Should one ever ink pencilled original art?

[Matches_Malone]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

 

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

One is the original Adlard pencils and the other is the original inks over blue line.

 

 

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

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.

 

Trust Me I understand. It did felt squicky when I was considering it. But I'm really against blue line copies and the only other options is to do inks over originals.

 

Some pencils are begging to be ink and Bagley's Venom for USM 35 was one of them.

 

It's hard to argue the final result of the piece. Looks amazing And when I hold it in my hands still feels original.

[Matches_Malone]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

One is the original Adlard pencils and the other is the original inks over blue line.

 

 

 

 

That to me is a problem. There should only be one.

[theflashunc]

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.

 

Trust Me I understand. It did felt squicky when I was considering it. But I'm really against blue line copies and the only other options is to do inks over originals.

 

Some pencils are begging to be ink and Bagley's Venom for USM 35 was one of them.

 

It's hard to argue the final result of the piece. Looks amazing And when I hold it in my hands still feels original.

 

 

At the end of the day, the piece is yours to do with as you want. I think the concern others have mentioned -- and one I share -- is expect some kind of economic consequences for that choice down that road, should you ever decide to part with the piece. Some buyers will see it as altered, no way around that really.

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

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.

 

Trust Me I understand. It did felt squicky when I was considering it. But I'm really against blue line copies and the only other options is to do inks over originals.

 

Some pencils are begging to be ink and Bagley's Venom for USM 35 was one of them.

 

It's hard to argue the final result of the piece. Looks amazing And when I hold it in my hands still feels original.

 

 

At the end of the day, the piece is yours to do with as you want. I think the concern others have mentioned -- and one I share -- is expect some kind of economic consequences for that choice down that road, should you ever decide to part with the piece. Some buyers will see it as altered, no way around that really.

 

 

Altered is not a word I would use in this case.

 

Do we say that Scott Williams altered Jim Lee pencils?

 

The art was not altered, but enhanced by adding depth and weight , but more importantly on its original pencils

[Eric Seffinga]

I sure wouldn't touch a published piece that was inked after the fact with a 10 foot pole. It is altering a genuine original, and to me that is a travesty. people do it. They used to cut figures out from old pages as well. Artists used their originals as coffee coasters, etc and so on. Totally theirs to do with as they please, but doesn't mean it is any less of a shame to me.

 

I am fine with inked blue lines so long as they are called out for what they are. This is no different than recreations, IMO. and those have been around in the hobby as long as there has been a hobby.

 

Once in a while an odd situation pops up, like the Yu thing? Sure. though to be honest that is an apples and oranges situation. You aren't talking about an owner taking and having a piece inked for private enjoyment. that was a fellow artist who was using Yu's pencils as practice and then selling those inks for profit after the fact. Seemed to be a lot more involved there than what we are talking about. And the fellow inking those wasn't Yu or an inker for a book.

 

And when odd situations arise in the art hobby, they tend to get straightened out too.

 

But no one can undo a permanent mistake like having someone ink a piece of published art, that was never inked before. And there are a TON of artists that ink their own work over blue lines. Never seems to be a problem on that front. It is a working method for many. I love seeing working pencils myself.

 

If you are going to pay someone to draw on those, as someone else mentioned, might as well get out the crayons and color it too. Pat Oliffe was a pro colorist and he hand colored a LOT of original art in the 80s & 90s for fans that wanted their art to look like the books. Devalued all of it. Never seen a piece of art sell for as much or more as it would have if the owner had left the stuff alone. Is inking a value added service? Sure. On sketches and whatnot it's totally cool. on published pieces said inker had nothing to do with? bad news.

 

My .02 cents.

[mister_not_so_nice]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

One is the original Adlard pencils and the other is the original inks over blue line.

 

 

 

 

That to me is a problem. There should only be one.

 

There are as many different methods for creating comics/comic book art as their are artists.

I, too, would like to see just one pencilled/inked/lettered page for each comic page. But that just isn't going to happen.

I was also a stickler that insisted I would only buy inks over pencils. But I changed my opinion on that.

One thing I don't do is look at a published pencil page and think how I could improve it by getting it inked. One of the things I like about OA collecting is getting that "behind the scenes" look that OA can give. If the piece was good enough for publication as it is I'm certainly not going to alter it (and certainly wouldn't ever think of altering it permanently for my own desires). I'd buy inks over blue line (a part of the art creating and publishing process of the comic) before I bought a pencil piece that had been inked after the fact (inking it had nothing to do with the publication of the comic).

[mister_not_so_nice]

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.

 

Trust Me I understand. It did felt squicky when I was considering it. But I'm really against blue line copies and the only other options is to do inks over originals.

 

Some pencils are begging to be ink and Bagley's Venom for USM 35 was one of them.

 

It's hard to argue the final result of the piece. Looks amazing And when I hold it in my hands still feels original.

 

 

At the end of the day, the piece is yours to do with as you want. I think the concern others have mentioned -- and one I share -- is expect some kind of economic consequences for that choice down that road, should you ever decide to part with the piece. Some buyers will see it as altered, no way around that really.

 

 

Altered is not a word I would use in this case.

 

Do we say that Scott Williams altered Jim Lee pencils?

 

The art was not altered, but enhanced by adding depth and weight , but more importantly on its original pencils

 

That is part of their comic creating process, so in this case Williams enhanced Lee's pencils.

Conversely, Jim Lee may one day do a comic that is shot directly from his pencils. If Scott Williams were to ink one of those pages after publication he would detract from the value(in my opinion) even if he did enhance it visually.

 

[Matches_Malone]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

One is the original Adlard pencils and the other is the original inks over blue line.

 

 

 

 

That to me is a problem. There should only be one.

 

There are as many different methods for creating comics/comic book art as their are artists.

I, too, would like to see just one pencilled/inked/lettered page for each comic page. But that just isn't going to happen.

I was also a stickler that insisted I would only buy inks over pencils. But I changed my opinion on that.

One thing I don't do is look at a published pencil page and think how I could improve it by getting it inked. One of the things I like about OA collecting is getting that "behind the scenes" look that OA can give. If the piece was good enough for publication as it is I'm certainly not going to alter it (and certainly wouldn't ever think of altering it permanently for my own desires). I'd buy inks over blue line (a part of the art creating and publishing process of the comic) before I bought a pencil piece that had been inked after the fact (inking it had nothing to do with the publication of the comic).

 

I much rather get an ink after the fact than a blue line pencil

[mister_not_so_nice]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

One is the original Adlard pencils and the other is the original inks over blue line.

 

 

 

 

That to me is a problem. There should only be one.

 

There are as many different methods for creating comics/comic book art as their are artists.

I, too, would like to see just one pencilled/inked/lettered page for each comic page. But that just isn't going to happen.

I was also a stickler that insisted I would only buy inks over pencils. But I changed my opinion on that.

One thing I don't do is look at a published pencil page and think how I could improve it by getting it inked. One of the things I like about OA collecting is getting that "behind the scenes" look that OA can give. If the piece was good enough for publication as it is I'm certainly not going to alter it (and certainly wouldn't ever think of altering it permanently for my own desires). I'd buy inks over blue line (a part of the art creating and publishing process of the comic) before I bought a pencil piece that had been inked after the fact (inking it had nothing to do with the publication of the comic).

 

I much rather get an ink after the fact than a blue line pencil

 

And that is why collecting OA is so fun. Everyone's preference is the right one for them (thumbs u

 

Enjoy

[Matches_Malone]

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.

 

Trust Me I understand. It did felt squicky when I was considering it. But I'm really against blue line copies and the only other options is to do inks over originals.

 

Some pencils are begging to be ink and Bagley's Venom for USM 35 was one of them.

 

It's hard to argue the final result of the piece. Looks amazing And when I hold it in my hands still feels original.

 

 

At the end of the day, the piece is yours to do with as you want. I think the concern others have mentioned -- and one I share -- is expect some kind of economic consequences for that choice down that road, should you ever decide to part with the piece. Some buyers will see it as altered, no way around that really.

 

 

Altered is not a word I would use in this case.

 

Do we say that Scott Williams altered Jim Lee pencils?

 

The art was not altered, but enhanced by adding depth and weight , but more importantly on its original pencils

 

That is part of their comic creating process, so in this case Williams enhanced Lee's pencils.

Conversely, Jim Lee may one day do a comic that is shot directly from his pencils. If Scott Williams were to ink one of those pages after publication he would detract from the value(in my opinion) even if he did enhance it visually.

 

And so you think if Scott Williams inks a Jim Lee piece after the fact he would be diminishing the value of it? Is that a travesty? May as we'll bring out the crayons , right?

 

Because I'm sure OA collectors will say , no I'm not interested in this particular Jim Lee piece because Scott Williams inked it after the fact.

 

If I had. Jim Lee pencils only, first thing I would do is to contact Scott Williams to ink it, yes over the originals, that way there will be one and one alone.

 

And I would love every single bit of it.

[mangbus]

Inking over original pencils on any published piece is detrimental to this hobby.

 

You are in a subform called 'Original Comic Art.' Not a subforum called 'Formerly Original Comic Art Altered at the Personal Preference of the New Owner.'

 

If you own pencils of something and an inked version does not exist, reproducing it to blue lines and having it inked is the only way to ensure that the original is still the original. It is OA because that was the exact piece that was used to produce the published work. By inking over the pencils, post production, you may enjoy the piece more but you are in fact damaging the integrity of the piece.

 

Paolo Rivera does pencils and sends his Father, Joe, digital blue line versions to be inked (not always the case but true for more recent work.) When they sell their work, it is sold in pairs (pencil page + inked page over bluelines.) If you were to purchase one of these sets and then hand Joe the pencils at a convention and ask him to ink over it, that new piece would in fact not be authentic to their original production process.

 

[AKA Rick]

The problem also with inking over pencils is if there's a run of original art where it's known that only pencils exists, then you come to the marketplace with your variant original art which is inked, people may question the authenticity citing that art from that era was penciled only and what's going on with the inks, and maybe even speculate themselves that yes the pencils existed and may even still exist and that the inked version that's claimed to be done over the original pencils is in fact inked over a copy of the pencils and is less than authentic.

 

It can be a pretty convoluted mess, if the motivation is to eventually sell or trade.

 

Just like how Steve Oliff colored a lot of the Frank Miller artwork of the 80's and when those hand colored pieces come to market, they're seen as a bit inferior even 'tho originally when they were hand colored the original owner thought it was "neat" to have done and saw it as an improvement which eventually became a detriment.

 

I'm still from the school of "leave it as is" personally and would more than likely seek other opportunities for artwork over purchasing something that has been modified and deviates from the norm.

 

I don't see the huge relevance of any comparisons to Jim Lee pencils being inked by Scott Williams or the Adlard Pencils / Gaudiano Inks over Blue Lines. In the Jim Lee case, I'd want the art as originally used in the production process. I'd decline Scott Williams inks over published pencils if that was what was used in the final production process. As a fan of Jim Lee art and Scott Williams inks, I'd simply look for a piece that was published with the tandem. Same for the Adlard (and would want the matched pair, as it's being sold), I'm mainly about collecting the unaltered work.

 

 

 

[theflashunc]

 

Altered is not a word I would use in this case.

 

Do we say that Scott Williams altered Jim Lee pencils?

 

The art was not altered, but enhanced by adding depth and weight , but more importantly on its original pencils

 

I'm not knocking it, merely pointing out that at the end of the day, there's a not insignificant number of collectors who will view the resulting piece as being altered. If it were a published page that Mr Lee penciled and Mr Williams inked as part of the production process, then that's part of the creation of that original bit of art.

 

Hypothetically I decide to get my Eaglesham page -- which was penciled by Dale with colors done directly by Paul Mounts from that work with no inks in between -- inked even by him. I'm sure that page would be considered altered after the fact if I ever decided to sell it.

 

As as I said earlier, its your art, do with it what you will. But as others and noted, there are likely economic consequences down the road to doing so.

 

People airbrush wizards riding eagles on the side of their conversion van knowing it'll likely detract from the value. Doesn't stop them from doing it because they think wizards riding eagles look totally sweet. Whatever floats your boat man.

 

 

[ashrael]

When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

They both are original art, but generally the pencils are more desired. Board members have stated a 60% pencils / 40% inks value breakdown in general in past.

[Matches_Malone]

Inking over original pencils on any published piece is detrimental to this hobby.

 

You are in a subform called 'Original Comic Art.' Not a subforum called 'Formerly Original Comic Art Altered at the Personal Preference of the New Owner.'

 

If you own pencils of something and an inked version does not exist, reproducing it to blue lines and having it inked is the only way to ensure that the original is still the original. It is OA because that was the exact piece that was used to produce the published work. By inking over the pencils, post production, you may enjoy the piece more but you are in fact damaging the integrity of the piece.

 

Paolo Rivera does pencils and sends his Father, Joe, digital blue line versions to be inked (not always the case but true for more recent work.) When they sell their work, it is sold in pairs (pencil page + inked page over bluelines.) If you were to purchase one of these sets and then hand Joe the pencils at a convention and ask him to ink over it, that new piece would in fact not be authentic to their original production process.

 

Lets say you do take the original pencils to Joe and he inks over Paolo original pencils, the piece is no longer authentic to the original production process, however...do you think it diminished its value? Is it still desirable? Is the blue line ink copy now value more?

[Eric Seffinga]

The pencils and the separate inks on blue line are more valuable to most original art collectors, yes. Because doing it the other way (inks after the fact), you have altered the original from it's intended use and publication state.

 

That simple.

[eewwnuk]

ink the blue lines. keep the pencils. now you have two in your collection and don't run the risk of either the piece being devalued or ruined in the inking process.

 

[mangbus]

Inking over original pencils on any published piece is detrimental to this hobby.

 

You are in a subform called 'Original Comic Art.' Not a subforum called 'Formerly Original Comic Art Altered at the Personal Preference of the New Owner.'

 

If you own pencils of something and an inked version does not exist, reproducing it to blue lines and having it inked is the only way to ensure that the original is still the original. It is OA because that was the exact piece that was used to produce the published work. By inking over the pencils, post production, you may enjoy the piece more but you are in fact damaging the integrity of the piece.

 

Paolo Rivera does pencils and sends his Father, Joe, digital blue line versions to be inked (not always the case but true for more recent work.) When they sell their work, it is sold in pairs (pencil page + inked page over bluelines.) If you were to purchase one of these sets and then hand Joe the pencils at a convention and ask him to ink over it, that new piece would in fact not be authentic to their original production process.

 

Lets say you do take the original pencils to Joe and he inks over Paolo original pencils, the piece is no longer authentic to the original production process, however...do you think it diminished its value? Is it still desirable? Is the blue line ink copy now value more?

 

I believe it does diminish it's value. You've now got a commission over an original.

 

The set is no longer going to be desired by purest collectors.

 

The value of the blue line ink copy should remain but the set value would be down.