2000 AD Online Forum

Beginning with: time in comics.

Picking up from the discussion with Steven Denton which starts roughly here (http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,40870.15.html) about how time passes in the comic medium and whether a panel is a 'frozen' instant or not... Steven argues, via Scott McCloud, that a panel is a snapshot and the time passes between the panels, I argued (with illustrations in the linked posts) that this ignores the fact that there are many ways that time can pass within a panel.

Putting together the Dept of Monsterology TPB, I came across this rather nice illustration of my point:



The comedy in the PAF derives from the passage of time within the preceding panel, which is created by the TSSSSSSS sound effect. Without the sound effect, we have no way of knowing whether the image is intended to present us with an instantaneous reaction shot from the vampire or a longer moment of puzzlement. PJ could have repeated the panel, or repeated it with a push in or a pull out, but that's a wasteful way to demonstrate the passage of time when it can be achieved in a single panel with just a long sound effect.

I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't dispute that time generally passes between panels in comics, but* the use of the form is enriched by also thinking about how time can pass within panels.

Cheers

Jim

*And I'm not specifically taking issue with Steven, here — I'd had this exact argument over on Sequential Workshop a couple of years ago and hadn't realised that the contrary view was being rigidly adhered to because it was coming from McCloud's book.

Think flexibility is the way to view points like this; panels and the space between could show any number of things and if you have to work a bit then that's no bad thing, innovation is rewarding. Avoiding confusing or muddled, of course.

The example of  characters using a twisting staircase is one that cropped up again, and I'm wondering if people find that as jarring as I do. I can see what's being attempted and I know it's one character rather than several, but it feels muddled. Most artists draw the splash page and superimpose panels to show snapshots in time. I prefer that, but can see it's personal preference. Interesting stuff.

I flatted a bit of Millar's MPH recently and that has some breathtaking Fegredo examples of time elapsing within panels. It has been done and it can be done and when done right it's phenomenal.

Fegredo is an absolute master of the medium -- I've thought that since Kid Eternity, and I have no idea why he isn't the most sought-after artist in the industry.

(Also: flatting Fegredo for Peter Doherty? Almost certainly sounds a lot cooler than it actually was (I've done some flatting; exciting it ain't) but well done, all the same!)

Cheers

Jim

Okay, I'll be the one who makes himself look dim. What's flatting? Is it just making layer after layer of solid colours of the right sizes and shapes, so that whoever's doing the colouring can come along and have fun doing all the exciting lighting and grading stuff without having to worry about staying inside the lines? Is it staying inside the lines? Is that what it is - staying inside the lines?

Quote from: sauchie post office on 09 August, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
What's flatting? Is it just making layer after layer of solid colours of the right sizes and shapes, so that whoever's doing the colouring can come along and have fun doing all the exciting lighting and grading stuff without having to worry about staying inside the lines?

It's precisely this and it's so dull that most colourists subcontract it out.

There's a couple of Photoshop plug-ins that are supposed to make the process easier but I've never managed to get a usable result out of them. Basically it's a case of going in with the lasso tool (not the magic wand, because that leaves you with white areas where the linework is) and creating flat areas of colour to make the process of selecting and rendering easy for the actual colourist.

Flats look something like this:



It's not even important what colours you use, just that the colourist has the page broken up into easily selectable areas that correspond to the objects in the panel s/he will want to colour.

Cheers

Jim

That explanation makes no sense to me. Even with the pictures.

If a colourist colours, then why would someone else start it off for them? That's not a facetious question. It seems to me that it is double the work.

Or is it a computer-related thing?

Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 09 August, 2014, 10:08:42 AM
If a colourist colours, then why would someone else start it off for them? That's not a facetious question. It seems to me that it is double the work.

Because there is a very mechanical process at the start that is simply breaking the linework up into areas of flat colour without leaving white gaps where the actual black lines are. This is in order to make using the the magic wand to select a specific part of the image to work on quick and easy — the actual colours used in the example above likely bear no relation to the ones in the finished page.

Think of it in terms of preparing a canvas for a painting, which is often done by a studio assistant. It's boring and time-consuming, but in most digital workflows, flatting is usually necessary.

Edit to add: here's an excellent illustration (http://flatened.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/another-step-by-step.html) of what flatting is, in relation to the finished page.

Cheers

Jim

So, the black lines are dropped back on top of the blocks?

Just say it's a computery-arty thing.

Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 09 August, 2014, 10:29:28 AM
So, the black lines are dropped back on top of the blocks?

In Photoshop, you work in layers — the black lines sit in a layer of their own above the colours and you work the full colours up from the flats beneath the linework.

QuoteJust say it's a computery-arty thing.

It's a computery-arty thing. :-)

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 09 August, 2014, 09:59:50 AM
There's a couple of Photoshop plug-ins that are supposed to make the process easier but I've never managed to get a usable result out of them. Basically it's a case of going in with the lasso tool (not the magic wand, because that leaves you with white areas where the linework is) and creating flat areas of colour to make the process of selecting and rendering easy for the actual colourist.

Yup - and it takes much longer than it should most times  :-[ - there are rumours that MangaStudio is better for it but I've not a copy and haven't really had time to investigate.... but if there's anything that makes the flatting part of colouring easier (and quicker) I'm up for it!

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine
but if there's anything that makes the flatting part of colouring easier (and quicker) I'm up for it!

But then you'd have to charge less...(!)

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 09 August, 2014, 10:26:12 AM
here's an excellent illustration (http://flatened.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/another-step-by-step.html) of what flatting is, in relation to the finished page

It's probably a sign of my immaturity, but I much prefer the cheerfully psychedelic My Little Pony colour scheme of the flats and the Viking example you provide above to the tastefully muted palette of the finished Lobster Johnson art. Looks like John Higgins's palette on Watchmen:

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 09 August, 2014, 10:38:45 AM
there are rumours that MangaStudio is better for it but I've not a copy and haven't really had time to investigate....

I think you can use MangaStudio's Fill/Paint Bucket tool in a way that you can't with Photoshop because you can:

a) tell the Fill tool to ignore breaks in the linework below a certain number of pixels

b) specify an option for the filled area to be larger than the originally selected area (so it overlaps the linework and avoids the white gaps).

I'll confess, I've been so busy for the last year or so, I've barely drawn a line, traditional or digital.

Cheers

Jim

[edited for broken quote—IP]

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 09 August, 2014, 10:26:12 AMEdit to add: here's an excellent illustration (http://flatened.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/another-step-by-step.html) of what flatting is, in relation to the finished page.

The first coloured version (i.e. the flattened one) could (blue skin aside) almost be right out of the first Hellblazer book.

Like the mad flat colouring too. How I imagine the inside of Brendan McCarthy's head.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 07 August, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
Beginning with: time in comics.

Picking up from the discussion with Steven Denton which starts roughly here (http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,40870.15.html) about how time passes in the comic medium and whether a panel is a 'frozen' instant or not... Steven argues, via Scott McCloud, that a panel is a snapshot and the time passes between the panels, I argued (with illustrations in the linked posts) that this ignores the fact that there are many ways that time can pass within a panel.

Putting together the Dept of Monsterology TPB, I came across this rather nice illustration of my point:



The comedy in the PAF derives from the passage of time within the preceding panel, which is created by the TSSSSSSS sound effect. Without the sound effect, we have no way of knowing whether the image is intended to present us with an instantaneous reaction shot from the vampire or a longer moment of puzzlement. PJ could have repeated the panel, or repeated it with a push in or a pull out, but that's a wasteful way to demonstrate the passage of time when it can be achieved in a single panel with just a long sound effect.

I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't dispute that time generally passes between panels in comics, but* the use of the form is enriched by also thinking about how time can pass within panels.

Cheers

Jim

*And I'm not specifically taking issue with Steven, here — I'd had this exact argument over on Sequential Workshop a couple of years ago and hadn't realised that the contrary view was being rigidly adhered to because it was coming from McCloud's book.

I was Just presenting Scott McCloud's argument to be argumentative as a response to a completely different statement. I had never really thought about it in any great detail and after re-reading Scott McCloud I am pretty sure that the way I used his argument was not how it was intended at all. The conclusion I came too, is that although the image in a frame is frozen like a photograph (some times a trick photo where the same people appear a number of times) we know that dialogue and sounds take time but it's only by the frames or lack of frames either side that that time is allowed to pass. the thing that always bugged me about superhero comics was how much time they spent in fights talking. either they spend an awfully lot of time standing still between punches or they talk really damn fast. I know how long it takes to throw a punch and I know how long it takes to say a couple of sentences and it just didn't match up.

The important thing to remember is that timing in comics is controlled both by the flow of frames and the content of the frame, weather that is sounds dialogue captions or actions.

Macloud talks a lot about closure, meaning the assumptions we make between frames that can bridge the gap of a relatively small action or make a giant narrative leap. I think it's helpful to understand the rules/tools of the medium then break and bend or use them as you see fit.     

I thought I'd chip-in on this thread about mechanics to speak to the writers among us and to talk about one of the most ignored facts (in my opinion) in writing - the structure of a story.
.
In his book "The Seven Basic Plots, Why we tell stories", Christopher Booker argues that the overwhelming majority of stories are based upon or combinations of just seven archetypal plots.
.
He cites the oldest known recorded story, "The Epic of Gilgamesh", a Sumerian tale from 5,000 years ago, to support his case. The kingdom of Uruk is threatened by a terrible monster, Gilgamesh answers the call, visits the armourers to get special weapons, embarks on a dangerous journey and finally, after a superhuman effort, defeats the monster in his underground lair, saves his kingdom and returns a hero. Compare this with your typical James Bond film in which the United Kingdom is threatened by a terrible monster, Bond answers the call and visits Q to get special weapons, embarks on a dangerous journey and finally, after a superhuman effort, defeats the monster in his underground lair, saves his country and returns a hero.
.
As a further example, compare Beowolf and the film of Jaws: A monster brings chaos and terror and death to a place on the shore, the townsfolk's countermeasures fail, a hero comes from across the sea to fight the monster in its own environment in a brutal struggle, destroys the monster and saves the land. The only difference is that the shark in Jaws didn't have a mother or partner to ramp-up the ending a bit.
.
The point is that stories, at least 95% of them at any rate, have a definite shape and, even though the audience isn't consciously aware that they know this, they do know it, understand it and even expect it. I think that many stories fail because the writer hasn't paid attention to the structure of the story they're telling and the audience picks up on that without necessarily knowing why.
.
I have found that paying attention to story structure is a virtually unbeatable way to combat writers' block - because it tells you what your protagonist should be doing at each stage of the story. I have found this particularly helpful when plotting the middle of a story; the middles being notoriously difficult to write.
.
To learn more about structure, Google "John Truby" and see if you can download the recordings of his screenwriting lectures.

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 08 August, 2014, 10:17:44 PM
I flatted a bit of Millar's MPH recently and that has some breathtaking Fegredo examples of time elapsing within panels. It has been done and it can be done and when done right it's phenomenal.

Nice one. I bought the first couple of issues of that. Phenomenal art.

Well flatted!

This thread is great reading. The board actually seems to be mainly about comics again recently(!), after a summer of politics and 'best quiff/spliff ever' nonsense.

Necropost!

A new blog post from me, dealing with how time passes within a frame, and how lettering placement can affect it... an example from a classic Swamp Thing scene.

—Click here— (http://clintflickerlettering.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/adventures-in-space-and-time.html)

Cheers!

Jim

Excellent observation, Jim. I wonder how you'd write something like that into a script? I do sometimes indicate a pause by writing something like:

CHARACTER: AT LEAST I GOT YOU WATCHING MY BACK, RIGHT?

CHARACTER (LONG JOIN): JOE?

But that's usually just within one panel. That ST example obviously transcends such a basic trick. I'd love to see how the script described that gag.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 01 February, 2016, 02:30:28 PM
Excellent observation, Jim. I wonder how you'd write something like that into a script? I do sometimes indicate a pause by writing something like:

CHARACTER: AT LEAST I GOT YOU WATCHING MY BACK, RIGHT?

CHARACTER (LONG JOIN): JOE?

That would certainly work. Equally common now is the balloon-with-an-ellipsis to denote pauses or beats:

Yeah - that's good. I guess a lot depends on the artwork, shape of the panel and such. I suppose writing something like "BEAT" or "PAUSE" would work, too.

I think a good artist always looks at things like that and I've always believed that a good letterer is worth his/her weight in gold.

Some fascinating reading here, Jim.

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 01 February, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Some fascinating reading here, Jim.

Thanks, HM. Trying to make time for more bloggage... the work/life thing has been seriously out of kilter for the last year...*

Cheers!

Jim

*Just over 6,400 pages lettered in 2015. Apart from the five I did for 2000AD, I did think it too many!

How did I miss this thread back in 2014...? Very interesting reading. Cheers for the (necro) post, Jim.  ;)

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 01 February, 2016, 01:08:30 PM
Necropost!

A new blog post from me, dealing with how time passes within a frame, and how lettering placement can affect it... an example from a classic Swamp Thing scene.

—Click here— (http://clintflickerlettering.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/adventures-in-space-and-time.html)

Cheers!


Jim

Great stuff

Knowing how meticulously Alan Moore visualises a page and orchstrates it, could it have been in the original script?  (Not that I'm trying to downplay the importance of the letterer or editor in these kind of decisions, but , you know, Alan Moore...!) :)

Quote from: Leigh S on 01 February, 2016, 09:10:30 PM
Great stuff

Thanks!

QuoteKnowing how meticulously Alan Moore visualises a page and orchstrates it, could it have been in the original script?  (Not that I'm trying to downplay the importance of the letterer or editor in these kind of decisions, but , you know, Alan Moore...!) :)

I've seen a few Alan Moore scripts and whilst they're brain-melting in their level of detail, I don't think I've ever seen one that suggests he specifies balloon placements. There's just no realistic way of doing that without seeing the art (beyond the occasional general script instruction like 'Caption (Top Left)' or 'Caption (Bottom Right)').

It's worth also mentioning that the 'fix' is only necessary because of the composition of the main panel. If the composition had been mirrored then the straddling balloon wouldn't have been necessary (and I wonder whether a modern editor wouldn't simply have got the production guys to flip the big frame in Photoshop). That said, I call it a 'fix', but the fact that the eye has to travel right-to-left, against its natural reading direction, introduces an element of effort and disorientation that serves the narrative purpose well.

Whoever's idea it was, they should definitely take a bow.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 01 February, 2016, 09:47:54 PM

Quote from: Leigh S on 01 February, 2016, 09:10:30 PM
Great stuff

Thanks!

QuoteKnowing how meticulously Alan Moore visualises a page and orchstrates it, could it have been in the original script?  (Not that I'm trying to downplay the importance of the letterer or editor in these kind of decisions, but , you know, Alan Moore...!) :)

I've seen a few Alan Moore scripts and whilst they're brain-melting in their level of detail, I don't think I've ever seen one that suggests he specifies balloon placements. There's just no realistic way of doing that without seeing the art (beyond the occasional general script instruction like 'Caption (Top Left)' or 'Caption (Bottom Right)').

It's worth also mentioning that the 'fix' is only necessary because of the composition of the main panel. If the composition had been mirrored then the straddling balloon wouldn't have been necessary (and I wonder whether a modern editor wouldn't simply have got the production guys to flip the big frame in Photoshop). That said, I call it a 'fix', but the fact that the eye has to travel right-to-left, against its natural reading direction, introduces an element of effort and disorientation that serves the narrative purpose well.

Whoever's idea it was, they should definitely take a bow.

Cheers

Jim

Cool how such seemingly little details can spark in comics - you're right of course -  If Mr Moore had scripted it, why not just script it so the art was the other way round. Either as a fix to aid the flow once the art presented itself, or as a premeditated act of storytelling, it is smart thinking all round

Yeah, that is class.

Fascinating stuff, Jim.

Your blog post reminded of a discussion on Jim Shooter's blog of a few years ago, which shed light on the traditional DC lettering process compared to the traditional Marvel method.

Marvel style: writers were responsible for balloon/caption placement (as dialogue and captions were written after art pencils)
DC style: pencillers indicated balloon/caption placement (as pencillers worked from full scripts)

The following was a surprise.

Jim Shooter: "In my career, I have never had a letterer place balloons, nor was I asked to allow it, nor did anyone volunteer to do it, or seem to expect that they should."

Nate Piekos comments on Jim Shooter's blog that he places lettering 50% of the time – some editors are responsible for that.

I was aware that pencillers would sometimes indicate placement but I thought that was just a suggestion. I pretty much assumed placement was considered the responsibility of the letterer – which I would guess is the case in the UK?

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/05/lettering-and-balloon-placement-memo.html

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 02 February, 2016, 01:26:19 AM
I was aware that pencillers would sometimes indicate placement but I thought that was just a suggestion. I pretty much assumed placement was considered the responsibility of the letterer – which I would guess is the case in the UK?

I've seen placements on exactly three jobs: the artist on one Classical Comics book supplied placement guides that I told the editor I was ignoring because they were terrible*; D'Israeli basically lettered the entire Channel Evil story I worked on himself, and I don't think I varied from his positioning at all**; Joan Hilty (ex-Vertigo) started an anthology book giving me placements, but as soon as she was satisfied that I knew what I was doing, she stopped.

Placements made a lot more sense when the lettering was done directly onto the pencils and was practically impossible to move once it was down. Some editors still do it but many, I believe the overwhelming majority, don't. Editors are far more over-worked now that they were in the Shooter-era and I suspect these days it's easier to let the letterer get on with it and ask them to move stuff if the editor doesn't like it.

Cheers

Jim

*Really. Balloons with tails stretching the entire width of a page-wide panel, cutting across the throats of multiple characters in the process; tails that pointed to odd body-parts; right-to-left reading orders...

**Which seems like an awful lot of work for no reason. The letterer's main objection to placement guides is that they're a waste of time. If it's the correct/obvious place to put a balloon or caption, then we'd have put them there anyway. If you can't trust the letterer to make the right decision when the correct choice is non-obvious, maybe you should hire a better letterer.

I've never specified placement, but generally been very lucky with letterers.

-pj

Quote from: pauljholden on 02 February, 2016, 09:23:44 AM
I've never specified placement, but generally been very lucky with letterers.

Also: you actually understand that your pages are going to be lettered and leave lots of dead space. I honestly think that specific placements are less important than the artist just roughing in the balloons at the thumbnailing stage so that the composition recognises that there's an additional element to come...

I suspect that you've been less lucky with letterers than letterers have been delighted to work on your pages!

Cheers!

Jim

Kurt Busiek recently did a series of excellent tweets on the importance of leaving head space to the top-left hand side of panels for letterers. Very enlightening.

Love this type of stuff, fantastic post Jim.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 February, 2016, 09:35:31 AM

Quote from: pauljholden on 02 February, 2016, 09:23:44 AM
I've never specified placement, but generally been very lucky with letterers.

Also: you actually understand that your pages are going to be lettered and leave lots of dead space. I honestly think that specific placements are less important than the artist just roughing in the balloons at the thumbnailing stage so that the composition recognises that there's an additional element to come...

I suspect that you've been less lucky with letterers than letterers have been delighted to work on your pages!

Cheers!

Jim

Ah You! I think it helps that a) I used to letter my own work, b) when I did that I worked with the most verbose writer I've ever worked with (and I love him very much, but blimey he can write) and c) I'm a strict proponent of 2000AD's 10 commandments...

To wit:
1 The first person to speak should always be on the left

2 Always leave the top 25% of the panel empty for lettering

3 Leave room for the title and the credits on the first page

4 Leave a 5mm gutter between each panel

5 Keep the camera angles varied and visually interesting

6 Tell the story – show what's relevent

7 Make your characters act and react – show what's relevant

8 Never bleed the story of the last panel of the page – leave room for the
next prog line

9 Lead the readers eye smoothly across the page

10 if you're not sure about something, ask the editorial team


-pj

This thread is a belter, necropost or not.  Re. flatting - correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can make out; it doesn't matter what colours are used; as long as the areas are broken up for the actual colourist...?

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 02 February, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
it doesn't matter what colours are used; as long as the areas are broken up for the actual colourist...?

Exactly that. Where a dedicated flatter is used, that person isn't being hired to make colour choices — the colourist will do that. It's literally just a matter of making the process of selecting different sections of the artwork as easy as possible.

Cheers

Jim

How asinine can this process be? Like say you have two panels, one's a distance shot of two people in a room, fully body shots. The second is a close up of human muscle fibre. I can get the first instance being like the examples on page 1, but would each muscle fibre jn the second example have to be 'flatted' a different colour? Or is it simply filled in entirely with a bucket feature the same colour and the line art is what the colourist is expected to determin detail in a later stage?

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 03 February, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
The second is a close up of human muscle fibre. I can get the first instance being like the examples on page 1, but would each muscle fibre jn the second example have to be 'flatted' a different colour? Or is it simply filled in entirely with a bucket feature the same colour and the line art is what the colourist is expected to determin detail in a later stage?

No, because the muscle as a whole is a 'thing' that the colourist will need to give tone, value and form to. The fibres are detail which the colourist can deal with as they see fit. Hair that is rendered in detail as part of the line art would also be flatted, generally, as a single block of colour.

But you can't fill it with the paint bucket (in Photoshop, at least) because you don't want to leave gaps where the linework is. Notice in this (http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php?topic=40970.msg839379#msg839379) example how the colours are continuous blocks that all meet up flush. It's this requirement that makes flatting both tedious and difficult to automate.

As I said earlier in the thread, there are Photoshop plug-ins that claim to make this process easier, but my limited, amateur experience has never found using these much quicker than doing it the hard way.

Cheers!

Jim

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 03 February, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
How asinine can this process be? Like say you have two panels, one's a distance shot of two people in a room, fully body shots. The second is a close up of human muscle fibre. I can get the first instance being like the examples on page 1, but would each muscle fibre jn the second example have to be 'flatted' a different colour? Or is it simply filled in entirely with a bucket feature the same colour and the line art is what the colourist is expected to determin detail in a later stage?

This is why people are better than algorithms, a good flatter will make a judgement call based on what their colourist prefers (depending on the closeup you may actually want veins and other things flatted separately...)

-pj

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 03 February, 2016, 08:15:59 AM

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 02 February, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
it doesn't matter what colours are used; as long as the areas are broken up for the actual colourist...?

Exactly that. Where a dedicated flatter is used, that person isn't being hired to make colour choices — the colourist will do that. It's literally just a matter of making the process of selecting different sections of the artwork as easy as possible.

Cheers

Jim

Thanks; I get you now.  I totally understand why a colourist would outsource this - Christ, but I hate that lasso tool.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 03 February, 2016, 01:59:11 PM
Thanks; I get you now.  I totally understand why a colourist would outsource this - Christ, but I hate that lasso tool.

If it's Photoshop you're using you can paint the lasso tool selection after clicking a button at the bottom of the toolbox which will give you quick mask mode. You can toggle between that and regular lasso selection. Still a chore but a bit more bearable. If that makes any sense.

Fascinating thread, keeping up with most of it except what flattening is!

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 03 February, 2016, 02:31:29 PM

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 03 February, 2016, 01:59:11 PM
Thanks; I get you now.  I totally understand why a colourist would outsource this - Christ, but I hate that lasso tool.

If it's Photoshop you're using you can paint the lasso tool selection after clicking a button at the bottom of the toolbox which will give you quick mask mode. You can toggle between that and regular lasso selection. Still a chore but a bit more bearable. If that makes any sense.

Cheers, i use GIMP these days though; it's 100% cheaper! Maybe there's a similar function though?

I've never got the hang of colouring on Photoshop (or GIMP), thankfully I rarely have cause to use it (being an old-timey mural painter and portrait drawererer).  Still, wouldn't mind having the know-how.  I was just listening to the Kev Walker interview on the Thrillcast yesterday; it was fascinating to hear his process for selecting colours to use in Mandroid etc.  I didn't know the half of it.  Nor did that chap who coloured America 2, but that's for another thread...

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 03 February, 2016, 11:04:39 PM

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 03 February, 2016, 02:31:29 PM
If it's Photoshop you're using you can paint the lasso tool selection after clicking a button at the bottom of the toolbox which will give you quick mask mode. You can toggle between that and regular lasso selection. Still a chore but a bit more bearable. If that makes any sense.

Cheers, i use GIMP these days though; it's 100% cheaper! Maybe there's a similar function though?

I've never used GIMP but a quick search online and I see yes, it has pretty much the same function as PS:  GIMP Quick Mask (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRMHJDdBO8)

(BTW the quick mask is red because of ye olde Rubylith masking film which I used many a time pre-computer days.)

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 03 February, 2016, 02:31:29 PM
If it's Photoshop you're using you can paint the lasso tool selection after clicking a button at the bottom of the toolbox which will give you quick mask mode. You can toggle between that and regular lasso selection. Still a chore but a bit more bearable. If that makes any sense.

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping how going into/out of quick mask helps, but you can toggle in and out of that mode with the Q key.

(Also flatting goes a little quicker if you remember ALT-backspace/CMD-backspace fills your selection with the foreground/background colour.)

Quote from: maryanddavid on 03 February, 2016, 10:57:26 PM
Fascinating thread, keeping up with most of it except what flattening is!

Not flattening, flatting — literally filling areas of the artwork with flat colour.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 04 February, 2016, 12:22:49 AM

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 03 February, 2016, 11:04:39 PM

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 03 February, 2016, 02:31:29 PMselection. Still a chore but a bit more bearable. If that makes any sense.

Cheers, i use GIMP these days though; it's 100% cheaper! Maybe there's a similar function though?

If it's Photoshop you're using you can paint the lasso tool selection after clicking a button at the bottom of the toolbox which will give you quick mask mode. You can toggle between that and regular lasso
I've never used GIMP but a quick search online and I see yes, it has pretty much the same function as PS:  GIMP Quick Mask (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRMHJDdBO8)

Thanks! one day I'll get the hang of the computer colouring lark.  I think my introduction to computer colouring was Milligan and Bachalo's early Shade the Changing Man, before Vertigo was called Vertigo.  I was impressed; until Alan Craddock came on the scene in the prog and I missed all the Bisley clones something rotten.

I confess that I was entranced by Ezquerra's early-adopter colouring on The Tenth Planet/Wilderlands. Those vivid lava fields were so exciting, I was convinced we were on the cusp of some amazing new artistic movement.  Several views of the Lloyds Building later I wasn't so sure, and that was long before we got to the Blythe Wooden Table Texture era.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 04 February, 2016, 07:06:42 AM
Not flattening, flatting — literally filling areas of the artwork with flat colour.

Oh, I see - so, here's a gag from prog 538 that's taken me 28 and a bit years to get...

(http://s123.photobucket.com/user/Lobo_Baggins/media/Flatin2_zpsbo67rx0w.jpg.html)

I was only re-reading that last night.  I thought the joke was that the McCoys listed all the things they did beginning with 'F' but then were stuck so had to make up a word (the obvious one being out of the question given the temperament of the local ladies).

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 04 February, 2016, 07:06:42 AM
I'm not sure I'm quite grasping how going into/out of quick mask helps, but you can toggle in and out of that mode with the Q key.

For example I might need to mask off a person. I make a selection using lasso tool. I might need to deal with an intricate shape or something that requires feathering eg hair. Easier to paint that area of the selection using quick mask and then go back to lasso selection. I might decide I need to add another shape. For speed especially if it contains straight lines I would use lasso tool.

Of course there are many ways to achieve the same results with PS. I might also use paths or layer masks. 

Quote from: SuperSurfer on 04 February, 2016, 02:22:54 PM
For example I might need to mask off a person. I make a selection using lasso tool. I might need to deal with an intricate shape or something that requires feathering eg hair. Easier to paint that area of the selection using quick mask and then go back to lasso selection.

Got you. Yes. Yes, it absolutely is. I used to paint quickmask selections and then convert to path to make complex clipping paths less laborious when I worked in design/production. Dunno if you've ever tried to clip a BMX off its background with the pen tool, but it's a shitload easier doing those spokes with a constrained pencil tool!

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 03 February, 2016, 09:48:35 AM

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 03 February, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
The second is a close up of human muscle fibre. I can get the first instance being like the examples on page 1, but would each muscle fibre jn the second example have to be 'flatted' a different colour? Or is it simply filled in entirely with a bucket feature the same colour and the line art is what the colourist is expected to determin detail in a later stage?

No, because the muscle as a whole is a 'thing' that the colourist will need to give tone, value and form to. The fibres are detail which the colourist can deal with as they see fit. Hair that is rendered in detail as part of the line art would also be flatted, generally, as a single block of colour.

But you can't fill it with the paint bucket (in Photoshop, at least) because you don't want to leave gaps where the linework is. Notice in this (http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php?topic=40970.msg839379#msg839379) example how the colours are continuous blocks that all meet up flush. It's this requirement that makes flatting both tedious and difficult to automate.
Cheers!

Jim

Right, gotcha. I'll have to give it a shot someday just to say I've at least tried!

Hey Jim, I forgot to ask you before - what did you think of the comic typeface on the Future Shock DVD box?  Personally I would have thought it looked ok if I hadn't had the insights you've given here on the art of comic lettering; it seems to have broken quite a few of the rules you've mentioned and obviously isn't done by a comics creator.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 February, 2016, 12:41:12 PM
Hey Jim, I forgot to ask you before - what did you think of the comic typeface on the Future Shock DVD box?

I'll confess, I haven't seen it, although the blurry preview I just pulled up had crossbar 'I's that would be visible from space, so I'm going to go out on a limb and concur that it wasn't done by a pro letterer.

(That said, 'getting the production guy to do it' is no excuse for it looking like shit. What graphic designer worth their salt, when asked to make something look like medium they are unfamiliar, with just googles 'Comic Book Font' and says "Fuck it, that'll do"?)

Cheers!

Jim

I'll admit to not really understanding the philosophy of flatting. 

Do people find it faster to produce pages this way?

Quote from: James Dilworth on 05 February, 2016, 06:15:38 PM
I'll admit to not really understanding the philosophy of flatting. 

Do people find it faster to produce pages this way?

It's not a philosophy or a stylistic/artistic choice, it's a necessity of the four-colour printing process. I'll refer again to the example on the first page of this thread which shows the flats without the linework.

If you just went and selected areas of the art with the magic wand, you'd end up with white gaps in the colours where the linework is. You absolutely do not want this, because if the printing press is out of register by the tiniest fraction then you'll get a white halo around the art.

Selecting with the magic wand would unquestionably be the quickest and easiest way of making selections, but creates problems at the print/production end. Any solution that makes sure that there are no white gaps in the colours solves this problem — flatting like this also makes it easier to render the final colours, because it creates easily selectable areas out of the art.

Cheers!

Jim

I understand the mechanics of it.

I don't understand why a modern colour artist would choose to work this way.

Why not just lay down a base colour layer, much like a traditional underpainting, and put it on multiply.  Then work onto that layer with varous brushes and the artists own individual technique?

Colour separations and selections just seem like a long, drawn out and slightly mechanical way of producing artwork.

Before the Council decided they had the right to throw all my stuff away, I had a Wacom tablet (oh, how I miss it!) and I used to trace images in Corel Draw, a vector graphics program. It was time-consuming and fiddly work (being nothing more than advanced tracing) but I found the results to be far better than Photoshop-type work.

First I'd trace, by hand, the black lines - one by one - then merge them onto one layer. Then I'd trace out the colour layers underneath, which I suppose is a bit like flatting. I was generally pleased with the results.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 05 February, 2016, 07:32:41 PM
Colour separations and selections just seem like a long, drawn out and slightly mechanical way of producing artwork.

There's no reason I can think of why you couldn't work like that, and I'm not saying that every comic is coloured this way. TBH, I think it's a product of the stupidly short deadlines everyone works to in comics — it enables the job to be subdivided and the load spread between multiple people... more or less the same reason why there are pencillers and inkers.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 05 February, 2016, 07:42:41 PMTBH, I think it's a product of the stupidly short deadlines everyone works to in comics

That's fair.  Everyone has to get the comic out on time.  Probably just my personal tastes/bias.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 05 February, 2016, 07:32:41 PM
I understand the mechanics of it.

I don't understand why a modern colour artist would choose to work this way.

Why not just lay down a base colour layer, much like a traditional underpainting, and put it on multiply.  Then work onto that layer with varous brushes and the artists own individual technique?

Colour separations and selections just seem like a long, drawn out and slightly mechanical way of producing artwork.

Actually, you know what, I apologize for this post.

Who the fuck am I to question other people's work methods and techniques? 

I don't like it when it's done to me and it's stupid of me to do it to other artists.

Sorry.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 05 February, 2016, 05:49:38 PM

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 February, 2016, 12:41:12 PM
Hey Jim, I forgot to ask you before - what did you think of the comic typeface on the Future Shock DVD box?

crossbar 'I's that would be visible from space

That was the first thing I noticed!  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to spot that if you'd never mentioned it here before, but I subconsciously would have known something was off.  Or maybe you've just made me hypercritical of lettering ;)

Really enjoying this thread. Z

Quote from: James Dilworth on 05 February, 2016, 08:12:08 PM
Actually, you know what, I apologize for this post.

No apology needed, sir.

Cheers!

Jim

I am too, not that I understand much of it, I know deadlines can be a big problem.

Here's a thing I was wondering a bit about lately.

Why is it that so many comics put every emphasised word in bold? Alan Moore does it extensively; and it's common in American comics in general - it's also done in the prog; but to a lesser extent. 

As a seasoned comic reader I've grown used to it and barely notice, but I can't help thinking it's a bit unnecessary - text novels don't do it (except if it's very important to stress the word in question) and many great comics writers like John Wagner keep it to a minimum.  The reader is perfectly capable of unconsciously stressing the words as he/she reads them, in my opinion.

Garth Ennis slags the practise off in The Boys, and in fact rarely does it himself.  Linkara also parodies it hilariously when acting out the comics he's crucifying over at Atop the Fourth Wall.  For me, it can absolutely ruin a strip when the writer puts the 'wrong' words in bold; i.e. the ones that would not actually be stressed if the dialogue was spoken aloud - I found early Nikolai Dante to be absolutely riddled with this kind of thing, and I thought the story really picked up when Robbie Morrison 'fixed' the dialogue (i.e. massively reduced the amount of bold type, thus making the dialogue flow naturally).

Now, I have nothing against the bold-type for stressed words thing if it's done properly.  Alan Moore uses it a lot in Watchmen; and it works, of course, because he knows the score what words are stressed. But I can't help thinking it would work just as well if he didn't bother with it half as much.

A nice tutorial on how to draw detailed buildings on a computer on artist Thomas Romain's Twitter page.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 17 February, 2016, 01:40:25 PM
Here's a thing I was wondering a bit about lately.

Why is it that so many comics put every emphasised word in bold? Alan Moore does it extensively; and it's common in American comics in general - it's also done in the prog; but to a lesser extent. 

As a seasoned comic reader I've grown used to it and barely notice, but I can't help thinking it's a bit unnecessary - text novels don't do it (except if it's very important to stress the word in question) and many great comics writers like John Wagner keep it to a minimum.  The reader is perfectly capable of unconsciously stressing the words as he/she reads them, in my opinion.

Garth Ennis slags the practise off in The Boys, and in fact rarely does it himself.  Linkara also parodies it hilariously when acting out the comics he's crucifying over at Atop the Fourth Wall.  For me, it can absolutely ruin a strip when the writer puts the 'wrong' words in bold; i.e. the ones that would not actually be stressed if the dialogue was spoken aloud - I found early Nikolai Dante to be absolutely riddled with this kind of thing, and I thought the story really picked up when Robbie Morrison 'fixed' the dialogue (i.e. massively reduced the amount of bold type, thus making the dialogue flow naturally).

Now, I have nothing against the bold-type for stressed words thing if it's done properly.  Alan Moore uses it a lot in Watchmen; and it works, of course, because he knows the score what words are stressed. But I can't help thinking it would work just as well if he didn't bother with it half as much.

Bolding comes in two forms. Some people bold for emphasis and some for Key words. According to Will Eisner you should bold the important words in text so that it can be read at a glance. If you can get the gist of a block of text from just the key words their is a lot less chance of misinterpretation. In a way it subliminally directs you to the intended interpretation.

Thanks! I suppose comics being a primarily visual medium, there's more chance people will just skim over the text rather than reading it carefully.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 19 February, 2016, 07:46:18 AM
Thanks! I suppose comics being a primarily visual medium, there's more chance people will just skim over the text rather than reading it carefully.

I dislike the 'bold important words' thing. I understand it, but I don't like it. For me, it pulls me out of the narrative by breaking the meter of the dialogue.

To re-use my illustration of a previous discussion of the difference...



However, I also agree with JBC about the over-use of emphasis in the naturalistic style — it presupposes that the reader lacks the ability to infer speech patterns when (as JBC notes) they seem to manage it perfectly well in novels and other prose narratives, which might occasionally deploy the very rare italic or all caps emphasis.. I've had a couple of scripts recently where 'normal' dialogue is the standard all-caps but has four different lettering styles that deviate from it, sometimes all in the same balloon... even I can't figure out the distinction between some of these styles, and I'm lettering the thing!

Cheers

Jim

Good illustration, Jim. The style in the first balloon drives me crazy, probably because I'm mentally reading it as the second style. I'm not keen on either, TBH, but sometimes the latter works well to catch a very distinctive speech pattern, as Moore did in conjunction with... ellipses in... Swamp Thing. But not everyone is Swampy. Or Alan Moore.

All of the crap with bold text just makes me think everyone in the comic is doing a Shatner when speaking.

In my opinion, key work bolding is useful for kids comics, or comics with a audience with a younger reading age. Bolding for emphasis can be used cleverly but it's mostly useful for a kind of Stan Lee, over dramatic voice. nothing inherently wrong with either of these.

As far as I am aware they are conventions from when comics were for kids. comics for an adult readership don't really need.

Quote from: Tordelback on 19 February, 2016, 09:49:31 AM
Good illustration, Jim. The style in the first balloon drives me crazy, probably because I'm mentally reading it as the second style.

Exactly why Nikolai Dante used to drive me mental in the early days.

'WHO hired you?'  'There's a FEW things I've been meaning to tell you.'

I've just been editing a Dredd script, paring it down. It's really difficult to get rid of this altogether. I try not to use it over much but not using it at all just doesn't feel right. I guess it feels like the word equivalent of "swoosh" lines in the artwork - you don't need them on a swinging fist but, somehow, sometimes you have to admit they do look better.

In two minds about this. On the one hand I know bolding isn't necessary. On the other, sometimes it just feels right.

Forgot to say, thanks to everyone for the input - I never knew, for example, that there were two reasons for bolding words (though I still think both are often overused).

I love good, natural, flowing dialogue - John Wagner does it well, of course, but for my money the two best 2000ad stories ever for convincing dialogue were Halo Jones and Zenith. 

You wanna try Image's 'Sex'. The letter in that Rus Wooton uses different colour highlights to 'bold' words. Its incredibly irriating in whats an otherwise fantastic comic.

I have no idea if that's a regular thing for him, or a direction from the writer Joe Casey, but 26 issues in I've still not got used to it.

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 20 February, 2016, 10:08:56 PM
You wanna try Image's 'Sex'. The letter in that Rus Wooton uses different colour highlights to 'bold' words. Its incredibly irriating in whats an otherwise fantastic comic.

I have no idea if that's a regular thing for him, or a direction from the writer Joe Casey, but 26 issues in I've still not got used to it.

Came from Casey. I know, because I remember Rus showing some samples from the first issue and a whole bunch of us basically went: "Rus! What the actual fuck?!"

Clearly, Casey thinks it's a thing, if he's still insisting on it after two years, but I thought it was an unnecessary attempt to reinvent the wheel when I first saw it, and I still do now.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 20 February, 2016, 11:11:34 PM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 20 February, 2016, 10:08:56 PM
You wanna try Image's 'Sex'. The letter in that Rus Wooton uses different colour highlights to 'bold' words. Its incredibly irriating in whats an otherwise fantastic comic.

I have no idea if that's a regular thing for him, or a direction from the writer Joe Casey, but 26 issues in I've still not got used to it.

Came from Casey. I know, because I remember Rus showing some samples from the first issue and a whole bunch of us basically went: "Rus! What the actual fuck?!"

:lol: This is brilliant stuff, the thread and the jokes.

There's a lot of weird lettering stuff out there, and it's only becoming more jarring as I notice it. I've been ploughing through my Marvel artwork, and some of the lettering within is atrocious, notably in one book where it switches from reasonable caps to an oddball and spidery sentence case. Elsewhere, one of the all-caps fonts looks like it was scratched on to the page with a fountain pen.

2000 AD, fortunately, seems largely immune to such craziness, although it does annoy me a bit that one of the letterers feels the need to spin a Q 90 degrees clockwise. Even on the characters Q evolved from, the tail never went left, only straight down. *grumble*

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 February, 2016, 03:25:49 PM
There's a lot of weird lettering stuff out there, and it's only becoming more jarring as I notice it. I've been ploughing through my Marvel artwork, and some of the lettering within is atrocious

I have no idea what's going on with Marvel's lettering. For every book that manages to do something interesting (the Waid/Samnee Daredevil, for instance) there's a massive stack of them that look like absolute crap. There are books done by experienced, competent letterers like Joe Caramagna that still look like crap.

I believe Virtual Calligraphy made a fairly aggressive pitch to get the deal on all the Marvel books, and I've heard that means a crazy turnaround time — two books a day, I've heard unofficially. That may well all be bollocks, but if I was routinely lettering 44-48 pages a day, you wouldn't be seeing my best work,either.

Which is slightly depressing, but symptomatic of the fact that no one gives a shit about the lettering.

Cheers

Jim

I really enjoy your explanations Jim, always very useful.

I haven't read any Marvel comics in years, but last time I read Punished comics they were using lower case rather than the usual capitals.

Now, I'm not sure why they use capitals in comics but it's what I've grown up with, and lower case just didn't feel right.