MyNameIsLegion

Go back and look at Dave McKean's original 75 issue run of The Sandman covers.  Around 1991 you start to see more obvious evidence that Dave was using photoshop to produce the covers. In hindsight, as someone who knew how to use Photoshop since 1992 in commercial printing his concepts are great, but his execution is fair to be kind. In 1994, Photoshop 3.0 was released, and that introduced layers. This was transformational for photo manipulation as previously it required using alpha channels in crude ways that "looked" unrealistic without a helluva lot of work. Lo and behold, the last third of the Sandman run Dave got better at it, but he also got lazy. What started in 1989 as shadow box assemblages with actual painted components drifted to layered textures of paint overlaid digitally,  He was starting to phone it in, or "photoshop it in" to be more precise.  Distress some type using funky fonts converted to bitmap in Photoshop,  reuse some paint layers, jack with the layer effects and opacity, and a few random B&W blurring images and you have a Sandman cover.  Dave's a great painter when he wants to be, but that probably wasn't commercially viable for him, or it simply took too much time. Technology allowed him to make a cover of an Eisner award winning comics for 75 issues, and by the end, he could probably crank one out in a single afternoon. He took full advantage of technology as it became available.  

These digital tools for the artist made it cheaper, easier and faster while he probably got paid the same or more. Lots of other "artists" followed in Dave's wake and starting producing book and comic covers. You see them in SPECTRUM's annual every year. It got pretty bad in the last 15 years.  Many are barely more than an enhanced digital photo. I started to suspect John Bolton was employing some digital slight of hand for the last decade.  His finished paintings looked like a digital photo reference.  We've employed digital artists to produce illustrations for packaging for years that used to be painted or drawn, but now are do in Photoshop or similar. They are absolutely taking an image and creating the effect of paint and then using paint effects with a WACOM pen to make it look less like the stock image.  There are plug-ins that do it for you so you don't need the artist to do it. We are probably to a point that Alex Ross could feed AI samples of his art, and photo references of his models and produce a pretty passable digital painting, maybe a comic layout in a fraction of the time it would take to paint traditionally.  If Alex does it, is that "cheating?" as long as we don't know, and get some cool new book from Ross no one will complain.  But if someone else does it in the style of  Alex Ross, they are ready to scream bloody murder. Other artists can ape Ross's style, (and then have) to produce work, but they still require the skill and training to do it.  AI let's everyone skip a lot of the steps in "earning" the rights and privilege of calling themselves an artist and the results are mixed, but it's amazing how forgiving we are when it's our own clumsy effort, or we just saved hundreds or thousands of dollars. It's good enough. That's one argument against AI. It's a rush to mediocrity not just theft of intellectual property. I think the former is the greater concern than the later TBH.  Eventually someone will be more than willing to provide the IP to plug into AI in the form of a styleguide or look. That's what they will be paid for, not the execution of the art itself, that's pure time and labor, no one wants to pay for it, and a great many artists don't really want to do it anyway.  Where we all bristle, is the encroaching uncanny valley of the resultant AI output.  It's not quite right, but it's good enough.  Mediocrity.  

Mediocrity has been the real enemy since the industrial revolution. It's all around you, You, me, all of us have largely become inured to it.  We will come to accept AI for art just as we have accepted autotune for music. 

$?

when you don't post to CAF for 9 months, things start to stack up....

I've said it before, and I"ll say it again, I don't ship to the IFS, (Italy, France, Spain) because it's iffy if it gets there. I'm willing to add Belgium to the list, and call it the BIFS, but "biffy" isn't as pithy as "iffy" 

On 4/11/2024 at 2:07 PM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I do that now. But the problem is overhead lighting and shadows creep in. Jury rigging an overhead system with lighting would eliminate the glare and shadow problems. 

Yup, and the CZUR system sucked at that too- I had an overhead light that either caused glare or the fixture cast a shadow. The device had a light, but that just blew out the image. You just want a little studio box, semi opaque that’s white with an opening for the camera 

https://www.walmart.com/ip/PULUZ-Soft-Box-Set-Portable-Folding-Photo-Lighting-Modifier-Photography-Tent-Box-with-12-Colors-Backdrops/813785332

On 4/11/2024 at 10:15 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Thank you. That's helpful. As I am perusing these things, it occurred to me that the portable overhead scanners are basically just phone scanners with more setup. I found a cheap iPhone scanner system which is basically just a cardboard scaffolding on which you can place your phone, with some lighting. Seems like such a thing could be jury-rigged at home. 

I think if you are going to rely on the phone as a camera (and nowadays most smart phones are quite good) you can forego any manual rigging and download a scanning app that will crop, rotate and fix the inevitable distortion inherent in trying to hold a camera to shoot a flat 2D object. This is the only “feature” the CZUR did do well and that’s all post imaging so any software can do it. 

On 4/11/2024 at 12:10 AM, gumbydarnit said:

I like this thread for one primary reason- it just illustrates the problem with commissioning recreations that are not by the original artist, inking lightboxed printouts etc.. not many collectors insist on adding the descriptions to the actual artwork to help future buyers

Let’s say someone commissions a random inker to ink a printout of a Perez commission that they don’t own. I think when this happens, a description should be added “George Perez printout inked by Johnny Journeyman”. Written on around the bottom of the art and not in the boarder where it could be cut off. This would clarify George Perez did not touch this page at all. 

In addition to adding the description, I think the original artist signature should NEVER be copied on a recreation, unless the original artist drew the recreation. By removing the Perez signature from the recreation it helps emphasize that Perez did not touch this page. As one looks for the artist signature they instead see the accurate description.

Too often the commission has no description added. The piece is sold a couple of times and then the third or fourth owner throws it in an auction. Without any mention of it being in a printout inked by Johnny Journeyman, it instead is listed as a George Perez commission. There is plausible deniability that the owner had no idea it wasn’t Perez. “See it’s signed Perez right on the page.”

But if you remove the Perez signature and add the description …. Yay! you now have a win win. Potential buyers now know what is being sold to them and the seller can sleep easy knowing that he sold his art as a Johnny Journeyman inked George Perez printout and not as a George Perez commission, saving those poor future buyers lots of money because of the piece’s transparency.  Who wouldn’t want that?!?

This is not happening, and everyday you see has more and more recreations and inked blue lines come to market without the needed info on the artwork, so it’s now very much a buyer beware situation.

I think transparency is a topic that deserves further discussion and constant monitoring in our hobby.

Please read my opinion as a bit of a sidebar and not a post specifically targeted at the pieces discussed upthread.

 

there are major dealers that have been laundering  xerox prints as stats,  transparency overlays, trade dressed prelim art with some serious word salad descriptions meant to confuse and obfuscate the true origin and artist for YEARS via Comiclink in particular, but also HA that otherwise would be radioactive when it sits on their site or CAF or they have to go ask their brother for a price. There's a reason they have their own thread.  It's comical if not criminal, but any newb in the hobby could easily be taken in by it and be none the wiser. This entire thread wouldn't exist if Comiclink put any effort in verifying the authenticity of their consignments. I will give HA some credit for at least standing behind what the say and making corrections when informed, and even refunding auctions where there is some disagreement about the accuracy of a listing. 

On 4/10/2024 at 3:16 PM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I know I disclaimed using a scanner vs a phone, but has anyone tried one of those overhead book scanners rather than the combo scanner/printer? They seem to be cheaper and can be brought to conventions because they can be packed up. 

I have the CZUR and the quality suuuuuuuuucks. I got it for just documents and newspaper clippings and it's barely passable for that. 

On 4/9/2024 at 11:05 PM, Xatari said:

A new collector posted a piece he was excited about and several from the community jumped all over his post saying he was positioning it as something he wasn't.  He never claimed his was the published version and simply pasted what the auction description stated.  I know we all are quick to opine about art in the hobby, but we also tend to eat our young.

I reached out and suggested if he was unhappy with his purchase based on the description that he should contact Comic Link.  He likes the piece as it has nostalgia for him.  Friends, we are talking about a $1500 piece, not a Secret Wars 8 page at $3MM+.  I don't know many sub $2k pieces that warrant three pages of forum thread and continued replies on his FB thread (until he deleted it) or CAF (which continues to receive replies).  I can see why he would feel on the defensive.

Maybe time to move on.  

On 4/9/2024 at 11:46 PM, dinesh_s said:

The pile on and the @ss kissing in this thread is next level. Thread should be renamed "lets bully a noob"

the only 2 people sticking up for the poor guy (and I do empathize with him...to a point, that point being when he started throwing the troll card around at any and all comments not to his liking like some 9 year old) are the one's trying to downplay it as "no big deal" because it's not a 6 figure piece of art? When the "Great Generation of Collectors"   got started $1500 was a lot of money, it was a nice cover or a Ditko Spidey page or 2, an entire SA interior book...etc. Are ya'll grooming this newb to make more ill-advised purchases?   He's already over-bought into that fugly Madrox "birth page" since that's all the rage to hype up amongst the new breed of collectors that seems to be your niche. Y'all are playing in a shallow, treacherous, and very deceptive end of the collecting pool.  Better he learn now, before he mortgages his house on something dumb and Ed Piskors himself.  Now explain to me who is kissing up to who here? My collecting goal in life is to never own anything, anything with Booster Gold on it. 

On 4/5/2024 at 12:47 PM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Maybe this page went to the underbidder on the $50K page?

that sold June 2022, when art prices were peak Covid- and it was a better page. Still overpriced. The current owners will die owing them.

On 3/31/2024 at 2:30 PM, Cat said:

I would prefer to donate to Mrs Bails if she were to ask for such a thing. 

Oh yes indeed, Katy B must pay for the sins of the father. How very Old Testament of you! Happy Easter 🐣 

On 3/30/2024 at 12:16 PM, Cat said:

The Reddit poster you're talking about wasn't aware the links didn't work, and seeing the thread is now locked there's no point in updating them anyway. The Reddit poster also knows he wasn't the only one who saw it, but is willing to act like he was, if that's the way we're going to play it. 

Just because someone is dead doesn't erase their bad deeds in my eyes. It's important we get a balanced view of them. You want to rave about him, I'm just here reminding people he was also a known scammer.

I see, you're about as black and white as your Cat avatar. I take it we won't be seeing you making a donation to his daughter's GoFundMe to pay for his final expenses since he was on Medicaid.  But just in case, here's the link on the offhand chance you'd like to do something in the spirit of Easter.  https://www.gofundme.com/f/bob-beerbohm

This is the link to the GoFundMe that was set up for Bob's daughter Katy to pay for Bob's final expenses and to help her, as she uprooted herself across the country to take care of her dad in his final months, quitting her job, and only starting a new one the day he passed. Paul Levitz, Doc V, Neil Gaiman, Steve Englehart, and many others have stepped up to the plate to help out. They are very close to their stated goal, and it would be nice if the CGC boards could put them over the top.

https://gofund.me/fc2d47ce

On 3/25/2024 at 6:59 PM, Michael (OML)1 said:

That woudl be terrific - I'm here starting May - let's meet up. Michael

PRC is in Houston as well.

On 3/28/2024 at 5:04 PM, alxjhnsn said:

Re: Tom
That's the O&G business. You go where the oil and gas are.

Tom is pretty gassy. 

On 3/19/2024 at 7:10 PM, Darwination said:

I'm a huge fan of MCS's images, for what it's worth. 

You could possibly argue that HA does a better job with color (even though color should really just mimic the comic in hand), but the resolution and detail on MCS images is far superior.

I praise both companies for making available high resolution images of their books (and in Heritage's case hosting them long after the item has sold).

See that blurry spot in the lower left? This has been across hundreds of consignments of original art on HA for months, and previews of art that is coming up in the near future. It appears to be concentrated on large consignments from a few consignors or estates where the intern they hired scanned hundreds of pages at once with no QC or oversight.  If these were comic lots there would be howls of indignation on the boards. 

  (dig the new emoji I gave Mike to add to the arsenal on the boards, can you spot the other 3 new ones?) 

On 3/14/2024 at 8:19 PM, glendgold said:

Wow, that's interesting. I couldn't find any info about that - do you have a link? I have repeatedly heard about attempts to collect Kirby's 2001 work in a hardcover - stymied over and over again by the bonkers rights issues.

Here you go Glen!

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/dc-comics-have-told-marvel-that-they-own-machine-man/

On 3/14/2024 at 11:08 AM, J.Sid said:

I have often wondered why Kirby Avengers pages were so "low."

Between the great character content, the surge of Avengers popularity, and the scarcity of issues he penciled (8, compared with 100 FF books for example) I always felt these should cost more.

well, I think you have to take into account that nothing in Avengers 1-8 drawn by Kirby is a first appearance. All the principle characters' first appearances occurred elsewhere and were...ahem..assembled. FF was all new, X-Men- all new. 

On 3/13/2024 at 5:49 PM, Readcomix said:

They can vary, as I understand it. Here’s a couple:

Down here we'd have that as the Trash Can Taco:

Bacon, Scrambled Eggs, Cheese, Refried Beans, Fried Potatoes, and Carne Guisada on a flour tortilla.

On 3/11/2024 at 8:47 PM, Bronty said:

Sure, it would be better if he was still 50 or 60, but if anybody can pull it off, he can.    

I really can't imagine anyone else in the role, is another way to put it.   Can you?   The very idea seems weird to me.

I just don't see Arnold getting in anything approaching King Conan shape. Those days are done. He's not going to do 6-8 months of training for a payday he doesn't really need, and his ego would never allow him to put himself out there as anything less than impressive (for his age). too big a gamble to his film legacy as Conan.