the publishers and
their marketing focus. Direct Distrbution is what has killed the industry. It
narrowed the focus of the publishers to a single, unsustainable distribution
channel, and it has taken comics out of the hands of the broad base of causual
readers -- readers who would never think to seek out a Comic Shop (even in the
days when that was an easy thing). The minute the worth of a comic was
measured more by the state of its paper and ink, than by entertainment vaule
of its content -- the industry was doomed to become a piss-ant niche market.
The lack of vision shown by the leading publishers in this industry was
criminal -- Comics aren't being killed by video games, not by bad coloring, or
by paper costs -- Comics are being murdered by the greed of publishers who'd
rather sell you the same book with seven different covers than produce seven
quality books, by artists and writers producing masturbatory fantasies about
over endowed women AND men in panties and capes, by comic shop fanboy owners
without the business acumen to seek out quality work that appeals to a broad
market and find ways to get those "mundanes" into the shops, and by editors
who don't edit -- who do no more than move pages from one artist to another
trying to stay on schedule. Mostly, comics are dying from a lack of a viable
means of getting good CHEAP entertainment into the hands the broader public.
Course that's just my opinion -- I could be wrong.
Clifford E. VanMeter
http://members.aol.com/filedh/filedh
Dale Hicks
Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
<tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>...
> In article <01bd82be$3cb78860$5233...@iconoclast.clis.com>, "Dale Hicks"
> <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>
> >Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
> ><tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>...
> >> In order to keep the separators from going nuts, you had to plan out your
> >> page in such a way that there would always be one consistant, underlying
> >> color throughout most of the panel. Ever wonder why Hulk always wore those
> >> purple pants, and that very same color scheme was also found on not only
> >> the Skrulls, but Braniac as well? There was a continuous 20% blue. For
> >> backgrounds in particular, this meant a much more "holistic" appearance.
> >
> >This is great info. You're saying that for the most part, except for
> >the whites, most of the books were printed with a 20% blue, right?
>
> No. You missed seeing the word "most" in sentence one quoted above.
Well, yes, as Todd explains it, it was pretty much what I was thinking,
even if I was being a little too extreme in my example.
> >> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales are
> >> in the toilet, but one must admit that there are disturbing parallels in
> >> the timeline here
> >
> >This is a stretch.
>
> What's a stretch? That comics dying and the widespread use of whiz-bang
> computer colors on everything increased? I never said there was a cause and
> effect. I said the timelines paralleled.
Quit being coy. I know what I inferred, and I'm pretty sure that I
can say that you implied cause & effect.
[on death of comics]
> > Plus, the writing caters to adults
> >instead of the growing kid base. That's my theory, anyhow.
>
> This I agree with you completely on, although I think the use of the word
> "adults" is overly gererous.
My definition of adult means a person that has lived for 18 years.
I'm inferring you're talking about the childishness of comics fans.
I'd counter that I've seen as many mature comics fans as I have
mature people in general (%-age wise, of course).
Tom127
In article <01bd8385$132ac120$4b33...@iconoclast.clis.com>, "Dale Hicks"
<icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>Tom127 <tom...@capital.net> wrote in article
>> > First I wrote:
>> >> I'm not going to claim that computer coloring is the reason comic sales
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> are in the toilet,<snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >This is a stretch.
>>
>> What's a stretch? That comics dying and the widespread use of whiz-bang
>> computer colors on everything increased? I never said there was a cause and
>> effect. I said the timelines paralleled.
>
>Quit being coy. I know what I inferred, and I'm pretty sure that I
>can say that you implied cause & effect.
Coy? Please reread the above quoted and underlined sentence.
armedamon
At 09:17 PM 5/18/98 -0400, brandon blatcher alleges
to have posted this here here.
>armedamon wrote:
>>
>> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
>> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>> >
>> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>> > Why would this make a difference? Because with such a limited palatte,
you
>> > ha to do more with less, and you concentrated on using color to advance
the
>> > story as opposed to looking kewl.
>> ....
>
>What a radical concept.
even more radical to use both.
....
>> > Same thing with graphic arts. With all the software available, everyone's
a
>> > designer or artist. What was determining who got what work early on was
not
>> > who had the skill, but who had the hardware. The lack of skill was
>> > compensated for by using all kinds of whiz-bang sfx to hide the fact that
>> > they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
>> .....
>>
>> well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
>> necessarily bad--
>> in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
>> look better than a poorly done job
>> not on computers, simply because
>> that flashy shit looks nice.
>
>No. no it doesn't. A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
but motor oil is definately not motor oil
[1] well executed jobs differ..
beanwolrd may [or may not be] well executed,
but it looks a low worse than mythology of an abandoned city.
[2]poorly executed jobs show the same disparity.
>> these extra little effects that allow 'everyone' to be an accountant
>> have their optimal use in allowing the dave sims
>> of the world to self publish a colored book, without
>> expenditures on colorists...
>
>ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
>
>What is it about the computer that suddenly makes people think subpar is
okay?!
>That pro's and experts are no longer needed?!
much the same way that comic fonts
*substitute* for letterers.
IF you are doing htings yourself, you use everything you can.
and computers don't make people think subpar is okay...
hell, people actually pay *money* for shades of grey, and
that's not done on a computer!
>> and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
>> lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
>> than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
>
>Cool. Lets have great pencils, inks, lettering, and writing and merely
>adequate coloring 'cause well, by golly we've got a computer and we can.
yes! would you rather dave didn't use gerhard [yet another tool?]
>> [we're ignoring black and white here only because that
>> adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
>>
>> especially since a sim would be expected to get better
>> at coloring as he oges along.
>
>But what about all the non sims? What about truly crappy coloring?
i'd rather not buy books with crappy coloring.
if the rest of the book is great, i'll overlook it.
>
>> for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
>> going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
>> artwork..
>
>NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!
>This is the kind of thinking that really pisses me off. The
hey-I'll-use-a-computer-as-a-crutch.
>Don't use it as a crutch. Use it as another tool. Whatever happened to
>learning your craft? Where does this
sure-my-art-isn't-good-but-hey-I've-got-a-computer.
because crutch and tool are almost exactly the
same thing in this case.
god, IF i use computers to color
[as a 'crutch',
and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
that i will become a good colorist also.
>> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
>> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
>> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
>> or i might try to learn as i went along,
>> in which case i would use computers, and probably add some painting
>> at the same time.
>
>Sigh. Why no learn BEFORE you start publishing? Why ask people to pay for
your
>stuff while you're still learning?
because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
issues of cerebus.
hell, maybe not even issues 26-230...
just about *every* artist thinks their work isn't very good.
every artists continues to learn how to do their craft.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6k4l5e$fpu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
mumbled this here:
> At 09:17 PM 5/18/98 -0400, brandon blatcher alleges
> to have posted this here here.
> >armedamon wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> >> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> ....
>
> >> > Why would this make a difference? Because with such a limited palatte,
> you
> >> > ha to do more with less, and you concentrated on using color to advance
> the
> >> > story as opposed to looking kewl.
> >> ....
> >
> >What a radical concept.
>
> even more radical to use both.
Might not look good though.
Shades of Grey was ok.
No, computers suddenly make someone who doesn't have any background in art
suddenly think they're an artist. Not that they can be an artist, but that
they are one.
> >> and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
> >> lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
> >> than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
> >
> >Cool. Lets have great pencils, inks, lettering, and writing and merely
> >adequate coloring 'cause well, by golly we've got a computer and we can.
>
> yes! would you rather dave didn't use gerhard [yet another tool?]
Gerhard has a mind and can create. A comptuer can't. Gerhard brings his own
knowledge, skill, and talent to the comic. The computer brings only what is
already inside you.
In short, I don't buy your analogy.
> >> [we're ignoring black and white here only because that
> >> adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
> >>
> >> especially since a sim would be expected to get better
> >> at coloring as he oges along.
> >
> >But what about all the non sims? What about truly crappy coloring?
>
> i'd rather not buy books with crappy coloring.
> if the rest of the book is great, i'll overlook it.
So subpar is ok in this example.
What would your prefer, a good book in black and white, or a good book with
crappy or subpar coloring?
> >> for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
> >> going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
> >> artwork..
> >
> >NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!
> >This is the kind of thinking that really pisses me off. The
> hey-I'll-use-a-computer-as-a-crutch.
> >Don't use it as a crutch. Use it as another tool. Whatever happened to
> >learning your craft? Where does this
> sure-my-art-isn't-good-but-hey-I've-got-a-computer.
>
> because crutch and tool are almost exactly the
> same thing in this case.
No. You described a situation of using the computer to COMPENSATE for poor
artwork. That's a crutch, that's it's main thrust, and as such it will be
readily apparent.
> god, IF i use computers to color
> [as a 'crutch',
> and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> that i will become a good colorist also.
nonononononono
Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
> >> or i might try to learn as i went along,
> >> in which case i would use computers, and probably add some painting
> >> at the same time.
> >
> >Sigh. Why no learn BEFORE you start publishing? Why ask people to pay for
> your
> >stuff while you're still learning?
>
> because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
> issues of cerebus.
but you'll agree that Sim was up a certain standard, yes? He wasn't totally
wet behind the ears in those early issues.
> hell, maybe not even issues 26-230...
>
> just about *every* artist thinks their work isn't very good.
> every artists continues to learn how to do their craft.
No arguement there. Before they start publishing I think they should be up
to a certain standard. And yes, I think Shades of Grey fails that standard.
Kirk Chritton
fil...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Damn! This thread is getting interesting -- So in hopes that by stirring up
> the shit, the stink won't go away -- here's my two cents:
Oh, Cliff, like anyone cares about the opinion of people
who worked on Dai Kamikaze! ;-)
> I think we're spending a lot of time discussing a symptom of what's wrong with
> comics, instead of looking at the underlying illness. Most coloring
> pre-computer was crap -- the technology applied was whatever was the cheapest
> beacuse comics were cheap entertainment. That said, I'll stipulate that most
> coloring post-computer is crap. So are most comics.
I think crappy computer coloring is a large factor in the unreadability
of so many mainstream comics, which contributes to chasing away
people who want to READ comics.
Flashy, unreadable comics do seem to have an appeal to some people,
mostly those who aren't all that interested in reading and will
become "comic book fans" for six months or a year and move on to
other things as soon as they get their first date...
> I believe, though, that very little of what's been blamed so far for the death
> of the industry is really at fault. The real problems are the publishers and
> their marketing focus. Direct Distrbution is what has killed the industry. It
> narrowed the focus of the publishers to a single, unsustainable distribution
> channel, and it has taken comics out of the hands of the broad base of causual
> readers -- readers who would never think to seek out a Comic Shop (even in the
> days when that was an easy thing).
Agreed. Newstand distribution was becoming increasingly unviable in
the early 80's, and the move to direct distribution seemed like
a great secondary sales method. BUT, the moment the direct sales
channel took over as the primary market, it was the beginning of
the end. A lack of new casual readers leads to a declining
consumer base. We saw a "comics fad" in the early 90's, and huge
sales -- mostly based on bulk buying by those non-reading "fans",
but that seems to have been a fluke.
> The minute the worth of a comic was
> measured more by the state of its paper and ink, than by entertainment vaule
> of its content -- the industry was doomed to become a piss-ant niche market.
> The lack of vision shown by the leading publishers in this industry was
> criminal -- Comics aren't being killed by video games, not by bad coloring, or
> by paper costs -- Comics are being murdered by the greed of publishers who'd
> rather sell you the same book with seven different covers than produce seven
> quality books, by artists and writers producing masturbatory fantasies about
> over endowed women AND men in panties and capes, by comic shop fanboy owners
> without the business acumen to seek out quality work that appeals to a broad
> market and find ways to get those "mundanes" into the shops, and by editors
> who don't edit -- who do no more than move pages from one artist to another
> trying to stay on schedule. Mostly, comics are dying from a lack of a viable
> means of getting good CHEAP entertainment into the hands the broader public.
I think we agree completely. Aren't you basically saying that comics
are being killed because the distribution system and typical content of
mainstream comics aren't "reader-friendly"?
Maybe we Dai Kamikaze people know something after all!
Kirk Chritton
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> In article <6k4l5e$fpu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
> mumbled this here:
>
> > At 09:17 PM 5/18/98 -0400, brandon blatcher alleges
> > to have posted this here here.
> > >armedamon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> > >> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > >> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> > ....
> >
> > >> > Why would this make a difference? Because with such a limited
palatte,
> > you
> > >> > ha to do more with less, and you concentrated on using color to
advance
> > the
> > >> > story as opposed to looking kewl.
> > >> ....
> > >
> > >What a radical concept.
> >
> > even more radical to use both.
>
> Might not look good though.
dawn.
> > >> well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
> > >> necessarily bad--
> > >> in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
> > >> look better than a poorly done job
> > >> not on computers, simply because
> > >> that flashy shit looks nice.
> > >
> > >No. no it doesn't. A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
> >
> > but motor oil is definately not motor oil
> >
> > [1] well executed jobs differ..
> > beanwolrd may [or may not be] well executed,
> > but it looks a low worse than mythology of an abandoned city.
> >
> > [2]poorly executed jobs show the same disparity.
>
> A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
but then you say...
> Shades of Grey was ok.
so make up your mind.
> No, computers suddenly make someone who doesn't have any background in art
> suddenly think they're an artist. Not that they can be an artist, but that
> they are one.
those diabolical beasts!
> > >> and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
> > >> lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
> > >> than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
> > >
> > >Cool. Lets have great pencils, inks, lettering, and writing and merely
> > >adequate coloring 'cause well, by golly we've got a computer and we can.
> >
> > yes! would you rather dave didn't use gerhard [yet another tool?]
>
> Gerhard has a mind and can create. A comptuer can't. Gerhard brings his own
> knowledge, skill, and talent to the comic. The computer brings only what is
> already inside you.
you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is inside
you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
creativity.
> > >> [we're ignoring black and white here only because that
> > >> adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
> > >>
> > >> especially since a sim would be expected to get better
> > >> at coloring as he oges along.
> > >
> > >But what about all the non sims? What about truly crappy coloring?
> >
> > i'd rather not buy books with crappy coloring.
> > if the rest of the book is great, i'll overlook it.
>
> So subpar is ok in this example.
>
> What would your prefer, a good book in black and white, or a good book with
> crappy or subpar coloring?
it REALLY depends.
i can forgive poor execution in some things
if the overall package is good.
what i owuld *rather* have is the author execution be as close
as he can get to his vision.
if he envisions it in color,
but technically can't color well [yet],
then i'd put up with that.
> > >> for instance, if i ever get money and self publish, i'm
> > >> going to need to use computers to compnesate for my poor
> > >> artwork..
> > >
> > >NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!
> > >This is the kind of thinking that really pisses me off. The
> > hey-I'll-use-a-computer-as-a-crutch.
> > >Don't use it as a crutch. Use it as another tool. Whatever happened to
> > >learning your craft? Where does this
> > sure-my-art-isn't-good-but-hey-I've-got-a-computer.
> >
> > because crutch and tool are almost exactly the
> > same thing in this case.
>
> No. You described a situation of using the computer to COMPENSATE for poor
> artwork. That's a crutch, that's it's main thrust, and as such it will be
> readily apparent.
>
> > god, IF i use computers to color
> > [as a 'crutch',
> > and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> > THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> > that i will become a good colorist also.
>
> nonononononono
>
> Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
nononononononononononononono.
no. becoming an expert at photoshop allows one to color,
and in doing so learn the art of coloring using
that tool.
If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
drawer.
> > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
> > >> or i might try to learn as i went along,
> > >> in which case i would use computers, and probably add some painting
> > >> at the same time.
> > >
> > >Sigh. Why no learn BEFORE you start publishing? Why ask people to pay for
> > your
> > >stuff while you're still learning?
> >
> > because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
> > issues of cerebus.
>
> but you'll agree that Sim was up a certain standard, yes? He wasn't totally
> wet behind the ears in those early issues.
he was barely up to my standards.
i don't like most of his art for the first
10 issues or so, and the writing is
at best enjoyable until about issue 6.
> > hell, maybe not even issues 26-230...
> >
> > just about *every* artist thinks their work isn't very good.
> > every artists continues to learn how to do their craft.
>
> No arguement there. Before they start publishing I think they should be up
> to a certain standard. And yes, I think Shades of Grey fails that standard.
no, i don't.
i think before buying the work it
should be up to my standards,
which in general are much higher than most.
as such, i'm willing to let anyone publish
any crap they want to.
i just won't buy it.
Paul Mounts
Kirk Chritton wrote:
>
> fil...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Damn! This thread is getting interesting -- So in hopes that by stirring up
> > the shit, the stink won't go away -- here's my two cents:
>
> Oh, Cliff, like anyone cares about the opinion of people
> who worked on Dai Kamikaze! ;-)
> I think we agree completely. Aren't you basically saying that comics
> are being killed because the distribution system and typical content of
> mainstream comics aren't "reader-friendly"?
>
> Maybe we Dai Kamikaze people know something after all!
>
> Kirk Chritton<<
Dia kamikaze---now THERE"S a name i didn't think I'd ever hear brought
up again...
Cygnet Ash says, Howdy, Kirk!
Kirk Chritton
Paul Mounts wrote:
>
> Kirk Chritton wrote:
> >
> > fil...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Damn! This thread is getting interesting -- So in hopes that by stirring up
> > > the shit, the stink won't go away -- here's my two cents:
[snip]
> > Maybe we Dai Kamikaze people know something after all!
> Dia kamikaze---now THERE"S a name i didn't think I'd ever hear brought
> up again...
>
> Cygnet Ash says, Howdy, Kirk!
YIKES! This is turning into a freakin' reunion!!
*furtive paranoid glance*
Tony's not lurking around somewhere is he???
Hi Paul! Whatcha up to these days?
Kirk
katzenjammer
> fil...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Damn! This thread is getting interesting -- So in hopes that by stirring up
> > the shit, the stink won't go away -- here's my two cents:
>
> Oh, Cliff, like anyone cares about the opinion of people
> who worked on Dai Kamikaze! ;-)
>
> > I think we're spending a lot of time discussing a symptom of what's
wrong with
> > comics, instead of looking at the underlying illness. Most coloring
> > pre-computer was crap -- the technology applied was whatever was the
cheapest
> > beacuse comics were cheap entertainment. That said, I'll stipulate that most
> > coloring post-computer is crap. So are most comics.
I'd have to agree with you on this this with one reservation. I think that
the percentage of "good" comics is still higher in the pre-computer days
than now.
> I think crappy computer coloring is a large factor in the unreadability
> of so many mainstream comics, which contributes to chasing away
> people who want to READ comics.
>
> Flashy, unreadable comics do seem to have an appeal to some people,
> mostly those who aren't all that interested in reading and will
> become "comic book fans" for six months or a year and move on to
> other things as soon as they get their first date...
Of yeah! It seems that most of todays books use all the special effects
and flashy colors possible to hide the crappy art! And the people off the
street are dazzled by all the "kewl" blends, colors & effects. Then they
eventually see that it's crap and go away, starting another frenzy of
publishers putting out more crap!
> > I believe, though, that very little of what's been blamed so far for
the death
> > of the industry is really at fault. The real problems are the publishers and
> > their marketing focus. Direct Distrbution is what has killed the
industry. It
> > narrowed the focus of the publishers to a single, unsustainable distribution
> > channel, and it has taken comics out of the hands of the broad base of
causual
> > readers -- readers who would never think to seek out a Comic Shop
(even in the
> > days when that was an easy thing).
>
> Agreed. Newstand distribution was becoming increasingly unviable in
> the early 80's, and the move to direct distribution seemed like
> a great secondary sales method. BUT, the moment the direct sales
> channel took over as the primary market, it was the beginning of
> the end. A lack of new casual readers leads to a declining
> consumer base. We saw a "comics fad" in the early 90's, and huge
> sales -- mostly based on bulk buying by those non-reading "fans",
> but that seems to have been a fluke.
Some of it is a common problem of business, especially big business. They
see a viable market and determine that they need to provide a larger
variety of product thereby earning more profit. The problem with comics is
that there aren't enough quality artists and writers to supply that
demand. (An aside, most of the people, IMHO, working in comics ARE good,
they simply don't have the time to do their best. A monthly schedule can
be tough when you're juggling several books. The quality is going to fall
on all of them) So we get "hackwork" and sales drop and they pump out more
to make up for the drop in sales and we have a self-defeating cycle with
the fans getting the shaft.
> > The minute the worth of a comic was
> > measured more by the state of its paper and ink, than by entertainment vaule
> > of its content -- the industry was doomed to become a piss-ant niche market.
> > The lack of vision shown by the leading publishers in this industry was
> > criminal -- Comics aren't being killed by video games, not by bad
coloring, or
> > by paper costs -- Comics are being murdered by the greed of publishers who'd
> > rather sell you the same book with seven different covers than produce seven
> > quality books, by artists and writers producing masturbatory fantasies about
> > over endowed women AND men in panties and capes, by comic shop fanboy owners
> > without the business acumen to seek out quality work that appeals to a broad
> > market and find ways to get those "mundanes" into the shops, and by editors
> > who don't edit -- who do no more than move pages from one artist to another
> > trying to stay on schedule. Mostly, comics are dying from a lack of a viable
> > means of getting good CHEAP entertainment into the hands the broader public.
>
> I think we agree completely. Aren't you basically saying that comics
> are being killed because the distribution system and typical content of
> mainstream comics aren't "reader-friendly"?
I think you've called it right. The publishers who have lost sight of what
comics really are are the direct cause of the declining state of the
industry at this time. The sad thing is, is that they have the power and
ability to turn it around if they could only pull their collective heads
out and take a good look at reality. Frightening Huh?
See Brandon, I do have something to say once in a while. I am allowed to
lose my temper on occasion!!
brett (not so grumpy today)
--
Brett George/Banzai Productions/Graphic Design & Illustration
5020 N. Alameda Blvd. Spokane WA 99205 USA
br...@ior.com
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6k540q$804$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
Havent' seen it in a while, but I remember early issues and I wasn't too
impressed.
> > > >> well, first, i'd say that the idea you're ranting against here isn't
> > > >> necessarily bad--
> > > >> in that a poorly done job on computers is going to
> > > >> look better than a poorly done job
> > > >> not on computers, simply because
> > > >> that flashy shit looks nice.
> > > >
> > > >No. no it doesn't. A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
> > >
> > > but motor oil is definately not motor oil
> > >
> > > [1] well executed jobs differ..
> > > beanwolrd may [or may not be] well executed,
> > > but it looks a low worse than mythology of an abandoned city.
????
> > > [2]poorly executed jobs show the same disparity.
> >
> > A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
>
> but then you say...
>
>
> > Shades of Grey was ok.
>
> so make up your mind.
Don't have to. You seem to think Shades of Grey was a complete waste. I
think the first TPB was ok, while acknowledging it had many flaws and below
standard.
> > No, computers suddenly make someone who doesn't have any background in art
> > suddenly think they're an artist. Not that they can be an artist, but that
> > they are one.
>
> those diabolical beasts!
I'm hunting them as I speak.
> > > >> and, frankly, i'd rather have a simian work with great pencils,inks,
> > > >> lettering, and writing and merely adequate coloring
> > > >> than no such work because he couldn't afford the colorist.
> > > >
> > > >Cool. Lets have great pencils, inks, lettering, and writing and merely
> > > >adequate coloring 'cause well, by golly we've got a computer and we can.
> > >
> > > yes! would you rather dave didn't use gerhard [yet another tool?]
> >
> > Gerhard has a mind and can create. A comptuer can't. Gerhard brings his own
> > knowledge, skill, and talent to the comic. The computer brings only what is
> > already inside you.
>
> you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is inside
> you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
> creativity.
No, it's extending it, when probably used. the problem is when people use
it as a crutch. People with crutches stick out.
> > > >> [we're ignoring black and white here only because that
> > > >> adds complexity to the argument, but doesn't refute it].
> > > >>
> > > >> especially since a sim would be expected to get better
> > > >> at coloring as he oges along.
> > > >
> > > >But what about all the non sims? What about truly crappy coloring?
> > >
> > > i'd rather not buy books with crappy coloring.
> > > if the rest of the book is great, i'll overlook it.
> >
> > So subpar is ok in this example.
> >
> > What would your prefer, a good book in black and white, or a good book with
> > crappy or subpar coloring?
>
> it REALLY depends.
> i can forgive poor execution in some things
> if the overall package is good.
Agreed.
> what i owuld *rather* have is the author execution be as close
> as he can get to his vision.
> if he envisions it in color,
> but technically can't color well [yet],
> then i'd put up with that.
It depends for me. I'd have to see what it looked like.
I repeat:
becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
I clarify:
Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
that up with some real life paint and brush work.
I continue:
If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
> If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
> and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
> like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
> drawer.
Please point out someone who's done this.
> > > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
I'm not dealing with your implant.
> > > >> or i might try to learn as i went along,
> > > >> in which case i would use computers, and probably add some painting
> > > >> at the same time.
> > > >
> > > >Sigh. Why no learn BEFORE you start publishing? Why ask people to pay for
> > > your
> > > >stuff while you're still learning?
> > >
> > > because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
> > > issues of cerebus.
> >
> > but you'll agree that Sim was up a certain standard, yes? He wasn't totally
> > wet behind the ears in those early issues.
>
> he was barely up to my standards.
But he was up to it, barely though it was.
> i don't like most of his art for the first
> 10 issues or so, and the writing is
> at best enjoyable until about issue 6.
>
> > > hell, maybe not even issues 26-230...
> > >
> > > just about *every* artist thinks their work isn't very good.
> > > every artists continues to learn how to do their craft.
> >
> > No arguement there. Before they start publishing I think they should be up
> > to a certain standard. And yes, I think Shades of Grey fails that standard.
>
>
> no, i don't.
> i think before buying the work it
> should be up to my standards,
> which in general are much higher than most.
>
> as such, i'm willing to let anyone publish
> any crap they want to.
> i just won't buy it.
ditto.
-----------------------------------------
nom...@mindspring.com
God is dead. -Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead. -God
-The Tombs Restaurant. Washington, D.C.
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) blathered:
>
> In article <6k540q$804$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> > >
> > > > even more radical to use both.
> > >
> > > Might not look good though.
> >
> > dawn.
>
> Havent' seen it in a while, but I remember early issues and I wasn't too
> impressed.
the mini series, or cry for dawn?
the mini: dawn, lucifer's halo,
was among the best art and story wise
of the past three years.
> > > > [1] well executed jobs differ..
> > > > beanworld may [or may not be] well executed,
> > > > but it looks a low worse than mythology of an abandoned city.
>
> ????
umm, i meant a *lot* worse...
i think that hyporealistic styles
in eneral look worse than more realisitc
styles, in terms of art.
in this case,
you have what are essentially scribblings
compared to painted photographs.
they may each suit their
functions, but one looks worse.
of course, i could well imagine
other people subjectively
thinking the exact opposite.
i just choose not to right now.
> > > > [2]poorly executed jobs show the same disparity.
> > >
> > > A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
> >
> > but then you say...
> >
> >
> > > Shades of Grey was ok.
> >
> > so make up your mind.
>
> Don't have to. You seem to think Shades of Grey was a complete waste. I
> think the first TPB was ok, while acknowledging it had many flaws and below
> standard.
but it was a poorly done job.
therefore, according to you,
it was a poorly done job.
...
> > you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is inside
> > you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
> > creativity.
>
> No, it's extending it, when probably used. the problem is when people use
> it as a crutch. People with crutches stick out.
i'm getting tired of this....
is someone who only works with one style pen or
brush using a crutch or a tool?
the answer is usually both.
people often prefer that which works better for them to the exclusion
of things which work worse.
that's using a crutch.
> > > > god, IF i use computers to color
> > > > [as a 'crutch',
> > > > and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> > > > THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> > > > that i will become a good colorist also.
> > >
> > > nonononononono
> > >
> > > Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> >
> > nononononononononononononono.
> >
> > no. becoming an expert at photoshop allows one to color,
> > and in doing so learn the art of coloring using
> > that tool.
>
> I repeat:
> becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
becoming an expert with a brush doesn't either.
> I clarify:
> Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
> that up with some real life paint and brush work.
>
> I continue:
> If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
> betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
> words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
well, even if it means fnding some job, buying a computer,
adobe photoshop, and a scanner,
by god i will!
one day, by god, one day.
> > If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
> > and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
> > like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
> > drawer.
>
> Please point out someone who's done this.
no.
tho charlie parker whodoes arkon zark draws
as well on a computer as scott mccloud does.
tho he doesn't use a mouse to draw.
> > > > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > > > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > > > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
>
> I'm not dealing with your implant.
i'm not strapping on the accerssory.
so we're at an impasse.
> > > >
> > > > because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
> > > > issues of cerebus.
> > >
> > > but you'll agree that Sim was up a certain standard, yes? He wasn't
totally
> > > wet behind the ears in those early issues.
> >
> > he was barely up to my standards.
>
> But he was up to it, barely though it was.
i wouldn't have bought the individual issues.
Bradly E. Peterson
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) done said this here
deal:
>I repeat:
>becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
>
>I clarify:
>Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
>going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
>that up with some real life paint and brush work.
Not neccessarily. What about some of my work? Sure, I did some
"real life paint and brush work", and I wasn't all that impressed
with it. Didn't like it at all, as a matter of fact.
Tell you what... Check out the following URL and tell me if you
think that a guy who hasn't picked up a honest to goodness paint
brush in about 20 years (and frankly sucked when he did) can
learn how to paint well using photoshop or not.
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/holly.jpg
This is a cameo I did for a freind.
There's another one I can send you the URL for via E-mail that
shows what my work looks like now as opposed to the above
quickie, which only took an hour or two.
>I continue:
>If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
>betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
>words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
I hope to. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"To do is to be" - Nietzsche
"To be is to do" - Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Sinatra
fil...@aol.com
In article
<1DD91CC18FC85782.F1CE3BBC...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) done said this here
> deal:
>
> >I repeat:
> >becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> >
> >I clarify:
> >Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> >going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
> >that up with some real life paint and brush work.
>
> Not neccessarily. What about some of my work? Sure, I did some
> "real life paint and brush work", and I wasn't all that impressed
> with it. Didn't like it at all, as a matter of fact.
>
> Tell you what... Check out the following URL and tell me if you
> think that a guy who hasn't picked up a honest to goodness paint
> brush in about 20 years (and frankly sucked when he did) can
> learn how to paint well using photoshop or not.
>
> http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/holly.jpg
> This is a cameo I did for a freind.
>
> There's another one I can send you the URL for via E-mail that
> shows what my work looks like now as opposed to the above
> quickie, which only took an hour or two.
>
> >I continue:
> >If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
> >betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
> >words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
>
> I hope to. heh...
>
> Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
> (Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
> <http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
> "To do is to be" - Nietzsche
> "To be is to do" - Sartre
> "Do be do be do" - Sinatra
>
I agree with Bradly on this. I spent years learning to paint with acrylics
and oils, but never managed to get the kind of look that I wanted from the
work. I could never quite master the chemistry of it. Since I started working
in Photoshop, I've been able to craft a style that's much closer to the
images I carry in my head. There's a freedom to working with pixels, instead
of pigments. Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape it.
Digital painting has no texture, other than what I create... and I can have
as many textures in a given image as I see fit. There's also a purity of
color -- like painting with light -- that just can't be matched by
traditional painting. What I'm doing now isn't comic book coloring, but it
grew out of techniques and technologies using Photoshop that I originally
developed to color comics.
Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a sculptor,
he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old, he'll
make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators. Crappy
coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
Martins, or poster paints.
Clifford VanMeter
See my new and expanded web site at http://www.sfcentral.com/vanmeter
Bradly E. Peterson
The link I gave before was bloke. er... broke. Here's the real
deal. Sorry 'bout that.
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/pics/holly.jpg
There ya go.
Bradly E. Peterson
I said...
>> http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/holly.jpg
>> This is a cameo I did for a freind.
>
>
>File Not Found
>
>The requested URL /homepages/drama/holly.jpg was not found on this server.
OOP!
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/pics/holly.jpg
That one will work.
Brandon Blatcher
In article
<9BD1BFEDBE8CF78E.0CBA95F5...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
> I said...
>
> >> http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/holly.jpg
> >> This is a cameo I did for a freind.
> >
> >
> >File Not Found
> >
> >The requested URL /homepages/drama/holly.jpg was not found on this server.
>
> OOP!
> http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/pics/holly.jpg
I'd reply now, but I'm still downloading that fricking 357K Jpeg!
WindyTWise
>I'd reply now, but I'm still downloading that fricking 357K Jpeg!
Pretty big, huh? Yeah, I even looked twice when I saw the expected download
time... I wondered, so I threw the file in my reducer program, and it only
shaved 10% off of the size, keeping the 98% compression part the same...
I get disks with 4 Meg files that go to 20 Megs or so when I view them, and
this little computer of mine (powered by Dorito [tm]) often chokes...
BP just uses a large palette.
Walt"also powered by Dorito chips" Stone
**
sales chart. Diamond comics. multi-colored.
cheap way of getting you to eventually click to other site.
be there. aloha.
<URL:http://members.aol.com/windytwise/sales.htm>
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6kdg2d$825$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
> In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) blathered:
> >
> > In article <6k540q$804$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> > > >
> ....
> > > > > even more radical to use both.
> > > >
> > > > Might not look good though.
> > >
> > > dawn.
> >
> > Havent' seen it in a while, but I remember early issues and I wasn't too
> > impressed.
>
> the mini series, or cry for dawn?
CFD.
> the mini: dawn, lucifer's halo,
> was among the best art and story wise
> of the past three years.
Something to look for then.
> > > > > [1] well executed jobs differ..
> > > > > beanworld may [or may not be] well executed,
> > > > > but it looks a low worse than mythology of an abandoned city.
> >
> > ????
>
> umm, i meant a *lot* worse...
> i think that hyporealistic styles
> in eneral look worse than more realisitc
> styles, in terms of art.
Not I'm just not real familiar with the two examples you use.
> in this case,
> you have what are essentially scribblings
> compared to painted photographs.
scibblings can be nicer than painted photographs.
> they may each suit their
> functions, but one looks worse.
>
>
>
>
> of course, i could well imagine
> other people subjectively
> thinking the exact opposite.
> i just choose not to right now.
>
> > > > > [2]poorly executed jobs show the same disparity.
> > > >
> > > > A poorly done job is a poorly done job.
> > >
> > > but then you say...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Shades of Grey was ok.
> > >
> > > so make up your mind.
> >
> > Don't have to. You seem to think Shades of Grey was a complete waste. I
> > think the first TPB was ok, while acknowledging it had many flaws and below
> > standard.
>
>
> but it was a poorly done job.
>
> therefore, according to you,
> it was a poorly done job.
Yes, the art was below standard and thus a poorly done job. The book as
whole was ok though.
> > > you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is inside
> > > you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
> > > creativity.
> >
> > No, it's extending it, when probably used. the problem is when people use
> > it as a crutch. People with crutches stick out.
>
> i'm getting tired of this....
Then stop it.
> is someone who only works with one style pen or
> brush using a crutch or a tool?
>
> the answer is usually both.
Not so fast my little chickadee. It depends. Is the person using the one
style compent in their use of it? or are then using it because they are no
compent and the tool lets them ignore or get by there imcomptence?
> people often prefer that which works better for them to the exclusion
> of things which work worse.
Nothing wrong with a that.
> that's using a crutch.
Plenty wrong with *that* statement.
Webster's defines a crutch as a "supporting device". A tool is "an
instrument that aids is accomplishing a task"
I'm using these terms exactly as described by webster's.
> > > > > god, IF i use computers to color
> > > > > [as a 'crutch',
> > > > > and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> > > > > THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> > > > > that i will become a good colorist also.
> > > >
> > > > nonononononono
> > > >
> > > > Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> > >
> > > nononononononononononononono.
> > >
> > > no. becoming an expert at photoshop allows one to color,
> > > and in doing so learn the art of coloring using
> > > that tool.
> >
> > I repeat:
> > becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
>
> becoming an expert with a brush doesn't either.
Yet it has worked for centuries.
> > I clarify:
> > Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> > going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
> > that up with some real life paint and brush work.
> >
> > I continue:
> > If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
> > betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
> > words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
>
>
> well, even if it means fnding some job, buying a computer,
> adobe photoshop, and a scanner,
> by god i will!
>
> one day, by god, one day.
You won't live that long if I have my way.
> > > If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
> > > and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
> > > like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
> > > drawer.
> >
> > Please point out someone who's done this.
>
> no.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tho charlie parker whodoes arkon zark draws
> as well on a computer as scott mccloud does.
> tho he doesn't use a mouse to draw.
did he learn to draw on the computer?
> > > > > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > > > > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > > > > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
> >
> > I'm not dealing with your implant.
>
>
> i'm not strapping on the accerssory.
>
> so we're at an impasse.
*I'm* at an impasse. You're probably drunk in some bar. again.
> > > > >
> > > > > because withy attitudes like that we wouldn't have the first 25
> > > > > issues of cerebus.
> > > >
> > > > but you'll agree that Sim was up a certain standard, yes? He wasn't
> totally
> > > > wet behind the ears in those early issues.
> > >
> > > he was barely up to my standards.
> >
> > But he was up to it, barely though it was.
>
> i wouldn't have bought the individual issues.
Well, there you go.
Tom127
>I agree with Bradly on this. I spent years learning to paint with acrylics
>and oils, but never managed to get the kind of look that I wanted from the
>work. I could never quite master the chemistry of it. Since I started working
>in Photoshop, I've been able to craft a style that's much closer to the
>images I carry in my head. There's a freedom to working with pixels, instead
>of pigments. Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
>texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape it.
What you say at the beginning of your statement makes a lot of sense, and
is a cause of major frustration to every painter I know. I have to disagree
on this last part, though- " Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both
have an inherent texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never
entirely escape it." You can, and I have done it numerous times- hell, I do
it all the time. Doesn't matter if I'm working in oils, arcylics,
watercolor or dyes; if I'm working on canvas, paper, metal or wood. It's
simply a matter of carefully choosing and preparing your ground, and doing
the same with your paint. Bruce Timm used to make his colored pencil work
look like oil paintings- a technique he once described to me and I later
used several times.
It's all in knowing your tools. (And after my brief visit to your website,
it's obvious to me that you know yours.)
>Digital painting has no texture, other than what I create... and I can have
>as many textures in a given image as I see fit. There's also a purity of
>color -- like painting with light -- that just can't be matched by
>traditional painting.
Again, I have to disagree. Ever since the first painting class I ever took
(too many years ago), it was drummed in to me that I should _always_ "paint
with light". (Of course, this was in a conceptual sense. In your case, you
literally are painting with light) Again, I think it comes down to knowing
your tools, and paying close attention to how light works in the real
world.
Maxfeild Parrish was an absolute master of this concept. If you ever have
an opportunity, check out some of his work in the original- it is some of
the most mind blowing stuff I've ever seen. The stuff literally _glows_,
and that's not an exagerration. With him, it was all in how he used glazing
techniques- knowing that the color has greater brillinace when light passes
through a color, gets reflected back from the white ground (canvas), and
then pases back through the same colors on its way to the viewer's eye. Of
course, in print, this doesn't translate anywhere near as effectively as
viewing in the orginal, which is why I encourage you to see the originals
should the opportunity ever present itself.
I think on your "Faeries Dance"(?) you came close to doing digitally what
Parrish did routinely with oils. Your use of light and shadow on that piece
is really beautiful. Not too many artists that I've seen whose work is
exclusively digital (PARTICULARLY in comics), will treat the shadows the
way you appear to have. That is, it appears that you have "glazed" the
shadows transparently over the base colors, resulting in totally believable
shading. Most comics colorists I see appear to either be using the burn
tool in photoshop, or just going into the Brightness palette and dragging
the slider downward- both of which leaves one with pretty lifeless shading,
IMO.
> What I'm doing now isn't comic book coloring, but it
>grew out of techniques and technologies using Photoshop that I originally
>developed to color comics.
God- if "...Dance" is any indication of your technique, I wish more people
would use it.
>
>Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a sculptor,
>he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old, he'll
>make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators. Crappy
>coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
>Martins, or poster paints.
Absolutely.
I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is that
because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false sense of
security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are. When
they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought, they
start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
I used to see it with airbrush art in comics all the time- people who
weren't really good painters to begin with made damn sure that everything
they did screamed "MADE WITH AN AIRBRUSH!!!" The end result being work that
overwhelmed with the technique rather than the work itself (if that makes
any sense). It got in the way of the final product. You'd _never_ see a
medical or technical illustrator doing the kind of garish shit that was
being done in comics, but it was so ubiquitous that everyone started
thinking that's how aibrush art was *supposed* to look. Which of course,
it's not.
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> In article <6kdg2d$825$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) blathered:
> >
> > the mini series, or cry for dawn?
>
> CFD.
>
> > the mini: dawn, lucifer's halo,
> > was among the best art and story wise
> > of the past three years.
>
> Something to look for then.
also angry christ comics:
it's a trade of linsner's best
cfd stuff.
both are in trades now.
> >
> > but it was a poorly done job.
> >
> > therefore, according to you,
> > it was a poorly done job.
>
> Yes, the art was below standard and thus a poorly done job. The book as
> whole was ok though.
well, i won this point then.
> > > > you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is
inside
> > > > you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
> > > > creativity.
> > >
> > > No, it's extending it, when probably used. the problem is when people
use
> > > it as a crutch. People with crutches stick out.
> >
> > i'm getting tired of this....
>
> Then stop it.
>
> > is someone who only works with one style pen or
> > brush using a crutch or a tool?
> >
> > the answer is usually both.
>
> Not so fast my little chickadee. It depends. Is the person using the one
> style compent in their use of it? or are then using it because they are no
> compent and the tool lets them ignore or get by there imcomptence?
what if they're competent but only witht that brush or style?
we then have to assume that at some point, they weren't comptetent
with it, but became competent.
but isn't *still* a crutch at that point?
or a tool? or, as i say, both?
> > people often prefer that which works better for them to the exclusion
> > of things which work worse.
>
> Nothing wrong with a that.
>
> > that's using a crutch.
>
> Plenty wrong with *that* statement.
>
> Webster's defines a crutch as a "supporting device". A tool is "an
> instrument that aids is accomplishing a task"
>
> I'm using these terms exactly as described by webster's.
they are relying on a specific tool as a supporting device.
> > > > > > god, IF i use computers to color
> > > > > > [as a 'crutch',
> > > > > > and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> > > > > > THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> > > > > > that i will become a good colorist also.
> > > > >
> > > > > nonononononono
> > > > >
> > > > > Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good
colorist.
> > > >
> > > > nononononononononononononono.
> > > >
> > > > no. becoming an expert at photoshop allows one to color,
> > > > and in doing so learn the art of coloring using
> > > > that tool.
> > >
> > > I repeat:
> > > becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> >
> > becoming an expert with a brush doesn't either.
>
> Yet it has worked for centuries.
computers haven't been around for centuries.
> > > I clarify:
> > > Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> > > going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to
back
> > > that up with some real life paint and brush work.
> > >
> > > I continue:
> > > If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it.
I'm
> > > betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put
into
> > > words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
> >
> >
> > well, even if it means fnding some job, buying a computer,
> > adobe photoshop, and a scanner,
> > by god i will!
> >
> > one day, by god, one day.
>
> You won't live that long if I have my way.
you haven't yet.
> > > > If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
> > > > and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
> > > > like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
> > > > drawer.
> > >
> > > Please point out someone who's done this.
> >
> > no.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > tho charlie parker whodoes arkon zark draws
> > as well on a computer as scott mccloud does.
> > tho he doesn't use a mouse to draw.
>
> did he learn to draw on the computer?
he didn't say.
> > > > > > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > > > > > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > > > > > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
> > >
> > > I'm not dealing with your implant.
> >
> >
> > i'm not strapping on the accerssory.
> >
> > so we're at an impasse.
>
> *I'm* at an impasse. You're probably drunk in some bar. again.
like i'd talk to YOU when i'm drunk.
that's the time i pick up chicks.
Brandon Blatcher
> In article
> <1DD91CC18FC85782.F1CE3BBC...@library-proxy.airnews.net
> >, dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>
> >
> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) done said this here
> > deal:
> >
> > >I repeat:
> > >becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> > >
> > >I clarify:
> > >Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> > >going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to back
> > >that up with some real life paint and brush work.
> >
> > Not neccessarily. What about some of my work? Sure, I did some
> > "real life paint and brush work", and I wasn't all that impressed
> > with it. Didn't like it at all, as a matter of fact.
> >
> > Tell you what... Check out the following URL and tell me if you
> > think that a guy who hasn't picked up a honest to goodness paint
> > brush in about 20 years (and frankly sucked when he did) can
> > learn how to paint well using photoshop or not.
> >
> > http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/holly.jpg
> > This is a cameo I did for a freind.
> >
> > There's another one I can send you the URL for via E-mail that
> > shows what my work looks like now as opposed to the above
> > quickie, which only took an hour or two.
> >
> > >I continue:
> > >If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it. I'm
> > >betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put into
> > >words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
> >
> > I hope to. heh...
> >
> > Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
> > (Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
> > <http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
> > "To do is to be" - Nietzsche
> > "To be is to do" - Sartre
> > "Do be do be do" - Sinatra
> >
>
> I agree with Bradly on this. I spent years learning to paint with acrylics
> and oils, but never managed to get the kind of look that I wanted from the
> work. I could never quite master the chemistry of it. Since I started working
> in Photoshop, I've been able to craft a style that's much closer to the
> images I carry in my head. There's a freedom to working with pixels, instead
> of pigments. Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
> texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape it.
> Digital painting has no texture, other than what I create... and I can have
> as many textures in a given image as I see fit. There's also a purity of
> color -- like painting with light -- that just can't be matched by
> traditional painting. What I'm doing now isn't comic book coloring, but it
> grew out of techniques and technologies using Photoshop that I originally
> developed to color comics.
>
> Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a sculptor,
> he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old, he'll
> make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators. Crappy
> coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
> Martins, or poster paints.
I'll just note the your artwork looks great and repeat one thing you said:
>I SPENT YEARS LEARNING TO PAINT (emphasize mine)
> with acrylics and oils...
and that's all I have to say on *that*.
Brandon Blatcher
> In article <6kefb9$jvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fil...@aol.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >
> >Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a sculptor,
> >he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old, he'll
> >make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators. Crappy
> >coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
> >Martins, or poster paints.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is that
> because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false sense of
> security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are. When
> they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought, they
> start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
Exactly my point. You said it much more concisely than me, Tom. Thanks.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <199805261759...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
windy...@aol.com (WindyTWise) wrote:
> >I'd reply now, but I'm still downloading that fricking 357K Jpeg!
>
> Pretty big, huh? Yeah, I even looked twice when I saw the expected download
> time... I wondered, so I threw the file in my reducer program, and it only
> shaved 10% off of the size, keeping the 98% compression part the same...
>
> I get disks with 4 Meg files that go to 20 Megs or so when I view them, and
> this little computer of mine (powered by Dorito [tm]) often chokes...
>
> BP just uses a large palette.
It's not a big, big, deal, really. Just takes a while to load. He might
want to make it smaller, he might not.
> Walt"also powered by Dorito chips" Stone
You need that salsa upgrade.
Bradly E. Peterson
windy...@aol.com (WindyTWise) done said this here deal:
Brandon Blatcher (nom...@mindspring.com) spake thusly:
>>I'd reply now, but I'm still downloading that fricking 357K Jpeg!
>
>Pretty big, huh? Yeah, I even looked twice when I saw the expected download
>time... I wondered, so I threw the file in my reducer program, and it only
>shaved 10% off of the size, keeping the 98% compression part the same...
Sorry, yah'll. It wasn't that long a download on my machine. I
forget that I used to have a 33mhz machine (powered by
chee-tohs), but have maxed the thing out at 133mhz. Won't go no
faster. heh...
>BP just uses a large palette.
That I do. So what'd ya think? Besides it being friggin' big?
Bradly E. Peterson
fil...@aol.com done said this here deal:
I spake thusly:
>> Not neccessarily. What about some of my work? Sure, I did some
>> "real life paint and brush work", and I wasn't all that impressed
>> with it. Didn't like it at all, as a matter of fact.
>I agree with Bradly on this. I spent years learning to paint with acrylics
>and oils, but never managed to get the kind of look that I wanted from the
>work. I could never quite master the chemistry of it. Since I started working
>in Photoshop, I've been able to craft a style that's much closer to the
>images I carry in my head. There's a freedom to working with pixels, instead
>of pigments. Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
>texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape it.
>Digital painting has no texture, other than what I create... and I can have
>as many textures in a given image as I see fit.
Another thing I like about it is that I can do it, and undo it
and re-do it until I like it. I like getting the whole picture
together, deconstruct it, do the backgrounds separately from
figures or objects in the foreground, then put 'em back together.
Can't really do that with oils.
>Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a sculptor,
>he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old, he'll
>make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators. Crappy
>coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
>Martins, or poster paints.
>
>Clifford VanMeter
Yep. And he's not just saying that because I posted here saying
someone should hire him, either. Or maybe he is. heh...
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a
sculptor,
> > >he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old,
he'll
> > >make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators.
Crappy
> > >coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
> > >Martins, or poster paints.
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is that
> > because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false sense
of
> > security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are. When
> > they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought, they
> > start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
>
and i think this is a *good* thing, in the sense
that it makes the crappy stuff look better.
given the choice, i'd rather have a GOOD colorist.
color with a computer.
fil...@aol.com
I said:
" Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape
it."
Tom Vincent replied: You can, and I have done it numerous times- hell, I do
it all the time. Doesn't matter if I'm working in oils, arcylics, watercolor
or dyes; if I'm working on canvas, paper, metal or wood. It's simply a matter
of carefully choosing and preparing your ground, and doing the same with your
paint. Bruce Timm used to make his colored pencil work look like oil
paintings- a technique he once described to me and I later used several
times.
It's all in knowing your tools. (And after my brief visit to your
website, it's obvious to me that you know yours.)
I reply:
Thanks for the kind words... As I said in my earlier post, I've never
really been comfortble with the chemistry of traditional painting.
This probably had a lot to do with my lack of ability to "escape" the
inherent textures of the pigment and substarte.
I'm much more comfortable with the physics of Photoshop. I'm able to wrap my
brain around it in a way that I never could with traditional media. The core
of my technique is to work in transparent layers in Photoshop and use the
various "apply" functions where appropriate. Its very much like the glazing
technique used by oil painters -- that's the look I'm shooting for. Early on,
I did rely heavily on the dodge and burn tool -- in part because of the time
constraints involved in producing comics... part of the reason for crappy
computer coloring -- IMO. Now that I'm doing cover work (at a much higher
fee) I can take more time and I find I rarely use the toning tools at all.
Clifford VanMeter
Heidi Hagan
Bradly E. Peterson wrote:
>
> That I do. So what'd ya think? Besides it being friggin' big?
>
>
Besides being big I have to admire the subtlety or the pic. Good
stuff there.
And just to add the the confusion here:
Richard Corben switched from his monstrous overlay system to computer
aided coloring a few years back. It is mindboggling the effects he got
in Densaga compared to his earlier work.
I have to side that computer color is a tool instead of a crutch
(tho' it can be - imagine Rob Liefeld as a colorist! Brrr...).
My two bits minus tax,
Mike Benedict
hag...@ptld.uswest.net
Bradly E. Peterson
Heidi Hagan <hag...@ptld.uswest.net> done said this here deal:
>Bradly E. Peterson wrote:
>>
>> That I do. So what'd ya think? Besides it being friggin' big?
>>
> Besides being big I have to admire the subtlety or the pic. Good
>stuff there.
Thanks, Mike.
>And just to add the the confusion here:
> Richard Corben switched from his monstrous overlay system to computer
> aided coloring a few years back. It is mindboggling the effects he got
>in Densaga compared to his earlier work.
Haven't seen it yet, but just got in another "Heavy Metal" from
1982. Finished the '83's and am working on the 82's now. I'm
digging this stuff a lot.
> I have to side that computer color is a tool instead of a crutch
>(tho' it can be - imagine Rob Liefeld as a colorist! Brrr...).
EEEEEEK! heh...
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6kfh91$6q2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
> In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6kdg2d$825$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) blathered:
> ..
> > >
> > > the mini series, or cry for dawn?
> >
> > CFD.
> >
> > > the mini: dawn, lucifer's halo,
> > > was among the best art and story wise
> > > of the past three years.
> >
> > Something to look for then.
>
>
> also angry christ comics:
> it's a trade of linsner's best
> cfd stuff.
>
> both are in trades now.
>
>
> > >
> > > but it was a poorly done job.
> > >
> > > therefore, according to you,
> > > it was a poorly done job.
> >
> > Yes, the art was below standard and thus a poorly done job. The book as
> > whole was ok though.
>
> well, i won this point then.
Nope.
> > > > > you were going good unitl you said the computer brings only what is
> inside
> > > > > you, which implies that as a tool it is executing your
> > > > > creativity.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's extending it, when probably used. the problem is when people
> use
> > > > it as a crutch. People with crutches stick out.
> > >
> > > i'm getting tired of this....
> >
> > Then stop it.
> >
> > > is someone who only works with one style pen or
> > > brush using a crutch or a tool?
> > >
> > > the answer is usually both.
> >
> > Not so fast my little chickadee. It depends. Is the person using the one
> > style compent in their use of it? or are then using it because they are no
> > compent and the tool lets them ignore or get by there imcomptence?
>
> what if they're competent but only witht that brush or style?
> we then have to assume that at some point, they weren't comptetent
> with it, but became competent.
> but isn't *still* a crutch at that point?
> or a tool? or, as i say, both?
>its a crutch then. If an artist is *only* competent with that brush or
style something is majorly wrong.
> > > people often prefer that which works better for them to the exclusion
> > > of things which work worse.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with a that.
> >
> > > that's using a crutch.
> >
> > Plenty wrong with *that* statement.
> >
> > Webster's defines a crutch as a "supporting device". A tool is "an
> > instrument that aids is accomplishing a task"
> >
> > I'm using these terms exactly as described by webster's.
>
> they are relying on a specific tool as a supporting device.
A crutch. Finally you understand.
> > > > > > > god, IF i use computers to color
> > > > > > > [as a 'crutch',
> > > > > > > and by doing so become an expert at photoshop,
> > > > > > > THEN it's possible [well, *likely* for ME]
> > > > > > > that i will become a good colorist also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nonononononono
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Becoming an expert at photoshop does not make a person a good
> colorist.
> > > > >
> > > > > nononononononononononononono.
> > > > >
> > > > > no. becoming an expert at photoshop allows one to color,
> > > > > and in doing so learn the art of coloring using
> > > > > that tool.
> > > >
> > > > I repeat:
> > > > becoming an expert at Photoshop does not make a person a good colorist.
> > >
> > > becoming an expert with a brush doesn't either.
> >
> > Yet it has worked for centuries.
>
> computers haven't been around for centuries.
Thank god.
> > > > I clarify:
> > > > Just because you can push buttons in Photoshop, that doesn't mean you're
> > > > going to learn, really learn the art of coloring. I think you HAVE to
> back
> > > > that up with some real life paint and brush work.
> > > >
> > > > I continue:
> > > > If you want to solely use Photoshop to learn how to color, go for it.
> I'm
> > > > betting that you're going to miss out on something. I just can't put
> into
> > > > words what. But hey, prove me wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > well, even if it means fnding some job, buying a computer,
> > > adobe photoshop, and a scanner,
> > > by god i will!
> > > one day, by god, one day.
> >
> > You won't live that long if I have my way.
>
> you haven't yet.
your story isn't up, is it?
> > > > > If you draw ona computer using draw or paint or whatnot,
> > > > > and you leanr so well that your stuff looks
> > > > > like frank quietely[sp], then you have become a god
> > > > > drawer.
> > > >
> > > > Please point out someone who's done this.
> > >
> > > no.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > tho charlie parker whodoes arkon zark draws
> > > as well on a computer as scott mccloud does.
> > > tho he doesn't use a mouse to draw.
> >
> > did he learn to draw on the computer?
>
> he didn't say.
so you've got a slight possiblity of maybe.
> > > > > > > >> i haven't yet figured out what to do about coloring
> > > > > > > >> [the covers]-- i Might farm it out to chris or you or
> > > > > > > >> brandon [whoever wants to get paid with sex],
> > > >
> > > > I'm not dealing with your implant.
> > >
> > >
> > > i'm not strapping on the accerssory.
> > >
> > > so we're at an impasse.
> >
> > *I'm* at an impasse. You're probably drunk in some bar. again.
>
> like i'd talk to YOU when i'm drunk.
>
> that's the time i pick up chicks.
chicks are about your size.
-----------------------------------------
nom...@mindspring.com
The artist's only responsibility is to his art.
He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one.
If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; "MacBeth" is worth
any number of old ladies.
-William Faulkner
Brandon Blatcher
In article
<1DAA19DE35EEF15C.BE4ECCA8...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
> fil...@aol.com done said this here deal:
>
>
> I spake thusly:
> >> Not neccessarily. What about some of my work? Sure, I did some
> >> "real life paint and brush work", and I wasn't all that impressed
> >> with it. Didn't like it at all, as a matter of fact.
>
> >I agree with Bradly on this. I spent years learning to paint with acrylics
> >and oils, but never managed to get the kind of look that I wanted from the
> >work. I could never quite master the chemistry of it. Since I started working
> >in Photoshop, I've been able to craft a style that's much closer to the
> >images I carry in my head. There's a freedom to working with pixels, instead
> >of pigments. Paint, and the substrate you paint on, both have an inherent
> >texture. You can mask that texture, but you can never entirely escape it.
> >Digital painting has no texture, other than what I create... and I can have
> >as many textures in a given image as I see fit.
>
> Another thing I like about it is that I can do it, and undo it
> and re-do it until I like it. I like getting the whole picture
> together, deconstruct it, do the backgrounds separately from
> figures or objects in the foreground, then put 'em back together.
> Can't really do that with oils.
True. I'm not saying computers aren't darn useful for coloring/drawing an
such. I'm just heistant when people start whipping out the graphic pen
filter and then think they've done a drawing.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6kgbv8$7a9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (armedamon)
wrote:
> In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> >
> > In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> > tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6kefb9$jvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fil...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a
> sculptor,
> > > >he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year old,
> he'll
> > > >make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the operators.
> Crappy
> > > >coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer, Dr.
> > > >Martins, or poster paints.
> > >
> > > Absolutely.
> > >
> > > I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is that
> > > because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false sense
> of
> > > security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are. When
> > > they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought, they
> > > start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
> >
> > Exactly my point. You said it much more concisely than me, Tom. Thanks.
>
> and i think this is a *good* thing, in the sense
> that it makes the crappy stuff look better.
but it's still crappy!
> given the choice, i'd rather have a GOOD colorist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> color with a computer.
yet you love Muth, Lisner, McKean, Sienkwicz etc.
Bradly E. Peterson
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) done said this here
Oh hell no. Filter freaks... Feh... You've seen my stuff, so
you know you can't do THAT with a filter. Everyone that gets
photoshop always plays with the filters, that's unavoidable. Of
course, I really haven't found many that are of much use to me.
Anyway, once you get past the fiddlin' with filters stage, that's
when you can really start learning to use it like it's supposed
to be used... A tool, and now a toy. Unfortunately, many never
get PAST that stage. Bummer, really.
armedamon
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> > > tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Truth is, its a tool, just like any other tool. Give a hammer to a
> > sculptor,
> > > > >he'll make you a wok of art. Give the same hammer to a three year
old,
> > he'll
> > > > >make a mess. Stop blaming the tools for the failings of the
operators.
> > Crappy
> > > > >coloring is done by crappy colorists, whether its done with computer,
Dr.
> > > > >Martins, or poster paints.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely.
> > > >
> > > > I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is
that
> > > > because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false
sense
> > of
> > > > security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are.
When
> > > > they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought,
they
> > > > start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
> > >
> >
> > and i think this is a *good* thing, in the sense
> > that it makes the crappy stuff look better.
>
> but it's still crappy!
but it's less crappy!
> > given the choice, i'd rather have a GOOD colorist.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > color with a computer.
>
> yet you love Muth, Lisner, McKean, Sienkwicz etc.
>
and juts think o what they can do with a computer!
hell, just look at the covers for the first 15 or so issues of the black
orchide series.
the only reason to get the comic.
fil...@aol.com
Tom127 and Brandon Blatcher (respectievly) wrote:
> > > > > I think what Brandon was driving at (and I _know_ I was) though, is that because these programs can do so much for people, they get a false sense of security- that is, they *think* they're more skilled than they are. When they realize that they're no where near as skilled as they thought, they start glomming on the "whiz-bang" stuff to hide that fact.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly my point. You said it much more concisely than me, Tom. Thanks.
> > >
> > > and i think this is a *good* thing, in the sense that it makes the crappy stuff look better.
> >
> > but it's still crappy!
>
> but it's less crappy!
>
> > > given the choice, i'd rather have a GOOD colorist. color with a computer. yet you love Muth, Lisner, McKean, Sienkwicz etc.
> >
>
> and juts think o what they can do with a computer!
>
> hell, just look at the covers for the first 15 or so issues of the black
> orchide series.
>
> the only reason to get the comic.
>
Bottom line is that if programs like Photoshop are used properly, you can
acheive some astounding results. Michael Dashow's cover to "The Rhinoceros
Who Quoted Nietzsche" has been selected as one of the best of the year by
Spectrum judging and has been nominated for a Chesley Award for best
paperback cover of the year by ASFA. Not only is he using a computer to paint
- but (like me) his techniques are an outgrowth of what he learned coloring
comics. Take a look at his work (http://clients.wavi.com/walrus/) or mine
(http://www.sfcentral.com/vanmeter) and you'll get an idea of the potential
for working in this medium. Go back and look at some of our previous work and
you'll find that at one point -- we were crappy as well! This isn't a talent
issue -- there's no such thing as talent. Getting good at somehting is a
laborious process of being bad at it for a very long time. Everyone has hear
that Motzart wrote his first music at age four -- what they don't tell you is
that it was a piece of shit! Hey, he got better.
As to filters -- I went through that period of overuse, then abandoned all
filters, now I find myself going back to using filters again -- though not
the slick, superficial ones I used at first. Now I readily grab Gaussian Blur
for blending colors, texturizer(I've created about 140 custom textures of my
own), even some of the render and artistic filters. I've just learned to use
them differently, more judicously and in combination, not as a single,
stand-alone effect. I see too much filter work where I can point to it and
say -- "Oh, yeah. That's "gold leonardo", or "graphic pen". But in
combination they can be great. For example, I use noise and motion blur in
combination to create a grain effect for woods, or leathers.Combine that with
texturizer, then do a fade-effect using somthing like overlay, or soft light.
By the time its finished, you've got a realistic random grain texture that's
very dimensional.I've also used graphic pen to create a short stroke,
multi-colored hatching effect by applying it to duplicates of individual
color channels (i.e. just the red channel or the blue), then reapplying those
using calculate functions.
Point is you've got to use every tool that works... computers, filters, 3D
programs, whatever... as long as it works. Experiment, learn the tools. It
all part of a skill set that includes, design, anatomy, forshortening,
lighting, and color theory. One more thing -- Sorry if I'm repeating myself
here -- But the difference between the artisticaly adequate and the really
great is in the last 10-15% of what you do with a painting -- and that last
10-15% can take every bit as long as everything else you've done. Experience
is the only way to learn that. Part of the problem is that colorists (on the
whole) are the leat respected cog in the production machine -- and the worst
paid. Hell -- I left skid marks getting away from the comics industry. Love
comics -- Hate the business of comics.
Clifford VanMeter
Bradly E. Peterson
dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) done
said this here deal:
>Anyway, once you get past the fiddlin' with filters stage, that's
>when you can really start learning to use it like it's supposed
>to be used... A tool, and now a toy. Unfortunately, many never
>get PAST that stage. Bummer, really.
er... That should have been "A tool, and NOT a toy." Sorry bout
that.