Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Got questions? He's got answers!
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

Yes, I really feel I have to ask, because there's just so darn many good pieces on this website.

Many are nigh-ideal for colouring-practice, and there's two pieces in perticular that I would like to have a go at. Namely the Inhumans family-portrait, and the blown up Optimus Prime.

Especially the Optimus Prime one... because I'm a huge fan of the Transformers ( what kid in the 80's wasn't??) and as far as I know, that one pinup marks the one and only time that THE Alan Davis worked on Transformers.

So... is some of the art fair game? Maybe if we added your signature, which for some reason isn't present on all of the art.
Ilke
Posts: 1942
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:51 am

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Ilke »

Alan also drew the cover of Transformers (Marvel UK) #100, which can be seen at http://uk.nine.ebid.net/perl/auction.cg ... mo=auction
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

Predabot, I have made it clear on a number of times that I cannot support any downloading of images from my website for any purpose because there have been instances when my pencils has been downloaded, inked and coloured to be used as samples to show editors or, worse still, sold as original art. I don’t mean to suggest that is your intention, Predabot but I can’t make exceptions.

If I had wanted to sign the covers, I would have done so. I’m puzzled why if your intention is colouring practise that you would feel the need to forge my signature on a page?
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

Ok... sad to hear that Mr Davis. :(

I will have to admit, that sure, if I coloured something of yours that I was really pleased with, I would probably have added it to my portfolio, online or otherwise. That's one of the big tips I've gotten from established colourists, colour the most awesome and professional-looking artists you can possibly find or imagine.

The need to put the signature in comes totally from a sense of respect, I assure you Mr Davis. :) I have this notion, that if someone created/helped create a work of art, then the name should be in there somewhere. I recently started signing my own work, and it just wouldn't have felt right to sign one of your pieces without your name on it. ( and Mark Farmers too, but I'm afraid I'm not very good at noticing when you're inking yourself or when your collaborating with Mr Farmer, so it's kind of hard for me to tell.)
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

I will have to admit, that sure, if I coloured something of yours that I was really pleased with, I would probably have added it to my portfolio, online or otherwise.
The reason this became a contentious issue is because there are ‘colourists’ who have shown editors such samples and implied that I am supporting their efforts.
That's one of the big tips I've gotten from established colourists, colour the most awesome and professional-looking artists you can possibly find or imagine.
I would have thought the true test of a colourist would be to colour a mediocre image and improve it. Anyone can daub colour onto a well drawn piece and trade on the reputation of a superior penciller and inker. Most comic colouring is little more that paint by numbers.
The need to put the signature in comes totally from a sense of respect, I assure you Mr Davis. I have this notion, that if someone created/helped create a work of art, then the name should be in there somewhere. I recently started signing my own work, and it just wouldn't have felt right to sign one of your pieces without your name on it.


There are a number of points I’d question here.
Do you believe colouring an illustration automatically gives you a degree of ownership to that image?
Do you acknowledge my right to NOT sign a page or would your need/notion negate my rights?
Do you respect the contribution of the computer program or program designer and include their name when you sign a ‘work of art’?
Anybody?
( and Mark Farmers too, but I'm afraid I'm not very good at noticing when you're inking yourself or when your collaborating with Mr Farmer, so it's kind of hard for me to tell.)
I don’t think Mark will be too happy to hear that!

Alan
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

I really don't want to get into an argument with you Mr Davis, but I suppose it's best if I offered some more elaborate insights to my thought-process, so I'll try to answer as best I can, Mr Davis.
Alan Davis wrote:The reason this became a contentious issue is because there are ‘colourists’ who have shown editors such samples and implied that I am supporting their efforts.
Oh... well, then I can certainly understand it and definitely respect it. That is indeed somewhat scummy, pretty much forging your Curriculum Vitae in such a manor.
I would have thought the true test of a colourist would be to colour a mediocre image and improve it. Anyone can daub colour onto a well drawn piece and trade on the reputation of a superior penciller and inker. Most comic colouring is little more that paint by numbers.
Sure, a true test is if the colourist can actually add something of artistic merit to a piece that wasn't there before, but the reasoning I've heard behind using professional-looking art, is that sometimes a piece made by an inferior illustrator can, unless you go in and change it dramatically, essentially painting it over, ( not the approach I go for) the terrible quality of the illustration will make many viewers automatically dismiss your own contributions to the final result.

I've got more reasons for choosing professional illustrations for colouring though, mainly fan-reasons. I've coloured/am colouring some stuff by Frank Frazetta, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Carl Barks, Don Rosa, Winsor McCay, Hal Foster, John Buscema, and George Perez to mention but a few. These are all tremendous artists which I am in constant awe and admiration of. And whenever I find some scraps of a scan online, I just can't help myself from grabbing it quick and thinking of some way to put colour on it, because I just admire their work and achievements so tremendously. It's just so fun to get to really dive into a great piece by such artists and discover it's intricacies more closely, personally.

That's why I'd love to add Alan Davis to the list... :) ( hrrm, obviously I already have tho, since I entered your Phoenix-contest)
There are a number of points I’d question here.
Do you believe colouring an illustration automatically gives you a degree of ownership to that image?
Do you acknowledge my right to NOT sign a page or would your need/notion negate my rights?
Do you respect the contribution of the computer program or program designer and include their name when you sign a ‘work of art’?
Anybody?
Hmm, well the reason I didn't sign my pieces before was because it was of course colourings of other people's property and work, so I didn't feel entitled to it. I've had some collaborations with fan-artist mates recently tho, and they felt it was best I should start signing my work, otherwise I won't have any proof I've ever done any work.

I would acknowledge an artists right to not sign a work, sure. Not sure why an artist wouldn't tho? Unless, say, it's something they are very displeased with, or perhaps they didn't originally want to do it. I suppose a good compromise would be to put a kind of simple water-mark where it says colours by me, or some such. The ownership thing... well, anyone colouring as a hobby ( but perhaps with professional aspirations) probably understands they don't own their whole image. I'll never be able to make a print or anything like that, except if it was a collaboration with a mate to do something, I suppose. And then me and the mate would of course share the ownership.

Yeah, I know that the majority of the pieces I've coloured, I can only call the smallest fraction of it my own, the rest is infringement. It'll never be more than a small file on my harddrive, or if I'm lucky, a laser-print on my wall, but I suppose deep down I'll think of it as my own version.

Not sure why you mention the programmers/manufacturers of the various programs a digital artist can use though? A program is just one of many tools an artist can use, so no you're quite right there too. I don't feel the need to credit the programmers, any more than say Testor's paint or Dr Martens, etc.
I don’t think Mark will be too happy to hear that!

Alan
I truly did not mean the earlier comment as in any way derogatory towards Mr Farmer. If it looked like it then I truly apologize, because that was not at all my intent. I'd have to say just about everything I've seen of Mark Farmers artistic work have been of a very high quality. I just think you two have developed such a tight collaboration that when he inks you and when you ink yourself, I with my limited knowledge have difficulty telling it apart. :oops:
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

I really don't want to get into an argument with you Mr Davis, but I suppose it's best if I offered some more elaborate insights to my thought-process, so I'll try to answer as best I can, Mr Davis
.

I would hope it is possible to hold a discussion that may ultimately reveal a difference of opinion without degenerating into an argument. I’m very interested in how people perceive the act or value of creating images has changed since the advent of digital illustration. Although I believe it is possible to create good illustration with digital programs the process has clearly undermined many traditional skills and created the potential for pirating or sampling images and calling the process ‘Art’.
Sure, a true test is if the colourist can actually add something of artistic merit to a piece that wasn't there before, but the reasoning I've heard behind using professional-looking art, is that sometimes a piece made by an inferior illustrator can, unless you go in and change it dramatically, essentially painting it over, ( not the approach I go for) the terrible quality of the illustration will make many viewers automatically dismiss your own contributions to the final result.
To my mind this is the crux of the specific matter of digital comic colouring. Exactly how much does colour add to any illustration if an inferior image remains an inferior image unless it is redrawn in the colouring?
I believe there is a vast amount a skilled colourist can add to the sense of mood and emotion which will enhance a story-- without attempting to redraw an image. Sadly, the majority of colourists ignore this facet and attempt to remodel arbitrary images as separate pieces of illustration which then beggars the question that concerns all professional comic artists, how much damage can colour inflict on a well drawn image?
Hmm, well the reason I didn't sign my pieces before was because it was of course colourings of other people's property and work, so I didn't feel entitled to it. I've had some collaborations with fan-artist mates recently tho, and they felt it was best I should start signing my work, otherwise I won't have any proof I've ever done any work.
You would know! And in the process you would have learned.
I would acknowledge an artists right to not sign a work, sure. Not sure why an artist wouldn't tho? Unless, say, it's something they are very displeased with, or perhaps they didn't originally want to do it.
Not displeased. It is quite simply that I don’t regard myself as an artist. I’m a storyteller. I despise the cult of celebrity, pretentiousness and ego that has made comics about illustration rather than story and character.
Yeah, I know that the majority of the pieces I've coloured, I can only call the smallest fraction of it my own, the rest is infringement. It'll never be more than a small file on my harddrive, or if I'm lucky, a laser-print on my wall, but I suppose deep down I'll think of it as my own version.
The word ‘Infringement’ would suggest legal or copyright concerns. I’m more interested in how the contribution of a colourist is measured.
Not sure why you mention the programmers/manufacturers of the various programs a digital artist can use though? A program is just one of many tools an artist can use, so no you're quite right there too. I don't feel the need to credit the programmers, any more than say Testor's paint or Dr Martens, etc.
A program is far more than a tool. Anyone who has painted or drawn with oils, acrylics, dyes or any other traditional image making material will know there is always a degree of unpredictability-- It is virtually impossible to repeat a mark, wash or tonal transition. Among its many other tricks, a computer program will repeat flawlessly, accurately, smoothly. This control is a clear indication the computer is doing some of the work. But, more of a concern to anyone who aspires to eventually produce their own illustration, it prevents the colourist or painter from experiencing the ‘imminent loss of control’ which could be said to be the key factor in artistic development.

Alan
Paulo Pereira
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:23 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Paulo Pereira »

Not displeased. It is quite simply that I don’t regard myself as an artist. I’m a storyteller. I despise the cult of celebrity, pretentiousness and ego that has made comics about illustration rather than story and character
Well said.
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

Alan Davis wrote:I would hope it is possible to hold a discussion that may ultimately reveal a difference of opinion without degenerating into an argument. I’m very interested in how people perceive the act or value of creating images has changed since the advent of digital illustration. Although I believe it is possible to create good illustration with digital programs the process has clearly undermined many traditional skills and created the potential for pirating or sampling images and calling the process ‘Art’.
I agree, it should be possible to hold an open debate, and keep it on a sensible and productive level. I'm not very good at debating tho ( so I have been told repeatedly on various message boards in the past), so I just wanted to state that I might not be able to keep things understandable.

I think the digital media brings, and will bring in the future, wholly unprecedented possibilities when it comes to creating art. Mostly I would say, since the simulation of traditional media, bringing that unpredictability and rawness to the art, is getting better and better all the time. Combining digital with traditional ( like for instance Adi Granov does) will probably always hold merit though, since there are certain things you can't add unless you bring in some features from the real world.

Personally I believe a combination of 3D sculpting programs ( it's more like clay than traditional polygons) like Zbrush, traditional media, and traditional media simulators like Painter, and then bringing it all together in Photoshop, is the way to go for the future. I think some truly interesting and unique things can be made then. ( I really should install the new Zbrush 3, and start playing with that again.)

You mention the problem of the undermining of the skills. While I think that problem has become less acute in recent years, having been ( at least among colourists) more rampant during the turn of the century, I think the problem came/comes from two sources:

1. A lot more people can start creating right at home. No schools or anything. All it takes is a few clicks to pirate the programs and some tutorials and you're all set. The problem then comes from the simple fact that you are essentially self-teaching yourself, there's no-one around to teach you those real skills, that knowledge about colour-theory, simplified basic anatomy, or shadow and light. All you've got to go from are the tutorials and pictures of other peoples work. Rob Liefeld gets a lot of flack for being self-taught, but I would think it's even more common nowadays to be self-taught, with all the problems that this produces. I myself is trying to learn it on my own, and I've been at it for more than 3 years, yet I'm still not at an even semi-professional level.

2. The people that have the knowledge and the skills of the traditonal media, are unable or less than interested in embracing digital media. Even for those that go to real universities to learn art, the digital side of things are slacking, because the old masters refuses to even touch a computer. How is a guy fresh out of uni, going to get the right skills when there's a huge gap between if you take a digital or traditional media class?

The swiping might be a problem, but I think it's a problem that is being killed in its sleep. Criticism of for instance Greg Lands work is becoming heavier and heavier for each year, wether it's well-founded or not.
To my mind this is the crux of the specific matter of digital comic colouring. Exactly how much does colour add to any illustration if an inferior image remains an inferior image unless it is redrawn in the colouring?
I believe there is a vast amount a skilled colourist can add to the sense of mood and emotion which will enhance a story-- without attempting to redraw an image. Sadly, the majority of colourists ignore this facet and attempt to remodel arbitrary images as separate pieces of illustration which then beggars the question that concerns all professional comic artists, how much damage can colour inflict on a well drawn image?
Colour can make or break an image, that is completely accurate. Especially now that colourists have been given better tools than ever to in a speedy manor apply their skills to an illustration or comic-book page.

Comics is a team-effort, and I personally am a huge advocat of an open dialogue of input, back and forth within the team. Problem is, I think a lot of pencilers and illustrators that got into the game before the advent of computer-technology in printing, is still approaching a page from an obsolete perspective. That perspective includes a penciler and Inker, two people. Not 3, which is the actual reality of the scenario today.

A lot of younger artists have a much closer working relationship to the third member of the team, sometimes the colourist is nowadays no longer even the third wheel, he's the second wheel.
Excellent examples of these closer partnerships, and the great new dynamic that they bring to the craft, are guys like Jae Lee & Richard Isanove, or Frank Quitely & Jamie Grant.

I've read a lot your old posts, about the woes you went trough on X-men for instance, where you and the colourist simply didn't gel. I think the problem is, that you didn't have the colourist in on the close kind of collaboration that you have with, for instance, Mark Farmer. After that, you did find a colourist to begin that kind of collaboration with however, in the form of John Kalisz. I'm not sure why that collaboration hasn't continued after FF the End however, since most recently you worked with Justin Ponsor. ( which surprised me greatly, since Ponsor usually collaborates very closely with Greg Land)
You would know! And in the process you would have learned.
Hmm... Well I have to admit, I think I'm at a passage in my life where that's not enough, I want people to know I did that colour. ;) That's not such a bad thing, surely? Working up some pride in ones craft.
Not displeased. It is quite simply that I don’t regard myself as an artist. I’m a storyteller. I despise the cult of celebrity, pretentiousness and ego that has made comics about illustration rather than story and character.
Man! The 90's must have been hell for you, Sir! :surprised:

I think you should regard yourself as an artist however, because all storytelling, wether it's painting, drawing, or writing, is an art. Every artist has a story or emotion that they want to convey. Just look at a guy like Frazetta, by many regarded as a classical artist, but also as a storyteller, telling a single complex tale in each of his paintings. Is there such a huge difference between using one page to tell a story, to many pages?
The word ‘Infringement’ would suggest legal or copyright concerns. I’m more interested in how the contribution of a colourist is measured.

How is the value measured... well, I'd say it's measured in his way of balancing the act of following the artists lead and telling the story efficiently, while still adding his own touch to the final work. A very, very fine balancing act that I would say colourists have not had to deal with until recently. Inkers have thread the path for close to a century however. A fitting example is the wholly different dynamic between Jack Kirby and Mike Royer, contra Vince Colletta.
A program is far more than a tool. Anyone who has painted or drawn with oils, acrylics, dyes or any other traditional image making material will know there is always a degree of unpredictability-- It is virtually impossible to repeat a mark, wash or tonal transition. Among its many other tricks, a computer program will repeat flawlessly, accurately, smoothly. This control is a clear indication the computer is doing some of the work. But, more of a concern to anyone who aspires to eventually produce their own illustration, it prevents the colourist or painter from experiencing the ‘imminent loss of control’ which could be said to be the key factor in artistic development.

Alan
The computer is an astounding tool, perhaps the most advanced in human and artistic history. But to say that the computer "does the job for you", is an over-generalization. Anybody can start photoshop, but not everyone can actually add something artistic to a page, something unique. This is a challenge that a colourist is presented with, and must always strive to attain. It's not important that many of us do similar tasks in the computer, but how we do it, is what defines us as digital artists. You can see this among the best colourists working today. People like Morry Hollowell, Richard Isanove and Dave Stewart all have their own unique distinct styles, and that is definitely the standard that many of us must try to achieve.

Phew! A long reply this time around, took me a while to put this all down. We've got quite the dialogue here Mr Davis. Most interesting. :)
Paul Renaud
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:59 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Paul Renaud »

Hope it's not rude to interfere with this discussion.
I just wanted to react to the mention of Adi Granov's art here:
Predabot wrote: Combining digital with traditional ( like for instance Adi Granov does) will probably always hold merit though, since there are certain things you can't add unless you bring in some features from the real world.

Personally I believe a combination of 3D sculpting programs ( it's more like clay than traditional polygons) like Zbrush, traditional media, and traditional media simulators like Painter, and then bringing it all together in Photoshop, is the way to go for the future. I think some truly interesting and unique things can be made then. ( I really should install the new Zbrush 3, and start playing with that again.)
I've read it on many occasions that people believe Adi Granov's artwork is somehow digital...and it is, but in the same way as any other comic artists who does his coloring digitally these days.
His pages are entirely pencilled and inkwashed, then he does a very simple coloring via Photoshop. The painted look of his work have very little to do with any software. The original art is almost complete.

Sorry for the interfering.

Best,
Paul
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

Predabot, Your last posting was so lengthy that I have ignored some of the repetitive or scattershot elements to focus on the central point.
Comics is a team-effort, and I personally am a huge advocat of an open dialogue of input, back and forth within the team.
Comics are only a team effort (between penciller, inker and colourist) from an illustrative perspective, not one of storytelling. The writer’s script is interpreted by the penciller. Unless the inker is working over breakdowns all they can add is illustrative refinement. Likewise the colourist.
A smart colourist CAN enhance mood and tone through their selection of colour and lighting but many ignore that consideration and seem fixated on trying to model figures and faces.
Problem is, I think a lot of pencilers and illustrators that got into the game before the advent of computer-technology in printing, is still approaching a page from an obsolete perspective. That perspective includes a penciler and Inker, two people. Not 3, which is the actual reality of the scenario today.


So I have an obsolete perspective because I believe comics should be about story and character before illustration.
A lot of younger artists have a much closer working relationship to the third member of the team, sometimes the colourist is nowadays no longer even the third wheel, he's the second wheel.
And a few even believe they are the first wheel, THE star of the book.
I'd like to develop a close working relationship with a colourist but I’m not prepared to indulge the belief that illustration is more important than story.
I've read a lot your old posts, about the woes you went trough on X-men for instance, where you and the colourist simply didn't gel.
I really don’t see how I could possibly ‘gel’ with colourists who ignore my colour notes and the basic intention of the art.
I think the problem is, that you didn't have the colourist in on the close kind of collaboration that you have with, for instance, Mark Farmer.
I have tried to develop such relationships. A few colourists have been honest enough to admit that my drawing and storytelling is too dense for them to complete quickly (profitably) or easily and gives few opportunities for them to exhibit what they consider artistic flair.
... since most recently you worked with Justin Ponsor. ( which surprised me greatly, since Ponsor usually collaborates very closely with Greg Land)
I haven’t worked with Justin Ponsor.
Hmm... Well I have to admit, I think I'm at a passage in my life where that's not enough, I want people to know I did that colour. That's not such a bad thing, surely? Working up some pride in ones craft.
I’m impressed with your honesty and forthrightness but surely it is the need for recognition, possibly magnified by ego, that is at the root of colourists seeking to be elevated to the status of ‘ARTISTS’.

I don’t agree that pride in ones work requires recognition.
How is the value measured... well, I'd say it's measured in his way of balancing the act of following the artists lead and telling the story efficiently, while still adding his own touch to the final work. A very, very fine balancing act that I would say colourists have not had to deal with until recently. Inkers have thread the path for close to a century however. A fitting example is the wholly different dynamic between Jack Kirby and Mike Royer, contra Vince Colletta
.

Why is it necessary for the colourist to add their own ‘touch’? I have always tried to be anonymous in my drawing so that the story and character remain the focus of any book I work on. This notion of a colourist leaving THEIR mark, expressing THEIR style, THEIR art or whatever else they might call it is exactly the sort of egotistical indulgence that can overwhelm the storytelling intention of illustration.
The computer is an astounding tool, perhaps the most advanced in human and artistic history. But to say that the computer "does the job for you", is an over-generalization.
I didn’t say the “computer does the job for you” but that it is “doing some of the work”. If you have any doubt of this fact, try to replicate the work without a computer.
Anybody can start photoshop, but not everyone can actually add something artistic to a page, something unique. This is a challenge that a colourist is presented with, and must always strive to attain. It's not important that many of us do similar tasks in the computer, but how we do it, is what defines us as digital artists.
What I find contradictory in your rationalisation is how the concept of team effort and dialogue can be balanced with the notion of independent artistic freedom for a colourist to ADD something unique to a page.

This may seem like semantics but while I might accept the term artist to describe someone who originates and completes a work in its entirety a storyteller tells a story, a penciller pencils, an inker inks and a colourists applies colour. If a colourist believes they have the capability to add something artistic to a page— to be a digital artist— why not start with a blank page and prove they are capable?

Alan
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

I did get a bit carried away in my last post, I'll try to keep things a bit more focused from now on. It's easy to get lengthy and go off on tangents when you're passionate about something, I have to say.
Alan Davis wrote: Comics are only a team effort (between penciller, inker and colourist) from an illustrative perspective, not one of storytelling. The writer’s script is interpreted by the penciller. Unless the inker is working over breakdowns all they can add is illustrative refinement. Likewise the colourist.
A smart colourist CAN enhance mood and tone through their selection of colour and lighting but many ignore that consideration and seem fixated on trying to model figures and faces.
That's a bit contradicting, don't you think? Since the illustrations ARE the final representation of the story, the storytelling for the reader. ( excellent lettering notwithstanding, of course)

I think a key-note to remember, is that there are certain expectations nowadays of the amount of modeling that a colourist should add in the final steps, in small part on the behalf of editors I have heard, but mostly on the behalf of the comic-reading fans. The trick is to chose a rendering-tecnique that compliments the underlying art in a logical and natural manor. Dark Tower and All Star Superman both feature a great amount of rendering on the behalf of the colourists, but it blends in a fitting way with the art, and therefore does not become a hindrance to the story.
So I have an obsolete perspective because I believe comics should be about story and character before illustration.
Certainly not. I believe that there is a fine balance that can be struck between the two. Having a higher and higher quality of illustration for each passing year has become something of a trend however, and readers of today often expect more elaborate illustrations than in the past.
But no, if one is out to tell a story then there are of course a limit that you, the artist, whatever kind you might be, should never cross, when the art becomes unclear and hard to follow.

I myself have seen clear examples of comic-book illustration where the penciled pages have been too over-crammed with details and it becomes hard to follow in only b&w. A colourist can then makes certain choices in a unifying palette and lighting that helps lead the eyes of the viewer to where the "action" is intended. This has often been a case wherein the colourists have worked fairly close with the artists however, and the dialogue between them help to create a coherent final result.

Sometimes it has worked efficiently, sometimes not so efficient, I will admit... Examples of this can be found in the Dreamwave Productions Transformers series.

And a few even believe they are the first wheel, THE star of the book.
I'd like to develop a close working relationship with a colourist but I’m not prepared to indulge the belief that illustration is more important than story.
I would say that they are very few, in my experience. I have yet to meet one myself, and hopefully I won't have to. I would say, believing oneself to be the star of a book is a problem no matter what position you fill on said book.
I really don’t see how I could possibly ‘gel’ with colourists who ignore my colour notes and the basic intention of the art.
If you gave colouring notes in the script and they were not taken heed to ( I've seen your colour-work, great stuff) or discussed in any way, then that is very unfortunate. :(
An open dialogue within the creative-team once again come into play. Often a colourist gets assigned to a work very late in the game, with little prep-time, and here conflicts of opinion regarding the storytelling can easily happen, if the colourist has little input from the other members of the creative team, which I'm afraid is often the case, since it's often the first and possibly last time they work within that team. *Editor sends mail, colourist receives: Colour this by friday. Use a lot of RED!*
I have tried to develop such relationships. A few colourists have been honest enough to admit that my drawing and storytelling is too dense for them to complete quickly (profitably) or easily and gives few opportunities for them to exhibit what they consider artistic flair.
Honesty is good. :) If those colourists wheren't the right people for your team, then so be it. That's not something new, to any aspect of the illustrative process. I think we've both seen lots of books where a new penciler or inker is not right at all for the story that the writer wants to portray.
I think you have simply not worked with colourists skilled enough for your art, and that is perhaps the most saddening to hear, since I find that to become more common in todays industry.

If the problem has sometimes been that the embellishing needed would be so advanced that it would not be cost-effective when weighed in to the time needed to do a proper job, then perhaps the solution is to remove those not capable of it, and then somehow entice the ones that are capable, to do so. One way could be to allow for a longer deadline on the colouring perhaps.
I haven’t worked with Justin Ponsor.
Deeply sorry, my bad. You worked with the excellent Paul Mounts. Don't know where I got Mr Ponsor from.
I’m impressed with your honesty and forthrightness but surely it is the need for recognition, possibly magnified by ego, that is at the root of colourists seeking to be elevated to the status of ‘ARTISTS’.

I don’t agree that pride in ones work requires recognition.
There is something to be said about the traditionally low status that colourists have held, and do hold, within the comic-book industry, so would it be so strange that some of the newest generation of colourists may feel neglected, since a colourist now adds more to the page, and wants "credit where credit is due"? Perhaps some have taken on a less than flattering way of expressing that, and that is unfortunate, as it will do them no favors in future work.

I personally, think every artist wants to be seen, for his or her work to reach out to people and touch them. That drive may sometimes be too satisfied than what is logical and sound, but it is a deeply human thing. I once read somewhere that there are two types of artists: The egotistical ones, that either believes or knows that they are great, and the ones that are wholly humble and never wants to look at their own art again.

I would say every artist have a little bit of both archetypes within them, I know I certainly do.
Why is it necessary for the colourist to add their own ‘touch’? I have always tried to be anonymous in my drawing so that the story and character remain the focus of any book I work on. This notion of a colourist leaving THEIR mark, expressing THEIR style, THEIR art or whatever else they might call it is exactly the sort of egotistical indulgence that can overwhelm the storytelling intention of illustration.
Personally I think even the idea of trying to anonymize ones work, to perhaps make it appear in some way "generic" is a futile one. Every human being views the world differently, hence why no artists work will every truly look precisely the same. I've never felt so free and positive in my colouring as when I let go of the pretenses I have, of trying to apply certain styles or trying to measure up to a certain level of quality of anatomy or what-have-you. Just me and a chaotic flurry of colours. My work never end up the way I intend it to, so it would appear as if the best times are when I don't intend it to end up in any particular way.

I didn’t say the “computer does the job for you” but that it is “doing some of the work”. If you have any doubt of this fact, try to replicate the work without a computer.
Different tools have different properties. You cannot recreate Michaelangelo's 16th chapel painting with a white chalk. That may seem like an extreme analogy, but I think it's a necessary one. A computer program automates certain parts of the process that are not inherently artistic, I would say. It may seem like there is some artistic skills that are automated, but that is an illusion of the mind, created by the fact that computer-medias are less chaotic and complex than real-world ones.

And the end-result of one program can often not easily be recreated in another one. That is why some prefer to combine different digital media.
What I find contradictory in your rationalisation is how the concept of team effort and dialogue can be balanced with the notion of independent artistic freedom for a colourist to ADD something unique to a page.

This may seem like semantics but while I might accept the term artist to describe someone who originates and completes a work in its entirety a storyteller tells a story, a penciller pencils, an inker inks and a colourists applies colour. If a colourist believes they have the capability to add something artistic to a page— to be a digital artist— why not start with a blank page and prove they are capable?

Alan
In theater, there are one-man shows that are quite a beauty to behold, but often a theater-play involves many actors working together towards an artistic goal. Some have very small roles to play, and often the hierarchy of which actor gets which role depends on their innate talent. Some have the talent to be the lead role, while others are only extras, but they all serve their role in reaching a certain artistic goal.

I can start with a blank page and produce something, and I have done so at times in the past. Problem is that the result may not look human or like anything that could logically exist in the real world. The objects are not represented in an accurate enough way.

That doesn't mean that I don't have the urge to create comics of my own, on the contrary. :) I'm currently working with some mates on Swedens only Superhero fanzine, and I have a project there wherein I'm developing *rough* character-designs, profiles, writing scripts, and will eventually do the colouring and lettering as well.

Don't take this as if I have some twisted perspective of myself as a renaissance-genius, just that I would like to see if I can produce something in these parts of the process.

One of the most important aspects of the comic I could never entertain the idea of even attempting however, is the pencilling. The most fundamental illustrative part of the comic. That I know to be far beyond me.
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

I did get a bit carried away in my last post, I'll try to keep things a bit more focused from now on. It's easy to get lengthy and go off on tangents when you're passionate about something, I have to say.
I’m sorry that my response is so selective again but your passion for tangents often strays far from the point.
That's a bit contradicting, don't you think? Since the illustrations ARE the final representation of the story, the storytelling for the reader. ( excellent lettering notwithstanding, of course)
And the WRITING?!
There is no contradiction in what I wrote. A comic story published in black and white IS a complete story. If the story is reprinted in colour the illustration may be refined (or not depending on quality) but the story is unchanged. A rough cut (pencil art printed without inks or colour but with full text) shows the complete story. The inks and colour add illustrative refinement but they do not affect the story— EXCEPT where there is an opportunity for colour to enhance mood.
Personally I think even the idea of trying to anonymize ones work, to perhaps make it appear in some way "generic" is a futile one.
Of course the personality of an illustrator will be contained in their work—as it is in everything from handwriting to a golf swing-- BUT there is nothing generic about trying to be an anonymous storyteller. Quite the reverse. Doing only what is necessary to tell the story requires the illustrators to serve the story, ATTEMPT to submerge their personality-- as opposed to someone consciously applying a ‘style’ in the hope of being recognised.
Different tools have different properties. You cannot recreate Michaelangelo's 16th chapel painting with a white chalk. That may seem like an extreme analogy, but I think it's a necessary one.
It’s a ridiculously unfair analogy to restrict an attempt to recreate a colour image with a purely white medium. The fact is, pavement artists regularly create portions of masterpieces in coloured chalk. Someone with the skill to draw may be hindered but is not limited by their tools.
One of the most important aspects of the comic I could never entertain the idea of even attempting however, is the pencilling. The most fundamental illustrative part of the comic. That I know to be far beyond me.
Once again, I find your honesty admirable and refreshing but I am curious as to why you believe pencilling is beyond you. Is it the storytelling aspect of pencilling or the purely illustrative discipline?
I think this single point is the crux of the matter because while many colourists BELIEVE they can accurately render or model an image, it just isn’t possible IF they do not have the knowledge to draw that image.

Alan
Predabot
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Swedun'
Contact:

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Predabot »

Alan Davis wrote: And the WRITING?!
There is no contradiction in what I wrote. A comic story published in black and white IS a complete story. If the story is reprinted in colour the illustration may be refined (or not depending on quality) but the story is unchanged. A rough cut (pencil art printed without inks or colour but with full text) shows the complete story. The inks and colour add illustrative refinement but they do not affect the story— EXCEPT where there is an opportunity for colour to enhance mood.
I think we had some misunderstanding in the last post. The way I got it was that you meant that the art is not so important for the story, and my take was that in comics, the art is half the story. Comic-scripts are not written like traditional prose, because the story is told trough illustrations as well as text-bubbles.

( a generalization perhaps, but I know mostly of comic-book storytelling more or less influenced by the marvel-method)

Of course the personality of an illustrator will be contained in their work—as it is in everything from handwriting to a golf swing-- BUT there is nothing generic about trying to be an anonymous storyteller. Quite the reverse. Doing only what is necessary to tell the story requires the illustrators to serve the story, ATTEMPT to submerge their personality-- as opposed to someone consciously applying a ‘style’ in the hope of being recognised.
I still think holding back ones style for some reason, is an exercise in holding back ones creativity and artistic ability. A certain story I would say, requires a certain artist. A guy like Steve Epting is more suited for a serious crime-story than say, Humberto Ramos.

Letting ones style flow freely can actually be of service to a story, since the rendering of objects will feel more natural and everything will come together in a more organic way.
It’s a ridiculously unfair analogy to restrict an attempt to recreate a colour image with a purely white medium. The fact is, pavement artists regularly create portions of masterpieces in coloured chalk. Someone with the skill to draw may be hindered but is not limited by their tools.
And my point have continuosly been that the same principle applies to digital colouring. The tools of digital media simply quickens up certain parts of the process that do not require creativity.
Once again, I find your honesty admirable and refreshing but I am curious as to why you believe pencilling is beyond you. Is it the storytelling aspect of pencilling or the purely illustrative discipline?
I think this single point is the crux of the matter because while many colourists BELIEVE they can accurately render or model an image, it just isn’t possible IF they do not have the knowledge to draw that image.

Alan
I would say that it is the illustrative aspect, since I have not really drawn many comic-panels, not more than perhaps 3-4 short strips.
My frustration with the difficulties in producing a complete illustration with a more or less professional quality is why I have given up such endeavours for a purely supportive position on illustration. And I always felt the crayons or coloured pencils I used was the most fun stage too, I suppose.

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement about the rendering and modeling, are you implying that the colourist should be as skilled an illustrator as the Penciler? That the colourist should be able to pencil an entire comic-book page with the same skill as the artist he is colouring? A colourist follows the penciler's lead, he does not need to be as skilled in anatomy, form or perspective, since his work is based on the basis that the penciler has already supplied.
He should be skilled in the knowledge of shadow and light, and colour-theory, but need he be as skilled in all the aspects of illustration as the penciler? No.
Then he would not be a colourist, then he would be a full-blown painter and then he would be quite frankly wasting his talents with comic-book colouring, at least the way it has worked traditionally.
Alan Davis
Creator
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Re: Mr Davis, are some of your art fair game for Colouring?

Post by Alan Davis »

I think we had some misunderstanding in the last post. The way I got it was that you meant that the art is not so important for the story, and my take was that in comics, the art is half the story. Comic-scripts are not written like traditional prose, because the story is told trough illustrations as well as text-bubbles.
( a generalization perhaps, but I know mostly of comic-book storytelling more or less influenced by the marvel-method)
I never expressed a view on the percentage of story carried by art or text (that is another discussion entirely). It was your tangential argument that introduced the contribution of the letterer and I thought it important to clarify that the writing IS the other side of the storytelling equation. NOT the lettering.

I still think holding back ones style for some reason, is an exercise in holding back ones creativity and artistic ability. A certain story I would say, requires a certain artist. A guy like Steve Epting is more suited for a serious crime-story than say, Humberto Ramos.
First, your statement might be seen to suggest Humberto Ramos could not change his style to suit another genre if he chose to do so, which is obviously unfair-- But more relevantly to this discussion you are making a parallel between the colourist’s contribution and the penciller which I dispute… Because the penciller’s ‘style’ sets the standard and the colourist should follow that lead, NOT try to impose their own style.
Letting ones style flow freely can actually be of service to a story, since the rendering of objects will feel more natural and everything will come together in a more organic way
.

I would agree that spontaneity is preferable but only if the end results are appropriate. My criticism of many ‘Digital colourists’ is that they are like interior decorators plastering a Pagoda in flock wallpaper.
And my point have continuosly been that the same principle applies to digital colouring. The tools of digital media simply quickens up certain parts of the process that do not require creativity.
I don’t agree with your logic— it’s based on a false syllogism. My point is a skilled illustrator can employ ANY tools, including Photoshop (or some such program), to create an illustration. Your point is that because skilled illustrators can use Photoshop, anyone mastering Photoshop is a digital artist. The question I would ask is, exactly how does digital media speed up the process if it is not doing some of the work (creative or otherwise)? And what are the creative/non-creative aspects of the process?
I would say that it is the illustrative aspect, since I have not really drawn many comic-panels, not more than perhaps 3-4 short strips.
My frustration with the difficulties in producing a complete illustration with a more or less professional quality is why I have given up such endeavours for a purely supportive position on illustration.
The term ‘supportive position’ would suggest you recognise the colourist’s role as subordinate to the penciller.
And I always felt the crayons or coloured pencils I used was the most fun stage too, I suppose.
Would you accept that the reason colouring a finished illustration is fun is precisely because all of the hard work has been completed?
I'm not sure how to interpret your statement about the rendering and modeling, are you implying that the colourist should be as skilled an illustrator as the Penciler?
IF the colourist believes they can remodel the penciller’s work, YES!
That the colourist should be able to pencil an entire comic-book page with the same skill as the artist he is colouring?
IF the colouring interferes with the pencillers storytelling, YES!
A colourist follows the penciler's lead, he does not need to be as skilled in anatomy, form or perspective, since his work is based on the basis that the penciler has already supplied.
Even if it was true that the colourists follow the penciller’s lead, I do not believe it is possible to model a face or figure (or indeed add depth and clarity to a scene) without a good knowledge of the subject. Painting-- modelling in colour-- is the equivalent to drawing with planes of tone as opposed to ‘outlining planes’ in black-line art.
This notion that the penciller is somehow supplying a framework for the colourist to add ‘THEIR ART’ is often used to justify self indulgent nonsense.
He should be skilled in the knowledge of shadow and light, and colour-theory, but need he be as skilled in all the aspects of illustration as the penciler? No.
NO. I don’t expect a colourist to be as skilled as a penciller BUT in recognising that they are far less skilled illustrators, the colourist’s code should be ‘First do no harm’-- IF in doubt leave it alone!
Now, ‘colour-theory’ is highly debatable because so much of colour can be personal preference but I am very curious about what you mean by ’knowledge of light and shadow’? ALL form is defined by light and shadow. In the most simplistic terms it could be said that all illustration is a ’knowledge of light and shadow’.
Then he would not be a colourist, then he would be a full-blown painter and then he would be quite frankly wasting his talents with comic-book colouring, at least the way it has worked traditionally.
This was my point. IF a colourist believes they are equal to a penciller then let them prove it. (… rather than wasting his talent with comic-book colouring).
For the sake of discussion we are dealing in sweeping generalities here and while I accept that a few colourists might be capable of working closely with a penciller as ‘an equal’, most are by necessity are technicians with little illustrative ability. Because, as, your summation would seem to indicate, the job is beneath anyone with real ability-- unless they are allowed to impose their personal ‘style’?
Post Reply