My statement lies in leu that I have seen some artists gravitate by nature towards a certain style, because it suits their skills the best. I have a friend that works in a style similar to some traditional cartooning, with a more simplified anatomy, because he has mentioned that he often struggles greatly with other styles.Alan Davis wrote: 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.
Maybe I was unfair to Ramos, in assuming that he has a similar situation or mindset, since it's based on my own limited knowledge, wherein he has always had a very clearly defined style. I'll try to avoid such errors in the future by using more general and anonymous examples of artistry.
In relevance though - My argument is that by just adding anything, even following the artists lead correctly, the colourist will automatically influence the work heavily, even if he is a very skilled artist, modeling things in an accurate manor. Even on books where the colourists have gotten awards for a good job, this is immediately obvious when the look of the book can change drastically, even if the new colourist is equally skilled as the old one.
This has been a contention between inkers and pencilers for decades, like for instance an artist doing his own inks often look very different from one inked by someone else, even if the inkers have done a correct job. Some artists have therefore, now that printing allows it, decided to skip inks entirely and go directly for colour or gray-tones. I suppose it is inevitable that now when a colourists importance is higher, they become a part of this contention.
I think you have simply had some bad experiences of lacking communication, and that the effect of the colourist on the final work must now be taken into the equation, feels alien to your traditional work-flow.
If you feel that there are inferior artists working in the industry, then a better place to lay the blame is among companies and editors, who hire artists that they know to be inferior.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.
Often a penciler or inker that does an inferior job will be branded thereafter, and get the boot pretty quickly, by fans, editors and companies alike. If this does not apply to colourists for some reason, then I am bewildered as to why...
I had to look up "syllogism"...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?
We have a misunderstanding of philosophies again. If that is what I have been giving you the impression of, then I have made CATASTROPHIC errors in communication.
My point is not at all that mastering Photoshop, understanding how to set up a page, make a macro, know where the pallette is, makes you a digital artist. No, no, no, no. I thought I already said that: "anyone can start Photoshop, but not everyone can add something artistic"?
A colourist is an artist, maybe you feel that not everyone is as skilled or as educated as a professional position requires, but that is not the same thing.
As to your question, then the answer is everything is faster. You don't have to be as careful about errors for instance, because you can quickly undo an error. You can zoom out and check if you are adding too much or too little to a page ( that will be noticed in print), and then zoom in again. Changing brushes or brush-sizes can take less than a fraction of a second. If you want to add some unique texture from a photograph or some such then that is done very quickly as well.
It's hard to show restraint when there is so much that can be done in such short order, the original artistic vision can be muddled indeed, that I will give you. For I have done such errors myself.
Mostly yes. The more incredible the achievement in the penciled page, then often, unless one becomes riddled with doubt about doing said work justice, the more fun the colouring is.The term ‘supportive position’ would suggest you recognise the colourist’s role as subordinate to the penciller.
Would you accept that the reason colouring a finished illustration is fun is precisely because all of the hard work has been completed?
I agree that a certain knowledge about the subject is needed, but not of exactly the same aspects you do. ( see shadow & light) What you call "self-indulgent nonsense" someone else could call their "refreshing experimentation". That's why communication and collaboration is important, if a colourist wishes to do some things, then he could most likely come to a reasonable understanding of why not to do so at a certain point, or come to an amicable compromise. Working with others is all about compromise.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.
I would not say one always has the luxury of leaving it entirely alone in todays industry. Un-rendered flat pages are not accepted by the comic-reading public of today, when they know that more can be done, and rightly so. A better modus operandi in my view, is "If in doubt, ASK someone". ( preferrably the penciler, if that is an option, which it should be) And then since it is a new situation, scale the rendering back to a more simplistic level than one usually would.NO. I don’t expect a colourist to be as skilled as a penciller BUT in recognizing 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’.
Apples and oranges perhaps, but I think there's a difference there.
When I say Shadow and Light, I mean that the colourist must keep the light-source consistent, identify the direction that light is coming from, where there should be light and less or no light, if there are, or should logically be, more than one light-source. This is of course based on observing the objects depicted in the drawing, and their positions. Hey! Waitaminute... are you asking me a trick-question, Mr Davis?
Thank you, Mr Davis! That's very good to hear.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’,
A clumsy choice of words then, since the ability to be a colourist is a very real ability. Perhaps not as great as that of a painter, but real none the less. If no artistic ability whatsoever was needed, then it would be easier to let a machine do the job. Wind it up, point the gun, pull the trigger.most are by necessity 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’?