|
The technology for coloring the original artwork, the technology for printing the artwork, and the general expectations/styles people seem to favor have changed a ton in the past twenty years or so. Compare the Steve Epting cover from 1992, which is more in the 1980s style of coloring (complete with a... not halftone, but definitely the sort of thing in vogue in 1980s coloring background):  Just a couple of years later people were diving headlong into computer coloring, which made 'painterly' sort of gradients and swirls of color much easier to do:  Ten years after that, same artist and it's all lens flares and cloud effects and layer upon layer of shading and modeling  Epting and his collaborators have adapted remarkably well to the changing styles, but that's a huge change in what is happening to the line art across the years. Not everyone has adapted (or wanted to adapt) as well, and some people's art is much more suited to one type of coloring versus the other. It's really jarring when they try to "recolor" art designed for the old style with the new. One modern comic that uses the "old" flat coloring style to great effect I think is Deadly Class:  The colorist here is Lee Loughridge, who broke into coloring right between the first and second Avengers cover, and can totally do the "modern" house style of coloring when called upon to:  but also can work with an artist like Wes Craig or Becky Cloonan or Jock to do something outside of the ordinary.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
goatface posted:People don't have to care about how the print quality will affect the colours any more. DC's changing to matte paper this year. Colourists probably wont have to change anything, but adjusting for it might be a consideration. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I wish I was clever about colouring - what's the best way to describe the differences between the colouring methods and styles we have now with those in the 70s or the 80s? That's the thing. They're essentially the same, which is what bothers me. With Photoshop you can do more blends and shading and as printing has advanced the artist doesn't have to worry as much about clean separations and registration issues. If you read older comics; ones published before 1990 or so, you can see where the printer hand separated colors, especially in black areas. I used to notice it is a kid but didn't know enough about printing to understand why it would happen. You'd see a large black area behind, say, Daredevil, and could see the red of his costume overprinting the black area. Also, FACT: a lot of Superhero costumes are the colors they are because of printing limitations, most famously the Hulk and Superman (whose costume is built from 100% Cyan, Magenta, Black and Yellow). Real easy to print. My bitching about modern color techniques is that the craft has evolved but the palette hasn't. It's still almost entirely what I call "Juicy Fruit" and "Hot" coloring. Compare those spreads that guy posted with some of the coloring done on Ronin, TDKR or Batman:Year One. Not even sure what the gently caress happened to Lynn Varley. Alex Ross is really good subduing his palette a bit which lets the "hot" colors he uses really pop. Here's a really good example https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/b/b1/Captain_Marvel_Kingdom_Come_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100516222237 See how dark and muted the red in Shazam's costume is? The dull yellow of his boots? The muted blue of Superman's suit? This lets the golden flashes on Shazam's outfit and Superman's cape really snap. Usually, all of these would be pure mixes. Here's another one. this time it's The Thing https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a6/13/ee/a613eeddd0ab0e48e184524d56656f24.jpg He's usually colored pure orange. 30% magenta and 100% yellow. Here he's mostly brown and tan, allowing the Torch behind him to really pop in pure hot red. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jul 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
I've been thinking about this one over the past few days and I'm not really sure what the message is supposed to be. Maybe I'm missing context from the pages in between, but I'm not entirely sure what the point the villain (?) is trying to make, and by extension what the point Ditko was trying to make was. The villain is clearly a cynic and Ditko, as an idealist, probably didn't rate cynicism very highly. Is there anything more to it than that? (I'm completely ignorant of Ditko's approach on Blue Beetle more generally.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
All the comic book characters are mixed together and mashed-up and I'm so confused. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 22:32
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I've been thinking about this one over the past few days and I'm not really sure what the message is supposed to be. Maybe I'm missing context from the pages in between, but I'm not entirely sure what the point the villain (?) is trying to make, and by extension what the point Ditko was trying to make was. The villain is clearly a cynic and Ditko, as an idealist, probably didn't rate cynicism very highly. Is there anything more to it than that? Ditko was a fan of idealized individualism and believed blaming personal failings on society just gave people an excuse to be lovely. He felt that art that communicated powerlessness in the face of systemic problems was weak and morally bankrupt. He felt that art should "elevate the common man". Basically if your life sucks, you have the power to change it and it's nobody else's fault, and trying to blame the world for your lot can only make you a villain. It's just a slightly different take on Thatcher's beliefs. "They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Ditko was a fan of idealized individualism and believed blaming personal failings on society just gave people an excuse to be lovely. He felt that art that communicated powerlessness in the face of systemic problems was weak and morally bankrupt. He felt that art should "elevate the common man". Basically if your life sucks, you have the power to change it and it's nobody else's fault, and trying to blame the world for your lot can only make you a villain. So ... Ditko probably voted for Trump, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Ditko was a fan of idealized individualism and believed blaming personal failings on society just gave people an excuse to be lovely. He felt that art that communicated powerlessness in the face of systemic problems was weak and morally bankrupt. He felt that art should "elevate the common man". Basically if your life sucks, you have the power to change it and it's nobody else's fault, and trying to blame the world for your lot can only make you a villain. Even so, I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to take away from that Blue Beetle story. It doesn't seem to me like the bad guy is trying to blame his shortcomings on others or on society so much as he's opposed to the idea that anyone could be genuinely heroic or altruistic - he keeps talking about exposing Blue Beetle's "heroic pose" - which I believe is itself a tenet of objectivism as Rand expressed it, so it seems odd that Ditko would give that position to one of his villains. But then again, I tend to have an habitually cynical outlook where the motivations of other people are concerned. Maybe I'm the wrong audience. ecavalli posted:So ... Ditko probably voted for Trump, huh? He probably just didn't vote. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Ditko seems like a spoiled ballot kind of guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:17
|
|
ecavalli posted:So ... Ditko probably voted for Trump, huh? He was not a fan of liars.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Trump is way too left wing for Ditko. And yeah, a liar. Sterenko is the Trumper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Steranko is like the patron saint of liars so that checks out.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Even so, I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to take away from that Blue Beetle story. It doesn't seem to me like the bad guy is trying to blame his shortcomings on others or on society so much as he's opposed to the idea that anyone could be genuinely heroic or altruistic - he keeps talking about exposing Blue Beetle's "heroic pose" - which I believe is itself a tenet of objectivism as Rand expressed it, so it seems odd that Ditko would give that position to one of his villains. I see it as a version of Rand's take on John Galt or Howard Roark -- the idea that some people are simply better than others, which leads jealous mediocrities to try and drag them down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Even so, I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to take away from that Blue Beetle story. It doesn't seem to me like the bad guy is trying to blame his shortcomings on others or on society so much as he's opposed to the idea that anyone could be genuinely heroic or altruistic - he keeps talking about exposing Blue Beetle's "heroic pose" - which I believe is itself a tenet of objectivism as Rand expressed it, so it seems odd that Ditko would give that position to one of his villains. I can't post the whole story, but "Our Man" and the other hippie strawmen in the story are nihilists that see the universe as impossible to understand or effect change on. They totally claim that their shortcomings are beyond their control. They say that heroism is evil because it gives false hope, but in their heart of hearts, they know better and they're ashamed of themselves for being cowards. Hippies and snooty art critics hate square artists like Ditko for the same reason that Jonah hates Spider-Man.   Ditko does mock liberal do-gooderism in his comics as an irrational emotional impulse that's wasted on a bunch of losers who are either crybabies who won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or irredeemably vicious criminals, so there are forms of heroic posturing that he's opposed to. I don't know how his personal views stack up against orthodox Objectivism. Selachian posted:I see it as a version of Rand's take on John Galt or Howard Roark -- the idea that some people are simply better than others, which leads jealous mediocrities to try and drag them down. His heroes aren't innately better than others, which is why the mediocrities' jealousy is ironic and misplaced. We could all be like Spider-Man or The Question if we tried. Servoret fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Among the many virtues of Simonson's classic Thor run, I'm quickly learning of his zeal for onomatopoeia. Thor #340
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
do the needful
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Among the many virtues of Simonson's classic Thor run, I'm quickly learning of his zeal for onomatopoeia. Many wouldn't even bother with it, so it's nice, you know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
What is unfortunate though is Bill's face in that panel. Simonson pulled a Groening and designed a character whose face really shouldn't ever be looked at straight on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:do the needful "WANK"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
just noticed Odin's amazing rack
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:just noticed Odin's amazing rack He calls them Huginn and Muninn Thought and Mammory
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
im calling the police
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 11:38
|
|
|
I get that you don't want to poo poo on Ditko so soon after his death but there's some extremely naive people in this thread. He was an old crackpot who believed wholeheartedly in the great man theory, blamed poor people for being poor, and generally hated anyone getting anything he felt they hadn't 'earned'. He was exactly the kind of person who would have gone for Trump. These aren't even the positions of a moderate liberal pushed to the right, this is straight up gop ideology from Reagan onward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Servoret posted:Ditko does mock liberal do-gooderism in his comics as an irrational emotional impulse that's wasted on a bunch of losers who are either crybabies who won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or irredeemably vicious criminals, so there are forms of heroic posturing that he's opposed to. I don't know how his personal views stack up against orthodox Objectivism. It's bog-standard Objectivism, with the underlying factor that he identifies himself with his hero characters and everyone he dislikes with one of his many dissolute ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
He was also someone who treated his old art like literal trash because he didn’t think it was right for him to sell it when it was created under contract for someone else. Dude was complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:I get that you don't want to poo poo on Ditko so soon after his death but there's some extremely naive people in this thread. He was an old crackpot who believed wholeheartedly in the great man theory, blamed poor people for being poor, and generally hated anyone getting anything he felt they hadn't 'earned'. He was exactly the kind of person who would have gone for Trump. These aren't even the positions of a moderate liberal pushed to the right, this is straight up gop ideology from Reagan onward. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
Well if there's one thing that definitely didn't happen in 2016, it was people who should know better embracing the narrative he was selling and completely ignoring reality in the process. And even if some people did, I'm sure Ditko wasn't one of them, because something something objectivist principles. E: and him using original Spider-Man pages as cutting boards is always trotted out as evidence of his unshakable commitment to his beliefs, but to me that just screams a tricky combination of spite and mental illness, which yeah who do you think is voting republican? Great artist, huge contributions to the medium and art form. Not denying that. But he doesn't have to be morally unassailable to be remembered for his work. purple death ray fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Objectivists all came out for ron paul and then they went back to being votes bernie in the primary, votes straight r in the general independent after that blew up
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
You know what's bad art This many words about a dead man's politics
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:im calling the police Granos doesn't post here
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
 Does this break the thread title rule?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Mothman?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
PLUS ULTRA
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
The guy's art might not be good but at least he actually draws it, unlike Horn et al.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Rob Liefeld is a lovely artist that is fun to bullshit with if you meet him at a con. The guy is super friendly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
I fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
I like flat colors. It doesn't work for everything but when someone has good color theory it can really make a comic pop. Also good for making things surreal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
DC are gonna have a foil covers month, which sounds dumb, but it means everything they just previewed today's solicits is very monochrome and most look pretty classy that way, at least before the shininess is applied. Steve Rude John Paul Leon Yasmine Putri Joelle Jones Alex Maleev  Dan Panosian
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
that Dan Panosian Suicide Squad cover reminds me of old flat-shaded Hiroaki art. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Those covers are all cool. Too bad about those geese, though. Superman's about to belly flop through several of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:31
|
|