Your Opinion on Digital Inking

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

the wonders of layers and ctrl-Z (ctrl-alt z in photoshop ) allow for a little more room for error and the ability to go back later and tweak and change things. but at its core it is definitely important to approach work in stages for compositional reasons in my opinion. Ive worked in digital before with some great results and one day I could definitely see myself working digitally but I think a grounding in physical mediums is beneficial as it is much more unforgiving and teaches an artist to be much more disciplined leading to fewer mistakes and therefore less time wasted. I think starting off the bat in digital for a new artist is a silly move as it leads to alot of laziness in the creative process. a computer is just another tool, a very versatile tool but you should still need to know what your doing before you proceed to using it for everything.

I don't think this applies to anybody on this board though. ive just gone off on a tangent and instead of deleting this I'll release my ramblings on the world for you all to see

so I'd say it is definitely faster when in the right hands and probably will one day replace the traditional ways as the standard but I don't think it can ever replace the knowledge that can be attained by working traditionally.

[ QUOTE ]
but I think a grounding in physical mediums is beneficial as it is much more unforgiving and teaches an artist to be much more disciplined leading to fewer mistakes and therefore less time wasted. I think starting off the bat in digital for a new artist is a silly move as it leads to alot of laziness in the creative process. a computer is just another tool, a very versatile tool but you should still need to know what your doing before you proceed to using it for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I think I agree, I am not sure if it will be true for the new generation of artists growing up today, for whom computers are a very natural part of their lives. I am sure there are kids whose first drawing was done on a digital paper with a tablet.

I got to hear Andrew Jones speak at a conference last year. (Silly me didn't know who he was back then, and didn't bother to get an autograph.) He talked about his godson to make a point that children don't have preconceptions of what they can or cannot do. They just pick it up and start doing stuff without you expalining how it is supposed to be done.

It is true that people with strong traditional backgrounds tend to have more success with digital art than new artists starting out digitally. But it may be because of the fact that they are already proficient in one medium that allows them to adopt quickly to another medium.

I learned to draw on paper, but I mostly learned to paint on my computer. When I do a traditional painting (which isn't very often, because I am a lazy [censored] who doesn't like to get his hands dirty), I have to think about how I paint on my computer, then find ways to do it on paper/canvas. "I want to lower the opacity...guess I should thin it down with water." Stuff like that. I can probably do a better job than someone who has no experince painting, but would it be a good reason for that person to learn to paint digitally first so they know what they are doing when they paint traditionally?

I do agree that the ease of fixing a mistake on a computer can be a downside for beginners. Many times you will already have undo'd before you had the time to struggle with and learn from your mistakes. On the other hand, it is also easier to experiment with and thus make more "mistakes" quicker. So if you learn to learn from your mistakes, you will have learned more in a shorter amount of time.

Back to the discussion of comic art once again, does anyone else find it interesting that Asian comic books aren't colored? I see how it cuts down both cost and time, but I wonder if there are other reasons? Maybe it is seen as sort of a continued tradition of eastern watercolor/ink paintings? Also the subject matter can be anything really, and usually NOT about superheroes in tights.

I personally don't think that there needs to be black inked lines to make a comic book. I think that is a holdover from printing in a bygone age.

if someone wants to digitally paint their entire work - or vector it, that's totally up to them - and it could be equally as good.

I'm weak in inking, I know that. For now I'm staying away from it - if someone thinks less of my art because of that, so be it.

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]

Back to the discussion of comic art once again, does anyone else find it interesting that Asian comic books aren't colored? I see how it cuts down both cost and time, but I wonder if there are other reasons? Maybe it is seen as sort of a continued tradition of eastern watercolor/ink paintings? Also the subject matter can be anything really, and usually NOT about superheroes in tights.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's almost entirely a cost thing and remember that a lot of stuff that might be colored when it's published elsewhere can end up being black and white when it's published here to save on the new company's time/investment. My Dad has worked in the printing industry for about 40 years now, and the cost between color and black and white is immense.

FD, you've read a lot of things I haven't said out of things I've said. You seem to have cooled down, so I'm just going to drop it. Plenty of others have pointed out where you were wrong and you've backed down a bit so we'll just leave it at that. The "undergrad rage" thing is hilarious, though.

Two things:

Digital Art Versus Traditional? Anyone who would advise someone against jumping digital before a traditional background I would wholly have to disagree with them. I picked up roughly ten issues of ImagineFX (just cost wise hard to keep up with it since it ends up a lot more expensive here than it does in Europe with freight and such since its based there), where they feature a lot of artists between the covers and nearly 50% of the artists that show up on a regular basis learned everything digitally and can't hold a grain of paint worth doodling a sun. Not to say that they don't understand or otherwise couldn't, but their abilities lay totally digitally; and for some that is the only way they truly can express themselves since the cost of traditional materials can become excessive.

Digital opens the chance for experimentation, duplication, and eraser of your mistakes to the point where you can back peddle infinitely on a single piece without ruining your goal while still learning how to do it better in the future.

I'm not saying traditional is bad or unwise to learn, but with the abilities digital brings to the table to simulate traditional tools, some will choose 500GB of Drawing space versus 90 pages in a sketch book. Granted there's differences in the freedom of the artist versus being tethered to a machine...but still.

Asian "Comics"?
Some of them I must say, part of it is reproduction/ability to constantly push pages and story out in repetition, others is that some styles just come across better in black and white (not to mention, as it was mentioned, it can be a lot cheaper to get it overseas when the cost to print is lowered). Plus, standard US comics take a month an issue, Asian books that release in things like Shonen Jump print 18 pages a week. Color becomes less and less ...what's the word...reliable? Compared to just sticking with a B&W format.

Personally, I'm a "Priest" fan, a Korean book that stopped shipping to the states :/ But it is one of the few where I believe its black and white style wouldn't be possible in a color form without loosing a lot of the gritty feel that is delivered by the artist.

I don't think its getting good at the traditional media ITSELF that makes someone have an easier time doing digital work... I think its learning the theories behind it. A number of my non-illustration-specific courses overlap with the graphic design students, and they do have to take the general drawing courses. A good number can just barely squeak into being competent with the traditional media, but the reason they have to take the drawing courses is more for the THEORIES behind it. That's where you learn about composition, light, color, etc. Its those elements of ALL art mediums that are making them stronger at graphics, not necessarily the feel of a pencil or brush.

Its much like how a painter will also learn these foundations of good artwork, but some will be great with oils and only competent with watercolor and vice versa. Digital is just another media to pick from, and it will be some peoples' specialty and not for others.

And speaking to the unforgiving nature of traditional being a good thing to learn before going digital, I don't really think that's completely true. There are plenty of very forgiving traditional media. Pencil erases, scratchboard can be re-inked, you have forever to tweak oils, etc.

I don't see why you couldn't learn both ways at the same time, then ultimately decide which tools you prefer.

I believe that you can learn alot from seeing the progression of your work and just letting your work sit with its flaws. Moving on to something else is more preferable than erasing and backpeddling ad nauseaum over your piece. If students of art (or anything else for that matter) relied on being able to backpeddle and "fix it later" it could become a crutch. There's a risk that they may develop bad habits because there's less engagement/attention paid in what they're doing at the present. If you're disciplined enough to avoid that sort of trap and have the work ethic to challenge yourself to get things right the first time (and learn to just let things go and move on), gl and have fun.

I am strangely reminded of Rocky IV, where Rocky has to unlearn everything he knew in order to take on his opponent. Oh wait, didn't he do that in Rocky III as well... whatever you get my point.

Starting in one "medium" be it traditional or digital and switching to the other, does require a bit of unlearning and relearning. I think there is a benefit to both and in doing both. With traditional the discipline is obvious.

But with digital, Time is a factor that is thrown out the window. There is no paint drying time, well loading time from your hard drive, but gone is the consumption of waiting until you can start again. I think as a result this generation of new artists, think faster, see color mixing more intuitively (that is to say if they have explored enough of it in their own work) and in general are more productive, or prolific.

Their vision is not limited by time. Speed painting is an art form of almost Impressionistic joy, that would boggle the mind of traditional painters, even plein aire ones who create in volume with their studies of light.

I am not talking about accuracy here, a lot of digital coloring is suggestive. But yes I think traditional artists should jump into this new shiny clickety-clickety machine and wipe off their Time honored cobwebs of erasing. Who enjoys erasing? If I had a dime for all the pink dust, or lead soaked kneaded erasers I've gummed up... I'd have ... well a lot of dimes.

I know a lot of traditional artists who resist trying new mediums or ideas. Pastel people who won't pick up a paint brush, painters who refuse to paint realism, and yes comic artists who won't use the computer.

Hey I am not my fellow artist's keeper, who am I to judge? Oh wait, that's my name... anyway what I'm saying is, these walls need breaking down. It's fine to be comfortable, to be accomplished is wonderful, and even to be "the master of your house"... but let it go Grandpa, stop inhaling the paint thinner, and pick up a Wacom!

Obviously you can tell which side of this argument I am on.

LJ - traditional medium clean since 2001.

what the hell

[ QUOTE ]
what the hell

[/ QUOTE ]

you want 12 A next door...

[ QUOTE ]
I got to hear Andrew Jones speak at a conference last year. (Silly me didn't know who he was back then, and didn't bother to get an autograph.) He talked about his godson to make a point that children don't have preconceptions of what they can or cannot do. They just pick it up and start doing stuff without you expalining how it is supposed to be done.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's good to see Andrew Jones mentioned in the context of this discussion. Digital approaches are often seen as simple more convenient versions of traditional methods. Jones' approach is a good example of how digital technology allows workflows that are not possible through traditional means.

as I am the only one who has said anything somewhat negative about digital art, I am inclined to believe that I am the only one on the 'For' traditional side. I just want everyone to be sure that they read all of my post and not just some of it because at no point did I ever say that digital art is bad. I often crack out my wacom bamboo and sketch away, hell owning a cinteq is a dream of mine. When im talking about traditional im not peddling paint. I'm talking about pen on paper and ink ( be it pen or brush) I'm not a painter. and if I was I'd be a digital painter cause like LD I Hate getting dirty.

what I said is I believe it is beneficial to have a grounding in traditional art. I should have been more specific, What i meant was, A person interested in creating art should be able to draw with pencil and paper, before they jump on a tablet. because it is infinitely easier to use a computer for art then traditional means. As bayani touched on about bad habits: Copy, paste, layers, undo are all potential crutches an artist can fall into for quick results. I know when i first started out I dipped into these methods when I didn't have the knowledge to solve a problem before me and im sure some of you who feel like being honest would admit to doing it at one stage as well. the reason why i mention this is basic human nature, you can look at the world around you and see the state its in and its not pretty. besides greed the other reason why the world is chaos is the majority of humans are happy to do what is easiest. Im not going to delve into doomsday warning's im not that pessimistic but there is clearly reason's why the addition of technology and change is only making things easier, not better.

McDonald's saves cooking and time, Bye bye waistline and hello High cholesterol. pay your bills on the internet and phone? now you dont have to leave the house and deal with the people at the bank, developing anti-social behavior and your getting less excersise (so that Mc Donalds is headed straight to your thigh's.)

do your shopping online! now you don't have to walk around a shopping centre burning off whatever quick easy food you've eaten, you can have anything you want, even groceries delivered to your home. don't have to go to the corner store to pick up the paper , just sit your self down at the computer or TV and check the news. don't have to go to the post office for stamps, just send an email. all these things build up into a mess of antisocial and lazy behavior because of humanities inclination to do what is easiest.

I want to take a break here and say im not pointing any fingers at anyone at on this forum, I respect and admire everyone on here and i mean EVERYONE for their own style and im not trying to say digital art is what is wrong with the world. the problem is the inclination that you can be lazy and still accomplish your goal, the process of drawing with pencil then screwing up and erasing repetitively is tedious annoying and character building, some people don't have the staying power to become artist's because of a lack of patience, practice really does make perfect. with the computer you can make more mistakes faster, undo is easier then erasing everything and it leaves no mark on the paper. and when things get tough you have copy paste and a host of other quick fixes to fall back on none of these being helpful towards artistic progression.

Its all well and good if people have the strength of character to avoid using these things but seeing what the rest of the world is like the majority of people will fall into these easy fix traps and wont know what to do when a quick fix isn't good enough. that's when the whole becomes to deep to climb out of and people decide they cant be bothered, its too hard.

I know the same pitfalls exist for traditional art in the form of tracing, but it's in no way as easy, its much more time consuming so in effect isn't as easy.

I could keep going im sure but its getting early in the morning, I still haven't done my sketch of the day and im going to need sleep at some point ( stupid sleep) I just want to close by saying...

I like digital art as much as every one of you here but in my opinion a computer is a tool that should be taken into the hands of some experience. easy doesn't build character and you need plenty of it to make it as an artist in this world.

I don't want this to turn into a pissing contest, and the return rebuttal to be as long or longer, I know I dragged on, if you disagree feel free to say it. this is all my opinion, I am entitled to it. I know I may have stepped on toes but try to remember that it's not a personal attack and I don't mean for it to be directed at any of you.

Edit: Also I apologise for my terrible literacy skills if you manage to get through it all I applaud you.

Oh yeah, totally agree, even though I am on the Dark Side. But it is true that kids who express themselves artistically will take to this medium like second nature. Just look at the amount of under 21 talent on DA from areas like Malaysia, India, the Philippines, Korea, Romania, Mexico, and of course the US. Girls too! Which I am not saying was never the case, just that there are so many more cool female artistic geeks out there now... makes you wanna go back in time... *cue Huey Lewis*

When I talk about digital artists, I mean those with substantial skills with this medium, not merely beginners. When I talk about comic artists, I mean the same thing, experience is always the key. I think if you love art, if you use a pc or paintbrush or a pencil, the creation of it, the joy of having it as a part of your life can translate no matter what you use.

I just wish everyone would try something new, and old I suppose. Graver's work makes me want to paint again...

And E. I use to work in Ink... and also here's something I was crazy enough to do in felt tip marker alone...

LJ

[ QUOTE ]
what I said is I believe it is beneficial to have a grounding in traditional art. I should have been more specific, What i meant was, A person interested in creating art should be able to draw with pencil and paper, before they jump on a tablet. because it is infinitely easier to use a computer for art then traditional means.

[/ QUOTE ]

What our college art instructor told us was the same thing: because what if you have a deadline and the power is off, and it stays off...? You'd BETTER be able to do it by hand, and youu'd better be able to do it right if you got a lot of money on the line.

She also said that she was being told by a lot of students, "You oughtta see what i can do on Photoshop! I'm a whiz on Photoshop!" She said she wasn't interested in that; she wanted us to do our work by hand. Because these computer programs were fun... but they are also good servants/bad masters.

I have been in other art forums where the mere mention of such facts infuriates digital artists to no end. But art was arond for millennia before Photoshop, and for me there the matter rests: you don't need it to be a good artist.

But the perception now is 100% opposite: if you don't have Photoshop, well.... you suck. And that is sad.

[ QUOTE ]
Judgement: But it is true that kids who express themselves artistically will take to this medium like second nature. Just look at the amount of under 21 talent on DA from areas like Malaysia, India, the Philippines, Korea, Romania, Mexico, and of course the US. Girls too!

[/ QUOTE ]

....These places lack pencils and paper, so these people could not be artists until now..?! See this is where I get confused: WHY does it take a computer program to be an artist? An artist will find a medium and get to work; that's what they do. It does not have to be a high-tech medium, either.

I am sounding dangerously elitist and so I'd better sit down and shut up

it does bother me though that art teachers will not take it to account a student's medium and see for themselves what the final creation is. yes tradition must be maintained, allowed to fruition, but ignoring the digital medium because THEY have no concern or concept... that is aggravating.

You're supposed to be teachers, open minded. Students are looking for answers not door closings.

[ QUOTE ]
I just wish everyone would try something new, and old I suppose. Graver's work makes me want to paint again...

And E. I use to work in Ink... and also here's something I was crazy enough to do in felt tip marker alone...

LJ

[/ QUOTE ]

I Definitely agree with you that established artist's shouldn't shy away from using digital mediums as well as traditional. balance is always good. graver makes me want to paint as well but I know what i am able to produce would only frustrate me with my current level of artistic ability.

it's quite cool to see some of your traditional stuff aswell bobby, it's like another layer of your art. its quite fascinating.

I'm glad someone managed to negotiate my wall of text and get sense out of it :P

I guess that one instructor has never heard of a battery backup?

The truth of the matter is that in the majority of commercial art fields, the benefits of doing things digitally far outweigh the drawbacks. It's not about "you suck if you don't do things digitally"; it's simply a matter of not having the skillset relevent to do the work the way they need it to be done.

Years and years ago I took one non-credit sculpture course where we sculpted a seashell. Several years later I started learning 3d modeling. Eventually I got into ZBrush and this is
the most recent thing I've done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b92Bt0aJ7qA

The computer is just another medium. It's a perfectly viable place to develop skill.

[ QUOTE ]
it does bother me though that art teachers will not take it to account a student's medium and see for themselves what the final creation is. yes tradition must be maintained, allowed to fruition, but ignoring the digital medium because THEY have no concern or concept... that is aggravating.

You're supposed to be teachers, open minded. Students are looking for answers not door closings.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they hear this in a oil painting class or something specific like that. They really don't care that you can recreate the effect of oils in photoshop (which I don't buy since it's a tactile medium, but that's just my enjoyment of practically sculpting with the paint when I have the rare chance to play with them) because the assignment is to paint using x medium.

If I'm taking a watercolor course, they're also not going to care that I'm great with pastels. This is a watercolor course. Use the medium assigned.

I see a lot of people using photoshop as a crutch where they try to hide the things that are wrong with their work, which for me just makes them more obvious. Now imagine that you've been teaching for 30 years, looking for those same mistakes. Now you've got a student who won't listen to you when you point out said mistake because he can apply a filter that "fixes" it.

I don't agree with them being closed-minded, but I get where they're coming from.

Yes it is their duty to correct, to insure that the student isn't short cutting. If all the kid can talk about is photoshop in a non computer friendly atmosphere, then the student is in the wrong place. But their enthusiasm should not be ignored, neither should their zest to share what they can accomplish.

E. - your skill level with paint maybe frustrating, but I would never tell you to only discuss paint in a painting class, the language of art, is life. There is no hammer to fall on the sharing of ideas, if the class is humongous, then do it after class, if time is an issue. But heck if my kid was paying 40 grand for an art education, I'd want him to pester every frickin ounce from his teachers... if they can't hack it, don't teach!

Yes staying on topic is understandable, but teachers NEED to know what they are up against. They need to see that their life drawing student is floundering or excelling in another medium. It IS all related. You can teach a digital artist to apply color theory and their work gets better.

Perhaps the disdain is that they believe nothing digital can be returned to traditional medium. I have phrased that poorly... but I do not get where the are coming from. At least I don't agree with it. No offense intended.

Well part of the problem with any course is that every instructor believes their class is the most important / the only thing that their students either are or should be concentrating on. It's like that for ANY course, maths, sciences, literature, whatever.

I think that if you can learn SOMETHING from a class, learn it. Friend of mine was getting ripped apart by one of the people at AI because he didn't have "enough" typography in his portfolio.

Guess what: that instructor was a typography teacher, and another guess what: my friend wasn't DOING typography.

Learn whatever's possible to be gleaned even if the instructors are dip(sticks). No person is perfect in all forms of traditional art.

When I was in art school, it seemed their goal was to convince us we were all terrible and that we all had to start completely from scratch. So the idea of an art teacher who is supportive in something other than the medium they're teaching is kind of odd to me anyway. The closest I got was the oil painting class where the guy just wanted us all to find our own voice with the medium at hand.

Awesome guy, but he made me a bit paranoid about working with oils since he never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer before the age of 45. Kinda neither here nor there, so sorry for derailing.

[ QUOTE ]
Well part of the problem with any course is that every instructor believes their class is the most important / the only thing that their students either are or should be concentrating on. It's like that for ANY course, maths, sciences, literature, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, except for the typography teacher I had who told us on the first day that this was all worthless other than honing technical drawing skills since it could all be done with a computer MUCH easier. And this was in 1996. Hate to think what he's telling kids now.

Typography is the Debbil!!!

*thwacks Lady with a giant letter "J"*

Electagonist, I am not sure if anyone is really against you or traditional media. Wassy clarified what I meant to say. What you need to do is build a solid foundation upon which to express yourself, regardless of the medium. Right now it may be a little easier to do that with traditional media, because there's just a lot more resources available. Books, old masterworks, techniques and knowledge handed down and improved upon for hundreds of years, teachers who learned from their teachers, etc.

As LJ has been saying, there is an entire new generation of artists (some already accomplished, many just learning to speak now) who have/will have learned the theroies on their computers, not because it is better or worse, but just from computers being a natural part of their lives. And it is not to say they are only good artists when working digitally. Children can just do stuff without consciously thinking about working traditionally or digitally. It is like language, children can learn multiple languages no problem. Once you are past certain age, you really have to make a lot of efforts to learn another langauge, and you still may never be as good as a native speaker.

I think kids who grow up to be native speakers of both digital and traditional art will really challenge what we know of as art now. 20 years from now, I may even be too closed-minded for the stuff they will be doing and reminisce the early days of speedpainting. But for now, it is very exciting to see where things are going. I just have to try frantically so I don't get left behind in the dirt.