Are inks over printed bluelines rather than pencils devalue the original art?

[Koa]

I see that many current books are inked over blueline copies of the pencilers art rather than on the pages themselves. Danny Miki for example, said he works exclusively over bluelines now because it saves him time in the production. Greg Capullo's batman is one of the most popular books out right now, but it's inked over printed copies of the pencils.

 

When you're buying originals, how much does this factor into what you will pay? Do collectors still consider this the original art for the book, or are the pencils the original art (to collectors)? Does one devalue the other?

 

As far as the archival quality, Doesn't the printers ink eventually turn yellow or green (like a sharpie) and ruin the original?

 

 

 

 

[Bird]

inked over bluelines is generally devalued yes. I myself would pay more for the pencils than the inked bluelines. Probably at least 2x-3X more. Now that is a very general answer, and the artists involved are probably as important as the blueline factor. Kevin Nowlan for instance has his own fans, and his inked bluelines may be exceptions and not the rule. But in general, yes it devalues.

 

And they are both the original art. One is the original pencils and one is the original inks.

[thethedew]

I generally won't get either unless I feel I have a shot at getting BOTH pencils and inks.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=825801&GSub=96943

 

This day and age that takes a little e-globetrotting, but it also gives me a little dicipline, knowing I'm going to be a little unhappy with just one or the other. Makes it easier to pass.

 

Occasionally, I've found that the inks or pencils are ALL there is.

 

Pencils with digital inks/colors:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=469022&GSub=73547

 

...and sometimes the pencils are either all digital or based on scanned prelims, assembled in Photoshop, and printed for inks:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=844681&GSub=100509

 

(That last one kinda makes me wonder, while I'm glad there are good-old-fashioned inks present, why bother when so much has been digitally produced already? Another revenue stream? Did you want something to sell to OA collectors?)

 

Research, conversation with the artists, and documentation should be a strong recommendation for modern OA purchases. Know what you're buying. Know what you're selling.

 

Sorry for merely links above, tried to create BB images but the service is slow right now, I may edit to include later when the site isn't so balky)

 

Andrew

[AKA Rick]

I find that most collectors value the pencils over the inks, so if there is a piece that pencils exists and then a blueline inked version also exists, it's generally

 

Pencils = 2x Inked price or Inked = 1/2 Penciled priced

 

So, if the pencils are $300 for a cover, then the Blue Lined Inked is $150

 

You'd think that the inked version should command a higher price since it's ultimately the "final" version of what you see that's published. I think the devaluation of inks over blue pencils links to the fact that art is collected in part by aesthetics but also in part by pedigree, in that nobody cares about guys like Mike Royer, Joe Rubenstien, Tom Palmer, Terry Austin, etc. as artists unless they're liked to Kirby, Byrne, Miller, Adams whose names as artists carry more prestige in the collector's market.

 

If the pencils are digital or from a thumbnail rough layout that is lightboxed and inked, then those pieces are usually less desired, 'tho, are the only originals existing, still less appealing, so therefore command a lower price in the market, generally speaking.

 

It's sort of funny/odd in a way 'tho since an inker traces over and embellishes an artists pencils, then erases any excess pencil art, so effectively removing any pencils and even if pencils are beneath the inked ink, there's no way to remove that ink to see the pencils... so if an inker inked over bluelines, and you see the same effect of dark black inks on paper, is there really a difference?

 

I actually like the idea of art existing with original pencils (as well as any rough layouts and prelims) and then an inked "final" separate version, so you can see the whole artistic process of the creation of the piece.

 

[Koa]

Thank you guys for the great responses and information,it's very interesting to here thoughts on this new way of working and how it affects the art market. I'd hate to overpay for something because of the blueline process. I really can't understand why the more commercial popular artists (or their inkers) choose to work this way given the value original art can generate vs. a page rate. Artists who are in great demand by fans and work digitally like Brian Bolland or Todd MCfarlane are even more baffling, but that's how it goes.

 

 

[Koa]

I

It's sort of funny/odd in a way 'tho since an inker traces over and embellishes an artists pencils, then erases any excess pencil art, so effectively removing any pencils and even if pencils are beneath the inked ink, there's no way to remove that ink to see the pencils... so if an inker inked over bluelines, and you see the same effect of dark black inks on paper, is there really a difference?

 

I actually like the idea of art existing with original pencils (as well as any rough layouts and prelims) and then an inked "final" separate version, so you can see the whole artistic process of the creation of the piece.

I'm guessing it's because the penciler is often the star of the show. I wonder how true this is when you have a "supergroup" style collab, like Neal Adams and Bill Seinkewicz on Batman odyssey or working over an unknown penciler. Perhaps this would offer a more afforable option to own a published work by a great artist(s) even though the investment might not be as good as if it were traditional art.

[alxjhnsn]

I've heard that some artists are using digital mechanisms for panel pages and working on paper for the splashy ones to maximize the time to $ ratio. Panel pages (generally) are in less demand than splashes so this can help them get more $ in less time.

 

Interesting.

 

[Bird]

Thank you guys for the great responses and information,it's very interesting to here thoughts on this new way of working and how it affects the art market. I'd hate to overpay for something because of the blueline process. I really can't understand why the more commercial popular artists (or their inkers) choose to work this way given the value original art can generate vs. a page rate. Artists who are in great demand by fans and work digitally like Brian Bolland or Todd MCfarlane are even more baffling, but that's how it goes.

 

 

Well, the typical split goes 2/3 pages to the penciller and 1/3 pages to the inker. So they both probably figure having 100% of the pages, either pencils only or inked over bluelines, is better than having fewer pages with both pencils and inks.

 

Digital artists usually prefer the ease of digital and the final product looks better to them. If they can get the results they want, they may not care about the value of the OA as much. In other words, they are professional artists first and foremost and not art sellers on the side. Time may also be a factor - if they can do more work digitally and earn more sure money it may beat producing less work in the hope of an eventual sale.

[Raymondb0]

I still prefer the real thing. I love ink over pencil and while I will get a few pencil pieces here and there I am not into blue lines.

 

It is great what can be done digitally but to me art is tactile as well.... I do think time is a significant factor and I know a few artists that are doing the Splash/ Cover thing in pencil instead of digital as well.

 

Best,

 

Ray

 

 

[porky]

the only pencil pages i would get would be colan because they're just a whole different animal. anything else, i'd want inked. an ink over blue line page is still the same as it would be if inked over pencil as far as i'm concerned, so that's ok i guess.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

I own a page from Strangehaven that was done in blue pencils, scanned, and "inked" in the computer. The digital age is the death of collecting art.

 

 

DG

[Koa]

Agreed, heck I miss lettering on the pages! Not sure if it would devalue the page but I wouldn't mind at all if an artist (who inked his/her own work) penciled on the computer printed the blue line and lettering but inked traditionally.

[porky]

Agreed, heck I miss lettering on the pages! Not sure if it would devalue the page but I wouldn't mind at all if an artist (who inked his/her own work) penciled on the computer printed the blue line and lettering but inked traditionally.

 

well, the pencils get destroyed by inking anyway... so i don't really care what sort of pencils were done as long as the inks are real. i liked art adams back in the day, but i picked up a book of his a year ago and saw "digital inks" and it was terrible. i don't know if it's the medium, the inker, or if adams' style isn't as good any more, but i didn't like it a bit.

[kav]

I hear artists say 'digital art is the wave of the future'. If so the future sure sucks because I can always spot digital art-it has a stiff unhuman look that is a turn-off. you cant tell me a digital artist compares to Kirby, Neal Adams, Sean Phillips. You just can't.

[christosgage-migration]

I've worked with two artists, Mike McKone and Rebekah Isaacs, who do both pencils and inks, and they do the pencils digitally, print them out in blue lines on the paper and ink that. I asked Rebekah about it and she said the sale of OA was less a consideration than the fact that she just prefers inking on paper, but doing the pencils digitally makes it much faster due to ease of changing things, etc. Obviously this is a unique situation because the same person is doing both the preliminary and "final" art, and even in the old-school method would probably do much looser pencils than someone penciling for a separate inker.

 

Best,

 

CNG

[Crescent]

If there are separate pencils and inks, I'll try to get the pencils first, and value them more, as I feel they represent better the page's original idea. If only the inks exist, I'd have to truly love the page, the artist and the series to consider its purchase.

[sofistocat]

If there are separate pencils and inks, I'll try to get the pencils first, and value them more, as I feel they represent better the page's original idea. If only the inks exist, I'd have to truly love the page, the artist and the series to consider its purchase.

 

I concur, go for the pencils first if the inks were done over a xerox of the pencils. I feel it is the true original art in this case. I also like how you generally won't see original pencils coming about via a light box.

[Koa]

I've worked with two artists, Mike McKone and Rebekah Isaacs, who do both pencils and inks, and they do the pencils digitally, print them out in blue lines on the paper and ink that. I asked Rebekah about it and she said the sale of OA was less a consideration than the fact that she just prefers inking on paper, but doing the pencils digitally makes it much faster due to ease of changing things, etc. Obviously this is a unique situation because the same person is doing both the preliminary and "final" art, and even in the old-school method would probably do much looser pencils than someone penciling for a separate inker.

 

Best,

 

CNG

 

I wonder if this has an impact on what people are willing to pay though. Does it still have that blueline bias? I wouldn't think so (unless blueline ink is nonarchival and discolors the art over time)

 

I know Simon bisley would xerox his ink drawings onto separate board before doing paintings, they've held up well.

[Koa]

Agreed, heck I miss lettering on the pages! Not sure if it would devalue the page but I wouldn't mind at all if an artist (who inked his/her own work) penciled on the computer printed the blue line and lettering but inked traditionally.

 

well, the pencils get destroyed by inking anyway... so i don't really care what sort of pencils were done as long as the inks are real. i liked art adams back in the day, but i picked up a book of his a year ago and saw "digital inks" and it was terrible. i don't know if it's the medium, the inker, or if adams' style isn't as good any more, but i didn't like it a bit.

 

But the penciler still drew the art on the board. That's kind of a big thing no? If Joe Sinnott is inking Kirby bluelines would you consider it a Kirby/Sinnott?

[suspense39]

I own a page from Strangehaven that was done in blue pencils, scanned, and "inked" in the computer. The digital age is the death of collecting art.

 

 

DG

 

I dont think it's the death of collecting art, there is plenty out there as it is. It would just be the death of art from new comics becoming available.