Computer art value to artist vs. regular art value 0

[Rick2you2]

I was disappointed to learn recently that a very nice page of artwork was not available because it was done on the computer. Since  there is an original art market, I was wondering if that is really a smart trade-off for artists to make. For example, assume a completed page earns the artist $250 (I don't know the answer to this). If done on the computer, it only takes 6 hours or $41.67 per hour. Using traditional methods, it takes 8 hours which would be $31.25 per hour. But the traditional method lets the artist sell the artwork later, so assume he or she can get $100 per page for it. That is an hourly rate of $43.75. In that case, using the computer only makes sense if there is some other value to it (flexibility in preparation, ease at fixing errors, that sort of thing). Perhaps some people here would know the answer. If it's favorable to OA collectors, I would love to pitch the point back at the artists.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rick2you2

[Bird]

Editors like timely artists. If they cannot get the work done traditionally they lose the job but if they can get it done on computer they keep their job. If you have no job you have no art sales. Some artists will print 1/1 of covers or splashes to try and make up the income but for many it is ease of the work and getting it the way they want that makes digital worthwhile.

[Pete Marino]

Or sometimes they like moving faster to spend time with their families.

Or they think the quality of work they produce is higher in the same amount of time.

They leave money on the table, but, obviously, feel like it's worth it for other reasons.

[mister_not_so_nice]

I'm pretty sure all artists at this time are well aware of the pros & cons of each production method and have made the decision that works best for them. 

Would you change the way you approach your profession because it would make someone else happy? 

[Brian Peck]

Creating comic art digitally doesn't always mean its faster than traditional pencil and ink. Some new artists have just learned by drawing on computer and may never have done anything traditionally. Some artists can pencil a whole book (or two) a month but other struggle to do a book in two months all traditional. The medium isn't really the issue it comes down to work ethics and their process in creating a page from composition, layout and putting pencil/ink to paper.

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, mister_not_so_nice said:

I'm pretty sure all artists at this time are well aware of the pros & cons of each production method and have made the decision that works best for them. 

Would you change the way you approach your profession because it would make someone else happy? 

Be that as it may, how does the money issue break down? That's what I'm curious about. 

You would be surprised how many people in their daily lives don't evaluate costs and benefits very well. 

If I find an opportunity to make money or save money, and there is no major downside, absolutely.

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Creating comic art digitally doesn't always mean its faster than traditional pencil and ink. Some new artists have just learned by drawing on computer and may never have done anything traditionally. Some artists can pencil a whole book (or two) a month but other struggle to do a book in two months all traditional. The medium isn't really the issue it comes down to work ethics and their process in creating a page from composition, layout and putting pencil/ink to paper.

The artist in question changed to using computers 3 years ago. He volunteered that.

I play with Adobe Illustrator. It can make some parts of the work easier, and others tougher--the learning curve is stiff.

[Bird]

rotating figures and using 3D rendering and the like is an immense time saver from what I understand. So while work ethic is always the major factor the embrace of technology and it's benefits is not to be overlooked.

[Rick2you2]

8 minutes ago, Bird said:

rotating figures and using 3D rendering and the like is an immense time saver from what I understand. So while work ethic is always the major factor the embrace of technology and it's benefits is not to be overlooked.

There are special programs for 3D imaging of people. For simple objects, rotation and revolution is easy. The more sophticated objects don't necessarily work that well. But, for traditional work, an artist can also use a paste-up, too.

Any idea what a typical DC or Marvel page rate for combined inking and pencilling might be?

Perhaps Mr. Inkin' can share his knowledge?

[Hekla]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

There are special programs for 3D imaging of people. For simple objects, rotation and revolution is easy. The more sophticated objects don't necessarily work that well. But, for traditional work, an artist can also use a paste-up, too.

Any idea what a typical DC or Marvel page rate for combined inking and pencilling might be?

Perhaps Mr. Inkin' can share his knowledge?

2017 Creator page rates based on a survey from earlier this year, by publisher

http://www.creatorresource.com/page-rates-2017/

 

[miraclemet]

Random thought popped into my brain on this topic that I hadn't heard about before... 

Do any publishers require their artists to create digitally? 

I know one could always scan a penciled page thus making the art (in its most basic sense) "digital"

but I wonder if there is some process benefit to the publisher (or any of the down stream publishing steps) to have the creation originate in a digital format (maybe if there are needs for future edit/manipulation?)?

 

[vodou]

3 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

but I wonder if there is some process benefit to the publisher (or any of the down stream publishing steps) to have the creation originate in a digital format (maybe if there are needs for future edit/manipulation?)?

There is probably a design program or programs (think architecture here) that support a notes function back and forth collaborators and editors. Maybe that works better or requires the file to start inside that program? I'm just guessing but I wouldn't be surprised either. We are decades away from early AUTOCAD at this point; I have not kept up.

[Hekla]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

There is probably a design program or programs (think architecture here) that support a notes function back and forth collaborators and editors. Maybe that works better or requires the file to start inside that program? I'm just guessing but I wouldn't be surprised either. We are decades away from early AUTOCAD at this point; I have not kept up.

I'm very familiar with Photoshop (but I'm sure I don't use it the same way a comic creator would use it) so I can see it being beneficial if an artist draws using functions such as Layer Groups or Mask to make the colorists' job easier.

[Panelfan1]

I recently had a conversation with some collectors and I mentioned I like Mike Deodato art - but they told me he switched in recent times to all digital. His covers sell for 1-3k range -so was shocked to hear that he went all digital.  thats a huge income loss.   Especially for an established artist who clearly has no difficulty drawing traditionally.

[PhilipB2k17]

13 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I was disappointed to learn recently that a very nice page of artwork was not available because it was done on the computer. Since  there is an original art market, I was wondering if that is really a smart trade-off for artists to make. For example, assume a completed page earns the artist $250 (I don't know the answer to this). If done on the computer, it only takes 6 hours or $41.67 per hour. Using traditional methods, it takes 8 hours which would be $31.25 per hour. But the traditional method lets the artist sell the artwork later, so assume he or she can get $100 per page for it. That is an hourly rate of $43.75. In that case, using the computer only makes sense if there is some other value to it (flexibility in preparation, ease at fixing errors, that sort of thing). Perhaps some people here would know the answer. If it's favorable to OA collectors, I would love to pitch the point back at the artists.

It saves the artist a lot of costs in materials. They don't have to buy as much art paper, pencils and inks. If they make an error, they don't have to start over, or use white out. They can just fix it on the computer. I've talked to artists about this, and unless they are making a lot of money from art sales, their incentive structure is to do things digitally. The vast majority of new art out there goes unsold. And, others have explained the speed advantage as well. 

[PhilipB2k17]

3 hours ago, Bird said:

rotating figures and using 3D rendering and the like is an immense time saver from what I understand. So while work ethic is always the major factor the embrace of technology and it's benefits is not to be overlooked.

I think also establishing 3d perspective lines can be automated. You can move a vanishing point around.

Edited December 13, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[John E.]

All-digital creators can also supplement their income with commissions, convention sketches (the rates of both seem to be on the upward trajectory every year), and by selling their comp copies off their table, by selling prints (unlicensed, I’m sure) and charging fans $5 for signatures or $10 if the book is going to get slabbed. I think they’ll do okay 👌

[Brian Peck]

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

There are special programs for 3D imaging of people. For simple objects, rotation and revolution is easy. The more sophticated objects don't necessarily work that well. But, for traditional work, an artist can also use a paste-up, too.

Any idea what a typical DC or Marvel page rate for combined inking and pencilling might be?

Perhaps Mr. Inkin' can share his knowledge?

John Byrne who does his work traditionally has used 3d program to create spacecrafts and would lightbox it onto bristol so no digital aspect in the final product.

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

It saves the artist a lot of costs in materials. They don't have to buy as much art paper, pencils and inks. If they make an error, they don't have to start over, or use white out. They can just fix it on the computer. I've talked to artists about this, and unless they are making a lot of money from art sales, their incentive structure is to do things digitally. The vast majority of new art out there goes unsold. And, others have explained the speed advantage as well. 

I know one artists who does his interiors digitally and covers on bristol. He decided to do this due to the interiors not selling that well plus at the time he was doing alot of conventions and living out of hotels so transporting the extra interior pages from con to con was not feasible either.

[Rick2you2]

9 hours ago, Hekla said:

2017 Creator page rates based on a survey from earlier this year, by publisher

http://www.creatorresource.com/page-rates-2017/

 

Great information. Interesting how DC pays more for colors than inks, but Marvel is the opposite.