02-16-2020, 02:09 PM
(02-16-2020, 10:39 AM)Fedodika Wrote: I think, personally just IMO; that making something imaginative and as expansive as a comic book in traditional medium is a waste of time; itd be much faster and more efficient to do it digitally. Even from a learning perspective, Most of comic rendering is just fill shapes and paint buckets that take far longer to execute by hand; Plus digital has premade fonts, you can resize and reshape things on the fly. etc
You can learn the fundamentals of design and storyboarding all digitally doing these things, and save time since you dont have to fill in blocks of flat tone by hand and use the paint bucket tool
Traditional is extremely effective for learning fundamentals, but as far as a comic, just the volume of work and the type of work it is (which is highly repetitive, imaginative, and a need to be very limber) would be best done digitally
To be fair, I think making art in general is a waste of time! So I partially agree with Fedo!
It's true that a lot of mainstream comic book rendering got that paint bucket fill look to them (is it called "spot black"?). While Fedo's concerns are true for the majority of the sequential art that we see, it doesn't mean other methods/approaches are less effective.
*Gabrielle dell Otto (acrylics)
This series would read differently given the usual treatment of india ink and digital colouring. If this has the same script and dialogue, but executed in the usual fashion... imagine a Tim Burton movie but made by these production houses that white washes anime series.
I do agree with Fedo that it will be more productive/time efficient doing them digitally.. but the question would be, is it more effective in the way *you* tell the story?
If you are reading this, I most likely just gave you a crappy crit! What I'm basically trying to say is, don't give up!
----
IG: @thatpuddinhead
----
IG: @thatpuddinhead