Jim Lee Commissions fuel debate over the artists asking price 3 3

[1classics]

On 7/8/2024 at 8:52 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I don't think it matters. Have you seen some of Frank Miller's doodles lately?

Yeah true I should’ve just left it alone, which is why I read some responses and usually bite my tongue and hold back 🤣

[timguerrero]

On 7/7/2024 at 6:41 PM, Kevin76 said:

Todd draws on a digital tablet now, it's pen to screen, instead of pen to paper. His style hasn't changed all that much, Same can be said for Neal Adams, when he was doing commissions he wasn't as good as he was in the 70's but art styles evolve over time, for better or worse. Todd's prime years are 89-93, Todd recently did do an Overstreet price guide cover of spawn/spider-man that I thought looked amazing.  Jim Lee still looks great cause he never stopped drawing, he still has the same early 90's quality when of course scott williams is inking him.  Jim Lee inks...not so much  

Thank you for saying this! To me there is no good Jim Lee art without Scott Williams inks. Scott Williams deserves to command high prices for his ink work! I've paid his fees and he is completely worth every dollar he charges!

[Kevin76]

On 7/8/2024 at 2:28 PM, 1classics said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, by no means am I an artist, but pen to paper from pen to screen is a completely different drawing experience. Everything I've seen from Mcfarlane's Spidey recent sketches, even if they were quick in comparison to Lee are night and day as far as quality. Again, I'm only basing off what I've seen for sale or people posting sketches that are CGC slabbed in recent years, but it looks rudimentary in comparison to his older work. I may stand corrected if we see some pencil or pen to paper work that stands out that looks good...

The technology on pen to screen is just as good as pen to paper, except faster, click of a button and all that is supposed to be black is now filled in instantly and there are no more sketching with a blue pencil or erasing, Brian Bolland does the same thing, pen to screen and his stuff is still amazing. Any artist has about 5-10 mins to make a sketch at a con, compared to published work that takes 12 hours+ to complete.  

[redrighthand]

On 7/8/2024 at 3:10 PM, Kevin76 said:

The technology on pen to screen is just as good as pen to paper, except faster, click of a button and all that is supposed to be black is now filled in instantly and there are no more sketching with a blue pencil or erasing, Brian Bolland does the same thing, pen to screen and his stuff is still amazing. Any artist has about 5-10 mins to make a sketch at a con, compared to published work that takes 12 hours+ to complete.  

Bolland himself has said that his traditional skills have atrophied over the years of digital work, but then he wasn't doing pen-to-screen for a good portion (if not all) of that and I believe he has not upgraded his rig, preferring to to keep his old machines alive by any means necessary rather than have to learn new software.

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/8/2024 at 3:09 PM, timguerrero said:

To me there is no good Jim Lee art without Scott Williams inks. Scott Williams deserves to command high prices for his ink work! I've paid his fees and he is completely worth every dollar he charges!

I really like Jim Lee's inks on his own pencils - but you're absolutely right: nothing beats Williams inks on a Lee piece - the texture and depth is the ultimate complimentary aspect of the original pencils. It's worth the premium to have a piece with those two guys on the art.

[Matches_Malone]

On 7/10/2024 at 11:19 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I really like Jim Lee's inks on his own pencils - but you're absolutely right: nothing beats Williams inks on a Lee piece - the texture and depth is the ultimate complimentary aspect of the original pencils. It's worth the premium to have a piece with those two guys on the art.

I personally enjoy Jim Lee over Jim Lee. It has a raw energy feel to it. Although amazing as well, but Scott Williams has a "commercial" feel to it. 

[Will_K]

In some other topic a few years ago, I think Scott Williams mentioned something like Jim Lee inking himself is more organic.  I agree with that.  I like Jim Lee inking Jim Lee. 

I'm not really a Jim Lee fan and totally I understand he made his bones with the X-Men... but as an artist... he became better with his DC stuff.  Just sayin' from some casual observation.  But not a fan of him drawing the impression of Batman's human ears on the cowl.  Nor do I need to see the lugs on the bottom of Batman's boots.  Seeing the bottom of the boots occurs with a greater frequency than with other Batman artists.  Then again, I haven't read Batman regularly in the last 20+ years. 

I'm have a curiosity about what comic artists draw when they're not drawing comics.  Given Jim Lee's commission rate, why bother drawing something other than comics ? 

[timguerrero]

On 7/10/2024 at 9:19 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I really like Jim Lee's inks on his own pencils - but you're absolutely right: nothing beats Williams inks on a Lee piece - the texture and depth is the ultimate complimentary aspect of the original pencils. It's worth the premium to have a piece with those two guys on the art.

@Dr. Balls yes, definitely worth the premium! @Matches_Malone if I were to pay $20k for a commission (which sincerely I'd never pay but have paid more than that for a published piece of his) I would not be looking to get a "raw energy" vibe to it. I'd like to have the ultimately perfect piece which imho is achieved by Jim Lee when being inked by Scott Williams.

I can attest to it as I got an unpublished Jim Lee pencilled cover and I paid Scott to ink it and the piece now shines brighter than anything else I could imagine. I had Scott ink directly over Jim Lee pencils and I have no regrets about that, I did keep a scan of the pencils just to show how lackuster they were.

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:34 AM, timguerrero said:

I had Scott ink directly over Jim Lee pencils and I have no regrets about that, I did keep a scan of the pencils just to show how lackuster they were.

I love hearing about people taking the gamble to do this and have it pay off visually. I've done that to several pencilled pieces (vintage pencils with modern inks) with - what I felt was - the appropriate inker for the art, and I believe it adds value to the piece, not just financially, but aesthetically as well.

[Brian Peck]

On 7/8/2024 at 3:10 PM, Kevin76 said:

The technology on pen to screen is just as good as pen to paper, except faster, click of a button and all that is supposed to be black is now filled in instantly and there are no more sketching with a blue pencil or erasing, Brian Bolland does the same thing, pen to screen and his stuff is still amazing. Any artist has about 5-10 mins to make a sketch at a con, compared to published work that takes 12 hours+ to complete.  

I disagree. I am not an artists but I know many who prefer one type of paper finish over another. Smooth finish works better for some inkers and vellum finish for pencilers. No matter how good a computer screen is it doesn't;t compare to traditional paper for many artists.

[Kevin76]

On 7/15/2024 at 2:32 AM, Brian Peck said:

I disagree. I am not an artists but I know many who prefer one type of paper finish over another. Smooth finish works better for some inkers and vellum finish for pencilers. No matter how good a computer screen is it doesn't;t compare to traditional paper for many artists.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, one is faster than the other. When I was drawing, smooth finish bristol board is nice and absorbs the ink well, vellum is basically HQ tracing paper and takes a while for the ink to dry on it.  

[Rick2you2]

On 7/20/2024 at 9:03 PM, Kevin76 said:

I'm not saying one is better than the other, one is faster than the other. When I was drawing, smooth finish bristol board is nice and absorbs the ink well, vellum is basically HQ tracing paper and takes a while for the ink to dry on it.  

I had a discussion on the subject of speed with Tom Mandrake once, and he commented he is as fast with traditional tools as someone using digital ones. Even making allowances for his experience level or inexperience with digital, makes me think that the claimed advantage of digital is overblown. Adding in the limited potential sales market for digital as compared to analog leaves me surprised that artists don’t make an effort to do some traditional pages in a book while doing the dull panel pages in digital.

[Ecclectica]

On 7/21/2024 at 4:13 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Adding in the limited potential sales market for digital as compared to analog leaves me surprised that artists don’t make an effort to do some traditional pages in a book while doing the dull panel pages in digital.

It's a very good idea. If only I had this one in mind the last time I tried to convince an artist (Y. Paquette) to go back to traditional pages sometimes to let the fans to be able to obtain from him more than sketches and comms.

[Silver Surfer]

Has any of these commissions surfaced recently? Wasn’t too long ago that you could get Bob Layton to do a nice recreation of the cover of Iron Man #150 for less than $500 (just for perspective).

[timguerrero]

On 7/25/2024 at 10:59 AM, Silver Surfer said:

Has any of these commissions surfaced recently? Wasn’t too long ago that you could get Bob Layton to do a nice recreation of the cover of Iron Man #150 for less than $500 (just for perspective).

he still doesn recreations but they are definitely a lot more than $500