 (Source) What needs to be said? Today's strip has heavily-traced artwork. All I have are questions: Why does the artist feel that he can't, or didn't need to, draw this character in his own style? Do you, the reader, feel that knowing it was traced somehow cheapens the effect of the strip? Does it lower your opinion of the artwork? Are there any other popular or, in your opinion, good webcomics that do this sort of thing? Should the artist know the difference between photo reference and photo tracing? Is the combination of styles jarring, or does it work? It's not an isolated incident -- it's just a recent one. The joke goes off without a hitch, however. It's a great reference to the prevalence of cigarettes hanging between the monotone lips of yesteryear's iconic characters. Always darkly amusing to see. The cigarettes portrayed here, of course, seem to be strongly targeted at children -- the pack is much too large for Super Space Cadet Man (I don't feel I'm exaggerating when I say it is the size of his head), and seem more to scale with Kid Super Space Cadet Man. Oh, those Chesterstrike cads! (Seriously, though. "Kid Super Space Cadet Man"? I get the weak joke therein, but the title is such a clunker. It would never have gotten past an editor without the "Man" being trimmed. And "The Chesterstrike Super Space Cadet Man Adventure Hour"? It'd give the old-timey announcer conniptions)  The only thing left to do is wonder what turned the photograph in Cole's hands completely gray. Did its children run out into traffic? It's easy enough to take the photograph we saw in the previous strip... and then copy it, crop it, rotate it and erase the bits that Cole is covering up. The smudge tool easily fudges out the bit of photograph that was obscured by a speech balloon (And the sharpen tool spruces it back up if you get it too blurry to match the quality of the strip). It's not perfect, but it's quick and painless. That doesn't help the print-quality version of the strip, but the artist could still have done anything other than an all-gray piece of paper... any added detail would perform better than the notable lack of detail on such a large photograph. |
Friday, August 21
It Tastes Like Burning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Back in good ol' grade 6, we had a school project that involved index cards and illustrations about fish. The rules were simple; 1 card/1 oceanic life form, text on the front (brevity and mucho content a must), pictures on the back.
ReplyDeleteThere was no way my Grandma would let me not due the max. # of cards allowed. So, after about a dozen poorly drawn fish, I hacked up a fairly expensive Audobon Society book and glued the full-color photos to the back of the cards. I didn't care if I passed or not. I just wanted it done.
As a result, I not only got the highest grade in the class, I received an extra A for the quarter.
The teacher was surprised that I was the only one who realized that to illustrate doesn't require free-hand drawing. (It wasn't my idea, actually. Thanks, Grandma!)
I don't really have a problem with the tracing. I'm all about finding faster ways to get things done. Especially if the results are better. The only time I have an objection is when the art takes on an all too inconsistent quality throughout it's body. Scott doesn't have that problem. (Mostly because he has a 10 year library to comb through in his time of desperate need.)
That's not to say that I feel any less naive, today. How the hell could I not see that it was, in fact, George Reeves; and not just a great hand-drawing?
I do get your point. But, if Scott's going to spend his time doing all original drawings and minute detail work; he'll need to hire a staff to run his business. He's not there yet. He can't let go of direct control.