Confused about inking.

[Pete Wells]

I like to think that most of you know me fairly well and that I'm not that much of a twat so please don't flame me when I ask this honest question. I recently looked at Lee Townsend's superbly interesting blog (here: //http://leetownsend-inking.blogspot.com/) and I just don't get it...

I can't stress enough that I'm not being at all negative or inflamatory and am certainly not doubting Lee's artistic abilties but I don't understand the skill here. You're given the pencils, for want of a better word you trace over them and those little crosses mean you colour in! Does an inker add any detail? Does (s)he correct anything?

How does an inker feel going over someone else's work? I'm sure they'll have gone to art college or whatever, surely you'd be wanting to do your own stuff!?! I'm sorry again if this post offends anyone, especially Lee should he read it, but can one of you arty types shed some light on this process for a thickie like me? Please be nice!

[IndigoPrime]

I guess it depends on the team. In some cases, it's effectively tracing (see: Chasing Amy!), but in others, the pencils are vaguer and so the inker adds depth and detail.

[Leigh S]

Even if the penciller has drawn every single line, and you stick to every single line, its still a pretty big skill.  Actually controlling the thickness of the line and not ending up with the spidery mess that most mere mortals produce is no mean feat.

[Colin YNWA]

Its one of these things you can understand quite easily if you look at comic art with the question in mind. a good example to start with is early Fantastic Four. The early issues while still clearly Jack Kirby don't look half as good as those inked by Joe Sinneot. When he comes on board, around issue 40 I believe the art goes up a level and I think its pretty clear. The funny thing is I'm not fan of Sinneot in general, say when he inked Byrne, but with Kirby it just works.
Or look at Frank Miller inked by the brillant Klaus Janson in say Daredevil and then inked by anybody else and it clear what the inker adds.

[SuperSurfer]

It's not just a case of tracing over the pencils. Still requires great drawing skill. I guess some pencilers will include more detail than others and leave it to the inker. Usually it's possible to recognise the styles of both artists. Frank Miller is a good example. His style is recognisable whether it's inked by Klaus Janson, Terry Austin or Josef Rubenstein. And the inkers' styles are also clearly recognisable. As a kid I used to rate John Byrne on the X-men. When he stopped working with Terry Austin I was disappointed with his art and I realised that what I liked on the X-men was actually the Byrne/Austin combination. Soon after Austin developed a more distinctive style of his own.

I actually don't like the concept of penciller / inker teams. Too much of a production line. I can't see how someone would get satisfaction of just pencilling artwork and not bringing it to life as finished art. Though I can get my head around the fact that they might not want to colour it.

Disclaimer: Not into Byrne's art these days though I recognise he is skilled at what he does. I'm just not into it.

[Dark Jimbo]

An incredible amount of skill involved, yes, but... I just can't see the point of seperate pencil/inkers. It's always seemed one of those odd 'Americanisms' that's never made any sense to me. Why would you not want to finish your pencils, or conversly, why would you want to make a career out of finishing other people's work? I still think it's odd when, every now and again, a 2k strip comes along that has a seperate penciller and inker. It just doesn't seem right.

[SuperSurfer]

I completely agree with you Dark Jimbo. Guess it's the US comic production line thing. Such as the plot and scripts being done by separate people. Or even weirder is the artist doing the plot and the scripter (?) then adding the words. Just doesn't make creative sense to me. I only found out yesterday online that Brett Ewins drew the Swamp Thing and that it was inked by Alcala. Looking at this spread I recognise Alcala's style but I would only recognise that Ewins drew the two first panels on the right hand page.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1010/525 ... 2d3b_b.jpg

[radiator]

I've always assumed having a separate inker is a time-saving thing.

IMO, inking is definitely a whole artistic discipline of it's own. Speaking as an artist, I'm relatively confident with my drawing ability - but I'm not confident at all with inking, and often much prefer the pencil stages of my drawings. I've long since given up trying to ink with a brush, and now use a combination of fine markers and a brush-pen - how anyone achieves such a slick and dynamic result (Townsend being a good example) with a brush is just beyond me.

I'd say the biggest contribution a separate inker would make is giving the finished drawing a sense of weight and depth. It's incredibly easy when inking to just produce a flat, indistinct mess, lacking any sense of movement or life (using strong B&W lines is very unforgiving - it's why so many artist's work seems 'stiff').

[Peter Wolf]

I need paper that doesnt absorb ink because its inkbleed thats ruining my inking and blurring the lines and ruining the effect.

[Bouwel]

I find that 100gram laser printer paper holds a line very well even if it needs saturating with ink.
Blotting paper is your friend when using it though.

Also, what inks are you using?

-Bouwel-

[dyl]

I've heard inking described as "tracing with attitude". I think on tight pencils that pretty much captures it. You are going over the pencilers lines and you want to keep as much of their style there as you can, but you also want to keep the lines lively and exciting.

There are differences too some pencillers pencil really precisely and you could almost print from their pencils. I remember inking Andy Clarke and his pencils were like this. He penciled everything filled in all the blacks and even mimicked brush effects like feathering in pencil. I really enjoyed inking Andy but I would say it's more of a technical exercise and about brush and pen control as I didn't need to figure out any of the drawing or many line weights, Leigh Gallagher's pencils were similar too, really tight showing me exactly what he wanted in the inks.

Other pencillers I've worked with, like Mike Collins and Patrick Goddard, leave things a little looser. All of the drawing is still there, but they haven't completely mimicked an ink line in pencil. This leaves a little more room for interpretation on things like line weight and rendering.

Without wanting to sound too defensive, I'd say don't under estimate it as a skill, lol. I know it can look like it must be an easy job especially when you see someone like Adam Hughes's pencils. They are so perfect it looks like it would be a doddle to ink but it is so easy to drift away from the energy of the original drawing.

I really hope inking continues as a skill, as it does seem to be slipping away a little. So many artists nowadays pencil so tightly that, to save money, some comics are skipping the inking stage altogether. I've also learnt a lot from inking other artists and I really enjoy doing it. I use brushes and dip pen nibs mainly and like using sponge and drybrush for textures(another cool thing about inking).

[Emperor]

I think "embellisher" might fit the bill better, or "finishers." The problem with scanning in the pencils and making them darker and calling it inked is that this depends on the quality of the pencils. With 2000 AD artists they are usually going to be doing the whole lot so being loose in the pencils won't save them time when inking (it actually makes sense to get it right in the pencils) but there are all sorts of different ways of doing it. I think it is one of those areas that you underestimate when it is working right and the input from an inker is most felt when it doesn't go so well.

For the difference between pencils and inks take a look at Vince Colletta's inking of Kirby's pencils!!

See for example his accidental removal of a character's head:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.co ... ealed-196/

There are some other examples here:
http://ismarkevaniermentallyill.blogspo ... re_29.html

Granted it is controversial one but it is the extreme examples where you can see what involves. You can also pick up some graphite editions of Kirby's work which show the original pencils as do a lot of examples in the Collected Jack Kirby Collector (you can nose through them via Google Books).

There is even a reinking Thor Flickr group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/reinkingthor/

This also look worth a read:
http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandki ... hives/1803

This list of the 20 best inkers explains their different styles:
http://www.acomics.com/ink3.htm

[Peter Wolf]

I find that 100gram laser printer paper holds a line very well even if it needs saturating with ink.
Blotting paper is your friend when using it though.

Also, what inks are you using?

-Bouwel-

Windsor and Newton Black/Black Indian ink.

However i was getting the right kind of lines that were a lot clearer by using 005 size black pens on Bristol board without any ink bleed which is alright but not quite as good as using a brush.

[Bouwel]

Windsor and Newton Black/Black Indian ink.

I've also had very good results with Daler Rowney acrylic artists inks:

http://www.daler-rowney.com/

-Bouwel-

[Matt Timson]

You fool, Wells!  

Pretty much what Dyl said, really.  The only thing I'd add to that is that one of the reasons pencils and inks get split up- apart from the obvious time advantages- is that some people are just better suited to one job or the other, or one will bring out the best in the other.  OK, so that's two things- but you get the general gist.

I think a good example of somebody who benefits from a good inker is John Byrne.  Terry Austin, IMO, really brought out the best in his work on X-Men, while some of his Fantastic Four issues that he inked himself were a bit 'blotchy'.  Obviously, not everyone agrees with this assessment- which is kind of point.

A really good place to look is Fantastic Four annual #19 and Avengers annual #14, as both are penciled by Byrne, but inked by Joe Sinnott and Kyle Baker, respectively.  As it's a crossover, with the same story being told from two different perspectives, some of the panels are identical- so you can really see what a difference the choice of inker makes.



A horribly quick google didn't yield any of the identical panels- but I bet you could find them if you looked.  I remember preferring Baker's scratchy, more 'realistic', look to Sinnott's super-polished inks at the time.  As most of my tastes have changed since then, I'd be interested to read them again now.  Unfortunately, they went in the bin years ago.