Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

An issue of color

22:49 / 25.09.02

One thing that has really gotten to me was the coloring in comics books. I don't exactly know the process that the colorists use. So I may be a little naive here.

Two examples, one on each end of the spectrum:
1. flesh colored piercings on King Mob (pimples, warts?).
2. Hank McCoy as the Beast, flesh colored one panel blue the next.

I realize that the small dots of silver can be tough to nail down, and easy to overlook, but why in some other same size panels and not another? The beast thing just seems like a major lazy proofreading job to me. The examples above are only a percentage of the times I've seen this happen, though.

I know the Why don't you try coloring book after book respones may be coming so I'm braced. Who knows how the color is laid down in comics? Also, who has noticed color mix ups like the flesh/blue Beast I spoke of. Maybe something with his powers that allow him to change at will?

23:46 / 25.09.02

For the average comic, the colourist works on copies of the artwork, usually with Pantone design markers (the standard) or in some cases watercolour paints. Once these colour guides are complete they are given to the "separator," who then replicates them digitially in Photoshop, creating computer files that are used for printing. It is becoming increasingly common for the colourist to also do their own separations.

As for the mistakes you've mentioned above - they're just that, mistakes. There's no real excuse for them, and in the example of the flesh-coloured Beast (where was that, by the way? I don't remember it), it IS a case of poor proofreading. It's a huge amount of work to get these things coming out once a month, and a lot of this stuff gets overlooked in the rush to get them in by the deadline. That's not a justification, just an observation.

It's not always the colourist's fault - I've been quick to chastise colourists in the past for what I felt was poor work, only to find out later that they had nothing to do with it, it was the separator who made the mistake (and then the editor for not catching it).

00:53 / 26.09.02

For the average comic, the colourist works on copies of the artwork, usually with Pantone design markers (the standard) or in some cases watercolour paints.

Really?! I didn't know that people were still coloring by hand. Do you have to use special paper with the Pantone markers?

So then what... does the separator scan the colored artwork & then make separations from the scan? Or does he recreate the whole thing in Photoshop basically from scratch, just using the colored artwork as a guide?

03:16 / 26.09.02

From what I've seen, it's the latter - the separator recreates it in Photoshop. The colourist will usually provide notation on the guides, indicating precisely what colour values are desired (using Pantone keys).

As I say, this is becoming less common as more colourists are doing their own separations. I'd guess that many go directly to Photoshop.

jUne, a sunshiny month

08:22 / 26.09.02

tell me that i'm not an ET : as far as i like photoshop (layers and effects give extreme creativity SPEED freedom), why do i prefer to start with hand coloring, whatever it is paint or pantone markers ?
am i a reac ?

10:50 / 26.09.02

I beleive that Beast example was in an Ultimate issue, #17 to be exact. It was the one where Prof. X's son was in a fast food resturaunt and Wolvie was sent in after him only to have his body taken over by (Proteus/Legion?...I get confused). Anyway there was a panel where Hank was all fleshy, then back to normal.

I can see how the mistake is on several levels by each department. The editor, I would assume has ultimate responsibilty when it comes to things like that. Some deatils are more important than others, though. It could be a waste of time to send a page back just for a little miscolred ear piercing.

I'm just thinking that for $2.50 to $2.95, we could get a little more consistancy from our books.

Thanks for the info Cam.

15:52 / 26.09.02

>>>why do i prefer to start with hand coloring, whatever it is paint or pantone markers ?<<<

For the same reason that I like to draw in pencil and ink, rather than using my Wacom tablet and Photoshop: there's a comfort and immediacy - not to mention a pleasantly *human* result - to working with physical materials rather than digital.

The computer is a great tool, but it's only a tool - they'll never REPLACE good old brushes and pens. At least, not in my studio...

17:10 / 26.09.02

Yeah, I was trying to draw on the computer --on Illustrator-- and besides not being able to control the pen tool at all, this business of laying down paths seemed like math* not drawing. I mean, I'm sure I could learn... but I already know how to use a pencil. You put the point on the paper, it makes a mark!

Sorry to be dense, but Cameron... the separator doesn't redraw the actual art, meaning the actual lines? Or yes?

*not that you can't make art with math, like those really amazing complex olden quilts are all math

18:48 / 26.09.02

No, the separator merely does the colour, working with scans of the black and white artwork.

Matthew Fluxington

19:01 / 26.09.02

Cameron, a lot of the art on your website is in color. Did you do that color yourself? Would you prefer to eventually do all the coloring of your art yourself?

Why don't more comics artists choose to color their own drawings?

20:35 / 26.09.02

>>>Did you do that color yourself?<<<

Yes.

>>>Would you prefer to eventually do all the coloring of your art yourself?<<<

It depends - I like to colour my own work but I don't think I'm particularly good at it. I think my colour theory is awful. Having said that, I've been disappointed so many times with other people colouring my work that I'd much rather do it myself.

>>>Why don't more comics artists choose to color their own drawings?<<<

It's partly a time issue, of course - again, when dealing with a monthly schedule you can't possibly hope to pencil, ink, AND colour it all in the time allotted. There's also the issue of the publisher's page rates - as far as I'm aware, if a single person does the pencilling, inking, AND colouring, it's then considered the same as painted artwork and subject to higher page rates. Obviously it's in the publisher's interests to pay lower rates, so the work is divided between several people.

Matthew Fluxington

20:59 / 26.09.02

Right. Still, among creator owned artists, self published folks, etc - I would imagine that more artists would be eager to move into coloring their own work after a while, making the artistic process more complete. It seems like a logical-next-step that very few comics artist seem to take.

If you had the money behind you, would you go for it at some point?

(Hint: I recommend that you should.)

00:38 / 27.09.02

Ted McKeever is the only one who comes to mind who penciled, inked, AND coloured all in the time allotted monthly schedule, with just a few fill in issues on his doom patrol run.

remorse: googles first match for "colouring comics" is
here.
brianbolland.com has a good step by step, & you could search for the cool one Matt Hollingsworth posted on comicon & the WEF a while ago.

00:46 / 27.09.02

The Hollingsworth Process (as I have dubbed it) is available on www.crackcomicks.com

16:20 / 28.09.02

Hrrh. Is the Hollingsworth Process really there? I've clicked through The Filth -->The Filth Plus --> The Process --> image of the cover --> comicon ...am I close? I am v. happy to see that Brian Bolland uses the pencil tool in Photoshop, that's made me decide to stick with raster graphics for the while.

What do you all think about the color in the Allreds' Atomics ...seems like they have a nice little family factory going there. What do you think of the product, though?

Nelson Evergreen

00:21 / 30.09.02

Colour's great, obviously, and it would be a heartless world without it, but the way it's used within comics often makes my blood simmer.

For starters, the idea that applying bold, garish slabs of ( frequently somewhat functional) colour to a perfectly realised piece of line art rather than just printing the thing in all it's beautiful, inky, black & white glory seems dubious to me... is this because "comics are for kids" and kids like bright shiny things? Is it just an ingrained industry habit?

Secondly, if you really must have colour lowering the tone all over the place, what can be done to make it more sympathetic to the art? It seems to be a failing of the mainstream creation process (as outlined by Cameron, whereby each member of the team do their own bit separately, production line style) that artists and colourists will end up at cross purposes... you get a penciller/inker creating a finished black and white piece, and then a colourist slapping "paint" on it, often with little apparent empathy.

Sorry, but I'm a hopeless Line Fetishist. If the line's lovely and the line's lithe, leave it alone; unless it's on the cover, of course, in which case unleash the slavering palette-hounds of hell immediately.

04:03 / 30.09.02

Yeah, there's some art that looks better when it's just black ink & white paper. Jeff Smith's "Bone" & Chynna Clugston-Majors' "Blue Monday" immediatly spring to mind.

11:50 / 30.09.02

Cameron saith: I've been disappointed so many times with other people colouring my work...

No, really?

Heh. "Orlando, Clown Prince of Crime."

yawn - thing's buddy

14:41 / 30.09.02

jack, cameron - I always thought the script demanded a scooby doo atmosphere at that point in time.

yknow, johnny dreams giving it 'in my left hand I have magic mirror, in my right, anti-miror; perfect!' - here's one I made fuckin earlier.

so I thought the 'clown-prince' colour-crime actually worked out....sweet.

anyway...