Digital Pencils / Physical Inks - Thoughts? 0

[MadGenius]

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but how does the OA Collecting community value pencils produced digitally and then physically inked on an art board? I see a couple of pieces for sale from an artist I like, but the pencils were done digitally and then inked by another artist prior to publication. I'm of two minds on this: it's a bummer that the penciller didn't physically "touch" the piece of art that is for sale. On the other hand, it IS the finished art that was used for publication and still a one of a kind piece in that respect.

 

Thoughts?

[malvin]

so in your case the penciller and inker are different? It's still OA, but would be valued less than one where the penciller physically did the art.

 

There are also cases where penciller and inker are the same person, in that case I don't mind and would value it the same. But that is just me.

 

Malvin

[MadGenius]

so in your case the penciller and inker are different? It's still OA, but would be valued less than one where the penciller physically did the art.

 

There are also cases where penciller and inker are the same person, in that case I don't mind and would value it the same. But that is just me.

 

Malvin

Correct, penciller and inker are two different people. If I buy the piece, it would be for the penciller's art, not the inker's.

[comix4fun]

so in your case the penciller and inker are different? It's still OA, but would be valued less than one where the penciller physically did the art.

 

There are also cases where penciller and inker are the same person, in that case I don't mind and would value it the same. But that is just me.

 

Malvin

Correct, penciller and inker are two different people. If I buy the piece, it would be for the penciller's art, not the inker's.

 

 

 

Then the price you pay should be just what a page of the inker's inks would be worth, nothing more.

[AnkurJ]

I've bought pieces that were hand inks over a copy of blue line pencils. They were priced much less than if the pencils were hand done.

[Madman1138]

There is a slight difference between digital pencils and traditional pencils scanned into a computer to be blueline inked. Everything said above is true, in that it is inker art and therefore priced accordingly. They are the original published art though, so that thinking is beginning to change and they are becoming more valuable. Traditional pencils still exist though and will usually be priced higher while looking unfinished (generally, but not always).

 

But with digital pencils, no actual pencils exist anywhere, so the inked art is the ONLY original art of that drawing by the penciler. For example, with Joe Quesada penciling digitally for Marvel covers, only the inked art by Danny Miki exists after he inks it over bluelines. So in those cases, the art has the penciler price tag without them ever actually "touching the physical art" as they say. It is the only physical image that the penciler/designer created so it is still their image.

[MadGenius]

There is a slight difference between digital pencils and traditional pencils scanned into a computer to be blueline inked. Everything said above is true, in that it is inker art and therefore priced accordingly. They are the original published art though, so that thinking is beginning to change and they are becoming more valuable. Traditional pencils still exist though and will usually be priced higher while looking unfinished (generally, but not always).

 

But with digital pencils, no actual pencils exist anywhere, so the inked art is the ONLY original art of that drawing by the penciler. For example, with Joe Quesada penciling digitally for Marvel covers, only the inked art by Danny Miki exists after he inks it over bluelines. So in those cases, the art has the penciler price tag without them ever actually "touching the physical art" as they say. It is the only physical image that the penciler/designer created so it is still their image.

Thanks for the info. The pieces I'm considering were penciled digitaly, so the physical pencils do not exist. The price asked would appear to be full price for the penciller's work so that is why I'm hesitating.

[alxjhnsn]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & inks (40%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because pencils don't exist
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by alxjhnsn

[SquareChaos]

There is a slight difference between digital pencils and traditional pencils scanned into a computer to be blueline inked. Everything said above is true, in that it is inker art and therefore priced accordingly. They are the original published art though, so that thinking is beginning to change and they are becoming more valuable. Traditional pencils still exist though and will usually be priced higher while looking unfinished (generally, but not always).

 

But with digital pencils, no actual pencils exist anywhere, so the inked art is the ONLY original art of that drawing by the penciler. For example, with Joe Quesada penciling digitally for Marvel covers, only the inked art by Danny Miki exists after he inks it over bluelines. So in those cases, the art has the penciler price tag without them ever actually "touching the physical art" as they say. It is the only physical image that the penciler/designer created so it is still their image.

Thanks for the info. The pieces I'm considering were penciled digitaly, so the physical pencils do not exist. The price asked would appear to be full price for the penciller's work so that is why I'm hesitating.

 

This is more and more the norm - digital pencils and ink are the primary OA of the future, assuming they're not already the primary format in place right now.

[MyNameIsLegion]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & inks (40%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because pencils don't exist
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)

 

 

I more or less agree with this valuation approach, but I would consider that whereas, it' s a 60/40 split if pencils/inked blue line exist for a single piece, but would a digital pencils/blueline inks be worth more than 40%, because the other 60% doesn't really exist? It's more "one of a kind" so maybe 60%?

 

I'd put it thus- in Dollar terms

 

Hypothetical Cover of Brat and Bored #1 by Penciler/Inker;

 

Brat and Bored #1: Full Pencils & inks, lettering $1000

Brat and Bored #1: Full Pencils & inks, with no lettering or titles, all done digitally $900

Brat and Bored #1: Pencils only: $480

Brat and Bored #1: Inked Blueline of above: $320

Brat and Bored #1: Digitally Penciled, with inked blueline: $500.

 

I've raised the price of the inked blueline from $320 to $500 for the simple fact that it's now the only original to be had. That's what bugs me about 2 originals existing for the same thing. The whole is greater than the sun of it's parts, and when there are 2 objects vying for the title of "original" the price is diminished for each. Eliminating the raw pencils increases the value of the inked blueline. It's a boon for the inker if nothing else.

Edited January 30, 2017 by MYNAMEISLEGION

[SquareChaos]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & inks (40%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because pencils don't exist
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)

 

 

I more or less agree with this valuation approach, but I would consider that whereas, it' s a 60/40 split if pencils/inked blue line exist for a single piece, but would a digital pencils/blueline inks be worth more than 40%, because the other 60% doesn't really exist? It's more "one of a kind" so maybe 60%?

 

I'd put it thus- in Dollar terms

 

Hypothetical Cover of Brat and Bored #1 by Penciler/Inker;

 

Brat and Bored #1: Full Pencils & inks, lettering $1000

Brat and Bored #1: Full Pencils & inks, with no lettering or titles, all done digitally $900

Brat and Bored #1: Pencils only: $480

Brat and Bored #1: Inked Blueline of above: $320

Brat and Bored #1: Digitally Penciled, with inked blueline: $500.

 

I've raised the price of the inked blueline from $320 to $500 for the simple fact that it's now the only original to be had. That's what bugs be about 2 originals existing for the same thing. The whole is greater than the sun of it's parts, and when there are 2 objects vying for the title of "original" the price is diminished for each. Eliminating the raw pencils increases the value of the inked blueline. It's a boon for the inker if nothing else.

 

+1 on the bold - I don't see any other way to look at it.

[Madman1138]

That all sounds about right.

[AKA Rick]

To me, if it's digital pencils and no pencils ever existed and it is inked properly on paper, as opposed to digital inks and a print out, then I'm actually fine accepting that it's original published artwork pure and simple.

 

A professional inker friend who works for DC sells his artwork, and people always ask him if it's digital pencils, blueline pencils and/or original pencils.

 

He has a mixture of everything in his portfolios for sale. He retorts, what do you think? and can you tell the difference? To which nobody can.

 

He further qualifies and rationalizes some facts. When you're looking for original published art you want the final piece. So, you don't want prelims nor layouts, then why do you want just pencils that are not inked? Some fans clamor over just the pencils and not the finished inked piece, even disparaging that inked piece. So, if you look at a published comic book, the inked piece most resembles what is published and is in fact the anchor in that relay race where it's the final baton handed over to production before digital coloring and digital lettering.

 

Secondly, he explains, when he and most professional inkers do their work, all of the original pencils are beneath the inks and you can't see them anyway and any excess pencils are erased anyway too. So, the artists pencil work is obliterated and covered up with not much DNA on the page.

 

So, if an artist does do digital only and it's inked, it's the only option and version out there, so should command a decent if not equal level of respect and price/value.

 

I am anti-digital print outs where all art is rendered digitally and these prints are sold as one of a kind originals.

[MyNameIsLegion]

I can sympathize with the inkers position on this- it's all the same to him, and you can't tell the difference- but to a collector, if you bought the blueline-inked page from the inker, you share bragging rights for the "original" art with the penciled page if it exists. And just imagine if at some point the inker is commissioned to ink the original pencils. Is it a recreation? What if he's asked to ink over the pencils directly? Is it now "more original" than the inked blueline since it's the original pencils inked by the original inker after the fact?

 

This is why collecting modern art is such a quagmire- and factors into the discussion a couple of weeks back on the future of the hobby that it's likely to fizzle due to demographics, economics, compressed storytelling, etc- coupled with the very method by which the art is created- ultimately it will dilute and depress collectibility.

 

[AKA Rick]

... also artists who assume the inker roles like Scott Williams, Joe Weems, Alex Gardner, Matt Banning, Richard Friend, Terry Austin, Jay Leistein, Norm Rapmund, Giordano, Murphy Anderson, Wally Wood, etc - - if you've ever seen the original pencils vs the finished inked work on certain pieces, or if you notice you mainly like a certain artist when inked by one artist vs another (Kirby pencils w/ Sinnott or Stone VS Coletta or Royer inks) - - you can truly appreciate the artistic contributions of inkers, who are often credited as "embellishers" - - and that describes the craft more accurately in that the role of inker doesn't simply of course trace over pencil lines making them darker, the inker takes what exists and improves it, adding their own contributions, altering the artwork with their final touches, often including intricate details as well as backgrounds and scene support.

 

So, in that way, I hate to see the scarlet letter applied to inkers works disparaging their valued efforts and contribution while praising pencilers as the be all end all, at times.

[Twanj]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks all on one physical board. (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks all on one physical board. Lettering added digitally. (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & physical inks (41%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because physical pencils don't exist, but the inker physically worked on the board
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image where pencils have been printed as non-photo blue and the inker physically worked on the board. The physical pencils exist on a separate board (see above: Pencils only)
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)
  All "pencils" and "inks" were done digitally and the work was printed. No work was not done by hand on the physical board.
  

 

I like this list. if you add a little more clarification it can become one of your standard answers to help newcomers I've tried to add some text but the terms may not be right, feel free to adjust.

 

it's pretty much age dependent tho? I mean it seems like it would be hard to find an issue that used all these methods so you can actually make a comparison. might be worth adding "Common before 1990" (?), common after 2000 or something to explain too.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Twanj

[SquareChaos]

I can sympathize with the inkers position on this- it's all the same to him, and you can't tell the difference- but to a collector, if you bought the blueline-inked page from the inker, you share bragging rights for the "original" art with the penciled page if it exists. And just imagine if at some point the inker is commissioned to ink the original pencils. Is it a recreation? What if he's asked to ink over the pencils directly? Is it now "more original" than the inked blueline since it's the original pencils inked by the original inker after the fact?

 

This is why collecting modern art is such a quagmire- and factors into the discussion a couple of weeks back on the future of the hobby that it's likely to fizzle due to demographics, economics, compressed storytelling, etc- coupled with the very method by which the art is created- ultimately it will dilute and depress collectibility.

 

 

It is certainly a point, but if most collectors are after the published piece, then there's only one original piece to be had. If the scenario you describe ends up happening, and the original pencils are later inked and then published, then that's a second published piece for which only one original exists. Whether it would be more desirable or not is up for debate as one or the other would have been published first.

 

Anyway, as you say, it's a quagmire, but it seems pretty clear that collectors have little choice in the modern era - accept blue line and ink, only collect the dwindling number of artists that still use traditional methods, or quit collecting modern work altogether.

[comix4fun]

... also artists who assume the inker roles like Scott Williams, Joe Weems, Alex Gardner, Matt Banning, Richard Friend, Terry Austin, Jay Leistein, Norm Rapmund, Giordano, Murphy Anderson, Wally Wood, etc - - if you've ever seen the original pencils vs the finished inked work on certain pieces, or if you notice you mainly like a certain artist when inked by one artist vs another (Kirby pencils w/ Sinnott or Stone VS Coletta or Royer inks) - - you can truly appreciate the artistic contributions of inkers, who are often credited as "embellishers" - - and that describes the craft more accurately in that the role of inker doesn't simply of course trace over pencil lines making them darker, the inker takes what exists and improves it, adding their own contributions, altering the artwork with their final touches, often including intricate details as well as backgrounds and scene support.

 

So, in that way, I hate to see the scarlet letter applied to inkers works disparaging their valued efforts and contribution while praising pencilers as the be all end all, at times.

 

 

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing that and I don't think that way of inkers.

 

In some cases, the inker is the top line talent in an penciller/inker team and pushes the value upwards beyond where it would have normally gone.

 

However, when you are buying a piece of artwork that's credited as Colan/Palmer (for example) like the many Tomb of Dracula covers that were lightboxed over a copy of Colan's pencils, you are only getting Palmer's inks. You aren't getting Colan's original work. No one is going to pay what they would pay for the original output of two artists when they are only getting one of them. There's a market for Colan work, there's a market for Palmer work, there's a market for Colan AND Palmer original work.

 

To me, it's not disparaging the inker to not pay him what a pencillers original pencils would bring when those pencils do not exist and are not included in the piece being purchased.

[Mighty Hal]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & inks (40%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because pencils don't exist
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)

 

 

I like your suggested order, even if it often doesn't play out in this fashion.

 

Original pencils -- where there are only original pencils -- can command full dollar. This isn't to diminish the value of a great inker (Danny Miki did beautiful work on a Youngblood poster piece I own), but I've paid full value for a couple of penciled covers and without hesitation.

 

It took me a long time to realize that penciled work can be beautiful, too, but I'm glad I did. My only concern is fading (just as I worry about marker fade on a Bruce Timm piece I'm chasing), but I don't know if this is a realistic concern.

 

 

[stinkininkin]

It's about the same as blue-line inks where the pencils are lost.

 

Maybe more valuable than that, but not much, at least to me.

 

This is actually the first mention of this approach that I've seen.

 

I think my revised order would be (most expensive to least expensive):

• Pencils, letters, inks (100%)
  
• Pencils & inks (90%)
  
• Pencils only (60%)
  Because the penciler told the story though the inker wins on details
  
• Digital pencils & inks (40%)
  Ahead of blue-lines because pencils don't exist
  
• Blue-line inks (40%)
  The published image
  
• Digital one-of-a kind prints (not much from me, but maybe something)

 

 

I like your suggested order, even if it often doesn't play out in this fashion.

 

Original pencils -- where there are only original pencils -- can command full dollar. This isn't to diminish the value of a great inker (Danny Miki did beautiful work on a Youngblood poster piece I own), but I've paid full value for a couple of penciled covers and without hesitation.

 

It took me a long time to realize that penciled work can be beautiful, too, but I'm glad I did. My only concern is fading (just as I worry about marker fade on a Bruce Timm piece I'm chasing), but I don't know if this is a realistic concern.

 

 

Pencil does not fade. It only smudges. Careful storage and a piece of protective ph neutral vellum or tracing paper to cover the image will protect your pencil art.

 

Scott