Your Opinion on Digital Inking
By
Bad_Influence,
Posted on: 2009-06-24 24:38 in Multi-Media Fan Creations
I've done mostly digital inking for so long just because my scanner was such a piece of garbage that I couldn't do any digital colors with scanned inks. But now that I have a LOT better scanner, I ink traditionally whenever feasible because I find it easier. My Wacom Tablet is getting kind of worn and the surface is too smooth to give me the proper hand control.
I really like doing ink-only pieces when I can. My fave was a class project from one of my illustration courses Sarah Bernhardt
[ QUOTE ]
I use cold-press watercolor paper. It is not cheap, but you get excellent and sturdy results; I am painting on top of the inks, and so I need a paper that is going to stand up to that. If you're not painting, it may not be for you. But I like it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much what I go back and forth with. Get my best results from something similar.
[ QUOTE ]
As for Sharpies.... truly, one would be justified in saying "LOLSharpies." The problem when using these things for inking is that you are not going to get the extreme clarity of detail that you would get with a traditional ink pen [or those mournfully expensive and quick-to-dry-up Rapidographs], because of the felt tip. The ink is about half as black as India ink, they are just substandard all 'round.
[/ QUOTE ]
I swear to God the quality used to be better because there were Sharpies everywhere when I was at CCAD, which is where I picked up the habit. Screw those cheap things now, though.
Well to be fair, Sharpies come in many different types these days. I do heavy inks with them, but I normally ink with a Uniball Vision Fine or Vision Exact depending on how thick I want my lines. I absolutely sucked at using a nib pen, and never, ever want to touch a brush pen again. I like clean, easy lines for my OWN work, because mainly I'm putting it up online as web art, so it's not that big of a deal for me. I'm just gonna color *inside* the lines anyway lol.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
[ QUOTE ]
You're not participating in a discussion so much as telling us how much cooler you are than we are. Us comics fans and aspirants should really go into oil painting/watercolor/whatever you've got a thing for if we want to be real artistes amirite?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the OP asked a question about how people felt about inking and I was voicing my opinion. And in the process, responding to some other people. I honestly don't know what set you off in the process, but you really need to chill out and get over it. I didn't respond to some of your comments because I went to lunch and then Home Depot to pick up some lumber.
A lot of this discussion hinges on semantics and personal opinions. So if you think I'm ignorant for viewing comic book art is a subset of illustration, when it is clearly this mutant golden child that stands apart from other things, that's cool. I view your assertion that, what 80%(?) of comics are bad because STORYTELLING IS HARD as pretty laugh out loud stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
PS: I was only a few classes from being eligible for an art history minor and have thought about going back to school with that as my focus, so you really don't want to go there.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's friggin hilarious! If nothing else, this thread has provided a new type of internet tough guy: The "dont go there because I was a few classes short of an art history minor but i'm thinking of going back to do it" variety. If you go pick up some film classes too, you need it.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the only reason I can see that someone serious about there comic art would be against inking is if they cant be bothered learning how to do it properly and I could understand the reason why, That Sh*t is hard to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its not hard to do, just extremely tedious.
[/ QUOTE ]
no it's not, when you get used to it but when working with unforgiving black ink when your not practiced at it, it becomes an ordeal. but its a skill worth acquiring don't get me wrong.
My Watercolor Teacher taught us with Ink first.
We did dry brush, washes and then "found objects" painting, (I don't recommend drawing with a comb) but we couldn't just jump into color after that. We had to do monochromatic paintings then... it really does teach you light values and the "unforgiving" nature of black ink of spotless white paper.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the OP asked a question about how people felt about inking and I was voicing my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
You also went out of your way to make some pretty erroneous comments about what comics are and are not. I'm not the only one to correct you.
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of this discussion hinges on semantics and personal opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, yes and no. As your definition doesn't match that of anyone else here or any of us that have pulled some art history into it, I'd say your status as an extreme minority (opinion-wise) becomes easier and easier to categorize you as being incorrect.
[ QUOTE ]
So if you think I'm ignorant for viewing comic book art is a subset of illustration, when it is clearly this mutant golden child that stands apart from other things, that's cool.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, good grief. I proved you wrong about something. Comics are putting one image after another to tell a story or create an action/express a thought. It isn't limited to a rendering style or even a medium.
Line drawings of fantastical settings date back to cavemen. CAVEMEN. Are you saying cavemen were the first comic artists?
[ QUOTE ]
I view your assertion that, what 80%(?) of comics are bad because STORYTELLING IS HARD as pretty laugh out loud stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't what I said and you're being obtuse.
[ QUOTE ]
That's friggin hilarious! If nothing else, this thread has provided a new type of internet tough guy: The "dont go there because I was a few classes short of an art history minor but i'm thinking of going back to do it" variety. If you go pick up some film classes too, you need it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's friggin hilarious! If nothing else, this thread has provided a new type of internet tough guy: The "don't go there because I was will accuse you of being an internet tough guy in an attempt to hide my aggressive and bad posting" variety. If you go pick up some conversational skills too, you need it.
Thanks all for insightful comments and examples. I am learning a lot, even with (or perhaps because of) the arguments. I will chime in before it turns into a flaming war and the thread gets locked. I am still trying to organize my thoughts, but I have a clearer idea of what I am asking. I will clarify my question in my next post when I focus on the digital medium.
But first, I will summarize what I have learned so far about conventional comic art to refresh my understanding, and so everyone is more or less on the same page. Please correct me if I am getting it wrong.
Pencilling, inking, and coloring are three specialized processes involved in creation of comic books. These stages, where different artists are responsible for each stage, were a byproduct of the comic book industry where the creation process was optimized for speed and efficiency. So these stages in turn became associated with the comic style art.
Now things start to get a little confusing for me. Artworks missing the signature black outlines (thus having skipped or maybe painted on top of inking), such as that amazing Alex Ross cover, are not comic art in the strict sense of the term, but rather illustrations with fantasy/superhero theme.
I can see where inking is an important and necessary step in the traditional method. If you started applying color over pencil lines, you won't be able to see your lines pretty soon, and what you can see may get smeared. It is also convenient to have clean lines if it will be colored by another person.
I also understand inking/pen drawing is can be an art form in and of itself, and it takes years of hard work to be truly good at it. Those examples LJ showed are a proof of that. But I think those were meant to be finished drawings, not an intermidiary step meant to be colored later. You wouldn't want to do too much with inking so there is room for color, not to mention it would take too long, as it is a painstaking process. A side question, when an artist colors over another artist's linework, do they preserve 100% of the inking?
Is the purpose of inking simply to provide clean, dynamic, and well-thought-out lines to work with, or something more? Someone mentioned composition, but I think you'd already have most of that worked out in the pencilling stage. It is hard to imagine a poorly composed pencil sketch turning into a compositional masterpiece after inking.
I will take a break now, give it some more thought, and move on to the discussion of comic art as it relates to the digital medium. I am aware that my paragraphs don't flow very well from one to the next. I am just having trouble organizing everything into one cohesive piece.
My Web Site and Portfolio
My DeviantArt Gallery
Oh! I can't remember the artist name, but when I went through a unit on scratchboard (which I personally freaking hate, but its entirely a tactile issue), we touched on a current illustrator who specialized in scratchboard. For a lot of his commercial stuff, he made his scratchboard into digital files where color could be applied under his work. So there are areas in illustration outside of the comic industry where you apply colors to inks separately.
Another thing you see lining for outside of comics is accent lines. As was previously mentioned, this was a hallmark of Mucha. Drew Struzan also has a quasi-comic style, but he puts in the accent lines last after rendering.
Geek_Boy,
Do you even pay attention, at all, to what you're spewing here?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, good grief. I proved you wrong about something. Comics are putting one image after another to tell a story or create an action/express a thought. It isn't limited to a rendering style or even a medium.
Line drawings of fantastical settings date back to cavemen. CAVEMEN. Are you saying cavemen were the first comic artists?
[/ QUOTE ]
By your definition, listed here, if any of those cave paintings were sequential, then those cavemen would be comic artists. Lots of other things are comics as well apparently. Like the instructions for building Spongebob's Lego playhouse.
Technically speaking, if the cavemen were drawing in order to more fully express an existing concept or narrative, they can be considered illustrators. And sequential illustrations certainly predate the concept of "comics."
[ QUOTE ]
I view your assertion that, what 80%(?) of comics are bad because STORYTELLING IS HARD as pretty laugh out loud stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That isn't what I said and you're being obtuse.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is what you said, it's pretty close:
[ QUOTE ]
While some of your other views are interesting, this is demonstrably false. If you want proof, pick up probably 70% or so of the comics on the market right now (probably 90+% during the peak of the 1990's X-TREME movement). Sure, the individual drawings aren't always that difficult, but putting those into a readable story is fricking hard and even the majority of the folks out there professionally doing comics still aren't all that good at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note that I said in some ways sequential art is easier to do. So you're "proving" me wrong by offering a subjective estimate of how many comics I should examine, followed by a subjective evaluation that the majority of comic artists still aren't all that good at it. Then the obvious conclusion that this sad state of afairs is because it's fricking hard.
Get a grip. You've got undergraduate academic nerdrage over some pretty straightforward comments that you think are clearly wrong, which may be debateable, but are clearly not worth having a pissing war over.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Storytelling is difficult and if you don't do it well, it shows, and it becomes painfully obvious. With all due respect, you've got some misconceptions about the comic book medium and the process, which Sorah, being closer to the industry, would be happy to point out. I think those misconceptions have led to a vast underestimation on the value and significance of the inking and storytelling in measuring sequential art against other mediums of art.
Leaving the linework for the most part is the standard. But if the artist is his own penciller, inker and colorist, the final look is up to them. I do a base of what I need to finish... I use to try and translate purely from what was first created, but being as my strong point is the final color, I leave allowances for what I know will be the final effects.
This is sort of a backwards approach, adding details at the end, instead of the beginning for say inspiration.
The purpose of inking is to enhance the pencil lines, which initially can be too light to paint over. Remember all of this use to be hand colored with luma dyes. With the ability now to simply photo manipulate the tone of your pencils to be viable "inks", you could skip inking and go straight to flats and renders.
The thing is, some pencillers aren't tight pencilers, or they are so tight, their work looks lifeless. Other pencillers have that great texture to their pieces, because they can be so mechanically austere that that in itself is a beautiful aesthetic. Like if you watched someone color in the lines of a coloring book and never making a mistake. Some people are just that meticulous.
The inker has several jobs, by adding a thicker line on one side of an object, he is indicating that shadows fall on that side. By adding what they use to call "zipatone", halftones now, the inker was adding depth and tonal value, before, the colorist got to the original pencils. And zipatone was a hateful process of applying "stickers" to the page, to give the illusion of halftone greys. That use to be a big part of an Inker's job, back in the day.
Now all this can be done digitally. A good penciller will indicate grey tones by the nearness of their lines being adjacent to one another. I am not talking about cross hatching, which to me is an artform in itself.
But line weight actually, because there has to be A LOT of variety, in every given frame, and then again in relation to the entire page.
Is there too much black in one spot, does your eye sink there? Is there not enough contrast. Some inkers never change their line weight, this is a colorist heavy approach, who may or may not add darker areas to enhance the flat drawings.
A good inker can create hair textures where his penciller wants their to be convincing hair. This also goes for stone, for metal, for glass, all of these surfaces require a unique approach. Slapping dark lines over pencils just to get them to show up is NOT inking, that's butcher-ism.
The other thing to remember about Inking is that some art doesn't need color. I was a huge fan of the artists in Savage Sword of Conan in the 70s-80s. That was some serious inking you got for $1.25.
Do yourself a favor and grab some of those at your local "good" comic shop... you won't be sorry.
LD,
[ QUOTE ]
Now things start to get a little confusing for me. Artworks missing the signature black outlines (thus having skipped or maybe painted on top of inking), such as that amazing Alex Ross cover, are not comic art in the strict sense of the term, but rather illustrations with fantasy/superhero theme.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's just really bizarre, refusing to regard Alex Ross' cover, or any cover, as comic art because it is executed in a way not permitted by the traditional industry approach. I would be amazed if any big wig at DC would hold that kind of bias.
There are examples of good comics that never involved the inking process. Dreadstar comes to mind. Dan Brereton's Nocturnals isn't done that way. I used to read Epic magazine when I was a kid and they'd run one shot stories that didn't involve pencil-ink-color.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Okay, so I haven't otherwise really said anything in this thread despite skimming through it as things were ... "discussed". So, LD, given your last few questions I thought I might step in with a different perspective. Although the general consensus about "Digital Inking" is pretty covered, I think it might be worth the effort to point back some in the idea of Comic Art and point to a more historical guide.
Understanding more the principle of were "Comic Art" comes from is something that helped me better understand it when I was attempting to figure it out myself. With a basis of simple sequential pieces that were best conveyed in a medium that could be cleanly reproduced. This is were inking comes into play on a broad spectrum. Inks allowed the artist to keep a clean crisp line that could be taken to print and mass produced without concern for the art. So cover the last few hundred years to were modern comics stand both in newsprint and novel form. Inks still stand as the stage that defines the clean, crisp and precise point of the drawing and, in most cases, stand above the color.
Now, technically what defines Comic Art is (in some fashion) sequential pieces with clean crisp lines, in its truest form. This does not necessarily mean that is all Comic Art can be, just what it most consistently is associated with since it can be easily reproduced and processed by an artist in short periods of time. To cut some time aspects down some artists even split the work between pencils to ink to color to improve the speed (which shows that the pencil stages can take just as long as the ink stages do and the color stages do). Doing this improves the reliability of keeping a schedule and how much work each individual has to perform.
If one was to take the medium used and turn it towards paint, for example, it takes the entirety of responsibility for the work and leaves it all on one person and dramatically increases the time frame required to complete something, especially for 32 pages of sequential art. So to say a painting isn't comic art would be false, it's just a different medium.
As far as color is concerned in modern books and the question about "do they preserve the line work when working over the liens?" It would be the other way around almost. In most scenarios the line work doesn't change past the ink stage and once a colorist is using it they'll (in a digital sense) drop it above the color and lay it over everything else so that they're actually working under the lines, preserving the work done before.
In nearly all cases the inked lines must be capable of standing on their own as a unique piece. Granted some artists use color as an aspect of their pieces and integrate it, but for most classic senses of the idea, color is an after thought to improve the piece, not to complete it or to say it didn't work without them. Moving back a bit, does Inking take pencil work into a masterpiece? Depends on the Pencils. Some set pencils so that the majority of what would become the ink work has already been laid out, and sometimes even already shaded in with lead. Some artists just do flat lines so that a piece must have the inks in order to bring out the lines and complete the piece and deem the inks as a necessary stage. Even fewer are the artists who work with a sketch and use the ink stage as the final drafting process without a complete pencil so again inking becomes a requirement of the "master piece".
With all that in consideration and the revolution of digital art the processes to complete a piece can be altered indefinitely. Penciling stages and Inking stages can and are essentially the same depending on how comfortable you are with your art. It is possible to go straight into an "inked stage" since you can do it all with clean black lines anyway, and erasing is simple and smudge less and clean.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Warning: crazy space limit reached. Please delete some crazy and try again. |
Pick up and read "Understanding Comics".
The second volume is also quite good too, though less broad in its scope.
While I might not agree with everything put forward in either book, they are far and away the best description of the comic book as well as the comic industry.
Comics are entertainment. They are not merely illustrations, nor merely for kids or merely ANYTHING. They evoke passionate responses, not just because of the individual images on each page, but through the story that they tell.
Good stories are hard to write and draw. Some people do it better than others. Jim Lee - aside from being one of the industry's best pencillers ever - has a skill in page layout which is unmatched. You know where to look, you know what you're seeing, even if it's on a glance complicated.
For a while in the early 2000s I was worried that inking would literally be left in the gutter by cheap publishers (and by that, I mean Marvel) because they simply didn't want to PAY for the inks to be done by a professional.
Good pencils and inks often come in the form of good teams - Jim Lee and Scott Williams for instance. Sometimes, pencillers should *not* ink their own work (John Byrne comes to mind).
Most pencillers and inkers do not do their own coloring unless they're a one-person operation. There are dozens of colorists working for any given large studio - Wildstorm has like... I don't even know how many guys have gone through that place, but half of them wound up working in the video game industry later on.
In the end, the results are usually worth the effort and the time. Learning the traditional inking style is extremely important as LJ said up above. Learning how to draw from comics, is suicidal in terms of "getting it right" - so learning how to be more of a traditional "illustrator" is one of the steps toward being a comic artist. It is, however, NOT the only/last one, since comics are not "merely" illustrations.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
FD, please stop trying to act like you know the comic industry.
You do not.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
When defining what something Is, I believe you have to define it by how it will be most remembered, that's the way they look back at all sorts of historic things.
When the average person thinks of what comic book art is, they think of black lines and superheroes. Alex Ross is a great artist. don't get me wrong. but what makes he's pictures look like comic book art is the subject matter and nothing else.
This for example is he's and is the same style of art, but without superman or any other comic book characters, the average person would make no connection whatsoever to comic books from this picture. he's a great artist and does fine rendering of the human form but I wouldn't call him a comic book artist, I'd call him an artist who works in comic related art. when people think of comic books, they don't think of the well rendered images Ross creates call that unfair if you want to. but it is a fact.
when people think about what is comic book art I guarantee most people will think of the likes of Jack Kirby and the artist's that have evolved from he's style. I think the lines are a pivotal part of comic book art's identity and will always be a part of it in some way or another.
Again, as others and myself have pointed out, covers are illustrations and should be distinguished from comic book art, which are (again, pointed out) the actual pages inside the comic book itself. That distinction doesn't make Alex Ross's work and the way he executes that work any less impressive. Cover artists play an important role in the industry. Geekboy doesn't consider Alex Ross to be a great *comic book* artist not because Ross isn't traditional pencil/ink/color guy, but because he doesn't consider Ross to be particularly effective at telling a story with his work in sequential art.
On another note, I love those two books (Understanding Comics vol 1 and 2) as well as McCloud's Zot!. There was some fantastic story-telling going on in Zot! too.
I think the whole Alex Ross/Adam Huges arguement can be boiled down to one name... Steve Ditko.
I use to hate Ditko's work. I thought it was cheesy. Weakly drawn, not to mention full of ridiculous shapes. That was then. Now I understand his work was a product of his graphic artist background. Those weird shapes augmented and heightened his story, his obtuse OVER inking was part of his style. That necessary black line which was and still is a defining characteristic of the art form.
Much as the lack of it fits the definition of cell shading and or digital painting. Traditionally we were taught never to use black, that black does not exist in nature, but is instead the creation of color crossing and mixing. As a painter, I get that. Ross and Hughes get that.
But this is their preference, their style, their pushing the current envelope, well ten years ago, to something more artistic traditionally and less of the same old same old. Don't get me wrong, I like meat and potatoes, and sometimes I will eat something exotic, but I like my black lines, with color inside of it.
The book cover illustration look is fine, it is beautiful and it is special. But it's not my meaty black line, with yummy rich color inside those lines. Now some may prefer all of their "collectibles" to be ultra high art, upscale, traditional, edgy even... not I.
I want to see that inker work for a living, I want to see that colorist make the inker's job unbelievable. I don't want to read a graphic novel every time I sit down. I like that cheesy square jaw, the outrageous costumes... Comic art is not CA just because it has black line. It is the subject matter, plain and simple. Not the storytelling, not the bubbles...
If Picasso painted Superman, he was painting a guy in spandex. Not a fantastical science fiction man, a guy wearing tights! And not just any tights, super tights. We all know Superman never had to wear Depends!
My point is, Ross and Hughes may have traditional fine art approaches, but their subject matter is all Comics. If they were drawing supermodels selling lotion, they would be overpaid Ad Execs, which is also a subset of Illustration... but put a cape on that anemic bikini babe, and suddenly they are Comic Artists.
FD - you like what you like, I respect that. And I love your work...
But leave my black lines alone brotherman... can't we all just get along?
Bobbie I'd never take your black lines away from you, man.
If that's what you are into, great. I love Kirby's art and I am still in awe of someone like John Buscema who can maintain such a strong visual narrative.
But I'm into a lot of different kinds of art, fine art, concept art, graphic design, etc. and seen from a wider perspective, the orthodoxy concerning inking forwarded by some people in this thread is just silly and myopic.
If that's your preference, great.
If it's an industry standard, fine.
But if you're doing you own thing, it isn't necessary. Traditional comic inking is one approach to rendering. It has nothing to do with layout, composition, etc. and there are plenty of examples of books that didn't use it.
I think part of the problem here is that people are using this discussion to get on their high horse about the comics industry. I couldn't care less. My intent was to explain my point of view to someone who was questioning whether or not he should adopt that approach. I appologize if my initial comments came across as snobby or disdainful of classic comic art. I'm not like that, I enjoy comics and good traditional comic styles. But there are lots of other options.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Not everyone handles being schooled at their own subject matter as well as others do.
I see a lot of truth on both sides of the debate here and I see a lot of unwarranted personal attacks and hate on both sides too. The fact of the matter is that NOBODY is an expert on comic art here, or what "comic art" even entails. So I'd care to point out that none of you have any factual basis with which to claim superiority over each other.
Seriously guys.
I can further interject more debate by saying that comic books are not a genre at all. They are a medium and thusly have no particular style whatsoever. You can all argue back and forth about it for ages and it won't change anything. It's an opinion. Take that for what it's worth.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Some of the latest posts (special thanks to LJ, John, and Zekiran) answered a lot of questions I had.
There seems to be another "discussion" going on, which I also find interesting. Maybe there needs to be a distinction between Comic Art and Comic Style. Comic art is simply what you find in comic books, the sequential illustrations, and even the cover. It usually deals with the superhero subject matter. The creation process, while there is one that is typically used in the industry, does not define what comic art is. If someone took the time to make a comic book filled with 100 pages of pastel paintings, it would still be considered comic art.
Comic style, however, is defined by the black lines most people associate with comic books. Therefore, you can have comic art that is not in comic style, and non-comic art in comic style.
Inking(black lines), then, should not be overlooked in creation of a comic style piece. It was established that going through the three specialized stages was the most efficient way of creating a comic book in a timely manner.
So my clarified original question is, if a single artist were to do a Comic Style piece, from start to finish, digitally, would it still be the most efficient way to go through the three seperate stages?
I have been wondering about that, because I see the term "digital inking" all the time here and on DA, as well as WIPs of these stages, whether a piece was done traditionally or digitally. Talking about digital pencils and inks as seperate stages sounded a little arbitrary to me, as one "brush" could be used to do everything. It also seemed that the flexibilities of the digital media eliminated some of the limitations that necessiated these stages, as you could make your "pencils" as permanent as your "inks", and your inks could be as easily modified as your pencils. Maybe I am just getting too caught up with the terms, and should view them as loose and final sketch.
Anyway, what I wanted to know was if people take advantage of the digital medium to blur/merge the stages, and it looks like they do indeed, which can be something as simple as adding accentuating lines or details after or as you color.
My Web Site and Portfolio
My DeviantArt Gallery
[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone handles being schooled at their own subject matter as well as others do.
I see a lot of truth on both sides of the debate here and I see a lot of unwarranted personal attacks and hate on both sides too. The fact of the matter is that NOBODY is an expert on comic art here, or what "comic art" even entails. So I'd care to point out that none of you have any factual basis with which to claim superiority over each other.
Seriously guys.
I can further interject more debate by saying that comic books are not a genre at all. They are a medium and thusly have no particular style whatsoever. You can all argue back and forth about it for ages and it won't change anything. It's an opinion. Take that for what it's worth.
[/ QUOTE ]
this^
its all just opinions and it is definitely getting to heated for our friendly little art community we have here.
I think that just goes to show how passionate we all are about what we do and what we strive to do.
Group hug? 
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the latest posts (special thanks to LJ, John, and Zekiran) answered a lot of questions I had.
[/ QUOTE ]
Glad that's settled 
So, who's buying the Pizza?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Warning: crazy space limit reached. Please delete some crazy and try again. |
[ QUOTE ]
I also want to give a shout out to good paper, because I really struggle with finding the right tooth for proper pencilling and inking. I like a fairly soft tooth for a pencil drawing surface, which is always disastrous when it's time to ink. I'm working on forcing myself to get used to some softer leads, but a lifetime of using nothing darker than a 2B (unless I'm doing a full-on rendering with shading and all) ever is hard to leave behind.
[/ QUOTE ]
I use cold-press watercolor paper. It is not cheap, but you get excellent and sturdy results; I am painting on top of the inks, and so I need a paper that is going to stand up to that. If you're not painting, it may not be for you. But I like it.
As for Sharpies.... truly, one would be justified in saying "LOLSharpies." The problem when using these things for inking is that you are not going to get the extreme clarity of detail that you would get with a traditional ink pen [or those mournfully expensive and quick-to-dry-up Rapidographs], because of the felt tip. The ink is about half as black as India ink, they are just substandard all 'round.