What's with all the 3D modelling variant covers now?
1 1

38 posts in this topic

Are people truly interested in these things? I think they look absolutely awful...

 

Cheesy, lazy... unimaginative... 

 

And they now seem to be coming out in droves!

Is this the new trend?

 

sadf.JPG

sadf2.JPG

sadf3.JPG

sadf4.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one of my LCS live Facebook feeds....

they promote a person that consigns to them 3-d pop out comic covers, some are original or at least made from different comic pages to form a new cover etc

He at least puts them in like a felt frame and sells them by the size of the frame 

$20-30-&50

anyway they seem nice, I think there was even one that did the die-cut covers...... :foryou: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of like it too,but then again i liked the lenticular cover too,its a variant so trying a New style is quite ok,some find it cheesy ,not me ,i wont part easily with this one,if it becomes the norm than i would agree with you.but for now lets enjoy those covers:whee:

20210116_224951.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mediaslave said:

They're terrible and lazy. That Mayhew one kills me. Why would anyone guy a cover that looks like a screenshot from the Reboot cartoon. 

Awful. 

Reboot is awsome!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Does Mike Mayhew do digital art?

I can't confirm this 100%, but looking at his work, I'd say that he builds everything in 3d, then draws on top of it, then puts it out. Even goes so far as to do a "sketch" version, which makes me question the authenticity of it. Feels like it was done afterwards to generate OA sales, rather than actually as a result of the work. 

Those Venom/ Carnage covers seem especially obvious, but I feel that's how a lot of his other work is now too. All the textures and colours scream low-end rendering, and it just doesn't feel organic. IMO anyways. 

 

VENOM-30-VIRGIN-Trade-Variant-SET-_57.jpg

56f79f4dbb2da374076cf6dbc384cf1e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of folks here make digital art, but I just feel like it is cheating. I understand it is a learned skill in terms of using the software, but I've always been interested in art as some sort of product of someone's talent, both innate and practiced. Yes, I know many painters use projected images and all that, but still, you need to create the image with your hands, medium, etc. If comics can just be generated by folks using computers and no pen/pencil/brush to paper we're losing that human element.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the blob said:

I know a lot of folks here make digital art, but I just feel like it is cheating. I understand it is a learned skill in terms of using the software, but I've always been interested in art as some sort of product of someone's talent, both innate and practiced. Yes, I know many painters use projected images and all that, but still, you need to create the image with your hands, medium, etc. If comics can just be generated by folks using computers and no pen/pencil/brush to paper we're losing that human element.

 

Digital art creation still very much requires talent. I know how to use the software. I've done some internal-use commercial graphic design. If you spotted me ten years to work on it, I still don't think I could produce even that Venom cover up there, and that Venom cover is a terrible, ugly example of the medium. The digital tools are just different tools. Computer art design does not consist of telling the computer, Star Trek-style, to "paint Batman", or anything like that.

It still requires a skilled artist to produce good art. So, yes, some people use digital art tools and create things that aren't appealing. Plenty of people do that with traditional media, too; no computer is to blame for Rob Liefeld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qalyar said:

Digital art creation still very much requires talent. I know how to use the software. I've done some internal-use commercial graphic design. If you spotted me ten years to work on it, I still don't think I could produce even that Venom cover up there, and that Venom cover is a terrible, ugly example of the medium. The digital tools are just different tools. Computer art design does not consist of telling the computer, Star Trek-style, to "paint Batman", or anything like that.

It still requires a skilled artist to produce good art. So, yes, some people use digital art tools and create things that aren't appealing. Plenty of people do that with traditional media, too; no computer is to blame for Rob Liefeld.

I have never tried these platforms, but can't one just scan in existing images and play around with them using the software?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qalyar said:

Digital art creation still very much requires talent. I know how to use the software. I've done some internal-use commercial graphic design. If you spotted me ten years to work on it, I still don't think I could produce even that Venom cover up there, and that Venom cover is a terrible, ugly example of the medium. The digital tools are just different tools. Computer art design does not consist of telling the computer, Star Trek-style, to "paint Batman", or anything like that.

It still requires a skilled artist to produce good art. So, yes, some people use digital art tools and create things that aren't appealing. Plenty of people do that with traditional media, too; no computer is to blame for Rob Liefeld.

I agree that something like ProCreate is digital art, and definitely takes skill. That said, its MUCH easier to produce some great effects and shading in graphics programs than it is traditionally, at least IMO. Look at a guy like Jorge Jimenez. He produces some absolutely incredible work by combining his traditional skills with the benefits of digital effects, and the results are crazy good. In his case, I think his traditional stuff would also be stellar, but wouldn't have the same detail and effects. Digital makes that possible. 

These 3D covers though, these are different. They look like cheap game art rather than pro level comics. I have no idea why this is accepted by any publisher. Its weak as hell to me, and I have yet to see anyone do it well. Those Venom covers are brutal. Why anyone would buy those over the Dell Otto versions is beyond me. 

ELmY5YaX0AUbD6j.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mediaslave said:

I can't confirm this 100%, but looking at his work, I'd say that he builds everything in 3d, then draws on top of it, then puts it out. Even goes so far as to do a "sketch" version, which makes me question the authenticity of it. Feels like it was done afterwards to generate OA sales, rather than actually as a result of the work. 

Those Venom/ Carnage covers seem especially obvious, but I feel that's how a lot of his other work is now too. All the textures and colours scream low-end rendering, and it just doesn't feel organic. IMO anyways.

Looks like he does do some. A lot of his painted art I could see being mistaken for digital though.

Mike’s approach ranges from state-of-the-art digital techniques to traditional watercolor and acrylic painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, HotKey said:

Why is an artist who uses a brush different than one who uses a mouse?

OK, fair point, but I think you're missing the point of the thread. 

Its one thing to use a mouse/ stylus to do your work. Peachy, zero problem with that.

 

Its another thing entirely to take a 3d model and just paint over it, trying to make it look like a drawing. That, to me, is lazy AF. Its the same thing if an artist takes a photo and just draws over it and calls it original art. 

Its not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it's a shame about those covers, because it's my recollection that Mike Mayhew actually can really flat out draw, and doesn't need the bells and whistles. To be sure, drawing digitally is still drawing, and you have to be a skilled artist to use those tools. But with covers like these, it's like they make the "digital" aspect the feature, rather than a tool to enhance the "drawing" part. Different strokes and all that. I'm sure some folks love it, because there seems to be a lot of it. For what it's worth, I hate comic covers these days anyway. Covers used to tell a story in and of themselves, and give you an idea of what you're going to be reading inside. Today, covers are essentially miniature posters, and who cares what's inside? A lot of cool images out there, but they have nothing to do with storytelling. Give me a solid bronze Marvel cover over all of the Artgerms in the world, any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 1:27 PM, mediaslave said:

I can't confirm this 100%, but looking at his work, I'd say that he builds everything in 3d, then draws on top of it, then puts it out. Even goes so far as to do a "sketch" version, which makes me question the authenticity of it. Feels like it was done afterwards to generate OA sales, rather than actually as a result of the work. 

Those Venom/ Carnage covers seem especially obvious, but I feel that's how a lot of his other work is now too. All the textures and colours scream low-end rendering, and it just doesn't feel organic. IMO anyways. 

 

VENOM-30-VIRGIN-Trade-Variant-SET-_57.jpg

56f79f4dbb2da374076cf6dbc384cf1e.jpg

Clayton Crain has been incorporating paint/digital for decades 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1