By Hand, Computer, or Both?

I've noticed, on comic forums, that whenever folks use DAZ 3D / Poser type software to create webcomics that critics seem split into 2 distinct camps: those who actively dislike the almost-human-but-in-a-creepy-way art, and those who shrug past the Uncanny Valley reaction to find the story. I'm in the latter group, it doesn't bother me and I appreciate when it's done well. I don't know if actual comic readers are as anal about this as many comic artists seem to be.

I've got a lot of respect for those who draw by hand -- alas whatever art skills I had perished many moons ago, so when the creative urge took me again I designed some characters using 3D software, took 2D .jpg snapshots, then edited these to add dialogue and SFX. I've been having fun with this for a while now (see sigline below). If you visit the website (don't feel obliged) the ABOUT page has more details re software and process.

-Derek

I do all my art the old fashioned way...by hand. That includes everything from pencil to india inked finals.

Writing I do first drafts by hand in a series of notrbooks then transfer to the pc.

Most major comics are still done 100% old fashioned up until the lettering stage. Lesser known books will run the whole gamut from all by hand to all computer generated.

The most common method on the Web right now is doing your pencils by hand, and then colors by computer just using photoshop or illustrator. The inking stage is still pretty evenly divided but as more creators get tablets, more inking is going digital too.

As for deffinate no-nos, don't use photos. But since you're talking about illustration I would assume you don't need that warning.

I generally do the pencil-work by hand and color in photoshop or gimp; for monsters/creatures I do it all on the computer using vector graphics (inkscape or illustrator) but that's hard to do with something as complex as a humanoid.

I've yet to see a comic/graphic novel that was done totally on computer not look like it was done totally on computer.

Unconvincing.

dpaterso said:

I've noticed, on comic forums, that whenever folks use DAZ 3D / Poser type software to create webcomics that critics seem split into 2 distinct camps: those who actively dislike the almost-human-but-in-a-creepy-way art, and those who shrug past the Uncanny Valley reaction to find the story.

Click to expand...

There's actually a third camp: Sprite comics (taking sprites from various sources and making comics from them).

However, most comics seem to be drawn in a hybrid style: Drawn (either in pencil/pen and then scanned or drawn on a tablet, and then inked digitally). Sex Percussions is done in that style....

FR

Axler said:

I've yet to see a comic/graphic novel that was done totally on computer not look like it was done totally on computer.

Unconvincing.

Click to expand...

Heh. I bet that a good percentage of comics you think are hand-drawn are done 100% on computer....

FR

yes

Well I won't be using the pc to ink since my pencils are just very rough sketches to position the body like I need. I do 90% of my actual drawing in the ink stage.

FinbarReilly said:

Heh. I bet that a good percentage of comics you think are hand-drawn are done 100% on computer....

FR

Click to expand...

You'd lose that bet...way big-time.

Pisarz said:

My questions: What methods do you (or your illustrator, if you are a writer only) use for illustration? By hand, by computer, or both?

If you are computer-only, what program or programs do you use? My illustrator has plenty of programs and options but (like me) has never worked in comics or graphic novels. Getting a sense of what others do (or don't do) always helps.

Lastly, are there any "definite no-nos" that would turn off an agent or publisher in terms of technique or method of creation?

Click to expand...

defintely old school, drawn and inked by hand then into the computer for grayscale work (ho ho do NOT miss ZipaTone.) Also, computer handy for touch up work and lettering. I use an older version of PhotoShop but have heard good review of GIMP. I have never tried CorelPaint but it is cheaper than PhotoShop and may be a servicable alternative.

I produce way too slowly to be of interest to a publisher (that might be a no-no right there)!

Cheers!

My penciller/inker did it old school and then scanned the finished art, cleaned up anything needed and did the lettering using illustrator...

He then emailed me a high res tiff, approved it and then I emailed it to the colorist, who used photoshop. Then he emailed it back to me.

I then put the layers together, did any clean up necessary and send to the printer when I had a complete issue.

Three people. One in India, one in New Jersey and the other in Connecticut working as if we were sitting right next to each other.

A nice little article on Dark Horse Comics using Macs can be found here...

If you look at my avatar that was a pencil/india ink sketch I came up with. No computers were volated during the works creation.

Axler said:

You'd lose that bet...way big-time.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Cartoonists are increasingly using tablets as paper; there are even articles on how to make your tablet feel like paper. I know a lot of amateurs that draw on the tablet, and then go straight to inking and then coloring from there. Given the savings in time and improved quality, I think it would be a given that the pros would not be embracing the same technology.

It doesn't help that I know of too many artists that do incredible line art that looks hand-drawn but has never been touched by traditional pencil or ink.

So when I'm saying that you would be surprised how many artists don't use traditional media, I'm standing on some pretty firm ground....

FR

As somebody who has been involved in traditional graphics and computer graphics and comics for a very long time--as both a creator and publisher-- I'm confident I'm standing on far firmer ground than you in your flat assertion that I couldn't differentiate between traditionally rendered comics and those done 100 percent on a computer.

You may want to consider that you're not the only one on these boards with a large amount of experience. You may also want to consider that some of have been watching the industry, following the trends, especially as they deal with the technological aspects. As part of that, it would be hard to notice that more and more artists are turning to programs such as Illusrator and hardware such as tablets.

Note that I'm not saying that non-computer methods are passe by any stretch, just that fewer artists are using them. More importantly, I'm just noting that more artists are choosing to skip over the step of scanning in order to preserve the quality of their work, especially when they can draw straight into the software.

[It's also worth noting that a lot of artists are interested in maintaining the link to strictly hand-drawn; ways to make the tablet feel like paper are still popular.]

You may also want to keep in mind that I'm differentiating between using something like Poser and using a tablet. Specifically, I'm not sure how you would you differentiate something drawn on a tablet and something drawn on a board, and why it should matter.

I'm also aware there is another middle ground, where the backgrounds are rendered completely in CGI and the main characters aren't, roughly equivalent to backgrounds that are watercolor vs. inked characters. Although I don't like the look when it's obvious, I can appreciate it when there is a need to do so, such as for keeping incredibly detailed
consistent.

As for the OP's original question: I would try to avoid any obvious use of CGI, especially as it's currently looked down on. Although it's been tried (most notably the Batman Digital Justice and Iron Man Crash GN's), it generally comes off as amateurish at best. Using it for backgrounds and for characters that can only be done in CGI (such as energy beings or when you otherwise need them to look other-worldly) and if you can make it work, then go for it. Otherwise, stick to hand-drawn...

FR

One of the main reasons an artist remains old school. Money. The original art can fetch a pretty good dollar in today's market. If drawn on computer, that revenue source is gone.

Definitely. Which can be something that the newer artists don't worry too much about, and which some of the more experienced artists debate (some feel that original artwork shouldn't be auctioned off due to its potential use as reference, as well as not feeling right about selling something that they consider scrap and trash, others obviously not having those views).

And that assumes that were not talking about work for hire, where presumably the employer has control of the artwork. In fact, a lot of older artists, whose original experience was as artists for hire, are among those who tend to forget that there is a market for original artwork, as they never had to deal with it. The same logic applies to a lot of cartoonists; they only figured that they would be getting money from the work done and not the original artwork.

It's interesting to history geeks like me that original artwork is even considered a source of income now; outside of something for fans, original artwork used to have no real value. Even ashcans were considered something you could toss without issue (ergo the name). In the era of conventions, however, that's changed; anything that's produced at any step of the process has value. But bear in mind that this is a relatively recent phenomenon; even a decade or two ago, the original artwork wouldn't have been worth enough to value to save.

However, the artist attempts to make for the bonus income by doing sketches and commissions, as well as increasing their work. They'll even do some special work just to get more attention, so as to increase sales of the finished product.

[I know that this topic has been discussed on the Webcomics Weekly podcast. I just can't find the appropriate episode. Just trying to make people aware that there is some debate on it.]

FR

FinbarReilly said:

You may want to consider that you're not the only one on these boards with a large amount of experience.

Click to expand...

I would consider that except that I never implied otherwise...to suggest I did is your purely subjective spin.

You posited that I would have problems telling the difference between comics that were rendered "traditionally" and by computer.

I confidently challenged that assertion, mainly due to my experience.

I said nothing about being the only one here with a large amount of experience...you did.

I will reiterate my earlier statement with a qualifier--

I have yet to see a comic that was rendered 100 percent on a computer that didn't look like it...to me.

And yep-- that's mainly due to my experience in all phases of publication and comics production.

There've been a lot of (web) comics produced with the Daz/Poser software. I'm doing some work right now with the software. The problem is people don't take them time to give what's produced, well, life. So, everything breathes with the same passionless soul. There's also the notion that props, clothes and textures for Poser are hard to come by and even more difficult to master. That's very true. As an example, it took me three nights to get the texture for a particular suit I needed. Three nights.

Scott McCloud said he does the pencil sketches, then scans and does everything on a tablet PC. Sure seems like there's a lot more influence on the inks of projects by the computer, whether it is to smooth out an inker's lines or make the blacks absolutely black. There's also computer letter and coloring. So, certainly, at least in major production houses, the influence of the computer can't be under estimated. Besides, less people in the production work force means less people that have to be paid. But that's a different discussion,

I don't recall the name of the first computer comic, but it was published by First Comics. It looks like it came off a dot matrix printer. However, the story and enviroment were created to compensate for the artwork. Either way, it was a step toward the direction the form is going. How much of the process now takes place on a computer?

Right now, it is cost prohibitive for me to buy a drawing tablet larger than 4" x 6". There are larger tablets, but that still doesn't fit the bill for a lot of artists, who are grown at SCAR and RISD and the rest. However, the platforms will get larger and the opportunity to sketch directly on a computer. And I'd still beliebe there are a number of artists who have no problem sketching directly into PhotoShop or other compatible programs.

However, Axler has a great point. Because there are still so many variables to making the PC track look good from start (dpi, tools, PC/mac platforms) and so on. However, it would be silly to think that as progress marches on in any industry that comic books and graphic novels won't tack toward the PC track as well.

Jason said:

I don't recall the name of the first computer comic, but it was published by First Comics. It looks like it came off a dit matrix printer.

Click to expand...

Shatter was the title...and it looked like it came of a dot matrix printer because it did.

I'm not saying that eventually comics done 100 percent on computer will be indistinguishable from traditionally produced comics--

But I've not seen any.

Axler said:

I would consider that except that I never implied otherwise...to suggest I did is your purely subjective spin.

Click to expand...

The problem is that by asserting your experience it can come off as prideful, especially when it's the sole reason that you're claiming the ability to tell two methods apart. The problem with working too many newsrooms: I tend to distrust people who say they can tell the difference based solely on experience; I've found it to be a rather inaccurate method of telling the difference between two things.

You posited that I would have problems telling the difference between comics that were rendered "traditionally" and by computer.

I confidently challenged that assertion, mainly due to my experience.

Click to expand...

The reason I questioned this was not due to lack of respect to your experience. Rather, it's because I'm aware that so many comics are inked digitally, and that the most effective way of doing so is to create a layer above the scanned in pencils, ink on the new layer, and then delete the pencils, destroying the original artwork in a digital sense.

Because of that knowledge of the process itself, combined with the knowledge that the same pencils iked by two different people can lead to two different sets of results, I was questioning the ability to discern the difference.

Bottom Line: I'm challenging your ability to tell the difference because it's based on something that's fairly well obliterated by the process itself....

I will reiterate my earlier statement with a qualifier--

I have yet to see a comic that was rendered 100 percent on a computer that didn't look like it...to me.

Click to expand...

Now I'm curious. And usually nothing good comes of that...

And yep-- that's mainly due to my experience in all phases of publication and comics production.

Click to expand...

I feel a challenge in the air....

FR

The problem is that by asserting your experience it can come off as prideful,

Click to expand...

That's your interpretation. I'm just confident in what I posted. I could say your challenge came off as superior.

Rather, it's because I'm aware that so many comics are inked digitally, and that the most effective way of doing so is to create a layer above the scanned in pencils, ink on the new layer, and then delete the pencils, destroying the original artwork in a digital sense.

Click to expand...

That hardly makes it "done 100% on computer" as you first claimed then, does it?

Just yesterday we finally finished production on a 128 page graphic novel that required scanning in hand-colored art, cleaning up the whites, enhancing the blacks, converting the colors to gray-scale, adjusting the shades, applying various gradient screens, adding display lettering (sound effects) and relettering the whole shebang--

But because the source material was rendered traditionally it never once occured to me to claim it was a digital product.

Bottom Line: I'm challenging your ability to tell the difference because it's based on something that's fairly well obliterated by the process itself....

Click to expand...

And I say again...

I have yet to see a comic done 100 percent on a computer(as per your original assertion) that didn't look like it.

To me.