that’s very interesting, but I think that’s the reason why I don’t really consider digital coloring to be as pure an art form as traditional drawing/painting/coloring.
well, to be honest, using a lot of those digital effects may look okay on the screen, but sometimes that does not translate well on a paper page.
Looking at all kinds of comics, most of the time, you can still tell which ones were mostly done by hand, or by use of the computer, because the digitally enchanced ones all seem to have a certain quality to them that I find sometimes annoying in a field where everyone is trying to make something unique. This works okay in the web-comics genre, but for traditional comics, I like the individual look that an artist can make.
I hear where Michael’s coming from, but after a while, I learned to tweak my monitor to get truer colors.
My only hash with computer coloring is that there’s no final “product,” only a computer screen. If I want to hang it on my wall, I have to go to a print shop, and half the time they’re more than happy to fuck it all up for you.
Wait a minute. It’s not computer coloring I don’t like, it’s print shops! I’m glad I got that cleared up.
Also, I’d have to agree with Michael that computer-colored art tends to look better on the screen, but with the right monitor adjustments, (and a good printer) you can usually get the print to look pretty damn good.
Jeffrey wrote: June 8, 2007 at 10:44 am
Headmaster Ernesto can do no wrong in my eyes. Very to watch!
wrote: June 8, 2007 at 11:58 am
Holy Chit! Color one of my drawings next.. I suck at coloring.
Michael wrote: June 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm
that’s very interesting, but I think that’s the reason why I don’t really consider digital coloring to be as pure an art form as traditional drawing/painting/coloring.
Rob wrote: June 8, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Why?
KruddMan wrote: June 9, 2007 at 1:47 am
left-handed people rock!
Michael wrote: June 9, 2007 at 2:29 pm
well, to be honest, using a lot of those digital effects may look okay on the screen, but sometimes that does not translate well on a paper page.
Looking at all kinds of comics, most of the time, you can still tell which ones were mostly done by hand, or by use of the computer, because the digitally enchanced ones all seem to have a certain quality to them that I find sometimes annoying in a field where everyone is trying to make something unique. This works okay in the web-comics genre, but for traditional comics, I like the individual look that an artist can make.
Rob wrote: June 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Whatever, Spock.
ChrisJinx wrote: June 9, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Yeah, uh, I don’t think any of the originality of the picture was lost at all. I mean, I know where you’re coming from, Michael, but…
Michael wrote: June 10, 2007 at 7:11 pm
eh, just my opinion. I could just be a non-opinionated moron but I like comic art, always have.
Paul wrote: June 11, 2007 at 8:10 am
I hear where Michael’s coming from, but after a while, I learned to tweak my monitor to get truer colors.
My only hash with computer coloring is that there’s no final “product,” only a computer screen. If I want to hang it on my wall, I have to go to a print shop, and half the time they’re more than happy to fuck it all up for you.
Wait a minute. It’s not computer coloring I don’t like, it’s print shops! I’m glad I got that cleared up.
Paul wrote: June 11, 2007 at 8:21 am
Jesus! How many layers did he use?
Also, I’d have to agree with Michael that computer-colored art tends to look better on the screen, but with the right monitor adjustments, (and a good printer) you can usually get the print to look pretty damn good.
dphunkt001 wrote: June 18, 2007 at 8:04 pm
ive always wondered what a colorist credit entails.. – awesomeness.