Question from the artistic illeterate

[Nutcase65]

Which person on a comics srew is mainly responsible for the artwork, as in the way the charaters are drawn? Is it the penciler?

[Nutcase65]

what I mean is when you say you don't like the artwork of so and so, what is so and so's title? Pinciler, Inker, what?

[The Night Phantom]

Well, when you dislike a work crafted by two or more people, it’s possible that any one or more of them may be the persons whose work displeases you. It’s also possible that you would generally appreciate each of their efforts separately but find the combination displeasing. (And of course the question is complicated by the fact that sometimes a single person does more than one job.) Pencilers tend to be better known than inkers; fairly or unfairly, the comics-reading public tends to identify pencilers’ work far more easily than inkers’ and tends to assign praise or blame to the pencilers. But inkers can have recognizable styles. Tom Palmer (Sr.) is an example of a well-known, distinctive inker. Even if an inker isn’t recognizable per se, his contribution has the potential to “make or break” the artwork.

The penciler is the one who starts the illustration. He literally uses a pencil to sketch out the scene. The inker takes the penciler’s work and, yes, uses ink to (ideally) enhance it. To some degree this entails tracing the pencils, and there’s some choice as to the thickness of the ink lines. The inker can also add shadow and other detail—i.e., possibly adding elements that weren’t in the pencils, like the lines in a person’s hair. Sometimes inkers inject so much into the page—or else disregard pencilwork that is there, simply erasing portions without inking them—as to arguably be creating a wholly distinct work. (Even when the inker is doing an “appropriate” amount of work—however much that may be, subject to personal opinions—the penciler may feel—happily, unhappily, or dispassionately—that the completed page is of a character entirely different from what the penciler created.)

Sometimes these jobs are given other names. Less detailed pencil work is often credited as “breakdowns” or “layouts” (clearly the penciler “lays out” the scene, by choosing panel size and shape, camera angle, positions of characters and objects, etc.); “heavier” inking to complement less detailed pencils is often called “finishes”. But those terms might be used even if the pencils and inks have more or less normal weight.

With modern computerized coloring techniques, the colorist sometimes ends up doing a good deal of “drawing”, whether doing something relatively simple like adding shades or creating a complex “special effect” (shimmers, glows, sparkles, etc.).

The above are not hard and fast rules—for example, think of comics that are painted or that are created with CGI. Or think of Kirby’s penchant for inserting photographs into his penciled works.

I’m no art expert, and I welcome correction or further detail. But I hope this post is a first step in combating both artistic and orthographic illiteracy.

[Nutcase65]

For instance issue 335 part 2 of "the collection obsession"

The penciler is Steve Eptig and the Inkers are Plamer and DeZuniga

in the next issue the penciler is still Eptig but the Inker is now just Tom Palmer.

335 looks like it was xeroxed from cartoon stills. The art isn't attractive at all, then the next issue looks completely different, more comic book style than the first.

How can it be that different. Does that one extra inker have that affect?

[The Night Phantom]

nutcase65 said:

For instance issue 335 part 2 of "the collection obsession"

The penciler is Steve Eptig and the Inkers are Plamer and DeZuniga

in the next issue the penciler is still Eptig but the Inker is now just Tom Palmer.

335 looks like it was xeroxed from cartoon stills. The art isn't attractive at all, then the next issue looks completely different, more comic book style than the first.

How can it be that different. Does that one extra inker have that affect?

I don’t feel like looking at those issues right now to refresh my memory, and I don’t have a great eye for separating out the efforts of collaborators—so, understand that my answer here is highly speculative.

Having two inkers on a single story is unusual (though hardly unheard of). Possibly they worked on different pages (probably because of a schedule problem preventing a single inker from doing all the work). I suppose it’s possible that one inker retouched the inks of another. The “Xeroxing” effect could be an artifact of a printing process and not of the artistic process per se.

[Nutcase65]

no, when I talk about the xeroxing effect I mean it looks more like this artwork was made for cartoons rather than for comics.
you know far less shadowing in the muscle tone. Fewer color variations,... stuff like that. Not being adept at expressing myself in this area, forgive my inability to communicate my thoughts clearly.

[redstatecap]

"Illeterate" is spelled "illiterate."
Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

RSC

[redstatecap]

nutcase65 said:

no, when I talk about the xeroxing effect I mean it looks more like this artwork was made for cartoons rather than for comics.
you know far less shadowing in the muscle tone. Fewer color variations,... stuff like that. Not being adept at expressing myself in this area, forgive my inability to communicate my thoughts clearly.

One might speculate that the difference could be a result of schedule pressures. Perhaps they were on a very tight deadline, so they employed two inkers and didn't take the usual care in their work, just banged it out.

RSC

[Nutcase65]

Can anyone ansewr this question though? Who is the one you place the blame on when the art is no good? and I don't mean the editor who should keep standards up. Which person is most responsible for how the characters look?

[dlw66]

I don't think there is a set answer for your question, which is somewhat where Phantom was going in his very good first reply. I have participated in discussions elsewhere on the impact certain inkers have on certain pencillers. For example, if you head over to the Silver Age Artists thread, you'll see a good discourse on the various inkers who've worked with John Buscema. Some have enhanced, some have harmed. Knowing that you have some of the DVD-ROMs, I'd suggest that you pick an artist (Buscema is a great example) and browse through that penciller's work and see how it is affected by the various inkers. Keep in mind, however, that in the '60's many creators used pseudonyms -- George Roussos and George Bell, for example, and the same person (EDIT: Thanks to sharkar for noting to me that the above is correct -- I had originally typed that George Klein and George Roussos were one and the same ). Another example is Mike Esposito and Mickey Demeo -- same person. I just say that because you might say "Well, gee, it's the same look from both of these guys!"

In regard to multiple pencillers/inkers on a given story: It would be highly unlikely that inkers would partipate on the same page, due in large part to the original pencils being on a single sheet of bristol board. That having to be in one man's possession for inking negates the possibility that two hands enhanced the pencils. However, I would say that there is the chance that someone who did corrections once the board got back to Marvel for pre-press examination might have received a credit. However (again), when John Romita was art director I know for a fact that he was uncredited on literally hundreds if not thousands of corrections before the coloring process began.

So, the short answer: different inkers can help or harm different pencillers. Joe Sinnott could bring a consistency to the Silver/Bronze Age FF whether the pencils were done by Kirby, Romita, Buscema, Buckler, or Perez. Keep in mind that some have criticized Joe for that -- he exerted too much personal influence on the art of other creators. I would say, as I just did, that his brush strokes brought a consistency to the title that made it very easy to pick up and enjoy from month to month, era to era.

Last point (because my fingers are getting tired -- Nutcase, how the heck do you post so much??) -- individual pencillers and the timing of the whole situation also make this a hard question to answer. What I mean by this is that if you were to see Buscema's original pencils from the 1960's, you'd find them fairly tight with little guesswork (or creativity) avaiable to the inker. However, if you go on Ebay today and run a search for "John Buscema" in the original art category, you'll find examples of the type of pencils he generated for the last 20 years of his career -- very loose. You can certainly tell that it's still Big John, but you get a true sense that most of what you saw in the Avengers in the late 1980's-early '90's was almost all Tom Palmer. That's why the look remained somewhat consistent when Steve Epting and others took over the art chores -- Palmer held it together much like Sinnott had done with the FF.

Whoo -- I'm done....

[redstatecap]

Very educational info on this thread. Thanks DLW and Phantom.

RSC

[Nutcase65]

this confuses me tho'. Because I see on this board several times where this person and that person are blamed for terrible artwork. How is it decided that they are to blame?

[dlw66]

Good question, because it is difficult to know what is purely the penciller's work and what belongs to the embellisher. I guess for newer pencillers, I'm not sure how I'd answer. Saying that, my suggestion for pencillers who have been around is to see what kind of an impression you get from their work. Which combination of penciller/inker seems to work best? Some guys just go together and become almost lifelong partners, like John Byrne and Terry Austin or Frank Miller and Klaus Janson. When you see Byrne ink himself, you'll know the difference.

Hope that helps .

[Nutcase65]

when people blame Cho for his work, is it all on him?

[redstatecap]

Cho started out in the newsstrip format, which I would argue is a good thing for understanding sequential storytelling. He then moved to his own full-length comic, which was still more a collection of skits than a real 20-page story. His book wasn't the superhero genre, so I would also argue that he isn't that great on dynamic action. He's got the cheesecake part down pat, though. His work in MA looks pretty much just like Liberty Meadows with more muscles.
Having seen a lot of his work over years, I would say that anyone who doesn't like Cho on MA just doesn't like Cho.

RSC

[dlw66]

He's a little too much cheesecake for me. I also don't think he has the complete handle on the spatial aspects of comic art (or drawing a "scene", I guess). In some of the preview art I've seen for the MA book, in particular the panel with Ares and Iron Man about to square off and Carol in between -- it just doesn't look right. Carol's relationship in size, hand position, etc. is out of scale. For another example of spatial problems, head over to the Ultimates Vol. III preview thread and see that Venom/Panther cover/panel (whatever it is). I made similar comments to those above about that picture.

Picky, maybe. But for a professional it shouldn't be too much to ask for.

[redstatecap]

You're not wrong. I liked his work on Liberty Meadows, and I think his style can translate to superhero comics, but I don't think he has down all the skills just yet.
I like cheesecake so long as it's not overdone. (Heh!) But honestly, cheesecake has been a part of superhero comics from the beginning. Cho isn't even a particularly bad offender, and at least his cheesecake looks better than most. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen an artist twist a female character into a pretzel to give us a shot of both her ass and cleavage in the same panel. Darn near every female is portrayed as hipswayed and has her improbably tight ass and impossibly large chest stuck out at the same time.
I could do without a lot of that, but it isn't going away and IMO Cho isn't any worse than anyone else. He just has the reputation.

RSC

[The Night Phantom]

I was thinking about this topic again; on a lark, I checked and discovered that Wikipedia does discuss the roles of inker and penciler. Feel free to check out its articles for more on the distinction and collaboration between those artists.

[Nutcase65]

I finally looked that up too. I guess the answer to my original question is it could be either that is responsible for what we would consider 'bad art'

[The Night Phantom]

nutcase65 said:

I finally looked that up too. I guess the answer to my original question is it could be either that is responsible for what we would consider 'bad art'

A perceptive conclusion.

[Nutcase65]

Just agreeing with those wiser than me in this field of study, which at last look was still pretty much everybody when it comes to art.

[dlw66]

For those still interested in the topic, I'd encourage any and all to check out TwoMorrows' magazines "Draw!" and "Rough Stuff", as well as the oft-hyped (by me) "Back Issue". Discussions of this sort happen all the time, and any of these books will included pencils and inked pages, often for comparison. Check 'em out!

[Crimson Cowl]

I think the answer to your question depends upon what is wrong with the art. In most cases the penciller is the one who gets the credit or blame in any given instance. For an example of an inker being responsible for a flaw in the artwork the example of Avengers 235 (I think, the one with Annihilus' 'null-field' is the one I'm thiking of ) springs to mind. Whilt the pencils aren't ruined I would say that Sinnot manages to make Byrne's art seem bland and plasticky when compared with virtually any other example of Byrne's work (check out FF 258-61 for his best work!). Now that I think of it I believe Sinnot had a similar effect on John Buscema's pencils in an Avengers ish in the 150's.

[dlw66]

Perhaps something lost in this discussion that could send the thread in a new direction is the changing style of pencillers. For example, to the best of my knowledge Charles Schultz always inked his own work on the Peanuts strip. Yet if you've seen his 1950's strips as compared to the more recognizable 1970's-'90's strips, you'll see that there were changes in figural techniques, etc. Same could be said for Jim Davis' Garfield strip.

We've discussed the evolution of the work of Frank Miller and John Romita, Jr. Do any other artists come to mind who changed their pencilling style in such a way as to greatly influence your like/dislike of their work?