ELECTRIC ANT ZINE BLOG

it makes me so happy to see the newsprint format so popular! such a nice medium

I totally agree. There's big a big jump in these types of publications in the last 2 years... I gotta get one going too, jump on dis bandwagon

yeah before DC ruins it by making it unhip!

dude i swear to god he put that clause about excessive use of gradients and halftone dots in cuz of my rejected submission. har har!

Being anti-computer lettering is stupid as well. I guess it's their editorial vision, but I grow to love photoshop more each passing day.

i did the shittiest comic ever for the 1st one so i'm gonna try to do a better one this time! containing thoughts into a strip or a half page is very difficult

Photoshop is good for PHOTOS, not drawing.

whooops, COMBO BREAKER
hi Gabriel, welcome to the EAZB!

Wait though, Isn't Dash's cover painted in Photoshop/Corel?

gabe: no way! i totally disagree. photoshop is good for everything!
and who says comics are all drawing anyway?

I'm kinda joking... but it IS called photoshop for a reason.

yeah i guess i know what you mean

Most tools artists use were made for something else first. It is almost the definition of creative to re-purpose and recombine. The above image is illustrative of this point and many others. Man, is that startling!

"Most tools artists use were made for something else first." really? like what?

eh, not sure about "most tools artists use"... on the original point though, anti-photoshop as a rule seems hard to enforce/justify. I'm guessing since Dash's cover is on the front of Smoke Signals 2 it's more of an aesthetic than a what-tool-did-you-use guideline anyway.

Was talking to Sophia yesterday about this-- There's definitely more bad photoshop painting on the internet than good, but then there's more bad drawing in the world than good drawing too-- it's just not beamed into our apartments and one-click away online.

Dash's paintings, Derek Yu's work, and Mickey's textures are just a few quick examples of digital work that i think fits in right along traditionally-penned comics and can beat them too, if you're thinking that they have to oppositional... dunno if they were done literally in "Photoshop" versus other programs, but that seems besides the point.

As for lettering though, I can understand having a hand-lettering only caveat for a zine-- having a mix of the two within one publication can be jarring on the eye.

yeah, i can't stand computer lettering unless it's for a translated comic (although hand lettering obviously looks better, eg: monster men burieko). computer lettering typically looks really stale next to hand done drawings.

Jason Ibarra uses some innovative digital techniques involving overlays and data corruption in his Photoshop paintings. I'm going to link to his DA gallery, which may be a faux pas, but he hasn't updated his website in some time: http://uponthoufaircat.deviantart.com

Barnaby Ward uses Photoshop brushes to give off the impression that he uses charcoal and pencil but it looks a lot better with his flat colors than pencil or charcoal scanned in: http://www.somefield.com

As for computer lettering, you can make fonts out of your own handwriting.

Oh. Uh, I'm late to this conversation. I don't know what Corel is. I don't have a wacom tablet and I don't do any painting in photoshop other than the "paintbucket" tool to fill in areas of solid color, like the border. The image is color separations that I paintbucketed in photoshop and then I print out the image and paint with gouache over the photocopy. So the final, original art is gouache paint on a high-res photocopy of flat colors. Maybe that helps clear things up.
I disagree with a no-photoshop policy since I think, in general, things can look interesting coming from anywhere. But I understand why Gabe would say that to weed out submissions he isn't interested in publishing.

...for the record, it's not a no-photoshop policy. The submission guidelines say "no photoshop gradients or computer lettering please," and I stand by my distaste for these elements.

Hey Dash! Thanks for stopping by and for clearing up your process-- didn't realize and sorry for the wrong assumption there. I wouldn't have guessed it was gouache from the image I saw, but that's more my own ignorance than anything else. It's a lovely piece, however it was made :) I'm always interested in process so very cool of you to share that. Anytime you want to post here, you're added as a contributor :)

Gabe, thanks for stopping back by too.
I get your policy editorially... "no computer lettering" and no wonky gradients is your call to make. I can't speak for anyone else but I assume folks who work in Photoshop as a primary tool might have been put off by the prescriptive tone of the first comment you left.

Not to single out Mickey's work, but she posted what might have prompted you to come here originally (and because her work is rad enough to withstand the scrutiny). Here's her piece I published in the first issue of Electric Ant #2, with digital madness in addition to her hand-drawing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spideretcetera/2869933668/sizes/o/in/set-72157606563242291/
This is the kind of thing (dot-tones up the wazoo) that I think is perfect for newsprint/B&W print publications... not sure if it's what you're looking to avoid though. Would be a a loss to dismiss something that powerful because of the tools used (or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spideretcetera/3565421385/sizes/o/ ) but like most things it's a matter of taste.

Anyway, it's different strokes for different publications. I'm looking forward to Smoke Signals 2-- Going to looking at money left over(??) from Electric Ant #2 printing budget and hope to donate. More free newsprint comics publications is very cool.

Oh shit sorry, Gabe. I didn't go back and read it and was just reacting to what I read here. I'm an idiot.

@Dash, well to be fair, Gabe did say,
"Photoshop is good for PHOTOS, not drawing."
but that's a comment not a policy

Anyway, i think we can declare this /THREAD OVER
unless Gabe wants to stop by to agree that Mickey is totally awesome :)
looking forward to what makes the cut for smoke signal 2
ryan!

okay, yes, but I think this is an interesting topic for the future of comics

I'm definitely down to talk more if you guys are, I only meant /THREAD OVER about the specifics of Mickey / Dash's work.

Haven't heard any specific or sweeping statements about photoshop/digital art in comics, more about personal style and tastes across the board so far.

Is there a statement to make about photoshop & the future comics?
Feel free to post your thoughts, I'm sure folks will respond here.

http://desertislandbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2009/08/pen-and-ink-vs-computer.html

I dunno if I follow this part of the post. . .

"I'd like to add that digital comic art "originals" have zero value as artwork. Can you imagine what the Masters of American Comics exhibition would look like if the artists were all working in Photoshop"

Who cares? Comic pages aren't made to be exhibited, they're made to be printed. If they have value as original art, that's terrific, but that seems kind of beside the point.

Most original comic pages can only be appreciated by people already interested in cartooning anyway. An original piece of comic art might be filled with whiteout, non-photo blue line pencils, acetate, pasted on panels or pasted on text. These are techniques and shortcuts that are usually going to appear awkward, messy or ugly to someone who doesn't already appreciate comics and the process that goes behind them. That's because they weren't designed to be viewed that way, they were designed to be printed and reproduced.

The pen and ink vs computer thing seems pretty silly and played out to me. I don't see any more bad Wacom-produced art than I do sloppy hand drawn art. Isn't this really obviously a case by case thing? The example you posted - so Dave Berg never learned Photoshop properly, how is that's Photoshop's fault? On your gallery's website, you sell a Michael Kupperman print that incorporates computer lettering and a Paul Hornschemeier print, an artist who uses digital colors. You sell those prints because those guys use the tools well - they aren't Dave Berg, they learned the techniques.

I get that you have a certain aesthetic in mind for Smoke Signals, and that's cool. But the "Photoshop is responsible for crappy art" argument doesn't make much sense to me. crappy artists are responsible for crappy art.

Thanks for the link- to your post.

First response, I think you are slightly misstating the original "argument" small as it was. On your blog post you say that you started a debate "by voicing my distaste for crappy photoshop work".

Actually, what you did was "Photoshop is good for PHOTOS, not drawing. " -- namely, you didn't specifically single out crappy photoshop, but categorically dismissed it as a tool and/or medium. I think that's part of the crux of the response you got here. Folks that use Photoshop well (among other tools, etc) would definitely agree with you that crappy photoshop is... well, crappy. Just as crappy ink + pen work is... crappy too! It's a different kind of argument.

Your example of Berg is fair, in that a sorta not interesting (or representative) but well-known cartoonist's work got worse as he got older and switched to digital tools. I don't see much causality though? Why did he switch to digital coloring/tones? Would perhaps be interesting to know.

I think it's a logic leap to then say, "Maybe Berg is too old to learn new computer skills, but why do I keep seeing this lazy wacom-tablet aesthetic coming from 24 year old artists?".--- What point does an artist who wasn't doing anything that interesting with ink & pen (Berg) and then doing stuff less well with digital, make?

The 24 year old artists you're talking about... what do those examples say more broadly? I'd like to see examples of the wacom stuff you don't like for the sake of explaining the aesthetic you are dismissing. I bet if they are crappy and illustrate a point about the downside of photoshop comics (which is... they cut corners? are lazy?) then folks will agree.

As a blanket dismissal, I'm still not seeing it yet.

Wow, what a shitstorm this turned out to be. Stop by the store sometime and we can talk about this in a more civilized manner while looking at examples.

Shitstorm, no way! :) I hope it didn't turn uncivil for anyone.

I think Michael and I posted at the exact same time (that is, rather than forming a purposeful pile-on)...

Next time I'm in New York, would love to check out the shop finally, -- or perhaps see you at SPX then?

best, Ryan!

I guess Gabe may not be returning to continue the discussion, which would be a pity since I'm genuinely interested in his opinions... I agree that this isn't the best format, but it's the only option for most.

I also thought the debate was going well, and wasn't turning into a shitstorm... like Ryan said, any perceived ganging-up was not intentional and none of it seems to be in a malicious spirit...

Regardless, I'll add my thoughts anyway, & play devil's advocate a bit for the sake of continuing the conversation.

I think the problem most people have with the use of Photoshop in comics is that it indicates a lack of care for the art. I'm focusing specifically on digital lettering and the use of fills and gradients to automatically create a sort of generic light + color situation. In mainstream comics (where this is frequently done) many elements of the final product are done by different people (penciler, inker, colorist, letterer) and as a result the final image doesn't have any coherency or "vision" (for lack of a better term). Even in cases where a single artist does all the work (which is more relevant to what we're talking about, I think) the use of Photoshop can still connote this kind of assembly-line production, which in turn indicates a dismissal of any potential for originality. Because the technique is so established, and because it involves so many identical steps made mindlessly easy by the use of Photoshop's tools, it becomes second nature after a while and the artist doesn't seem involved in the work at all.

Most artists I know who are supporters of real media often cite that through making mistakes with paint or charcoal, they accidentally discover a new technique. These accidents, when repeated subtly hundreds of times over in a single work, can create a sense of impenetrability and mystery. You look at the work and it seems like it was spontaneously generated from another world... that kind of sense of wonder can be very profound and compelling, especially if you yourself are an artist. The lack of perfection, compounded, creates something that seems to be beyond the ability of a human hand. In contrast, if you look at something that's been drawn without much imagination and then shoved through Photoshop, the process (if you are at all familiar with computers) is totally intelligible and thus not at all challenging. As Zach said about fonts - anything that's been replicated too often seems stale. Hand-lettering, by comparison, can mesh with the art and become involved in the overall aesthetic of a comic. To most people in mainstream comics, though, any format that seems prone to mistakes would be counterproductive in an industry that needs to produce so much so quickly.

You have to go out of your way to make errors in Photoshop. It's actually difficult. You can ctrl-z anything, to begin with, and personally I think that even with a Cintiq 21UX and the latest version of Corel Painter you are still far, far removed from the experience of real media. I will not argue that you can't get a very realistic final image -- because I've seen it - but the unseen part of the process, the creation, doesn't offer the same opportunities for exploration and is therefore asphyxiating to artistic potential.

That said --

The crux of this debate, which has been said already by Ryan and Deforge and others, is that only shitty artists would make the shitty choices I've described. Most artists who make good art in Photoshop experimented extensively with real media and are aware of the possibilities for their work. They see Photoshop as just another tool, rather than something that dictates their style... I wouldn't even discount the possibility for an artist to do great work digitally without having ever trained in analog. It's just a matter of thinking creatively, and if you're not creative your work will likely suck even if you're the staunchest Luddite ever.

There's a ton of snobbery about doing everything by hand if you can, and I have an incredible amount of respect for artists who do everything with ink, zip-a-tone, white-out, gouache... to say nothing of people who work way out of line with tradition and do expressive or abstract comics in oil, collage, root beer, etc etc. I'd recommend trying these things before going to digital, since digital's main benefit is allowing you to streamline the output of techniques that would look the same whether they were done manually or in photoshop. Case in point:

If your artistic intent is to make some really clean ligne claire cartoons, and everything is in flat color, I really don't see why you shouldn't scan and fill. Especially if it allows great artists to be more prolific because they're saving time. I'm thinking specifically of Chris Ware, who is a god of composition and color and design as far as I'm concerned. Deforge mentioned Hornschemeier, also a fine example.

The trend towards shitty digital art is due to a combination of things -- the speed and ability to undo anything make it appeal to people who are lazy and/or terrified of experimentation (and thus boring), and also a lot of mainstream comics seem to value writing/story much more than art (which is evidenced by tons of word bubbles crowding up an otherwise well-compositioned and perhaps striking page)... and like Dash said, if you want to categorically avoid artists who think that way, that's probably a good idea, but weeding them out by saying no gradients / digital lettering may be off-putting to people who know what they're doing.

Bottom line - being anti-shitty art is great. Being anti-Photoshop is potentially problematic.

""Most tools artists use were made for something else first." really? like what? "

uhhhh like a paintbrush?

What were paintbrushes used for prior to applying paint to a surface?

Wait a sec,
Gabe you're still around and reading the thread?

How about responding to my last post and/or Michael and Sophia's posts. then? I got the impression you had stormed off after your last reply to me.

they weren't invented for the sake of the artist, just as pens weren't invented for drawing, and clay wasn't invented to smear on cave walls in the shape of animals, screenprinting wasn't invented for shitty show posters or how panels weren't invented for comix.
although based on your response we're arguing semantics surrounding context as opposed to origin?

Oh Mickey you''re so eloquent! You make my point better than I do.

If I had to guess what brushes started as, I'd say little brooms or scrubby brushes. Sweeping and scrubbing would probably precede mark making. Their transformation into paint brushes might have been an evolutionary one. If you want an example that's a little less supposition, bright transparent colors that don't fade weren't developed for artists, they were developed so that cars don't fade when left out in the sun. The same goes for the oils and polymer emulsions that turn those pigments into paints, all were harvested and tailored to the needs of other primary industries but are used for making art as well.

But just because the fur in your brush was taken from the fur industry doesn't lessen the quality of the art you make. This is likely because, while there are still people who paint with brooms for the aesthetic value, most use artist tools are manufactured for the job. So it is that specialized drawing programs are being developed from the paradigm that photoshop set. I love my Manga Studio 4! (or maybe I should stick with photoshop?)

Hey guys, I'm an artist too. I get it. I thought Sophia's post was dead-on. This conversation started because I singled-out photoshop gradients and computer lettering on the Smoke Signal submission guidelines. What if I had said "please do not submit shitty or sub-par artwork?" How do you think that would be received? I was trying to be specific to avoid alienating everybody. Photoshop is obviously a useful tool in a million different ways, but I think it gets abused by unskilled practitioners in the comics world more than the fine art world. I do think this problem is more visible in "assembly-line" situations, but I have received some submissions which emulate this look and it makes me want to barf.

Mainstream companies cut corners to make more money, the artists have to churn out work, and this cranked-out aesthetic ends up getting emulated by a younger generation who thinks it's acceptable and will get them hired at Marvel. It's bullshit, and this is what I'm complaining about.

A creative red-line for art submissions like "No photoshop gradients or computer lettering please!" is pretty much bait for this sort of back and forth. Such a comment may transcend the pet peeve you intended it as and come across as alienating in its own way. I honestly associate photoshop gradients with Ben Jones (http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1614&Itemid=92) more than Marvel, but who cares... You're entitled to your vision for your newspaper. I wish you the best of luck creating strongly narrative comics with a computer-free vibe.

Gabe, it's your publication.
Print what you like and ignore what you don't.
Thank you for having standards.
Those who like photoshop gradients and computer lettering are welcome to publish their own thing.

i've always been a big fan of being blunt, and maybe its just me but i would have been totally into: "please do not submit shitty or sub-par artwork" because even though your newspaper IS open submission, you're obviously not going to print shit that sucks and/or shit you hate! and that's totally 100% awesome cuz shit that sucks sucks and nobody wants to look at it anyway.
if you wanted to go hyper-classy legalese-style, you could in the future write something like "submission does not guarantee publication" (which i think you wrote in there anyway) and/or "artwork accepted is up to the editor's discretion".
i dunno. it sort of makes more sense than specifically stating which types of work you generally tend to hate, mostly for the aspect of covering your own ass, so you don't have to deal with people calling you out on it. unless of course it comes down to some technical inability to print gradients.

anyway!

Kudos for promoting comics that aren't run of the mill super hero stuff and making it freely available! Just keep an open mind. You may grow to love photoshop... for brushing your teeth!

Gabe, thanks for replying.

I agree with you that if Photoshop is used to an offensive end, it's more likely to happen in comics than in fine art. The diversity of the fine art world is more publicly obvious than the diversity of comic/cartooning styles. Experimentation is the foundation of fine art (at least since modernism), but with many other disciplines - illustration, concept design, comics, etc, there is a very clear preconception of what will sell.

So on one hand, a young artist would have to be at least a little stupid to think "this style is popular/lucrative, so I'll learn it," but the blame can't just be cast on narrow-minded younger artists, but also companies who tend to push books with generic styles, or hire artists who work in a super-efficient way at the cost of originality. Etc.

I'm obviously all for complaining about the bullshit, but since you're in a position to give new/innovative artists some exposure, making a comment that could be construed as threatening or unreceptive may be a bad idea. I've realized, due to this discussion, that your beliefs are reasonable... it's just hard to prevent misunderstandings on the internet.

I agree with Mickey... it would be less alienating (to me) to just say "no shitty artwork." But since you're curating it anyway, it's not actually necessary to make any sort of statement. You can have standards and avoid preemptively rejecting potentially good artists at the same time.

And if you do get shitty submissions, you can tell them to chill out and experiment, possibly/hopefully to a good end?

At any rate, I'm looking forward to the publication! Thanks for explaining your stance.