What's the one thing you've discovered...

[Brenmark]

 

 

" I do wish that good colorists received more recognition. It's hard to itemize what I like in a colorist, but I know it when I see it. "

 

I agree. I would like to see very good colorists like Tatjana Wood and Lynn Varley receive more recognition for their work. While color guides are not something I actively pursue in my collection of original art, they are an interesting and an important part of the comic process. Here are a couple examples.

 

Hal Foster would directly water color on a copy of his Prince Valiant page for the printer to follow. Here are a couple panels as my scanner is too small for the large page. 1966.

 

 

 

It is my understanding that Hogarth did the same, and I don't think that anyone would disagree that Hogarth's coloring of his Tarzan pages was nothing short of amazing.

 

These, I believe, are water color dyes as well. Al Williamson art with just a touch of Krenkel. I don't know who the colorist is, but put together the whole page pops out at you.

 

 

 

 

 

This Hawkworld page is colored by Sam Parsons, and he seemed to use at the time, water colors, marker, and air brush. This was part of a double page splash. Tim Truman art.

 

 

 

 

Maybe SDCC has had them before , and I just missed them, but I for one would like to see a panel of some of the great colorists from the last 40 years and listen to their discussion of their coloring technique. Am I wrong or is it my understanding that new modern comics are pretty much colored on computer these days because of the greater selection of color available?

 

[*paull*]

These days, if it isn't painted, it's almost certainly colored digitally.

[tth2]

I agree. This is why an Alex Ross painting goes for full price, whereas a color guide of an Alex Ross pen & ink piece (if such a thing existed) would go for nothing.

 

So the color guide represents absolutely nothing in the creative process? What if Ross did the color guide himself? Does that change your valuation?

I was exaggerating when I said "nothing". But I do think it would be "peanuts" compared to what his full paintings or his pen and ink work would be, even if he did the color guide himself.

 

I think the big difference lies in the fact that comic OA is illustrative art, and therefore what collectors want is a direct tie between the art in its published form and its original form. The pen and ink has that direct tie, and in the case where the published piece is a painting, whether by Ross or a commercial piece by any commercial artist, then the painting IS the published piece and therefore the direct tie exists.

 

In contrast, in my opinion, the color guides are just that--guides. They are a step removed because the actual coloring job isn't directly reproduced nor does it actually appear in the published work. What appears in the published work is the printer's interpretation of the colorists' instructions, rather than a reproduction of the colorist's work.

 

If the coloring/painting is actually reproduced directly in the public work, then I think it becomes the part that is coveted by collectors. Hence Ross' paintings, which are fully reproduced in printed form from his paintings, are much more valuable than any pencil prelims that he might have prepared for the same work.

 

Just my 2 cents on how I view things.

[NelsonAI]

No one is disputing the contributions of the colorist, (letterer, etc.), anything is

collectible, it's just a matter of at what price. Re-read everyone's posts if you think otherwise.

 

Just as a colorist's page rate is going to be significantly less than the page rate of a penciller or inker, I would expect an original hand colored guide to sell for significantly less than the original hand drawn art.

 

Obviously some colorists are better than others. Just like pencillers or inkers.

 

Dumur: No disageements with you on the McFarlane Spiderman art vs. all other McFarlane art. I just did not use the word Spiderman later on.

 

WCA: Would I buy a color guide to go with my OA? Absolutely. I've been on record in the past on these boards as saying I would buy the color guide or acetate to go along with my Byrne ASM Annual cover (Hulk vs. Spiderman). It just depends on the price. However, I would not seek out the color guide unless I already owned the OA. Other collectors are different.

 

 

In the early days, the color guides were done on photostats, (the heavier plastic film like paper used for logos), with the Doc Martin dyes.

 

Sometime during the 1980's, regular photocopy paper was used since it was cheaper and faster than photostats. When the color dyes were applied to the photocopy paper, they tended to pucker from the moisture. Yes, I've seen plenty of sloppy looking hand colored guides in person. Some are better than others.

 

To supplement the "guides", hand notations for color codes would be written so the printer would know what colors were "blended" in. As WCA commented, Tatjana Woods would complain that the printer didn't do justice to her "colors" (I'm para-phrasing; sorry). This reinforces TTH's explanation that guides were instructions.

 

I'm not sure exactly when digital coloring starting taking hold. I suspect Malibu Comics may have been the first to go digital in the late 1980's. Part of Malibu's appeal to Marvel was the state of the art coloring techniques.

 

 

Miscellaneous: If we can explain the process, it's obvious that we educated ourselves on how comics are produced. Just because we have different valuations, does not mean we are closed minded. If anything, you should be buying more under the radar when it's still cheap.

 

Anyone is free to post samples from their collection.

 

 

Bonus Trivia: Joe Chiodo started off as a colorist for Marvel and Quesada began his career as a colorist for Valiant.

 

 

Bottom line: Collect what you like and can afford. It's your money. Who cares what I think?

 

Cheers!

N.

 

[wca140]

Brenmark & Paull - thank you for posting some great examples of CGs in their various forms.

 

Dumur I assure you that I will be open minded although apologize for being a little verbose

 

I really appreciate this conversation and all the viewpoints expressed as well both pro & con.

It has been hard to learn necessary information when there is a such paucity of commentary on the boards about

what must surely be the lonely neglected step child of the comic book collecting world.

 

Tth2 & NelsonAl - there is absolutely no dispute or argument from me over the fact that CGs are guides, they are just that guides and a necessary component

for the production of the finished books. And yes she was often disappointed with how they were interpreted and still gets worked up about it even now which can be humerous. I am sure there are other colorists that felt the same, but this has always been another + point that is interesting to me comparing the original CG of what was intended and how the final book turned out. The fact that CGs were not photographed and produced directly still doesn't change several factors of their importance for me or why perhaps at the very least they deserve a little more consideration before being written off as mere "production art".

 

1. comics, for the most part of course, are in color they were not produced as black & whites obviously there are many that felt something

was missing by not adding color to tell the story otherwise all comics would be in B&W.

As a side note, personally this separation that happens in OA pages is something I really enjoy seeing, the pure pencil and ink pages in their pure B&W form devoid of color I almost find it disappointing when OA pages are colored, but I digress.

 

2. though coloring seems to have started with nameless staff members in the early years there has emerged a group of colorists

who have names, histories and are recognizable (if one looks) that have devoted themselves to the coloring art form along with awards presented for exceptional performance in their field of expertise, this must mean something?

 

3. old CGs were done by hand all thoughts and decisions which could have gone in any of a 1,000 different directions in interpreting how that final page

would appear in printed form were made on these sheets. The link that Paul posted showing a re-coloring job clearly illustrates how the finished effect changes with a different interpretation.

 

4. there is only one official original color guide associated with each "published" book which makes it a one of a kind original piece locked in history and time with the printed book forevermore. sounds very dramatic but you get my point.

This to me also seems a key point in the current state of collecting OA when people are having commissions done and cover recreations which are still collectible but certainly do not have the stamp of being either "official" or "published" pieces.

 

In the end I guess what perplexes me most about the feelings that many people hold about the CGs is that many are collecting comics of which there are 100s if not 1,000s of each issue having them CGC encapsulated and paying large sums of money to collect them but the one of a kind original CGs that

were official pieces with signature sign offs by editors with dates and notes in certain cases that lead to the production of those very collectible items seems to go by unnoticed and unappreciated by many it just seems crazy to me.

 

I remember a thread some weeks back about whether or not somebody would collect a piece of OA based on who was responsible for inking the art over the penciller and whether or not people follow just the inker as opposed to the penciller and how important are they really to the success of the finished piece, It seemed to me that OA is not without its own controversy & fragmentation is a dangerous thing...

[Simon R-migration]

Going back a few posts...

 

The biggest mystery to me?

 

I don't understand how collectors put on the blinders pertaining to the fact that comic books are printed in four colors and the majority of collected OA is colorless pen and ink illustration art...

 

The thing is, the comics I grew up reading were in black & white (Marvel UK), so that it what I often feel is the original in my eyes.

 

A great example is Buscema's Surfer - I still feel it looks wrong in colour, and I love the Essential version because it is in Black & White, and I think the art looks better that way...