Artwork missing elements from the published cover or page 0

[Brian Peck]

What is everyone's opinion on artwork that doesn't match the final published comic?

I am interested in some recent covers by an artist. I really like the covers he has done, not the standard pinup and no background. But when he sends me a scan of the originals there are pieces missing. Most of the cover is there but small parts were done on the computer. I am torn about buying the original because its missing elements of the cover I really liked. What is done traditionally is nice but I am having second thoughts on buying one of the covers.

Chaykin in known for doing this with his recent interiors and covers but his is more extreme. He will do the figures on the page even with the panel but leave out other elements. Or he just draws the figures on pages and puts them together in photoshop.

What do people think about incomplete original art not matching the published version?

[PhilipB2k17]

I have one of those Chaykin pages. He added really large sound effect backgrounds digitally to it  but this page is so great, I don’t care  

[Panelfan1]

I had this problem with a mark brooks deadpool piece. (See link below).  So I initially passed on it. Regretted passing and when it became available again - jumped at it.  

Art is an emotional choice.  How do you feel?

Caf deadpool link  compare art to published cover (in additional images )

 

[SquareChaos]

I do not like it, I hate pages with empty background panels. It works just fine of course for the finished page, but I don't want heads floating in featureless white boxes in my collection, and I don't want a half-finished background on a splash or a cover.

 

Obviously a subjective response and choice.

[malvin]

19 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

What is everyone's opinion on artwork that doesn't match the final published comic?

I am interested in some recent covers by an artist. I really like the covers he has done, not the standard pinup and no background. But when he sends me a scan of the originals there are pieces missing. Most of the cover is there but small parts were done on the computer. I am torn about buying the original because its missing elements of the cover I really liked. What is done traditionally is nice but I am having second thoughts on buying one of the covers.

Chaykin in known for doing this with his recent interiors and covers but his is more extreme. He will do the figures on the page even with the panel but leave out other elements. Or he just draws the figures on pages and puts them together in photoshop.

What do people think about incomplete original art not matching the published version?

It all depends on how different it is and how much it is.

I first ran across it quite early in my collecting career in an issue of Supreme by Jim Starlin

CAF Link

I don't have a scan of the published page handy but the building had more ornate decorations and the sky more space/cosmic stuff so I barely noticed it and it didn't bother me.

Another issue is modern artist who still have original art, but it's purely line art and no shadows, which I know annoys you.  Examples include Kaare Andrews and Josh Middleton.

example cover 1 from Spiderman: Reign

example cover 2 from Spiderman: Reign

I still got them as they are the OA to a comic I enjoyed, but the price I was willing to pay was lower.

Malvin

[Michaeld]

It's all part of the process. My Paul Pope 50th anniversary Black Panther cover has some very subtle changes made to it when published. Mostly around the edges. You can see the changes here Black Panther. It doesn't really bother me. In this age of comic production we will be seeing this practice more and more. As long as the final product was directly taken from the original and the changes aren't too dramatic I'm alright with it.