whats a good proper art work size for drawing in??

.. all my books say 11 x 17 for comic ..err.. GRAPHIC novel pages .. but is that the STANDARD?.. I cant imagine McFarlane or Jim Lee making such detailed art work on that size paper ..maybe I just need glasses

That sound right.
Usually about 1 1/2 times larger than the printing size so it will tighten up a bit as it gets reduced to print size, but the detail won't get so small that it's lost.

I don't know about those to artist in specific. It is possible that some artist work in an even larger magnitude compared to the final print size.

[ QUOTE ]
.. all my books say 11 x 17 for comic ..err.. GRAPHIC novel pages .. but is that the STANDARD?.. I cant imagine McFarlane or Jim Lee making such detailed art work on that size paper ..maybe I just need glasses

[/ QUOTE ]

Comic book paper is 11x17 with an approximately 1/2inch border around the image area.

Jim and his inkers have always done that much work. They don't work any bigger, and I haven't ever seen them work much smaller unless at conventions, on backing-board paper.

So, "yup" it's 11x17 paper. Comics are shrunk from that size down to their current, so "that much detail" is actually far more than you'd ever realize from the little books.

Go to a comic convention if they have any in your area, and usually there are several sellers of artwork, pages from Jim would likely fetch 150-500 a piece.

*gloats* I've got an original of one of my characters by him, from years ago... xmas present from him.

Saytera here, logged in on my beau's account:

Actually, standard size for comics is 10x15 inches usually done on a 11x17 sheet.

..im getting picky now.... but whats the common pencil lead size?... im using 0.5 lead retractin pencil ... (*maybe the pros use a thinner lead*) ....

..btw.. thanks for info.. I got a good 11 x 17 pad of paper.. err.. then you gotta cut off space for bleed and trim and stuff to lower it down to 10x 16 or so.. I think... argh... I wish they just had ONE webpage with the stuff on it

Plenty of people use .5 lead in mechanical pencils (I know I do) but I know a lot of artists will use spiffier art pencils of different hardnesses and the like.

Doesn't seem to matter much, since the inker is gonna have to ink over it anyway.

..ahh inking... *sob*.. im left handed ..either all ink nubs are made for right-handers or im SUCKY at it ...

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!...

..err.. can you take a picture of artwork with a camera instead of scanning it into the computer?.. I mean.. instead of scanning two half of a 11 x 17 in a 8 1/2 x 11 scanner and then stiching them together?...

((( err.. guess I shoulda named this my "Cluess at stuff" thread ))


..btw.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE INFO posted so far...

You can also buy an 11x17 scanner pretty inexpensively online, but the quality isn't always all that amazing for line art. Or, take it to a kinko's or other such office supply type place that has copy machines. They can usually stick it on a usb/flash drive if you have one and ask nice. or ask before hand, and find out how much they charge for that.

Getting even, perfect light is extremely hard when you're trying to use a camera. It CAN be done, but you're looking at having it be angled slightly, or with shadows in weird places, or with a flash burst from the camera interfering with the light level.

(*looks at list of questions *) ... wha?... hey YAY..

THANK YOU THANK YOU !! .. I got all my question issues answered that I couldnt find out any other way thank you so much for your help, youve been totaly awsome

*huggles Zekiran_Immortal and runs off happily *

Save up for one of these. You can do anything with them. I got one and it has made things a LOT easier. I suppose in the very long run you could save money too. No paper or pencils, inking pens, or any other tools needed.

Except that if they become famous... they cannot make any money with their original artwork sales.

It's like the mistake of going to an all-digital format for Disney movies. They made a hefty bundle selling cells from the movies. Until Beauty and the Beast. No backgrounds available = less profit on aftermarket resales from art collectors. Those things go for a LOT.

I don't know of any current professional comic artist (penciller) that uses a wacom instead of a pencil - I'm not talking about cartoonish webcomics, which I know there are a lot of them which actually have their work published after they've been on the web. But I mean, for actual print in a comic on a monthly schedule, things might have changed since I was working in the industry but I don't know of any fully-digital pencillers. And unfortunately I don't have money to buy any books so I don't bother shopping for them any more, so I'm out of the loop. However with that said: I know that the technology is WAY better these days than it was even 5 years ago when I was running the store. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some, but I don't know any myself.

Yeah, that's an interesting subject, Zekiran.
I hadn't ever thought of it from the standpoint of the major sales of original cels.
Heh, I wonder how much of a blow that may have been for Disney (Maybe they'd have to sell off a tiny bit of the world that they own).

So, it brings up the thought...
When and how does the realm of collection buyers and all that catch up with the technology?
(Or more so... when does someone figure out an appealing sell to those that want to buy such things?)

Files on disks?
Original saves?
The Original Line/Sketch Layer?
All the layers in some sort of appropriate file format...

Perhaps once holographic projectors or iscreen-like things are a standard around the house... collectors will buy a little object that fits into a projector or a flat screen-base and the image(s) will be displayed.
They might slideshow through a collection... or the various stages of the illustration(s).

Or, hehe... That whole facet of art collection may die out ;o)

Well, I don't draw with the intention of becoming a famous comic book artist. Maybe a few comissions, but it's mostly a hobby.

Plus, there's always a first for everything. It's not like a Wacom is a crutch. You still have to draw well to draw well.

..there another issue though... would a penciled inked and colored work of art be worth more if it was done by hand reather then on a computer?.. even if the one done by hand wasnt that good?..

If it was worse in quality I would say no, it would be worth less. Two pieces that are exactly the same, one created by traditional means, the other created on a computer is different. Traditional would be worth more. You get to see more of the artist in their work. Digital may be worth less, but it is also more forgiving. Mistakes are much easier to correct, you can do many different things more easily, such as moving one character behind another up to the front and back, or move them all around the picture, changing color schemes, add filters, and endless other possibilities. I dare say you could make many pieces from one piece, although I always start from scratch. I am doing a piece right now that I will be able to divide into two more, seperating characters in a way I couldn't with traditional media.

I would say traditional fetches more, digital is more flexible and easier in some ways.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's an interesting subject, Zekiran.
I hadn't ever thought of it from the standpoint of the major sales of original cels.
Heh, I wonder how much of a blow that may have been for Disney (Maybe they'd have to sell off a tiny bit of the world that they own).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Disney would give up something they've been doing for fifty years if they were making less money in the new medium.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's an interesting subject, Zekiran.
I hadn't ever thought of it from the standpoint of the major sales of original cels.
Heh, I wonder how much of a blow that may have been for Disney (Maybe they'd have to sell off a tiny bit of the world that they own).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Disney would give up something they've been doing for fifty years if they were making less money in the new medium.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people at the comic con that year who deal in animation cells were up in arms, actually. It doesn't particularly hurt Disney - but the animators who kept their cell work and such, individually, very much so.

Many animation studios - including Disney - used to either burn, throw out, or scrub and re-use animation cells. So, a lot of those "middle era" Disney films such as Jungle Book and those around the mid to late 60s, have extremely few if any cells left to see physically. Times were tight. Thus, they drove up any price on the few that are left - into the 10s of thousands for certain films.

For myself, regarding how much it's "worth"... I would always give a trump to traditional art over digital. The "complete finished package" is generally great to look at either way, however I can't justify 250$ to *print out a file*. I have paid more than that for individual pages of artwork (mmmm, John Cassaday...) but if they'd worked exclusively digitally there would be no "product" at all.

I remember the days in the early 90s when they were juuust changing over from hand-coloring to digital colors. Some of the earlier books were *horridly* scanned, it looked like a lot of them went through a fax machine instead of a more quality art-scanner. But technology moved ahead very quickly, and at this point I don't even know anyone who knows HOW to hand-color (ie: hand-separate colors to put onto the print platten) let alone use that technique with any talent.

Computers have made it very quick and easy to both color AND print, but I think it's also a tradeoff for the above reasons of having something "real" in your hands to hold.

I like some webcomics, but there are only a few that I'd ever consider buying in a hard-copy. On the other hand, Girl Genius (one of those two or three) I hate how it had to make a transition from paper to web. Sure, they reprint the volumes after the story's done online now, which saves them money... but I would really rather have a monthly (bimonthly... quarterly... biannually...whatever) comic book in my hands.