When comics first started being drawn digitally, it was cool (because it was new) but it was also blatantly obvious that it was being drawn with a computer. The resolution simply wasn’t there to hide all of the pixelization. After that improved, then the issue became one of having the right tools. Drawing tablets weren’t commercially available, and drawing software was largely limited to what you could accomplish with your mouse, so digital artists worked in programs like Illustrator and Freehand, using Bézier curves to create extremely precise drawings. The precision was also cool (again, because it was new) but it was also obvious because the lines were too meticulously accurate to be organically drawn.
But we’re at a technological stage now where artists can simply hold a stylus as they would a pen or brush, and draw onto an electronic tablet instead of a piece of paper. The lines—complete with textures, pressure marks, and other hallmarks of traditional tools—are captured by the computer without an actual mark ever being made. When looking at a finished comic online, it’s nearly impossible for most people looking at the final result to tell if it was drawn with a stylus or an actual pen.
So what’s the benefit of one over another?
Personal preferences aside, the biggest factors seem to be time and money. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the electronic version is going to be more expensive to set up. I know some webcomickers who use simple Sharpies instead of “proper” brushes or pens for their inking, and those are certainly all cheaper (even in the long run) than a few hundred dollars for a tablet.
A different issue, still related to money, though, is one of sales. Artists who work traditionally have a piece of original art that they can turn around and sell once their comic is published. Digital artists can make prints, of course, but they simply don’t have originals to sell. While there’s definitely some validity to this, what artists need to keep in mind is that the prices they can charge for originals varies based on their popularity. Meaning that an artist just starting out isn’t likely to earn much from original art sales, compared to a more well-known, tenured artist, so the sales benefit here tends to be more longer-term.
Which brings us to time. Most accounts I’ve read/heard put digital as the clear winner in the time department. It’s easier/faster for most artists to work digitally, and therefore gives them more time to work on other aspects of their business and/or life in general. This speed comes from a number of factors, including switching between digital tools at the click of a button, and making corrections more smoothly. (While there is a learning curve to working on tablets, it’s worth noting that there is one for pens and brushes as well, but those are often overlooked as artists are frequently already familiar with them when starting a comic.) How much time might be saved depends a lot on the skill of the individual artist, and a good many might not see any speed benefit by switching.
While many artists make a decision to work digitally or in print based on personal preferences and stylistic biases, there are concrete, real world implications to consider in terms of the creator’s resources. Does it make sense to work digitally? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, but whether it’s a good artistic decision is not necessarily the same answer as whether it’s a good business decision.
0 comments:
Post a Comment