• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should one ever ink pencilled original art?

Started by Bchin22,

105 posts in this topic

Bchin22

Bchin22

Posted
Posted

I have a two page splash of a terrific fight scene from Invincible. The only issue is, it is in pencil (whereas I always prefer inked original art).

 

I can have Ryan Ottley ink his own pages, but would that devalue their worth? Should I keep them as is?

 

I'm just curious what everyone else would do and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mister_not_so_nice

mister_not_so_nice

Posted
Posted

The whole point of buying the original published art is that it is THE ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ART!

 

Once you alter it, it is no longer the original art as published :boo:

 

If you're going to spend the money and you like the image, get an inked commission in a similar vein. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin.J

Kevin.J

Posted
Posted

Why not get it photocopied, then ink the copies and keep the original pencils.

Speedy-D experimented with this and had different inkers do copies of the same pencils with some great results.

I am not good enough with the search to find it, but I think it was a Wrightson sketch.

One of the guys like BUTM would find it in a second :wishluck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matches_Malone

Matches_Malone

Posted
Posted

I did it several years ago, and Im quite happy I did

Personally Im against photocopies as they can be bad for the industry.

 

See here:

 

Case in point. Sicat vs. Leinil Yu

 

I personally think it will not devalue the piece and it will always be considered original.

 

Original art means not a copy or imitation and that will remain true.

 

Masterpieces get restore all the time for many reasons including preservation and enhancement. And it does not take away its original status. The Mona Lisa had colors touched up and then it was revarnished.

 

Here is what I had done.

 

Original pencils by Mark Bagley. And later inked by Matt Banning.

 

USM35.jpg

 

20140404_131849.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

INK it if you love it and never ever plan on selling or trading it. It's yours, you can even color it with crayons if you wanted to too.

 

LEAVE IT AS IS if you think at one point in your life you'll want to have an economic relationship with the piece and put it up for sale or trade. There are a lot more purists out there who like to leave things as original as possible. They themselves will always have the option to get it inked themselves be it on the original or a blueline, but once you ink the original you can't reverse the curse and undo the damages, so may limit value in the eyes of a certain sector of collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The-Collector

The-Collector

Posted
Posted
The whole point of buying the original published art is that it is THE ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ART!

 

Once you alter it, it is no longer the original art as published :boo:

 

If you're going to spend the money and you like the image, get an inked commission in a similar vein. (shrug)

 

This.

I did it several years ago, and Im quite happy I did

Personally Im against photocopies as they can be bad for the industry.

 

See here:

 

Case in point. Sicat vs. Leinil Yu

 

I personally think it will not devalue the piece and it will always be considered original.

 

Original art means not a copy or imitation and that will remain true.

 

Masterpieces get restore all the time for many reasons including preservation and enhancement. And it does not take away its original status. The Mona Lisa had colors touched up and then it was revarnished.

 

Here is what I had done.

 

Original pencils by Mark Bagley. And later inked by Matt Banning.

 

USM35.jpg

 

20140404_131849.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

For me this totally ruins the authenticity of the art. I would not consider buying such a piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bchin22

Bchin22

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I would get a full-size blue-line photocopy of it, and then take it to a convention and have a series of inkers in "artist's alley" each ink a different panel.

 

Well, since it seems like the overwhelming majority of people have suggested this route, I'll probably do that. Worst comes to worst, I can always get the original inked. I'll hold back for now, thanks guys.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashrael

ashrael

Posted
Posted
I had it ink over original for authenticity reasons. It is still very genuine with its original pencils.

 

Inks over original - authentic

Inks over blue line photo copy - not authentic

 

Do published inks exist for this page? If so, you now have 2 inked "production" pages and have muddied the waters (and probably devalued the real inked page).

 

You like your piece of art, which is great, but I would HIGHLY recommend not doing this for any pencils for published work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mister_not_so_nice

mister_not_so_nice

Posted
Posted
I had it ink over original for authenticity reasons. It is still very genuine with its original pencils.

 

Inks over original - authentic

Inks over blue line photo copy - not authentic

 

You're comparing getting a pencilled commission inked vs inking a penciled published page.

 

Two completely different situations.

 

And in inked blue-line commission is still "authentic." It;s authentic inks over blue line pencil. As long as that is made clear when selling it is as authentic as any other piece of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theflashunc

theflashunc

Posted
Posted

I've got a page of Eaglesham pencils from his FF run that was done without inking. Was colored directly from the finished pencils digitally.

 

No way I'd get that inked (well, and it looks pretty great in raw pencils I think.)

 

That being said, if its a commission that's one thing -- Laura Martin colored a commission I had done a few years back and did an awesome job. But a published page? I wouldn't unless it was, as others mentioned, over bluelines and done with clear description should you ever sell the inked one.

 

Otherwise, its a bit too squicky for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matches_Malone

Matches_Malone

Posted
Posted
I had it ink over original for authenticity reasons. It is still very genuine with its original pencils.

 

Inks over original - authentic

Inks over blue line photo copy - not authentic

 

Do published inks exist for this page? If so, you now have 2 inked "production" pages and have muddied the waters (and probably devalued the real inked page).

 

You like your piece of art, which is great, but I would HIGHLY recommend not doing this for any pencils for published work.

 

There is no published inks for it. This during the beginning of digital coloring. The last thing I want is to muddy the waters in this hobby, which is why I had it ink over originals. Only one can exist now. Inks over blue line pencils is bad for the hobby. Read my post above with the link to the problem Leinil Yu had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing