Artists Gone Digital: No More "Hand-Drawn" OA From These Pros...

[Baron]

First it was artists scanning their pencilled pages and emailing them to inkers, thereby allowing both a separate penciled page and inked page separately for sale.

 

Now that comic book artists are slowly migrating to digital only, how long until true hand-drawn, published OA pages become truly rare for modern stories?

 

Does going digital cut-out the need for inkers then if the artist can do penciling/inking themselves on the computer?

 

"Kevin (Maguire) told Bleeding Cool that, along with the likes of Brian Bolland and Dave Gibbons, he is going digital only for his future work. Creating the artwork in the machine rather than on the Bristol board."

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/10/13/the-last-original-art-of-kevin-maguire/

[LastRaven]

I've talked to a few artists about this and there seems to be no real consensus. A lot of artists love the wacom tablets, but many can't afford them. Also, some people like Livio Ramondelli will pencil and do digital art to complete the work without an inker. Still there are some who do it the traditional way. Some people even go back and forth between wacom and traditional.

 

I think modern OA will become rarer, but there will always be people who do things in the traditional manner.

[AKA Rick]

I'm in part surprised, especially from some of the older artists who have established having that dual income potential of both getting paid by the publisher for their work, but then retaining the actual tangible artwork for resale to the secondary collector's market, so effectivley and efficiently double dipping economically on one single artistic effort.

 

If I were an artist like Jim Lee, Steve McNiven, Tim Sale, Ed Benes, George Perez, Arthur Adams, etc who, let's say, who can command $5,000 to $25,000 for any given cover he renders as income revenue generated within the original comic art marketplace, I'd be hesitant to go digital and I'd stick at what I do best and what strategically financially is probably the better move and keep those 11" x 17" boards, sharpen those pencils and maintain relationships with my inkers and maintain the status quo.

 

I know some artists are doing digital artwork, then printing out supposedly only one "print" and signing it, then supposedly deleting the electronic/digital file, and then marketing that "print" as a "one-of-a-kind" original to the collector's market. - - Somehow I don't think art purists are buying into that at all. It's like color guides or inks over blueline - - Yes, one of a kind, but no, not really desirable as a collectible.

 

I wonder what digital artisty will also do to the artists ability to actually take out a pencil or pen and ink and draw commissions when put to task at conventions. I'd speculate digital artistry will make them rusty (much like how it takes some people a few moments to read the hands on a clock versus being conditioned to see digital numeric time clocks) and the end result of those efforts can start deteriorating in quality.

 

It's sad to see the medium of hand drawn art potentiall diminish. It's much like how today, people send emails instead of hand written thank you notes or eCards or social media messages instead of mailing out actual birthday cards and even texting instead of making phone calls... the digital age is killing humanity and personalization.

 

[The Troll King]

I've been concerned about the artists going all digital for some time now. I believe that the publishers will end up demanding it as time goes on. Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

[malvin]

I've been concerned about the artists going all digital for some time now. I believe that the publishers will end up demanding it as time goes on. Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

 

hmmm.. I'm assuming you mean shipping time. Digital inks (or inks over emailed blueline printouts) might be faster if the penciller was in a different location than the inker, but for the penciller, I don't think going digital saves time. They would just scan what they physically penciled. Unless you count time savings if they spend a lot of time erasing what they already drew

 

Malvin

[pinupcartoonguy]

I think if all artists went digital, we'd probably get better drawn comics. Too many artist think about the sale of their originals when composing pages.

[The Troll King]

I've been concerned about the artists going all digital for some time now. I believe that the publishers will end up demanding it as time goes on. Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

 

hmmm.. I'm assuming you mean shipping time. Digital inks (or inks over emailed blueline printouts) might be faster if the penciller was in a different location than the inker, but for the penciller, I don't think going digital saves time. They would just scan what they physically penciled. Unless you count time savings if they spend a lot of time erasing what they already drew

 

Malvin

 

I'm talking about artists only drawing on the computer and no longer using pencils at all.

[J.Sid]

I think if all artists went digital, we'd probably get better drawn comics. Too many artist think about the sale of their originals when composing pages.

 

Interesting point.

[malvin]

I've been concerned about the artists going all digital for some time now. I believe that the publishers will end up demanding it as time goes on. Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

 

hmmm.. I'm assuming you mean shipping time. Digital inks (or inks over emailed blueline printouts) might be faster if the penciller was in a different location than the inker, but for the penciller, I don't think going digital saves time. They would just scan what they physically penciled. Unless you count time savings if they spend a lot of time erasing what they already drew

 

Malvin

 

I'm talking about artists only drawing on the computer and no longer using pencils at all.

 

I'm not an artist, but I don't see how drawing on computer is faster than with real pencil and paper, unless there is alot of erasing involved.

 

Malvin

[The Troll King]

I've been concerned about the artists going all digital for some time now. I believe that the publishers will end up demanding it as time goes on. Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

 

hmmm.. I'm assuming you mean shipping time. Digital inks (or inks over emailed blueline printouts) might be faster if the penciller was in a different location than the inker, but for the penciller, I don't think going digital saves time. They would just scan what they physically penciled. Unless you count time savings if they spend a lot of time erasing what they already drew

 

Malvin

 

I'm talking about artists only drawing on the computer and no longer using pencils at all.

 

I'm not an artist, but I don't see how drawing on computer is faster than with real pencil and paper, unless there is alot of erasing involved.

 

Malvin

 

It depends on how comfortable the artist is with the medium. Many programs will auto-correct lines and such so that you can draw something vague and it will clean it up for you. There won't be a need for inkers because the original will be like an inked piece already, only digital of course.

 

We all know that good inkers aren't really tracers as they are accused of being and that a good inker knows how to interpret what the pencillers intent was.

 

Other inkers will draw whatever they like, penciller be damned. (Ernie Chan)

 

With the digital drawing, the penciller/artist won't have to worry about whether an inker is doing it right or not.

[ashrael]

... If I were an artist like Jim Lee, Steve McNiven, Tim Sale, Ed Benes, George Perez, Arthur Adams, etc who, let's say, who can command $5,000 to $25,000 for any given cover he renders as income revenue generated within the original comic art marketplace, I'd be hesitant to go digital and I'd stick at what I do best and what strategically financially is probably the better move and keep those 11" x 17" boards, sharpen those pencils and maintain relationships with my inkers and maintain the status quo...

 

I agree, I can't see too many artists wanting to switch unless they can draw fast enough and generate additional OA electronically to counteract the lost income.

 

I think if all artists went digital, we'd probably get better drawn comics. Too many artist think about the sale of their originals when composing pages.

 

I have been thinking of this lately with so many unnecessary splash pages, where multiple panels would better display the story.

[markseifert]

Faster production and distribution on the art will prevail unfortunately.

 

This is an important part of what's going to drive this trend. There are non-trivial shipping cost and time savings to be had in many circumstances.

[joel mangrum-migration]

I know that Brent Anderson does it all on computer now as well.

[MattAllen]

The artists that I know that have gone digital claim the savings in time more than makes up for the lost income of OA sales. There are some big names who prefer to digitally do interiors now because they're so much faster while doing their covers traditionally. In terms of output, that's probably more in line with what the market can bare long-term. Ever known an comic artist who's sold out of art? It's exceedingly rare. Most have stacks of interior pages.

[Tony S]

Paintings. Collect painted OA

[The Troll King]

I now had a thought on this subject also. What do regular artists make more money on? People like Mark Brooks and Campbell. Do they make more on the sale of their original art or on the prints and sketchbooks produced for sale at their tables?

 

I know Campbell may be a bad example now because his pieces are so damn expensive now so let's say someone like EBAS instead. Does he make more selling a cover for $2000 or prints for $25 a piece.

 

I'm thinking the latter.

 

If this is the case, then the incentive to sell an original will be moot as the prints sell extremely well and quickly. It's easy for someone such as Eric, Brooks, or Campbell to sell a ton of prints. Hell, look how fast Campbell's calendars sell and they aren't even comic book art.

[SC in SC]

I disagree with you regarding desirability Rick. If the only art for a particularly desireable issue or page is digital, I think the interest will still be there. I really don't fine the digital pieces to be much different than the now commonly separated pencils and blue-line inks. The deal on the original page for digital comic art is the same as for the pages of regular comic art, the artist can't legally reproduce it and sell it as the page. They could do a reproduction of the art in the the same way an artist could reproduce a page or cover, but they're only allowed to make one print of the artwork by contract. Any more copies is illegal and against the rules of the artist's contract with the publisher and the copyright holder.

 

I have some digital art in my collection, and I consider it the same as I do any other pages or covers in my collection. Is it exactly the same as a penciled, blue-line inked, or penciled/inked page? Yeah, because it's just another form of original comic art. It's the original artwork, not a reproduction. The fact that the image is a print doesn't matter. My digital cover piece is the original, one-of-a-kind, cover of Green Lantern: Emerald Warrior published by DC. It's the variant cover, and it's no different than the cover of any other comic. It's THE cover, and it's the original work. The fact that the artist put pen to a computer screen instead of the paper doesn't detract from the artwork, and I would be willing to bet without knowing which issue it is, you'd be hard pressed to pick out the digital work.

 

I would also like to add that should an artist ever decide to print out additional copies of digital artwork and sell them, it would be no different than an artist lightboxing their own artwork, putting issue and page numbers on the paper, and selling it as the original page. And it would be just as crooked and deplorable.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Sam

 

I know some artists are doing digital artwork, then printing out supposedly only one "print" and signing it, then supposedly deleting the electronic/digital file, and then marketing that "print" as a "one-of-a-kind" original to the collector's market. - - Somehow I don't think art purists are buying into that at all. It's like color guides or inks over blueline - - Yes, one of a kind, but no, not really desirable as a collectible.

[malvin]

I disagree with you regarding desirability Rick. If the only art for a particularly desireable issue or page is digital, I think the interest will still be there. I really don't fine the digital pieces to be much different than the now commonly separated pencils and blue-line inks. The deal on the original page for digital comic art is the same as for the pages of regular comic art, the artist can't legally reproduce it and sell it as the page. They could do a reproduction of the art in the the same way an artist could reproduce a page or cover, but they're only allowed to make one print of the artwork by contract. Any more copies is illegal and against the rules of the artist's contract with the publisher and the copyright holder.

 

I have some digital art in my collection, and I consider it the same as I do any other pages or covers in my collection. Is it exactly the same as a penciled, blue-line inked, or penciled/inked page? Yeah, because it's just another form of original comic art. It's the original artwork, not a reproduction. The fact that the image is a print doesn't matter. My digital cover piece is the original, one-of-a-kind, cover of Green Lantern: Emerald Warrior published by DC. It's the variant cover, and it's no different than the cover of any other comic. It's THE cover, and it's the original work. The fact that the artist put pen to a computer screen instead of the paper doesn't detract from the artwork, and I would be willing to bet without knowing which issue it is, you'd be hard pressed to pick out the digital work.

 

I would also like to add that should an artist ever decide to print out additional copies of digital artwork and sell them, it would be no different than an artist lightboxing their own artwork, putting issue and page numbers on the paper, and selling it as the original page. And it would be just as crooked and deplorable.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Sam

 

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this, does anyone else buy and collect original one of a kind digital prints?

 

Malvin

[SC in SC]

I don't know what anyone else collects, but I collect comic art in many forms. Blue-line inked pages, penciled and inked pages, digital pages, covers, sketches, paintings. Art is art. Collect what you like.

[SC in SC]

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this, does anyone else buy and collect original one of a kind digital prints?

 

Malvin

 

To answer your question, yes there are people who rep artists whose work is now done entirely in the digital medium. So yes, there are dealers and reps who sell original digital comic art.