|
What do you guys think of P. Craig Russell? I forget if I posted his stuff before but I always enjoyed his work and thought he was underrated. His delicate line work and sense of the surreal were always fascinating to look at for me.     poo poo. Edited for table breaking. One more. http://i43.tinypic.com/21mvkgk.jpg BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 28, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
TwoPair posted:The only thing I've really ever read by him is Marvels (I keep meaning to get around to Kingdom Come, the other big famous Ross work, but just hasn't happened yet). Go read it. I still consider it when of my favorite comics of all time. The Midniter posted:Dude, get around to reading this ASAP. Seriously. It's incredible (much better than Marvels in my opinion). I liked it much better than Marvels and I'm not usually much of a DC fan. thespaceinvader posted:QFT. Marvels was good, Kingdom Come is absolutely fantastic. Beaten badly, like Wolverine in an X-Men movie. Not sure why Alex Ross catches so much poo poo, really. I get that some people just don't like the photo-realistic style but, unlike most "poster artists" his story-telling is usually about at as good as his rendering, although I find it can get a little busy at times. His pacing is good and his page breakdowns are pretty solid. I don't care much about his over reliance on photos since he takes his own, he takes pretty good ones and he usually has a knack for picking the right model(s) for the characters. The only thing about Ross that bugs me is his constant over-reliance on dramatic lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Has Bernie Wrightson been mentioned in this thread yet? I'd forgotten how much I loved his work until I stumbled on some of it recently. Just gonna post this link because it's all great, especially the black and white stuff. https://www.google.com/search?q=ber...iw=1067&bih=555
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Wrightson's illustrated Frankenstein is one of the great triumphs of the medium in the 20th century. That's goddamned incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
I appreciate the black and white Wrightson stuff more than his paintings, even though those are still pretty great. When his stuff is colored, it seems to lose something, but a lot of that may have been due to the limitations of the medium at the time. I guess I'm just most taken by his line work, use of light and shadow and especially the directional cross hatching he uses that adds texture and dimension to the things he's drawing that you normally don't see in comics. Most comic artists tend to put hard lines around everything and then cross hatch the shading in patterned ways that tend to flatten the art and rob of its three dimensionality. What Wrightson is doing reminds me a lot of etchings and the sort of...I don't know what to call it..."linear shading" that you see on U.S. currency or something. So much of what he's defining in these drawings are done through clever use of contrast, like Rembrant. When he shows you a circle or a flask, there's no line around it that says "this is the shape of a flask".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:I haven't visited any Kirby exhibitions but I think that his art needs to be projected on a huge wall next to the actual displayed page. Hell, I would cover the whole buildings in Kirby awesomeness. My step father's old room mate did exactly this. I must have been 6 or 7 at the time, but an entire wall of their apartment was wallpapered with comic book covers from the early 1970's. I thought is was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. I wonder how many valuable comics that dude destroyed doing that though. I didn't like Kirby as a kid but as I got older and learned what the gently caress I was looking at, I developed a real appreciation for his stuff over time. Were the inked pages you posted done by Joe Sinnott by any chance? It looks like it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Since we're talking about tracing, photo referencing and poo poo like that, where does collage fall in to this discussion? Think of the sorts of things Bill Sienkiewicz started to do towards the middle of his career and once he moved past aping Neil Adams. this argument about "tracing" and "borrowing" things reminds me of a couple of things. First, I think of artists like Warhol, Max Ernst and DuChamp who used "found objects", photos and collage and things like that and made them into art. When I used collage, I found my pictures in the trash so I always justified what I did by saying "Hey, I'm making my art out of garbage here". Second, I think of rap artists who sample riffs and beats to create something new. What's the difference between someone like the Beastie Boys or Public Enemy loping a beat or sampling a track as opposed to someone straight up stealing a riff or a beat even if they're playing it on an instrument? Musicians do it and admit to it all the time ("borrowing" a riff/beat/back end from here and there). Third, I remember my art teachers telling em that even if you trace, you still have to know how to draw and it's true. There's a difference between what works in a photo and what works as a drawing. If you see it in a photo, you automatically believe it, but if you draw it in a way that looks wrong, people know it. When I was in school, I used the xeorox machine and magazine references all the time but I was careful about what I used (no National Geographic). Lastly, doesn't the "tracing" argument compare in some ways to the same sorts of criticism people leveled at artists that used computers to color or refine their work, those that used manufactured things like Zip-A-Tone shading and press type or even Lucy projectors to enlarge their sketches into larger illustrations? Musicians that suddenly "plugged in" and went electric? Musicians that used synthesizers and drum machines? I suppose the real trick and the fine line artist's walk is to make it your own and not a straight up rip off. No one cares that Paul's Boutique blends Johhny Cash, Bob Dylan, Joe Walsh, James Brown, Hendrix, John Williams and John and Artie Mitchell because they use all that poo poo to create something new. But they care when Vanilla Ice (Under Pressure), MC Hammer (Super Freak) or Mariah Carrey (Genius of Love) straight up steals a song and sells it as fresh. Then again, Lady Gaga is totally ripping off Madonna and Tom Petty straight up sued the Red Hot Chile Peppers for "Dani California", and I don't think either of the latter artists were blatantly trying to steal those songs. No one seems to care that Led Zeppelin straight up stole at least half the poo poo that made them stars. A: because they played it themselves and B: because no one ever heard of the people they stole it from. TL/DR The difference between "tracing" and "drawing", "copying" and "referencing", "sampling" and "stealing" all seems to come down to how much the artist doing it makes the work resonate in a way that's uniquely his or her own.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
SMP posted:I'm relatively new to comics so I gotta ask: what's up with every comic from like 4+ years ago (and DC comics today) coloring all their stuff using gradients? It looks awful and everything is so drat shiny. Everything looks pillow shaded. Short answer: Photoshop. SMP posted:
Holy poo poo, that's really good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Mike Del Mundo. Thanks for making Google this name and learn about Mike Del Mundo. This guy's stuff is really great.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Looking at so much of this stuff, especially the modern poo poo, so much of really great penciling and subtle, tricky ink and line work is just absolutely ruined by the coloring. I guess overall it's better than the old "poorly registered four color process on newsprint approach" that looks laughably dated at this stage of the game and certainly looked like garbage a lot of the time, but with modern colorists so many of them take it too far and try and pull out every Photoshop trick in the book. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say and maybe am having a hard time expressing it, but so much of the modern coloring approach looks like candy. It's too slick, blended and juicy I guess, for lack of better terminology. Too "hot" and vibrant or something like it would be better suited on a pack of chewing gum or a point of purchase display than adding anything to the art. I look back at the coloring on something like Ronin, for instance, and really miss that earthy, organic feel.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
God drat. Talk about lovely coloring. JacquelineDempsey posted:
Start with the dark and light. The contrast that defines shapes. Forget about putting lines around everything and only draw what you can see, if that makes any sense. Forget that Daredevil's costume is RED and that Spiderman's suit is red and blue but think about when you'd be able to see those things depending on the lighting. Stay away from the intensity and vibrant hues that are the default PhotoShop palette when you can. STUDY THIS GUY: https://www.google.com/search?q=Rem...biw=960&bih=500 It's hard to explain without citing examples of really good color but that link Teenage Fansub posted is a perfect example of how to gently caress up everything with bad color.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
It's not a comic but Bernie Wrightson is or was a comic book artist and I finally got his illustrated Frankenstein for my birthday. Good lord is his art great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
How'd he do that with his hand? Or is that his superpower or some poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
I don't think Frank Miller's 80's stuff gets enough love. At the time, I remember disliking his stuff because it didn't look real enough and that's all I cared about then but his work on Daredevil, Ronin and the Dark Knight Returns is really loving great. So is his Sin City stuff but for different reasons. I'm lukewarm on the stories but I love the way he defines shapes, light and texture without drawing lines around everything. He seems to have gotten sloppier as he's aged but the way he composed panels on a page and could tell a story without even having to read it was pretty revolutionary. I'm coming up short finding good examples of it though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:From Electra #5 by Mike Del Mundo. Thanks for these. Somebody posted a bunch of his poo poo several pages back and it made me look him up. Dude is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:I wanna see an issue just in that blue sketch stage. I almost like that the most. Seconding this. I love watching the art evolve. They should publish one in blue lines and let fans ink them. I remember doing this in "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" a long time ago. My friend and I would take turns inking John Buscema and Jack Kirby. funtax posted:Still from 66, but inks by Smith himself: What's wrong with that? Granted, it's not as good as the other ones but it hardly looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
funtax posted:Nothing. It was an example of BWS art from the same era that looks good because of who inked it. Oh. I thought it was one Smith inked himself in comparison to the others. My fault.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
a kitten posted:This is a thing i just found. Gad drat, these loving suck. Deadpool posted:Zaffino is the artist, Aja is the cover artist. And it's probably impossible to hate Karnak if you've ever read anything involving the Inhumans. He's great. Is that the guy that did those amazing Elektra montages/spreads from several pages back? I've been trying to find that dude again and I don't think it's Aja.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:That is Del Mundo Thank you, sir.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
redbackground posted:Those are very cool. I was thinking it was maybe Timothy Truman as I was scrolling down, but as soon as you said his name, DUH. He did an amazing issue of Doom2099 earlier on and I really wish he was able to do more. Yuck. Really? I actually chuckled at the first one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:DK2 was amazing stuff. It sure was. I was amazed it was the same artist that drew DKR.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:To me it reads that Bullseye is completely in plain clothes at that point (somehow, I guess that is a pretty quick change) and Frank was just using the coloring and lighting to show us that's Bullseye by having a shadow in the shape of his mask cast by the fire. Yeah, Miller was a master storyteller back in the day, in spite of his crude style; or maybe partly because of it. I don't think that Klaus Janson's inking on his art can be underestimated either. Janson gave the pencils the contrast, boldness and just the right amount of definition to really flesh it out. You'll notice a steep drop off with Miller's art once Janson was gone, even though Frank's storyboarding remained excellent for quite a while. His Sin City stuff and what he was able to achieve with black and white shapes with a minimum of line work is pretty impressive. Anyone ever read the Frank Miller/Wil Eisner book? I highly recommend it for fans of the medium.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:frank miller was never good Of course he was. His skills as a storyteller and his contributions to the medium are among the best there's ever been.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's honestly pretty cool, looks like Paul Pope's Batman Year 100. I guess if you ignore the missing left leg it's OK. Nah, it still sucks. Why does Frank Miller think that everyone, superhero or otherwise, wears, like, Timberland treads on their shoes all the time? I first notices this in Sin City. Dude likes to draw boot treads I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
prefect posted:Same. Sienkiewicz is bad rear end. Now if we can only get him to illustrate the whole book.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Red posted:Yeah, I saw, but I hadn't noticed #2, which makes the disappearing helmet even more bizarre. This is really great stuff. Reminds me of Bernie Wrightson who I posted several pages back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I remember reading in Eisner biography about how he was arguing the artistic merits of comics with some English teacher and he said something about how the use of comics could be used to portray literature. There's a book I read that's basically conversations between Eisner and Frank Miller where they discuss exactly this sort of thing. They both wonder about and are frustrated by the self imposed constraints of the medium. I happen to agree with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I've only heard the occasional snippet of stories from Eisner's life. Did he ever get to meet Windsor McCay? I'd imagine the two of them would have much to talk about. I ask, thinking about the very opposite occurring when he got to meet Rube Goldberg at a party, someone he idolized. Goldberg basically chewed him and the entire comic industry out, claiming it was trash and nothing to ever actually take seriously. The medium has always been sort of looked down on and seen as trash, often for good reason, but when it's good it's really good. There's probably no other story telling medium quite like it and I agree with Miller and Eisner that its potential has never been fully realized. Granted, the garbage to quality ratio is severely skewed towards the former but that probably has more to do with the wages, the fast turnarounds, the cheap printing and the perceived target audience than anything having to do with the actual talent. There've been some really great artists that have worked in the medium who went on to do other things; Bill Sienkiewicz, Bernie Wrightson, Neal Adams, Michael Golden, R.Crumb, Alex Ross, Frank Frazetta, Bob Peak, Steranko, Kaluta, Wally Wood, Walt Simonson, P. Craig Russell...it's a long list. I think Eisner did know Windsor McCay. It's been a while since I read that book but it's ringing a bell. This book by the way: http://www.amazon.com/Eisner-Miller-Will/dp/1569717559 It's really good if you're a fan of the medium.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Well, the eyes are specific to Johnny Alpha; they're his mutation. This is supposed to be good? IT looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
zoux posted:MMMyeah see, ya better let me, Baby Edward G Robinson, outta this freakin' papoose unless you wanna dum dum in the groceries, Wonder Broad. There's some pretty good stuff in this gallery: http://comicbook.com/2015/11/25/frank-miller-on-dark-knight-iii-the-master-race-im-not-a-pyroman/8 but that cover looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:I won't say I liked Sin City (I found the plots either outright misogynistic or pants on head retarded retreads of noir staples) but I did really appreciate the aesthetic. How he used negative and positive space was really something. This. Millers use of describing scenes without outlining everything on the panels is really well done and very hard to do. I'm an illustrator and graphic designer and have always thought that the most striking form of visual communication, and one of the most difficult to pull off, is using light and shadow to describe and portray depth and form without using a lot of lines. Too many comics, you can tell, start with the pencils, then the inks (the lines) and then someone colors it in PhotoShop with a lot of juicy colors and hot gradients. Klaus Janson is good at this too and the perfect inker for Miller's style. Kirby had it down too. Look at Bernie Wrightson's later illustration work. There are lines but not AROUND the individual objects in the scene. Wrightson uses lines like an etcher; to describe form, shape and contour, like presidents on money. Miller is also an expert storyteller in the way he composes a page. When I was a kid/teenager, I didn't like Miller because he got the anatomy wrong and poo poo like that. I wanted guys like Neal Adams, Brian Bolland, Mike Grell and George Perez who drew muscles around everything and seemed incredibly detailed. But Miller's best worst is theatrical and cinematic on ways that escape my perception back then. If you read his early Daredevil stuff, Ronin, TDKR...they're like storyboards for a movie and you can really feel the images moving and jumping off a page. You barely have to read the text to know what's going on and that's an art in itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:RE: Thunderbolts #1 There's a lot poo poo wrong with this but one thing that always bothers me about any illustration, and comic drawings in general, is the lack of varying line weight around the objects. I aways think he worst illustrations rely too heavily on outlines anyway but if you're going to go that route, vary them up a bit. It adds mass, weight, form and depth to the drawing. The best inkers know this.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
AV Club has a cool interview with an award winning colorist: http://www.avclub.com/article/comics-colorist-jordie-bellaire-art-coloring-and-s-238558 Pretty neat reading about an often untalked about aspect of the medium and I really like seeing the before and after images.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
I was reading some funny articles about Liefeld and wondered if he's ever worked exclusively as an inker? I could almost see it working if a good penciller laid down decent anatomy, perspective, coherent story telling and backgrounds first. I know it would be cross hatched to hell and back but I think it's possible that Rob's "energy" might actually translate OK with a solid drawer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
A lot of people didn't like Kirby, especially a lot of kids/teens in the late 70's early 80's who hated his blocky style, square eyes and who preferred hyper cool anatomy renderers like Neil Adams, John Buscema, Jim Aparo and the kings of super incredible detail like George Perez. For a while, the things that dictated taste were how REAL something looked, which is not bad in and of itself and I like it too. Take Alex Ross for example. I myself didn't come to appreciate Kirby until I began to understand composition, storytelling and the practical application of solid black ink on a page. As I aged and looked at his work again with fresh eyes I realized what a master he was. You can read an entire comic of Kirby art without captions or dialogue and know exactly what's going on, which is really the benchmark of the medium. Frank Miller at his best was the same way and suffered the same faults (blocky characters, loose anatomy, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
I think probably a lot of artists and illustrators swiped/traced references as far back as the advent of photography. I majored in Illustration at UA in Philadelphia and one of the first things they taught us to was to build a reference file. Like most artists, I felt it was "cheating" to look at a picture before I realized every professional did that. So, for the longest time, I had a bunch of flat bed style boxes and manilla folders of stuff i'd gathered from magazines, all categorized and labeled by subject and what not. I would swipe magazines from doctors offices and from trash bins off the side of the road to build my files. It helped me immeasurably. Eventually, I started experimenting with collage and mixed media. A lot of colleagues saw it as cheating and I'm still not certain where the line is drawn, no pun intended, but the way I looked at it was "I am using GARBAGE to create art". I had literally found most of my photographic reference in the trash. It's a little like sampling and hip hop. You can sample like Terminator X, Tricky, Eric B and Rakim or the Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique and really create something unique out of it or you can just flat steal something like MC Hammer or Vanilla Ice and call it a new song. I'm pretty sure a lot of artists have always "traced". You still have to know how to draw to do it effectively though and the biggest difference now is you can just Google an image so everyone is working from the same sources. That's why, like Alex Ross, I always try to take my own photos and work from those. Even back when I relied on my reference library, I reached a point where I no longer used National Geographic or Time because they were too well known. I still have that reference library, believe it or not, and have begun assembling them into ideas for collages and paintings just to use them up and have something to show for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Ferrule posted:I threw out my morgue file years ago simply because of the internet. I can google a building or an animal or whatever. for reference so no longer needed the physical media taking up space. Agreed but I've found that you still have to know how to DRAW to even trace effectively. Maybe that's the difference in the artists we're discussing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Yeah, isn't one of his Joker and Harley Quinn paintings just very obviously him and his wife? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different famous DC couple he drew. A few of his books have articles and photos that show his process. In fact, I think his hardcover collection goes into this a lot. I love reading that stuff too; watching a piece from inception to finish. Alex Ross is really good and I enjoy his work but he's had that "all his art looks the same" element for a long time now and hasn't really evolved. He overuses dramatic lighting all the time and his storytelling composition is not great/pretty bad and he can't paint fire or chrome for poo poo, so his Human Torch and Silver Surfer look terrible. I think he suffers from the normal backlash and blowback of being so popular for so long that he's no longer cool, but his impact is undeniable and the way you felt when you first saw his stuff was amazingly fresh and head turning. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
For the longest time I was getting Chuck Austen mixed up with Terry Austin, who used to ink John Byrne's work on XMEN, and I was wondering "what was so bad about Terry Austin and when did he start writing?" Because Terry Austin was really great and Byrne's work never looked better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Yeah based on what I've seen I'd say Byrne peaked with X-Men and FF. His work got noticeably worse somehow and it had nothing to do with me thinking he was an rear end in a top hat. You could just see it. Austin inked his FF stuff too didn't he or was that just the covers?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 03:40
|
|