• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Todd McFarlane and his drawing tablet
0

Started by Blastaar,

24 posts in this topic

Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Depends on your perspective. Personally I think it’s a national hero.

 

:jokealert:

I like McFarlane.    I can see and agree with all the criticisms of his drawing but I thought, at least in his prime, that he pulled it off despite his flaws.... where I don't think his contemporaries that worked in a similar style were able to.

Anyways.   There's more than enough art out there, McFarlane or otherwise.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Unstoppablejayd said:

Digital art is becoming more and more prevalent...I often wonder how our hobby is going to evolve or not with it.. I myself am torn as there is a book coming out that I really want pages from and some of it was done digitally. I am contemplating the one of one prints??!!???! 

Mainstream illustration went digital in the mid 1990s.    Be thankful that there's been any traditional art these last 25 years... rather than worrying about not having any going forward!   Comics really are one of the last stands of traditional illustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BuraddoRun

BuraddoRun

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Mainstream illustration went digital in the mid 1990s.    Be thankful that there's been any traditional art these last 25 years... rather than worrying about not having any going forward!   Comics really are one of the last stands of traditional illustration.

I'm actually surprised that we still get a fair amount of physical artwork used for publication. We get less pencils + ink, and that's a shame, but we still have a lot to collect. Maybe there's just a fair amount of artists who still like pen and paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ESeffinga

ESeffinga

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Mainstream illustration went digital in the mid 1990s.    Be thankful that there's been any traditional art these last 25 years... rather than worrying about not having any going forward!   Comics really are one of the last stands of traditional illustration.

For real. Walk a bookstore and note how many covers of books and magazines are Photographic, or design oriented, or a heavy mix of Photoshop collage with digitally painted in elements. More and more the places that still do real art on the covers are increasingly becoming boutique publishers. So much of everything else is whatever can be made faster = cheaper. Often with less care, creativity or forethought. Look at the modern day movie poster for a great example.

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unstoppablejayd

Unstoppablejayd

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BuraddoRun said:

I'm actually surprised that we still get a fair amount of physical artwork used for publication. We get less pencils + ink, and that's a shame, but we still have a lot to collect. Maybe there's just a fair amount of artists who still like pen and paper.

I am not sure they all "like" it but know that the traditional pages will be sold for good money.. some artists now only do covers or splashes traditionally because of the added income and the rest of the panels digitally. Even old school artists like Adam Kubert kind of blend digital and traditional so they still have physical art to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BuraddoRun

BuraddoRun

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

For real. Walk a bookstore and note how many covers of books and magazines are Photographic, or design oriented, or a heavy mix of Photoshop collage with digitally painted in elements. More and more the places that still do real art on the covers are increasingly becoming boutique publishers. So much of everything else is whatever can be made faster = cheaper. Often with less care, creativity or forethought. Look at the modern day movie poster for a great example.

The bolded part is especially saddening, but true. You see this in animation now, since that is almost fully digital now. Yes, painted cels was a time consuming process, but cartoons of old have left a legacy of beautiful art that can't be matched by cg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjonahjameson11

jjonahjameson11

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Unstoppablejayd said:

I am not sure they all "like" it but know that the traditional pages will be sold for good money.. some artists now only do covers or splashes traditionally because of the added income and the rest of the panels digitally. Even old school artists like Adam Kubert kind of blend digital and traditional so they still have physical art to sell. 

Still can't get my head around Adam Kubert noted as an old school artist.  Man, how time flies! :preach:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexgross.com

alexgross.com

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BuraddoRun said:

I'm actually surprised that we still get a fair amount of physical artwork used for publication. We get less pencils + ink, and that's a shame, but we still have a lot to collect. Maybe there's just a fair amount of artists who still like pen and paper.

some artists really do prefer it, and i think the income from selling original pages also influences the decision for many of them.

dan panosian, who was my neighbor and pal for years, used to draw with several brushes, brushpens and pens, to get his disntinctive fresh look. but he also did extensive work via cintiq tablet. his style is really a synthesis of analog and digital technologies. i'm sure he doesnt mind the income from selling original pages either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fsumavila

fsumavila

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Blastaar said:

How much does he lean on this? Is it fair to say it makes up 90% off his work over the last 5-10 years? It's robbed the OA community of such great artwork over the past decade. It's a shame. 

 

I think it's more 60-40 in terms of digital vs pencil/ink output for Todd. I've talked to him about it -- quite a bit, to the point that I've gotten him to share some fun OA stories with me. 

He simply doesn't need/want/care to sell his art. guy has plenty of money and he doesn't live extravagantly AT ALL. Digital simply allows him to correct his mistakes faster, but I must say, and I'm biased because I'm a Todd fan, his skills don't seem to have slipped much.

 While we were making our documentary on him, I saw him inking pages from Capullo for issue #300 in the middle of lunch, and it's rather amazing to see how he can work like that and still do a kick-butt job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShallowDan

ShallowDan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

some artists really do prefer it, and i think the income from selling original pages also influences the decision for many of them.

dan panosian, who was my neighbor and pal for years, used to draw with several brushes, brushpens and pens, to get his disntinctive fresh look. but he also did extensive work via cintiq tablet. his style is really a synthesis of analog and digital technologies. i'm sure he doesnt mind the income from selling original pages either.

If you don't mind me being nosy, Alex, do you ever use any digital tools as part of your creative process?  I've often imagined that even for traditional artists, certain tools might be very helpful for brainstorming compositions or comparing different color schemes before putting paint to canvas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing