Original AF 15 Ditko Cover

[bababooey]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

 

To be fair - and I'm a massive fan of both artists - what we're looking at in Ditko's cover is "tainted", in my view, by a modern interpretation of how the cover would/should have been colored... and a bad one, at that. If I'm not mistaken, this was released in a relatively recent publication, and colored for that purpose off the original B&W art, correct?

 

As such, there's no doubt in my mind that graphically the Kirby version presents better from the upward angle perspective (more dramatic) to what you see of Spidey (more of him, spreading across the center of the cover) to the simplicity of the elements (less visuals to distract from Spidey), but let's consider how the coloring aids the Kirby version immeasurably:

 

- The bright colors used are in the title and text (yellow) and in Spidey's costume (red) to catch your eye - everything else is drab and subdued to let what needs to "pop", "pop".

 

...vs. how the colors on the Ditko version weaken it:

 

- The washed-out red (almost orange) of Spidey's costume is lost as a contrast with the same color in the title; the building, rather than an appropriate grey, is purple (!!!), while the rest of the background is a sky blue that extends down onto the ground itself. You also have brightly-lit yellow windows in the purple building, and two bystanders wearing brownish clothes that further compete with the reddish visual of the costume and AF title.

 

Also, the clean, straightforward way of showing "Introducing --> SPIDER MAN" on the Kirby cover is subtle and again fits with letting Spidey have center stage, while the "Introducing: In this epic, surprise-filled issue... --> SPIDER-MAN!" not only further crowds the cover, but actually squeezes the AF title and Spidey himself...

 

So all in all, Ditko was done a disservice in the "finishing" of his vision, as best I can tell.

 

I'd actually love to see someone with a good hand in Photoshop try tweaking the colors on the Ditko version to match the Kirby version as best as possible. Again, based on the graphics alone I'm sure Kirby's would rule the day, but Ditko's could definitely be improved with a sane coloring job.

I agree with all the comments made here about colors, lettering etc.. detracting from Ditko's version but I think ultimately the right call was made on AF15 with the Kirby cover.

ASM 10 is the issue where they picked the wrong one, the rejected cover blows away the version of 10 that they used.

[Unca Ben]

 

Outside of the covers mentioned Kirby drew the backup story in ASM 8, which was a lighthearted romp involving Spidey butting heads with the Human Torch. That whole ish was actually a lot of fun, come to think of it, despite not featuring any of the key early developments as the issues around it...

 

Yup.

 

For the record, let's straighten out the previous posts.

 

Strange Tales Annual #2: cover and story.

 

Avengers #11: cover only.

 

FF annual 1: cover and story.

 

ASM 10: cover only, just spidey not the enforcers

 

Kirby also redrew part of the cover ASM #35 and possibly another that escapes me at the moment.

 

 

I believe Kirby reworked elements of the cover to ASM #11 (Spidey's leg, Dr. Ock's face. ect.). Also there's speculation on Kirby reworking the Spidey figure on the splash page of ASM #11.

[Unca Ben]

 

I believe ( correct me if i'm wrong ) that AF15 is the only time Ditko inked Kirby drawing Spider-Man.

Ditko inked Kirby on the cover of ASM #1, the ASM #8 Spidey / Human Torch story, and Strange Tales Annual #2 as well.

[valiantman]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

 

To be fair - and I'm a massive fan of both artists - what we're looking at in Ditko's cover is "tainted", in my view, by a modern interpretation of how the cover would/should have been colored... and a bad one, at that.

Here's a MAC (M. Anthony Castrillo) 2008 recreation of the Ditko cover for the black & white comparison...

[Barbarian]

I believe Kirby reworked elements of the cover to ASM #11 (Spidey's leg, Dr. Ock's face. ect.). Also there's speculation on Kirby reworking the Spidey figure on the splash page of ASM #11.

 

Is there a photo of this cover before Kirby´s rework? I have a spidey book with a cover that looks pretty much like ASM 11, except from the details you mention.

[Superman2006]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

 

To be fair - and I'm a massive fan of both artists - what we're looking at in Ditko's cover is "tainted", in my view, by a modern interpretation of how the cover would/should have been colored... and a bad one, at that. If I'm not mistaken, this was released in a relatively recent publication, and colored for that purpose off the original B&W art, correct?

 

As such, there's no doubt in my mind that graphically the Kirby version presents better from the upward angle perspective (more dramatic) to what you see of Spidey (more of him, spreading across the center of the cover) to the simplicity of the elements (less visuals to distract from Spidey), but let's consider how the coloring aids the Kirby version immeasurably:

 

- The bright colors used are in the title and text (yellow) and in Spidey's costume (red) to catch your eye - everything else is drab and subdued to let what needs to "pop", "pop".

 

...vs. how the colors on the Ditko version weaken it:

 

- The washed-out red (almost orange) of Spidey's costume is lost as a contrast with the same color in the title; the building, rather than an appropriate grey, is purple (!!!), while the rest of the background is a sky blue that extends down onto the ground itself. You also have brightly-lit yellow windows in the purple building, and two bystanders wearing brownish clothes that further compete with the reddish visual of the costume and AF title.

 

Also, the clean, straightforward way of showing "Introducing --> SPIDER MAN" on the Kirby cover is subtle and again fits with letting Spidey have center stage, while the "Introducing: In this epic, surprise-filled issue... --> SPIDER-MAN!" not only further crowds the cover, but actually squeezes the AF title and Spidey himself...

 

So all in all, Ditko was done a disservice in the "finishing" of his vision, as best I can tell.

 

I'd actually love to see someone with a good hand in Photoshop try tweaking the colors on the Ditko version to match the Kirby version as best as possible. Again, based on the graphics alone I'm sure Kirby's would rule the day, but Ditko's could definitely be improved with a sane coloring job.

 

+1

 

No doubt the Kirby cover is better, however, I would love to see what some Photoshop master boardies could do with colors on the Ditko cover.

[Primetime]

I like the Kirby version we are all accustomed to as well. Romita Sr is the best Spidey artist. When I think Kirby, I think of FF, Hulk, avengers, xmen..

[Unca Ben]

I believe Kirby reworked elements of the cover to ASM #11 (Spidey's leg, Dr. Ock's face. ect.). Also there's speculation on Kirby reworking the Spidey figure on the splash page of ASM #11.

 

Is there a photo of this cover before Kirby´s rework? I have a spidey book with a cover that looks pretty much like ASM 11, except from the details you mention.

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here's some comparisons:

below is a pic of the published ASM #11. Note both Spider-Mans legs by Kirby: Kirby muscles in the legs, Spidey's "Kirby-ized" right knee, the "Kirby-ized" webbing on the boots, etc.

 

Here's another image with the original Ditko legs. Note the right knee and leg differences, the left foot and left leg, and "Ditko-ized" webbing on boots...

 

 

There were also some differences in the Doc Oc figure in regards to the torso, face, and if I remember correctly, possibly the hands. I can't see it in the two examples I provided here, but I have seen examples of them somewhere.

[Mio]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

 

 

Kirby's pose is more authoritative, and the simple composition fits better with the barrage of word bubbles. Take out the bubbles, and they are about the same to me.

 

Either way, they are both miles ahead of the ASM #1 cover

[Barbarian]

Ok, the book I have has changes but none of the ones shown on your pic 2 except maybe the right leg

 

It still shows differences in the both legs and Doc Oc face is completely different.

Plus my book is mirrored, ie, Doc Oc is attacking from left to right and not right to left.

 

 

For easier comparison, I also mirrored the photo of the book bellow , that´s why all the lettering looks the way it does.

 

 

[MedicAR]

I don't think it would have been a lot different. The Spider-man character is what resonated with readers...

 

Got to agree here.

 

I disagree. Kirby's covers drew readers in. He was a master at plotting action scenes and making them look larger than life. Kirby's AF #15 cover is much more powerful than Ditko's.

 

You are certainly right on Kirby and action and that is the very reason I've never wanted to believe that this is a Kirby cover. There is nothing dynamic or action packed about it. It just looks like Spidey standing there with webbing and a villain pasted into it. The perspective doesn't work on any level.

 

As much as I'm sure I'll take heat for this, I've never been a big fan of this cover.

 

Almost like it was trying to mimic other Huge First appearances like Action 1 and tec 27...

 

Never thought of it that way, but in that light, it works better.

 

 

[Unca Ben]

Ok, the book I have has changes but none of the ones shown on your pic 2 except maybe the right leg

 

It still shows differences in the both legs and Doc Oc face is completely different.

Plus my book is mirrored, ie, Doc Oc is attacking from left to right and not right to left.

 

 

For easier comparison, I also mirrored the photo of the book bellow , that´s why all the lettering looks the way it does.

 

 

Yep, your second pic is the one I remember. It has a different face for Doc Oc.

 

If you notice, between our combined pictures there are three different versions of Spider-Man's left foot and leg (relative to your mirrored image).

 

It seems Marvel had trouble keeping track of the revisions they made to artwork, as books were reprinted or used for overseas editions.

[Barbarian]

Yes, it seems you´re right with the amount of changes done to the leg...

 

This is probably going to sound like a silly question since I have no idea how the art process is done.

 

I understand how unused covers might surface, but I dont get it how reworked art does.

I mean, once the rework is done, doesn´t that mean that the original art is lost?

 

I´m thinking paper + pencil + eraser...