|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 24, 2007 22:17:26 GMT -5
So I guess I don't say that the before or the current is right or wrong -- just different. Maybe page rates were so rotten 30-40 years ago that guys like Sal B. felt like they had to churn it out. Rates today might be significantly better... That's a very good point! I think more people would "pull a Vinnie" if the rates were lower!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 25, 2007 8:32:32 GMT -5
But the talk about Colletta being a fast inker made me think. In years gone by, we had artists and writers who worked on 3, 4, 5 books a month! You never see that nowadays -especially not with pencillers. Heck, we're lucky to get a regular monthly book out of an artist each month. People have argued with me that artists do much more detailed work now and that is why it takes so much more time. But can't there be a happy medium? I have also heard that argument that artists do much more detailed work now, but I don´t think it´s entirely true. Take a look at the work of Mike Grell or Neal Adams and tell me who is the modern artist whose work is more detailed. And one of the few artists in the industry today who pays a lot of attention to details is... George Perez, the old warhorse!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 25, 2007 8:49:56 GMT -5
So I guess I don't say that the before or the current is right or wrong -- just different. Maybe page rates were so rotten 30-40 years ago that guys like Sal B. felt like they had to churn it out. Rates today might be significantly better... That's a very good point! I think more people would "pull a Vinnie" if the rates were lower! I read an interview with Adam Hughes once where he said more or less that. In his opinion Jack Kirby could draw 8 or 9 pages a day because he had to.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 25, 2007 12:24:34 GMT -5
But the talk about Colletta being a fast inker made me think. In years gone by, we had artists and writers who worked on 3, 4, 5 books a month! You never see that nowadays -especially not with pencillers. Heck, we're lucky to get a regular monthly book out of an artist each month. People have argued with me that artists do much more detailed work now and that is why it takes so much more time. But can't there be a happy medium? I have also heard that argument that artists do much more detailed work now, but I don´t think it´s entirely true. Take a look at the work of Mike Grell or Neal Adams and tell me who is the modern artist whose work is more detailed. And one of the few artists in the industry today who pays a lot of attention to details is... George Perez, the old warhorse! yeah, Perez could crank 'em out too. I really respect what he has done now, with his run on Brave and Bold. He knows his limtations, doesn't want the book to be late, so he tells them up front he can only commit to 10 issues a year. I think if everyone, including readers, know this going in, there's no disappointment when all we get is 10 issues. He's a true professional.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 25, 2007 13:11:22 GMT -5
And while I love Brian Hitch's work, he certainly doesn't keep to a schedule!!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 25, 2007 14:33:40 GMT -5
I was reading a Mike Grell interview on his Website and he says he needs 3 to 5 hours to draw a page! Well I don´t want to call anyone lazy but... okay, I have to call some artists lazy...
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 25, 2007 18:16:48 GMT -5
I wonder why, though, if some of today's pencils are so tight the production people don't just shoot straight from the bristol board as it is and skip the inking process altogether. It's possible the need to ink pencils may become obsolete in the near future, given the expanded capabilities of software for scanning, coloring, etc. Today's coloring programs can mimic effects that formerly could only be invoked through skilled inking (shading, texture, for example). I guess that's why we see coloring credits displayed now. Due to technology, inking's role as an integral part of the artistic process seems to be diminishing, and that may be why there aren't any "superstar" inkers around today. In the old days, as we've discussed, there were inkers like Sinnott, Palmer, Giordano, et al., all of whom had very strong, distinctive styles and whose work really made a difference on pencils. Now, with the click of a mouse... Oh, for sure. Back then it was an assembly line of sorts, it was not a "glamorous" profession like it is now (because of all the marketing/movie/animation $$$$ implications). Artists were treated like chattel (we all know the companies owned the artwork-- before Neal Adams stepped in and made a fuss). Some artists had a higher per page rate than others but no one became rich (I'm referring to the Silver Age here); some of the artists did advertising or other work to supplement their incomes. And doing breakdowns/layouts paid significantly less than "finished" pencils. This especially irked Kirby because not only was he doing the finished pencils for FF, Thor and (often) Cap in Suspense, but for a long time he was also doing breakdowns for nearly every other Marvel book. From all accounts he churned out an incredible amount of work on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 25, 2007 18:35:19 GMT -5
Well, it's not quite that simple as to click the mouse ^^
That kind of coloring involves deep knowledge of Adobe Photoshop, which is one of the most difficult softwares ever if you want to go beyond the surface a bit. Being able to use it even at 50% of capability involves a lot of work, so in the end is probably almost as difficult as inking, just different.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 25, 2007 18:51:31 GMT -5
Back Issue #20 has an apologetic article written by Bob McLeod in defense of Vince Colletta (otherwise known as "6-hour Vinnie"). What really grabbed my attention, however, was Bob McLeod’s spirited defense of fellow inker Vince Colletta in his “Off My Chest” column. McLeod acknowledges “Vinnie’s” unfortunate reputation as “comics’ worst inker,” but with even the best of intentions there’s precious little he can muster to rehabilitate that rep.....Someone that can be described as “[sacrificing] quality for quantity … [cutting] a lot of corners, blacking in details and erasing small background figures” in the interest of making more money is the definition of a hack, no matter how much one might wish the fans could be more forgiving. I must admit, I have always liked his work. His faces had a very distinctive look (even though he often made his characters look cross-eyed). It may be trivial but I liked how he depicted hair. His work was less slick than many others; softer, more innocent. and I think that suited books like Thor (Kirby pencils) and Sub-Mariner (over Colan and Severin, IIRC). And I loved his work with Colan on the one-shot Medusa story in Marvel Super-Heroes #15; it was fantastic. (Though Colan, like most other pencilers, hated VC's work, for the "shortcut" reasons given by dlw; notably, Colan was very upset about Colletta's inks on Tomb of Dracula #2.) I also liked his work on a few issues of the Avengers: #43, #44 and #46 (Buscema), and even #45 (Heck). Again, because of the softness, and because his inks imparted a different look, a less "high tech" look. But I know he does not have many admirers among fans; and artists were justifiably upset when he shortchanged their work in the interests of speed. Here's a viewpoint that, again, points to his speed: thenostalgialeague.com/cr/tb/cr-tb15.html
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 25, 2007 19:00:06 GMT -5
Well, it's not quite that simple as to click the mouse ^^ That kind of coloring involves deep knowledge of Adobe Photoshop, which is one of the most difficult softwares ever if you want to go beyond the surface a bit. Being able to use it even at 50% of capability involves a lot of work, so in the end is probably almost as difficult as inking, just different. Yes, agreed; I was being facetious with the mouse comment, didn't mean to make it sound simple (I can barely master the Photoshop basics!). I'm just pointing out that there are other options available now, that may replace the good old fashioned pen and brush inking methods. Similar effects can be achieved via other methods.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 25, 2007 19:12:27 GMT -5
I just wanted to be the 100th poster on the thread, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 25, 2007 19:16:50 GMT -5
Some artists had a higher per page rate than others but no one became rich (I'm referring to the Silver Age here); some of the artists did advertising or other work to supplement their incomes. And even those who were somehow able to get their original work back had no idea that was or would be any kind of secondary market for it (for instance, right now on Ebay the cover to FF #120 by Buscema/Sinnott featuring the first installment of the Galactus 4-parter is on bid for an opening of $17,500 -- we'll see if anyone actually pays that ). Many artists gave away their work as gifts or at conventions. Some have even expressed their broken-heartedness at seeing those same pages sell on auction sites for hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 25, 2007 19:17:34 GMT -5
I just wanted to be the 100th poster on the thread, sorry. Sometimes you crack me up.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 25, 2007 19:22:26 GMT -5
I just wanted to be the 100th poster on the thread, sorry. Sometimes you crack me up. meaning this isnt on of thiose times I'm guessing.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 25, 2007 19:35:17 GMT -5
I just wanted to be the 100th poster on the thread, sorry. There he is, there he is ! Burn the spammer !!!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 25, 2007 19:36:50 GMT -5
OK OK, I'll do like some others. I'll go back and post a whole bunch of empty comments and self-promoting language. At least I'm honest I love that thingy
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 25, 2007 21:06:59 GMT -5
Today's coloring programs can mimic effects that formerly could only be invoked through skilled inking (shading, texture, for example). I guess that's why we see coloring credits displayed now. Actually, we’ve been seeing them for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 25, 2007 21:32:40 GMT -5
The Conan book by Dark Horse -- the colors are thrown down right on the pencils -- no inker involved. I thought it was all painted for about the first 6 issues until I started wondering how come it was being printed monthly. Great look for that book, but there's a lot to be said for a diversity of styles. The more options that are available, the better.
How about that digital Batman graphic novel that came out around 1987 or so? Did anybody read that? "Digital Justice" or some such. Reminds me of the Dire Straits Video with the guys moving refrigerators. There was a lot of hype about the "all computer generated" movement. But people keep making it the old fashioned way too. Just like people still do oil paints.
Oh wait aminute! I'm babbling.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 25, 2007 21:34:04 GMT -5
NPhantom:
Mea culpa. I had a decades long hiatus from comics, so colorist credits seem new and fresh to me!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 26, 2007 8:43:37 GMT -5
The Conan book by Dark Horse -- the colors are thrown down right on the pencils -- no inker involved. I thought it was all painted for about the first 6 issues until I started wondering how come it was being printed monthly. At Marvel the X-Treme X-Men monthly and the Wolverine Origin mini also involved a similar method (computer coloring direct over the finished pencils). How about that digital Batman graphic novel that came out around 1987 or so? Did anybody read that? "Digital Justice" or some such. I read it. And the Iron Man digital GN ("Crash") that got published around the same time too. I still prefer a 'pencilled' comic, but like you said diversity is a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 27, 2007 19:00:30 GMT -5
Does anyone have any thoughts on the work of Bob Brown? I know he worked on Avengers during much of Englehart's early run, as well as Daredevil. Personally, I thought it was a step up from Don Heck's, but in a similar vein as Heck's. Sort of journeyman work, acceptable but not really all that exciting.
And yes, this is really Bronze Age stuff here, but this thread has wandered so much, does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 28, 2007 8:37:12 GMT -5
I personally enjoyed Bob Brown's work on both the books you mentioned. It certainly was a step up from Heck, and yes, not great but with a memorable style nonetheless. His work was dynamic in form -- figures tended to be lithe, which worked well on DD and the Widow. I have always been fond of the Collector and Zodiac stories in Avengers #119-123.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 2, 2007 1:02:01 GMT -5
I personally enjoyed Bob Brown's work on both the books you mentioned. It certainly was a step up from Heck, and yes, not great but with a memorable style nonetheless. His work was dynamic in form -- figures tended to be lithe, which worked well on DD and the Widow. I have always been fond of the Collector and Zodiac stories in Avengers #119-123. I went back and looked at some of those issues. I see Mike Esposito was the inker for some of them, and Don Heck for the others. You can really see Heck's imprint, especially on faces. I definitely prefer Esposito's inks. Esposito has a much more polished style, while Heck has a very thin-line, scratchy look. It's interesting to note that issue 121 had John Buscema listed as guest artist and Heck as embellisher. While I can see some of Buscema's style, particularly in the way the figures are positioned, Heck's stamp is all over this issue! I really wonder if Buscema just did some layouts and Heck did a lot of the finished work.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 15, 2007 19:18:08 GMT -5
I have also heard that argument that artists do much more detailed work now, but I don´t think it´s entirely true. Take a look at the work of Mike Grell or Neal Adams and tell me who is the modern artist whose work is more detailed. Poor Neal paid the price for being so meticulously detail-oriented, at least during his brief stint at Marvel (during the late 60s-early 70s). He--understandably--spent a lot of time on his pencils and IIRC, this was referred to in some Bullpen Bulletins and letter columns at the time- - there were at least a couple references in print to "Nefarious Neal's" inability to meet deadlines. And he tells of how he spent a lot of time with Roy plotting several installments of the Kree-Skrull War, only to be shocked that John Buscema penciled one of the chapters (allegedly due to Neal not penciling fast enough). He just didn't mesh well with the Marvel factory method that was the prevailing mode then.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 16, 2007 8:45:56 GMT -5
No, Neal would be much better suited to working on The Ultimates, which only comes out once every NEVER!!!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 16, 2007 9:32:31 GMT -5
Neal Adams could finish 2 or 3 pages in ONE DAY, and was referred to as "Nefarious Neal"... I wonder how artists like Bryan Hitch or McNiven should be referred to then
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 16, 2007 16:04:19 GMT -5
Neal Adams could finish 2 or 3 pages in ONE DAY, and was referred to as "Nefarious Neal"... I wonder how artists like Bryan Hitch or McNiven should be referred to then The phrase used around our house is "d**n slow-ass artists".
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 17, 2007 10:16:44 GMT -5
I was looking at some old Hulk covers (1970's) and I realized that while I generally do not like Herb Trimpe's art, when he was inked by John Severin, I actually thought it was fine. Which is of course due to the fact it looks more like Severin than Trimpe! And between the two Severins, I prefer Marie's work to John's, although there are similarities. But overall I find Marie to have a more subtle, expressive tone to her work.
Any thoughts on these three artists?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 17, 2007 11:42:19 GMT -5
Trimpe drew such distinct faces back on the groovy '70's Hulk books. I thought he told a nice story, though. My lasting memory of Herb Trimpe, however, stems from some publicity for some huge books Marvel put out in the mid-'90's (I forget what they called them; it was a similar marketing idea to DC's $1.00 Comics from the late '70's). Marvel billed the art on the new FF comic as being by Herb Trimpe in "a dynamic new style!!". I looked at it and thought it must have been what Liefeld was drawing when he was a 6th-grader! It was SO gawdawful!!!
John Severin -- I'm limited in my knowledge of him; I recall seeing some war books that looked very nice. Wasn't he also involved in humor mags, like Crazy?
I have always liked what I've seen from Marie Severin -- she is one of the truly underrated Silver Age artists. Her work on Sub-Mariner is oft beautiful!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 17, 2007 12:33:31 GMT -5
I was looking at some old Hulk covers (1970's) and I realized that while I generally do not like Herb Trimpe's art, when he was inked by John Severin, I actually thought it was fine. Which is of course due to the fact it looks more like Severin than Trimpe! I remember a Machine Man mini series in the 80´s with BWS inks over Trimpe´s pencils that looked great, almost like 'pure' BWS art. And between the two Severins, I prefer Marie's work to John's, although there are similarities. But overall I find Marie to have a more subtle, expressive tone to her work. I liked her work on "Kull". I think John also worked on that series.
|
|