Hey Alex - How do you do that voodoo...

[Michael Lark]

...that you do so well?

I'm always curious how other artists go through the process of getting from script to inked page. You and I have talked about some of it, but I'd like to know what steps you go through, once you get a script, to get to 22-24 finished pages. And I bet others would like to know, too.

What steps do you take, and how much time, on average, do you spend on each step? For example, which I asked Sean Phillips, he told me he spends the first day (say, Monday) doing breakdowns for the whole issue. Then he spends the next 4 or 5 days shooting photos for 4-6 pages in the morning, then does rough pencils/layouts for those pages in the afternoon. When he's done the pencils/layouts for the whole issue, he then spends a couple of weeks inking those pages until he's done.

So, how do you do it? (Without giving away any of your secrets.)

[the last ronin]

Monday and Tuesday he skims the net for porn, Wednesday and Thursday posts on Car messageboards, friday he takes pics of himself in a mirror for reference, Saturday takes pics of his girlfriend for "reference"
Sunday is for drawing.
It helps when you have the computer draw for you, He he :), don't ban me Alex.

[Diana]

I'd like to know how much time you spend looking for or taking reference pics! Cause that usually kills my patience. I hate it. :?

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

...that you do so well?

I'm always curious how other artists go through the process of getting from script to inked page. You and I have talked about some of it, but I'd like to know what steps you go through, once you get a script, to get to 22-24 finished pages. And I bet others would like to know, too.

What steps do you take, and how much time, on average, do you spend on each step? For example, which I asked Sean Phillips, he told me he spends the first day (say, Monday) doing breakdowns for the whole issue. Then he spends the next 4 or 5 days shooting photos for 4-6 pages in the morning, then does rough pencils/layouts for those pages in the afternoon. When he's done the pencils/layouts for the whole issue, he then spends a couple of weeks inking those pages until he's done.

So, how do you do it? (Without giving away any of your secrets.)

All depends on the script. Next time we see each other, instead of chasing flowers, we'll talk.

[ItsDLEVY]

But if you talk to him in person, the rest of your little voyeur crowd out here in the internet don't get to hear!

[Diana]

Exactly! Come on!!! :)

[alexlannin]

The work alone's good enough for me, keep it up!

[Michael Lark]

All depends on the script. Next time we see each other, instead of chasing flowers, we'll talk.

Oh, no, my friend. This was for public consumption. C'mon, give with the info. You can't deprive Diana of this stuff - she even made a website devoted entirely to you! You owe your legions of fans. :)

("Chasing flowers?" I still think the flower was chasing you, or at least thinking about it.)

[Diana]

Oh, no, my friend. This was for public consumption. C'mon, give with the info. You can't deprive Diana of this stuff - she even made a website devoted entirely to you! You owe your legions of fans. :)
Hah! You rule! :lol:

[Michael Lark]

Hah! You rule! :lol:

How much you wanna bet he has some smart ass remark to make, and he won't answer the question?

C'mon, Alex - how you say "No" to her avatar? How can you deny those cute little crossed blue eyes? :)

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

How much you wanna bet he has some smart ass remark to make, and he won't answer the question?

C'mon, Alex - how you say "No" to her avatar? How can you deny those cute little crossed blue eyes? :)

Dude, you're throwing girls at me now. That's not fair to say the least.

[Diana]

Smart ass remarks... they are his speciality! :p

[Michael Lark]

Smart ass remarks... they are his speciality! :p

Yup. And I was right, he made one.

He's such an art tease. C'mon Alex, you answer my question and I'll buy you a flower.

[Kody]

C'mon Alex, you answer my question and I'll buy you a flower.

Pansies

[Kody]

..err...I was talking about the flower, of course...

...the pansy. :D

http://giltphoto.com/images/flowers/pansies.jpg

[Michael Lark]

To quote from "Raising Arizona":

Ya'll hear that? We's speakin' in code.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/MichaelLark/raisingAR126.jpg

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

To quote from "Raising Arizona":

Ya'll hear that? We's speakin' in code.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/MichaelLark/raisingAR126.jpg

Flower for the night?

[Shannon Chenoweth]

How did I know he wasn't going to talk about his process?

Seriously Alex, I'm also interested in knowing. Can't you at least share SOME things with the rest of the class? :)

RC

[Taki Soma]

Don't do it Maleev.

Not that I ever doubted you'd crack.

heh... crack.

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

Don't do it Maleev.

Not that I ever doubted you'd crack.

heh... crack.

What entertains me the most is the aura around this very mysterious process I'm supposed to be using to draw comics with. It's simply mastering the wacom tablet and using different brushes in Photoshop. Jesus people, relax!

[Michael Lark]

What entertains me the most is the aura around this very mysterious process I'm supposed to be using to draw comics with. It's simply mastering the wacom tablet and using different brushes in Photoshop. Jesus people, relax!

That's not what I'm asking about - jeez, everyone knows you're just tracing photos in Photoshop! :)

Seriously though, I was interested in creating a dialogue and discussion about how you (specifically) and other artists (in general) go about putting the page together. How much time do you spend on breakdowns, etc.?

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

That's not what I'm asking about - jeez, everyone knows you're just tracing photos in Photoshop! :)

Seriously though, I was interested in creating a dialogue and discussion about how you (specifically) and other artists (in general) go about putting the page together. How much time do you spend on breakdowns, etc.?

Oh, that. Until the drugs wear out.


I got very detailed storyboards for the pages before I go out and take my photos. Look at the back of the hardcovers, there's some insight there and samples of Bendis' script with my layouts all over it. All his scripts look like that when I get my hands on them.

[mario]

You know it's almost a sin over here in European comics to use photoreference as clearly as Maleev does? It's almost considered cheating.
A lot of artists have to toil and rely on their knowledge of anatomy. Which makes for sometimes poor drawings but respected. Drawing directly with a wacom is also not done. Shortcuts, like stats are especially forbidden. Every panel must be a completely different drawing. The Bendis style would be spit upon over here

I don't condone this thinking entirely.
Of course we don't have to draw 22 pages in a month. No-one European artist works that way. I'm completely baffled how you American artists can produce your output

I'm drawing a kids comic and i do 3 pages a week, and I'm considered fast!

Sean Philips is one of my heroes but when I heard he can draw AND ink a Sleeper issue in 3 WEEKS, i cry a little.

How do you do it?Is it really just talent or trics. I'd love to spend a month and spy upon you

[Michael Lark]

Personally, I dont' understand that way of thinking that says photo ref is a bad thing. For heaven's sake, artists have been using models ever since there were artists. It's simply not practical to have a model standing there all the time at your beck and call, so photos it is. I always say that if it was good enough for Norman Rockwell, it's sure as hell good enough for me. If I had the kind of photographic memory that Winsor McKay, or Noel Sickles, or Alex Toth had/have, then I'd never have to use a photo again. But that's not the case, so I'm not ashamed to use reference for everything I can get my hands on.

I think there's a big difference between realisticly rendered comics and cartooning. I can see why a cartoonist might shy away from using reference. But if you're going to draw realistically, then for god's sake get it right. That's one of the reasons why I absolutely despise Neal Adams's art - all that rendering in an effort to try to make it look "real", when the basic anatomy is wrong. It just ends up looking even worse. When I draw a Panzer tank, I want you to know it's a Panzer tank. What's wrong with that?

[Andrew j]

Fuck anybody who says photoreferencing is cheating. I do it and it makes me a better artist. It's like saying drawing a still life is cheating if you actually look at an apple.

[Taki Soma]

What entertains me the most is the aura around this very mysterious process I'm supposed to be using to draw comics with. It's simply mastering the wacom tablet and using different brushes in Photoshop. Jesus people, relax!
I can finally sleep now

[Kody]

I think there's a big difference between realisticly rendered comics and cartooning. I can see why a cartoonist might shy away from using reference. But if you're going to draw realistically, then for god's sake get it right.

I remember watching a little ABC special on Disney back when The Lion King was in production. All the annimators were studying film and photos for the various animals. They were doing live sketches at a local zoo, and they were shooting a TON of reference in preparation for the project. One of the lead annimators was explaining how important it was to never fake it when actual information can be found. I don't recall the exact words he used, but it was something like, 'the audience will know if you're cheating, they can spot it'. Meaning that the animators at Disney actually consider "faking the form" as cheating, rather than using reference.

In a lot of ways, I think that's true. If you're presenting your work to the audience as realistic, or naturalistic, there needs to be a better understanding of actual form and structure. If you're presenting a stylized version of form, I think it's still best to start with more information, rather than too little information. It gives you more to pull from.

I think the perception that using reference is cheating is mostly because the general public views it as making the job easier. I don't know about you guys, but I actually find the process of shooting and working with reference actually adds a whole lot of work to the process isntead of being a shortcut.

An artist, I prefer drawing and studying actual form rather than relying on shortcuts and formulas to fake the form. And as a fan of Maleev, Alexander, Gaydos, Coker, Lark, etc., I always enjoy the stories a little more if it looks like the world I see around me. I can relate to the story better and I can identify with the characters.

But the single best reason reference works in comics, for me, is the acting. It's the subtle things you can achieve in character body language, facial expression and hand gestures. It's not about putting a face in the panel so the word balloon has something to pont to. You might as well use stick figures for that. Compare the formulistic Rob Liefeld angry grimmace we've seen a million times, to the subtle expression on one of Lark's characters reacting to a bit of shocking news he's just heard over the phone. There's should be a reaction to the moment if we're working with characters instead of stick figures. A frown or a smirk to compliment the dialogue can add a wealth of information to the story that dialogue just can't do alone. I really think this is underused in comics and is one of the main reasons I loose interest in a lot of the comics I read. The characters are just empty shells and cardboard cutouts that try to rely on plot alone to drive the story. These comics are overlooking one of the single best storytelling devices in comics, believable character reactions to the situation being presented. It's the reason we love actors so much. They bring something extra to the story that isn't in the script.

The variety, and the organic nature of using reference adds that extra dose of life to the characters. Plus, if I'm shooting reference for a character, I'm usually in front of the camera acting the role. That actually helps me to understand what the character is experiencing because I'm having to explore the bodylanguage and the facial expression and much of what the character is experiencing. That helps when I sit down and start drawing the page. I know more about the scene, and I know a ton more about the characters.

[the last ronin]

It's rediculous not to use reference, and if its from photos then so be it. All the great masters had reference, most had a model but some had drawings of that model which were as close to photoref as possible.
One thing I don't like is when an artist can render people, but can't draw a car, or the street, so when the characters interact with the enviroment they dont mesh and the illusion looks fake. If you need the reference use it! you certanly aren't cheating. If you have never seen a boat, but are asked to draw one how will you?
Some artists cover this with a flashy style, like always drawing a flashy futuristic car or motorbike. It just ends up making the work suffer.
If you are using a 2 dimensional medium to create a 3 dimensional illusion you need to base the illusion as close to the real thing as possible.

I know HOW Alex does what he does, but I don't want him to reveal the exact way he does it, because then you'll have 1000 shitty clones unsuccessfully trying to copy his work. I don't want to see that, I want to be blown away whenever I open DD, or whatever book he's working on.

[mario]

Personally, I dont' understand that way of thinking that says photo ref is a bad thing. For heaven's sake, artists have been using models ever since there were artists. It's simply not practical to have a model standing there all the time at your beck and call, so photos it is. I always say that if it was good enough for Norman Rockwell, it's sure as hell good enough for me.

When I draw a Panzer tank, I want you to know it's a Panzer tank. What's wrong with that?

Don't get me wrong though: documentation is an art form here. There are people making a living searching for documentation.
Taking phot refs for backgrounds is okay. Not so for the characters.
There have been artists who start with a skeleton, then add the muscles and then draw the clothes over it. Others built entire replica castles to get it right. Some even design complete cities

but the difference between the USA and "us" is that we don't think of Norman Rockwell as an artist worth looking at, because he relied so much on drawing from photo's

[Mike Haseloff]

I use photo reference in the little bit of stuff I do, and I can kinda see where Alex might be coming from, and it's definitely to do with the whole cheating opinion.

I mean, it took a long time for people to convince me to keep having a try at putting something together because I felt like I was cheating.
The way I think about it is, the point of art is to produce something with some kind of creative purpose or intent. Originality is a pretty big part of that, and if using photos is your thing, the simple fact is, no one else is offering your photos.

Then you can start talking about movies, or photo essays and stuff.
I can certainly understand both sides of the coin, but I'm of the opinion that it's not cheating. Unless of course you're in some kind of sketching class and you should be working from memory. :D

[Michael Lark]

Don't get me wrong though: documentation is an art form here. There are people making a living searching for documentation.
Taking phot refs for backgrounds is okay. Not so for the characters.
There have been artists who start with a skeleton, then add the muscles and then draw the clothes over it. Others built entire replica castles to get it right. Some even design complete cities

but the difference between the USA and "us" is that we don't think of Norman Rockwell as an artist worth looking at, because he relied so much on drawing from photo's

So I suppose we should get a few cans of interior latex and some rollers and paint over the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel because Michealangelo used sketches of models when he painted it? And let's sell the Mona Lisa in a garage sale for a quarter because Da Vinci was actually looking at her when he painted her.

Rubbish.

Artists draw from life. And if you don't have a Panzer tank around (which I don't), then you use a photo as the next best thing.

And thinking Norman Rockwell is an artist not worth looking at is an incredibly elitist attitude, especially for comic book artists. He was a story-teller, for Christ's sake!


PS - Just for the record, when I said Alex "traces photos", I was joking. I know he doesn't - I've seen him draw and he scares me he's so good.

[el123chico]

alex, you are far too modest. everytime someone asks him about his art style he always talks about how simple it is. seriously buddy, stow the humble-ness (is that a word) and break out the little secrets.

[waiting for alex to tell me to stop complaining now. ;) ]

seriously though, i think he's so far above the rest of us that it's hard for him to explain. the man had 6 versions of the "thou shalt not kill" decalogue cover done in 1 hour. 1 HOUR!!! it took him more time to decide which one to use than it took him to make it. seems like we're all just bowing down at the alter of maleev.

[Taki Soma]

alex, you are far too modest. everytime someone asks him about his art style he always talks about how simple it is. seriously buddy, stow the humble-ness (is that a word) and break out the little secrets.

[waiting for alex to tell me to stop complaining now. ;) ]

seriously though, i think he's so far above the rest of us that it's hard for him to explain. the man had 6 versions of the "thou shalt not kill" decalogue cover done in 1 hour. 1 HOUR!!! it took him more time to decide which one to use than it took him to make it. seems like we're all just bowing down at the alter of maleev.
Isn't it better that he's humble? I'd totally hate it if he were the type flauting his work like it's his royal crown and that we should treat him with utmost respect because of it. He's trying to tell you that he's just a person who draws comics.

Besides, I think he likes the mystery.

And Lark, I totally agree with you on the photo / model referencing. No artist should be shunned because they use reference, that's stupid. I think perhaps though, some people are saying artists shouldn't RELY on it. Who knows?

yabba dabba doo.

[Kody]

So I suppose we should get a few cans of interior latex and some rollers and paint over the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel because Michealangelo used sketches of models when he painted it? And let's sell the Mona Lisa in a garage sale for a quarter because Da Vinci was actually looking at her when he painted her.

Rubbish.

Artists draw from life. And if you don't have a Panzer tank around (which I don't), then you use a photo as the next best thing.

And thinking Norman Rockwell is an artist not worth looking at is an incredibly elitist attitude, especially for comic book artists. He was a story-teller, for Christ's sake!


I agree completely. If you check out close-up photos of Michelangelo's frescos on the ceiling, you can actually see the pin marks where he transferred his pre-drawn reference onto the wet plaster by poking lots of holes through the drawing and into the wall. I don't have any doubts that if Michelangelo had photography technology, he certainly would have used it to speed up the process.

And describing Rockwell as "an artist not worth looking at", I really don't have much of a reply to that one. Rockwell is one of the true all-time masters of illustration, and also a master storytelling within a single frame of action.

Also, to lump everyone from Europe as not being friendly to photo reference, I've got a lot of European comics in my stash, and I can tell when they're using reference, and when they're not. Some are more literal than others, but reference is quite popular in European comics. I'd say most of the ones I buy are using reference to some degree. Granted, I may lean toward buying the more realistic books, but there's no denying that reference is used and is very popular. You can go as far back as the late 1600's and the work of Francis Barlow to see very literal reference in one of England's very first comic strips.

http://www.lambiek.net/artists/barlow_francis/barlow_f_popishplot1.jpg

[el123chico]

Isn't it better that he's humble? I'd totally hate it if he were the type flauting his work like it's his royal crown and that we should treat him with utmost respect because of it. He's trying to tell you that he's just a person who draws comics.

Besides, I think he likes the mystery.

And Lark, I totally agree with you on the photo / model referencing. No artist should be shunned because they use reference, that's stupid. I think perhaps though, some people are saying artists shouldn't RELY on it. Who knows?


of course it's better that alex is so humble. i was just breaking his stones. alex and i had a bit of a "running feud" (not sure if that's the best way to describe it but it's the only thing i can think of) at his quesada board and i was just having a little fun teasing him. hence the wink and waiting for him to tell me to stop complaining.

he is pretty mysterious though.

as for using photo reference - there's no reason why artists shouldn't be encouraged to use it. even cartoonists and other more expressionistic artists can probably get something from photo references. it seems simple enough that an artist would want to know what something actually looks like before drawing it. as long as it they don't rely too much on them. for instance, i know alex uses himself as a reference for DD, but looking at them you can't really tell. hell, if i was mike i would use myself for references of captain america. and bendis for the kingpin ;)

[Michael Lark]

hell, if i was mike i would use myself for references of captain america.;)

Now that's funny. Those of you've met me know that I could not possibly look less like Captain America. :) But what you say is true about reliance - I still use myself for ref for Cap, I just have to make a WHOLE lot of changes. I use the ref to get subtlety of expression, to see how shadows fall, to get poses correct, etc. I absolutely despise it when artists find models who look exactly like the subject, dress them up in accurate costumes, and then just draw or paint the photos. Why bother? Just print the photos and be done with it.

As for European artists - Kody is right. Alex and I both love Alberto Breccia - one of the best comics artists who ever lived - and he used reference all the time.

Another fave of mine is this guy - he's using ref, but not trying to draw photo-realistically. BTW, if you haven't seen these books, the art is great. I don't read french much, it seems like a good story. His art reminds me of Noel Sickles mixed with Guy Davis - pretty cool stuff.

http://www.coconino-world.com/modules/mcay/cvg_mcay2.htm

[el123chico]

Now that's funny. Those of you've met me know that I could not possibly look less like Captain America. :) But what you say is true about reliance - I still use myself for ref for Cap, I just have to make a WHOLE lot of changes. I use the ref to get subtlety of expression, to see how shadows fall, to get poses correct, etc. I absolutely despise it when artists find models who look exactly like the subject, dress them up in accurate costumes, and then just draw or paint the photos. Why bother? Just print the photos and be done with it.

As for European artists - Kody is right. Alex and I both love Alberto Breccia - one of the best comics artists who ever lived - and he used reference all the time.

Another fave of mine is this guy - he's using ref, but not trying to draw photo-realistically. BTW, if you haven't seen these books, the art is great. I don't read french much, it seems like a good story. His art reminds me of Noel Sickles mixed with Guy Davis - pretty cool stuff.

http://www.coconino-world.com/modules/mcay/cvg_mcay2.htm


hey, you took out my part about using bendis as the kingpin!!! i guess you're still trying to distance yourself from that one, eh michael? forget it, my avatar will make sure it never goes away ;) anyway, i have met you and know you look nothing like cap, but i figured that with a style like yours, you would probably use yourself to get some facial expressions. which was what i liked - use a reference that looks unlike the subject being drawn. the photos are there for reference, if you're going to just copy the picture as is, why not just trace it. heck, even bendis can do that (ZING!) (alex is gonna hate me for that one.)

the artwork on that site is impressive, not sure how well it flows though.

[mario]

I agree completely. If you check out close-up photos of Michelangelo's frescos on the ceiling, you can actually see the pin marks where he transferred his pre-drawn reference onto the wet plaster by poking lots of holes through the drawing and into the wall. I don't have any doubts that if Michelangelo had photography technology, he certainly would have used it to speed up the process.

Leonardo Da Vinci used it (see the Turin Schroud) so he was a hack too ;)
Canaletto used a lightbox as well.


Also, to lump everyone from Europe as not being friendly to photo reference, I've got a lot of European comics in my stash, and I can tell when they're using reference, and when they're not. Some are more literal than others, but reference is quite popular in European comics. I'd say most of the ones I buy are using reference to some degree. Granted, I may lean toward buying the more realistic books, but there's no denying that reference is used and is very popular.

I have a feeling i've not expressed myself clearly enough.
I never dislike artists used photo reference. How could I? I'm helpless without it in my art.
Its just it's not done using photocopies the way it's used in AMerican comics

[Kody]

So you're not talking about reference exactly, you're talking about dropping actual photos into the comic? Even for that, I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it blends with the art. My only gripe is when it doesn't match the style of the rest of the art in the book. Mostly because it's distracting and sticks out like a sore thumb. But to me, Maleev uses it very well and it's usually a perfect fit within his art style.

[Michael Lark]

So you're not talking about reference exactly, you're talking about dropping actual photos into the comic? Even for that, I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it blends with the art. My only gripe is when it doesn't match the style of the rest of the art in the book. Mostly because it's distracting and sticks out like a sore thumb. But to me, Maleev uses it very well and it's usually a perfect fit within his art style.

Agreed. Collage is a valid art form. And photoshop makes it even more interesting, in that you can manipulate the photo in any number of ways to make it fit the art style. Alex uses it VERY well - just try to take a photo and drop it into an illustration and make it look the way he does. He has a skill. Michael Gaydos, too, has been using it effectively recently - I like the way he does it because he combines photo manipulations with hand-drawn elements. Tomm Coker is another example. And hell, Jack Kirby did it all the time.

I used it myself, for the first time, in The Pulse #8 - during the scene where J. Jonah Jameson is looking out of his office window. The buildings are photos that were manipulated in Photoshop. The rain was drawn in Illustrator and then dropped into the finished art in Photoshop. And the figures and interior backgrounds were all done by hand.

You also have to think about the fact that there's a big difference between someone who uses a photo as a part of the style, and someone who uses a photo simply because they can't draw. There's a big difference. Anyone who knows any of the artists I mentioned above knows that they can draw the stuff they use the photos for. The photos are just a stylistic element of the art - not a "cheat".

All of this brings up the question: At what point do you differentiate between a photo and an illustration? The line has become blurred. And I, for one, don't think that's a bad thing.

[Michael Lark]

the artwork on that site is impressive, not sure how well it flows though.

You have to have the books. Trust me, the guy is great. Might not work for people who are used to American comics art, but it's good, good stuff. The storytelling is rock-solid, and the drawing is dreamy.

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

I second everything Lark says here. He puts it so eloquently, I got nothing to add.

[el123chico]

You have to have the books. Trust me, the guy is great. Might not work for people who are used to American comics art, but it's good, good stuff. The storytelling is rock-solid, and the drawing is dreamy.

the artwork was incredible. but i guess i'll just have to trust you on the storytelling techniques. seems a little static to me. perhaps that's just because of the format i'm reading it from. as it is, i do love more european styles, i wouldn't have spent $100 in a comic store in haarlem (that's the one in holland, not new york) on books that i can't even read.

btw - mr. lark, i forgot to ask you this in my last post, but if you don't use yourself for cap, do you use yourself as a model for bucky?

[Michael Lark]

btw - mr. lark, i forgot to ask you this in my last post, but if you don't use yourself for cap, do you use yourself as a model for bucky?

I DO use myself for Cap, I just have to make a lot of changes. I use myself for everyone, with the exception of some of the women characters. I use my wife for them. She did all of the posing for Jessica and the Hydra agents in Pulse #8, and she often posed for Montoya in Gotham Central. Sometimes I use myself for the women too, if I can get away with it. Which is why you almost never see me draw a woman in a skirt!

[ivan brandon]

by contrast, alex and i have a friend (ESAD, who painted marvel's LOKI) who paints photoreal figures and backgrounds with no reference at all.

there are a zillion different ways to skin a cat.

the tools don't make the art, the artist does, and everyone does their own thing.

[Kody]

Just to hit on the subject of photos once more, I think the SINGLE job of a comic book artist is to tell a good story. Every single technique and tool in the toolbox is fair game when it comes to creating a good comic. No rules apply if the story is told effectively, why should they? I do find it strange that people even try to apply rules to an art form in a way that any technique can be called cheating. As an artist I'd love to know all about the techniques, but as a fan I simply want a good book to read. Nothing else matters to me as a fan.

My graphic design professor used to say, "In the real world, results count, not effort."

[mario]

So you're not talking about reference exactly, you're talking about dropping actual photos into the comic? Even for that, I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it blends with the art. My only gripe is when it doesn't match the style of the rest of the art in the book. Mostly because it's distracting and sticks out like a sore thumb. But to me, Maleev uses it very well and it's usually a perfect fit within his art style.

yeah that's it. Alex's style works perfect with it.

But it's also the "Bendis-style" of using the same panels for the "banter" panels because the greatest European artist Franquin once said that in each panel the character should pronounce the words from his balloons. That means you have to draw each panel differently using a slightly different angle or pose.
Because that "rule" is so imprinted in me i cannot pull a convincing repeated panel scene

When I was in the States last year I went to the library and read some Rockwell books. I believe his best work was an account how his studio burned down. It was really a comic story. There was this big book on Rockwell that I bought but I prefer Hopper over Rockwell, if you know what i mean

[Taki Soma]

I second everything Lark says here. He puts it so eloquently, I got nothing to add.
or just too lazy to add more.... or just adding more mystique

[Persevering Guy]

Don't get me wrong though: documentation is an art form here. There are people making a living searching for documentation.
Taking phot refs for backgrounds is okay. Not so for the characters.
There have been artists who start with a skeleton, then add the muscles and then draw the clothes over it. Others built entire replica castles to get it right. Some even design complete cities

but the difference between the USA and "us" is that we don't think of Norman Rockwell as an artist worth looking at, because he relied so much on drawing from photo's

I can't possible disagree with this way of thinking more.

Using photo references is no different than doing a portrait or landscape.

The key is interpretation. We all interpret things differently, so each artist will produce something unique given the same reference. This is art and you cannot deny it.

I heavily use references in my own work. And yes, I need them. I think most people need them and I think much of the comics I read will be improved if the artists would use references (notice how so many people have the same noses, eyes, and men tend to always draw women with the same face).

Photo referencing is not cheating. In fact, it's a rather laborous process that I wish I could skip. But it's worth it to have a cool outcome.

[PeterSparker]

And thinking Norman Rockwell is an artist not worth looking at is an incredibly elitist attitude, especially for comic book artists. He was a story-teller, for Christ's sake!


Stands, and applauds! *clap, clap, clap*


There will always be those that dismiss him, and its such a joke. The man was a brilliant technical painter, prolific, with an identifable and unique style, and as good of a storyteller as an artist can be. Because he took photos of his models rather than have tham stand there all day is a crime? So every artist who ever looked in a mirror or a peice of glass to do a self portrait must fall into the same category.


Its very intersting to hear about this (well at least from Lark who's saying something. :) ) But I can hear what Alex is getting at I think, if the script is very well layed out to start with, as Bendis often seems to do, he is focusing on how to execute those ideas. What I love about Alex's work, is the stylistic changes. The first issue of Decalouge just had a different look to it. Its been cool to see the way his appraoch has differed throughout this run. The way he's been working with Dave Stewart each issue as of late, is my favorite aspect. Though I just love the way he draws in general.

[TheKraken]

I just wanted to add that anyone who thinks using a tablet is cheating has never used a tablet. It's hard as hell to adapt your process to. It's worth it because it opens up alot of new ways of working, but it's not cheating, by any stretch...

[Victor Cabanelas]

the tools don't make the art, the artist does, and everyone does their own thing.

I agree. The moment when you start looking for your own solutions is when you become an artist.

[Welt]

Mr. Maleev, do you REALLY draw the comics with Wacom? I'm a foreigner, so I don't meybe understand the level of your irony here. I am just reading the newest Daredevil and it's really bothering me to think if it is done with crayons and inks or with Wacom...

I mean, I find it extremely hard to believe you can get so eloquent lines with a virtual pen. Especially the Decaloque stuff. I haven't used Wacom much, and when I did it years ago, I just didn't like it nor could I draw with it.

As to the photo reference discussion, I find it a bit limiting if you need to have everything photoed before drawing it. As a style photo referential work is ok, and often very good. You especially have a great rhythm and flow of images, and a great layout. As a storyteller you have developed a lot, the earlier stuff was a bit more stiff.

But anyways, this is my first post here, and I want to say to you that I feel you're one of the best comic artists around, and I have the utmost respect to you, and as I stated, enjoy your development as artist. But I have to say, I was quite shocked when I first read this thread, 'cause I had thought your methods more traditional...

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

Mr. Maleev, do you REALLY draw the comics with Wacom? I'm a foreigner, so I don't meybe understand the level of your irony here. I am just reading the newest Daredevil and it's really bothering me to think if it is done with crayons and inks or with Wacom...

I mean, I find it extremely hard to believe you can get so eloquent lines with a virtual pen. Especially the Decaloque stuff. I haven't used Wacom much, and when I did it years ago, I just didn't like it nor could I draw with it.

As to the photo reference discussion, I find it a bit limiting if you need to have everything photoed before drawing it. As a style photo referential work is ok, and often very good. You especially have a great rhythm and flow of images, and a great layout. As a storyteller you have developed a lot, the earlier stuff was a bit more stiff.

But anyways, this is my first post here, and I want to say to you that I feel you're one of the best comic artists around, and I have the utmost respect to you, and as I stated, enjoy your development as artist. But I have to say, I was quite shocked when I first read this thread, 'cause I had thought your methods more traditional...

Using a tablet is just like using any conventional tools. It's not the means, it's how you control them.

[Welt]

Using a tablet is just like using any conventional tools. It's not the means, it's how you control them.

Technically, using software stricts you to the software's limitations and it's way of thinking. It is other people's decisions how things work. Using concrete tools, you got the limitations of the material itself ( which the software imitates).

But it is amazing how the software ( and I do know the new Wacoms are very high-sensory) has developed. And you sure do master it, and if it's the way you work best, then great. It doesn't bother me the same way as with some digital paintings of Sienkiewicz and Ashley Wood, where it shows.

And I'm not a luddite, I use Photoshop quite a lot myself for all kinds of finishing, and collage.

[Victor Cabanelas]

Technically, using software stricts you to the software's limitations and it's way of thinking. It is other people's decisions how things work.


Yep. But the same thing happens when you use traditionals methods of drawing.

[Welt]

Yep. But the same thing happens when you use traditionals methods of drawing.

Sort of, the techniques used are often taken as they are given, and the means to use them. And what one can do with a pencil, for example is limited in its own scope, but when using chalk, for example, you might scramble it into tiny bits and smudge it with an old vinyl, and it would leave the texture of the vinyl.

That you couldn't do with the software, if the engineers didn't code it there. That's what I meant. That's a thing to considerate when using software, I think. If you look at the graphics of the last ten years, the influence of Photoshop is oh-so-evident! It's much to do with trends but it's a lot to do with this superb software with zillions of ways to use, but still people take the easiest and the second easiest options and filters, and even if they didn't, the influence of it still shows.

And that's where Maleev deserves kudos, that his style is strong and doesn't look like computery, but still would he be doing stuff the way he does without it?

He could project the reference photos to paper and draw from there - maybe the difference isn't so big, but still maybe I'd choose the latter.

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

I think that the software gives me unlimited abilities to draw. It's just another tool. When I draw on paper, I sketch the artwork and touch it up in photoshop.

[Diana]

[...]when using chalk, for example, you might scramble it into tiny bits and smudge it with an old vinyl, and it would leave the texture of the vinyl.

That you couldn't do with the software, if the engineers didn't code it there.
So basically, they are both tools with potential to be discovered. You need to learn how to use both. The only differences I can see is that chalk is a natural material whereas Photoshop was programmed and is therefore perceived as "fake" or "cheating". And of course that Photoshop can do so much more. I don't think it is bad or sad or anything if an artist chooses to use the material that gives him the most options. And he is not less of an artist because he chooses to really get into learning how to use a digital medium instead of maybe chalk.

But I believe that an artist can only realistically make photoshop look like chalk (or anything else) if he understands how chalk works. So...

:)

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

So basically, they are both tools with potential to be discovered. You need to learn how to use both. The only differences I can see is that chalk is a natural material whereas Photoshop was programmed and is therefore perceived as "fake" or "cheating". And of course that Photoshop can do so much more. I don't think it is bad or sad or anything if an artist chooses to use the material that gives him the most options. And he is not less of an artist because he chooses to really get into learning how to use a digital medium instead of maybe chalk.

But I believe that an artist can only realistically make photoshop look like chalk (or anything else) if he understands how chalk works. So...

:)

I used chalk for over 10 years in my school years. Now it's time to change media.

[Victor Cabanelas]

But I believe that an artist can only realistically make photoshop look like chalk (or anything else) if he understands how chalk works. So...

:)

To be honest, I don´t know. I´ve seen a lot of digital artwork that was created by people who didn´t have a serious understanding of the traditional technique and looked decent. For example, a lot of semi-professional (digital) colorists don´t have the faintest idea of what the color theory is and they are still able to do some great colouring.

[Diana]

For example, a lot of semi-professional (digital) colorists don´t have the faintest idea of what the color theory is and they are still able to do some great colouring.
Well, if they have a good sense for colours even without training then good for them! Glad Photoshop is around to let them demonstrate their talent!

I know if I wanted to colour anything now it would take me ages even though I am pretty good with Photoshop. But I don't have a clue about colours, never learned it, and would have to go through trial and error to get anything decent done. But hey, isn't that the way it works with other media, too, if you're having to teach yourself? Or get a book! Read tutorials!

But then there are books on how to use chalk, too, so...

I still don't see why Photoshop (or similar) is so frowned upon by many. Or why it is felt to be less arty than the use of chalk. I actually think it's sentimentality for the good old days and doing things the hard way and by hand the way the old masters did it, rather than applying an outline with a few mouseclicks.

[Welt]

I still don't see why Photoshop (or similar) is so frowned upon by many. Or why it is felt to be less arty than the use of chalk. I actually think it's sentimentality for the good old days and doing things the hard way and by hand the way the old masters did it, rather than applying an outline with a few mouseclicks.


When looking at some digital art magazines and stuff on the web, it's really obvious that a lot of people are doing digital "art" without the slightest of skills on drawing or anatomy. Sometimes looking at some digital stuff on the web, I just wonder why the people go through all the trouble making their rendering exact and 3d and photolike as possible, but don't have the basic skills. And why they couldn't devote themselves as much to oil painting as they do on the digital stuff.

I think the only and best way to learn to draw is by hand, and starting from basics. I'm just a bit sad that amateurs decide to take on the digital medium first, maybe it is the way of the digital age, but in the long run it will have a lot of damaging effects, I think.

It's the same as with graphic design, when everybody thought that they are graphic designers just because they have the software. I suppose I though so myself, but after going to a graphic design school, I understand that's really not the case.

To some extent, such stuff might lead into some new solutions and shaking the old rules in a good way, but in the end, in the visual media we need people who have an understanding of the visual principles and also of the traditions.

I work a lot with Photoshop, sometimes I think too much. When doing stuff for the web or for print it is quite natural, but when doing original art works, I really feel that the concreteness you have with a painting is never achieved even with the best of printers.

But still, if computers give you a broader and better ways to express your ideas and visuals, then go for it. I think that the combinig media, like with McKean can add up to amazing results! And that's really what I do myself, I don't do anything purely with computers, except typography, but always scan stuff in and do something with that. So there's always the handmark...

[Welt]

Like for example these: couldn't have done the first one by hand, the texture.
And the other one got into more interesting ways after some play with Photoshop.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/juha.veltti/tehdas3.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/juha.veltti/nine1.jpg

[Victor Cabanelas]

Well, if they have a good sense for colours even without training then good for them! Glad Photoshop is around to let them demonstrate their talent!

Sure! But it would be much better if they could have a serious training in the traditional arts. The thing that bothers me is that a lot of digital colorists will never go to an art class or buy a "colours 101" book, just because they think that they are amazing colorists.

I still don't see why Photoshop (or similar) is so frowned upon by many. Or why it is felt to be less arty than the use of chalk. I actually think it's sentimentality for the good old days and doing things the hard way and by hand the way the old masters did it, rather than applying an outline with a few mouseclicks.

I think that a lot of artists and art teachers are "afraid" of computers. Also, it might be because what I call the "Ctrl+Z" fact. If you make a mistake and work with computers, you can always go back a step before you messed up, while if you are working with the traditional techniques, (sometimes) you will have to start from 0 again.

Just for the record, I don´t hate computers. They save my butt a lot of times every day, especially when I need to fix mistakes (with computers it is a 100% faster). I don´t have a tablet because they are waaaaay too expensive here, but as soon as I can manage a month without eating, I will surely buy it! :D

[the last ronin]

Too many people getting into art/comics are trying to skip the learning process of drawing and going straight to the computer.
Recently I saw some guys doing a super slick pseudo-anime book. It was full of speed lines and explosions and big robots. But the actual drawn part was pure shit nobody's face was symmetrical, perspective was nonexistent, hell the characters head heights changed every panel.
There were young kids interested and one kid asked for a sketch, the artist said "I don't have my computer with me"
The guy couldn't even draw with pencil and paper. That is just sad.

I think computers and tablets are fine, they're just tools like pen and ink.Maleev for example can draw incredibly he has shown this, the computer just allows him to try different things.

[Alex<sadly>Maleev]

The more people draw shitty with Photoshop, the better. Less competition. He he.
Drawing requires to know the basics no matter what the tools are.

[Diana]

When looking at some digital art magazines and stuff on the web, it's really obvious that a lot of people are doing digital "art" without the slightest of skills on drawing or anatomy.

And that's kinda my point.

1. You can see it in digital paintings if someone has no clue about colours or anatomy etc. Therefore you have to be a skilled artist to achieve good results. You must have practised it.

2. You can see it in pencil drawings or whatever paintings if someone has no clue about colours or anatomy etc. Therefore you have to be a skilled artist to achieve good results. You must have practised it.

I know it's a shame if people think they can skip all the practising and studying and go produce finished art instantly, but as you said it shows. The problem is not the media. it is the artist. So if there is some stunning piece of art, done completely digitally, then surely it deserves just as much respect as the water colour painting. No?

[el123chico]

practice? we talking bout practice? not a game, not a game. practice.


no seriously, what the hell is "practice" and "training"?

[Kody]

practice? we talking bout practice? not a game, not a game. practice.


no seriously, what the hell is "practice" and "training"?


LOL, A.I. rules.

[Ravengregory]

Wow. I'm just browsing around and I walk right into this whole artist thing and couldn't feel more lost than the guy who said Jar Jar Binks was a good idea. :dunno:

But either way, this is sum pretty cool shit. But in all honesty, I just want the big version of Alex's sig. :D