Original pencils/inks vs. pencils and seperate blueline inks 0

[Rick2you2]

13 hours ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

Very interesting topic - I was just thinking about this the other day.  I am surprised at the number of people who said they'd pick pencils.  I would take inks - that's what gets published, and that is what I like so much about the hobby - owning the original art used to print the comic.  Technically, the pencils get destroyed anyway when an inker inks over them.  Typically, original comic art is an ink based medium.  If I could have both, I would take them.  But if I had to choose, inks all the way.

I have two minds on this one question. I think inks emphasize the decorative aspect of comic art, while the pencils emphasize the artistic aspect. Great inks pull the artistry out of the pencils and amplify it so that the underlyng art can turn into a published page. 

So, if I saw an ink job which just plain popped, I would prefer it over pencils. If I saw pencil work which had gradations and detailing that would not be duplicated by inks, I would prefer that. 

 

[MarvelComicsArt]

On 3/24/2018 at 4:57 PM, comicinkking.com said:

Very interesting topic - I was just thinking about this the other day.  I am surprised at the number of people who said they'd pick pencils.  I would take inks - that's what gets published, and that is what I like so much about the hobby - owning the original art used to print the comic.  Technically, the pencils get destroyed anyway when an inker inks over them.  Typically, original comic art is an ink based medium.  If I could have both, I would take them.  But if I had to choose, inks all the way.

Regards,

Tony

www.comicinkking.com

Thats comicinkking quote, not mine. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due. In most cases i would take the pencils myself.

Edited March 26, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[vodou]

24 minutes ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

In most cases i would take the pencils myself.

Ditto.

[stinkininkin]

You might think that since I am primarily an inker (and part time penciler)  I might have a really strong opinion about this (inks vs pencils), but in reality I'm rather agnostic about it.  I suppose that's because as a collector, I really only collect vintage art (generally my nostalgic zone).  I guess I've never had to declare and make a choice on what I'd prefer since vintage art is both pencils and inks on one board, which is all I've known and therefore prefer.  I honestly don't know what I'd lean towards if I started collecting modern art with the new paradigm, as I am infatuated with beautiful pencil work (think Neal Adams) and inspiring ink work (think, well, anybody good).  Not a choice I can easily make. 

In both a humorous vein, but with serious overtones, Jim Lee has said on numerous occasions (and very recently on his streaming video's) that all the people who buy the art that he and I produce are really buying Scott Williams originals, since all his pencil work is either hidden or erased.  He has said this for decades.  And make no mistake, there's a wink wink, nudge nudge aspect to this statement, but it does highlight the complexity and personal perspective on where one would come down on this issue.

Scott

Edited March 26, 2018 by stinkininkin

[JadeGiant]

I can’t stand the sentiment that fall along the lines of ‘inkers just being tracers’ as it obviously diminishes the talent and artistic skill that goes into a good inking job. I don’t hear that nearly as much these days which is a good thing as inkers seem to be getting more credit for their contributions. I personally have grown to learn what my preferences are in terms of the artists that ink over my favorite pencilers. The inkers that retain the look of the pencils while adding subtle improvements is what I most appreciate. I am also not a fan of the sentiment that the inks are better because they are the ‘printed original artwork’ as it feels like that is taking more credit than should be from the pencilers. Sure, the page was scanned and printed from the inked page but man, to be dismissive of the pencils is a leap way to far for me and this is what I get from the notion that inks are better because they were the final piece of art used for the comic. In the end, it is personal preference and each to their own. Personally, I will always lean toward the penciled page for me. Maybe it is the long lost aspiring artist within me (like many, I wanted to draw comics) that appreciates the notion of being able to turn a blank page into a beautiful image and how hard that is to do well. This is not a hard/fast rule as there are exceptions to everything. For example, the digital age has caused many penciled pieces to look somewhat incomplete when they are working with an inker that can close the gap on where the penciler didn’t feel the need to complete due to the working knowledge the inker has when finishing their pencils. These pieces often suffer from a pencil perspective.

Edited March 26, 2018 by JadeGiant

[MarvelComicsArt]

1 hour ago, stinkininkin said:

You might think that since I am primarily an inker (and part time penciler)  I might have a really strong opinion about this (inks vs pencils), but in reality I'm rather agnostic about it.  I suppose that's because as a collector, I really only collect vintage art (generally my nostalgic zone).  I guess I've never had to declare and make a choice on what I'd prefer since vintage art is both pencils and inks on one board, which is all I've known and therefore prefer.  I honestly don't know what I'd lean towards if I started collecting modern art with the new paradigm, as I am infatuated with beautiful pencil work (think Neal Adams) and inspiring ink work (think, well, anybody good).  Not a choice I can easily make. 

In both a humorous vein, but with serious overtones, Jim Lee has said on numerous occasions (and very recently on his streaming video's) that all the people who buy the art that he and I produce are really buying Scott Williams originals, since all his pencil work is either hidden or erased.  He has said this for decades.  And make no mistake, there's a wink wink, nudge nudge aspect to this statement, but it does highlight the complexity and personal perspective on where one would come down on this issue.

Scott

Another great example Is Jack Kirby and Joe Sinnott FF run. When a collector purchases that teams artwork they are purchasing Joe Sinnotts artistic vision as well .

Joe loves Hal Foster, Norman Rockwell and other phenomenal illustrators of his day .His vision of the finished artwork on the Fantastic Four always reflected his admiration for these particular type of illustrators.

You can see the influence poking through with every line, with every shadow, its truly majestic. So his inks were in my humble opinion , not just "inks".

But almost "finishes" .  Joe would alter head shots and redraw certain elements within the page so that it started to become a symbiotic relationship between Jack and himself.

It's this kind of wonderful collaborative effort. That creates the  printed " finalized version " of  a totally unique visual world.  These cases are very Rare indeed! 

I can also put John Buscema  and Tom Palmer on that list of artistic symbiotic relationships.

Tom Palmer is a wonderful artist in his own right , a classically trained painter. And therefore he too added an incredible amount of himself into the finished "printed" page .

And in my my humble opinion Scott Williams is on that list for me as well. I can see elements of Alex Raymond Rip Kirby art in his inks.

It tells me that Scott is a true student of the art form. He collects it , he loves it, he studies it. He produces it!

So not every 'inker" is an "ELITE INKER". And the elite inkers add a certain polish , "a touch of class" to everything that they do.

Thats why i think the title of "inker" itself should be taken with a grain of salt . On an individual by individual basis.

Edited March 26, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[comicinkking.com]

On 12/1/2006 at 11:36 AM, Solar said:

This may not be a popular opinion, but I believe that separate inks are no better than color guides. They're an enhanced photocopy/lightbox. Ink only pieces would add value to the original pencils if included in a purchase, but on their own, I'll pass on every one I come across.

If I were an inker, I'd be very insulted by this comment.  It's the old "inkers are tracers" line.  I suspect you may not realize what good inking is really about.

[comicinkking.com]

6 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

You might think that since I am primarily an inker (and part time penciler)  I might have a really strong opinion about this (inks vs pencils), but in reality I'm rather agnostic about it.  I suppose that's because as a collector, I really only collect vintage art (generally my nostalgic zone).  I guess I've never had to declare and make a choice on what I'd prefer since vintage art is both pencils and inks on one board, which is all I've known and therefore prefer.  I honestly don't know what I'd lean towards if I started collecting modern art with the new paradigm, as I am infatuated with beautiful pencil work (think Neal Adams) and inspiring ink work (think, well, anybody good).  Not a choice I can easily make. 

In both a humorous vein, but with serious overtones, Jim Lee has said on numerous occasions (and very recently on his streaming video's) that all the people who buy the art that he and I produce are really buying Scott Williams originals, since all his pencil work is either hidden or erased.  He has said this for decades.  And make no mistake, there's a wink wink, nudge nudge aspect to this statement, but it does highlight the complexity and personal perspective on where one would come down on this issue.

Scott

Well I'll force you into a tough question!  What if Sinnott had inked the Kirby FF stuff via lightbox or bluelines.  If you had to choose, would you want the pencils or inks?  You can have only one!

[comicinkking.com]

5 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

I am also not a fan of the sentiment that the inks are better because they are the ‘printed original artwork’ as it feels like that is taking more credit than should be from the pencilers.

Don't know if this was directed at my prior comment but I wasn't implying inkers are better or more important than pencilers.  I admitted that the penciler does most of the heavy lifting.  But in the context of the question and of the hobby, it's about owning *original comic art*.  Original, to me, means the art used to print the comic.  The pencils were a BIG step in the process, but they are not published.  For that reason, I want the inks.  All you guys who choose pencils would be the proud owners of a bunch of unpublished art!  That would take a little of the excitement out of it for me.

[aokartman]

Part of me loves the early phases of the process.  Comicinkking.com mentions he wants the "published" art.

Actually, the published art is a comic book with no limitations (versus a limited print).

The limitation is based on the publisher's expectation of sales.

Everything with handwork that comes before the actual book falls into the category of pre-production or production art.

If there is no handwork, it's not even art in the context of how some collectors approach collecting.

This strict guideline may be unfortunate, even flawed.

Nonetheless, each collector will decide what moves them to acquire certain pieces.

My opinion, David

Edited March 26, 2018 by aokartman
clarify

[JadeGiant]

14 hours ago, comicinkking.com said:

Don't know if this was directed at my prior comment but I wasn't implying inkers are better or more important than pencilers.  I admitted that the penciler does most of the heavy lifting.  But in the context of the question and of the hobby, it's about owning *original comic art*.  Original, to me, means the art used to print the comic.  The pencils were a BIG step in the process, but they are not published.  For that reason, I want the inks.  All you guys who choose pencils would be the proud owners of a bunch of unpublished art!  That would take a little of the excitement out of it for me.

Not directed at your post - more of a general comment

[Flambit]

I personally always value the original pencils far above the inked blue lines.  The inks are the published piece and what the inker does is extremely important, I grant you, but the pencils are the soul, the genesis, of the story on the page.  I love Sinnott, but not even a question for me: I'd take Kirby's original penciled pages!

[Alf Pogs]

I pick up any Steve Dillon Ultimate Avengers pages I can find. Loved that book (Where the vampire got Iron Man's old armor). They look like blue line print outs but I have never seen an original pencils only page. Anyone know if Steve went all digital by then?

What about pencils smearing? Anybody have this problem?

[comicinkking.com]

22 hours ago, aokartman said:

Part of me loves the early phases of the process.  Comicinkking.com mentions he wants the "published" art.

Actually, the published art is a comic book with no limitations (versus a limited print).

The limitation is based on the publisher's expectation of sales.

Everything with handwork that comes before the actual book falls into the category of pre-production or production art.

If there is no handwork, it's not even art in the context of how some collectors approach collecting.

This strict guideline may be unfortunate, even flawed.

Nonetheless, each collector will decide what moves them to acquire certain pieces.

My opinion, David

I don't understand one thing in this entire post. 

[vodou]

27 minutes ago, comicinkking.com said:

I don't understand one thing in this entire post. 

Your loss. I understand David completely. And completely agree with him. You only collect "published"? Go buy a comic book. Anything else is otherwise "less than published" by definition. No color, maybe no word balloons or digitally added effects even. "Less than published". That's why the "published only" guideline is unfortunate, even flawed.

[F For Fake]

From a value/investment perspective, I'd rather have the pencils, or inks over pencils, obviously. From a DISPLAY perspective, the inked page always looks better to me. So, blueline inks may not have a fraction of the value of the original pencils, but can make for a very attractive display piece that is still a valid piece of "original art", as long as you don't mind the fact that it's Scott Hanna's art, or Jay Leisten's art, etc. It looks cool in a frame, and it's still "real", and often much cheaper than the pencils alone. So while blueline inks may not be the preference of collectors, I think there are still good reasons to buy them (at the right price.) If I had both the pencils and the inks, I'd probably store the pencils in a portfolio and frame the inks, just because it looks better on the wall.

[Stefanomjr]

I'm glad my OA is Sean Murphy art where he pencils and inks it all.

Pondering the pros and cons of inks over pencils vs inks over blue line is making my head hurt. Is there any historical data (sales) that show that one is preferred over the other?  

[comicinkking.com]

On 3/27/2018 at 3:50 PM, vodou said:

Your loss. I understand David completely. And completely agree with him. You only collect "published"? Go buy a comic book. Anything else is otherwise "less than published" by definition. No color, maybe no word balloons or digitally added effects even. "Less than published". That's why the "published only" guideline is unfortunate, even flawed.

I never said I only collect published - I said I'd prefer the published inks over the unpublished pencils when given the choice.  This thread is under the heading "Original Comic Art" - buying a comic book doesn't get you any original art.  And if someone only collected published artwork, it's not unfortunate or flawed - it's just what they like.  Nothing wrong with that.

[vodou]

20 minutes ago, comicinkking.com said:

I never said I only collect published - I said I'd prefer the published inks over the unpublished pencils when given the choice.  This thread is under the heading "Original Comic Art" - buying a comic book doesn't get you any original art.  And if someone only collected published artwork, it's not unfortunate or flawed - it's just what they like.  Nothing wrong with that.

Uh huh, but you still don't get it do you?

[grapeape]

On 3/26/2018 at 9:35 AM, stinkininkin said:

You might think that since I am primarily an inker (and part time penciler)  I might have a really strong opinion about this (inks vs pencils), but in reality I'm rather agnostic about it.  I suppose that's because as a collector, I really only collect vintage art (generally my nostalgic zone).  I guess I've never had to declare and make a choice on what I'd prefer since vintage art is both pencils and inks on one board, which is all I've known and therefore prefer.  I honestly don't know what I'd lean towards if I started collecting modern art with the new paradigm, as I am infatuated with beautiful pencil work (think Neal Adams) and inspiring ink work (think, well, anybody good).  Not a choice I can easily make. 

In both a humorous vein, but with serious overtones, Jim Lee has said on numerous occasions (and very recently on his streaming video's) that all the people who buy the art that he and I produce are really buying Scott Williams originals, since all his pencil work is either hidden or erased.  He has said this for decades.  And make no mistake, there's a wink wink, nudge nudge aspect to this statement, but it does highlight the complexity and personal perspective on where one would come down on this issue.

Scott

Actually, I just consider you a great artist. Period.