# CBR Community  > Comics Should Be Good >  Art in current comic books

## Alessandro78

Hi everybody,

I started reading comics a couple months ago. I've read in the 80's and 90's. I am currently reading: Superman, Action Comics, Detective Batman, Batman, The Joker, Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing, Harley Quinn, Wonder Woman, JL, Flash, Green Lantern and Infinite Frontier, all printed books. Also from DC, Crisis on Infinite Earths (book). From Marvel I am reading Amazing Spider-Man (printed and digital), Hulk and Daredevil (both digital).

Even though I'm enjoying a lot rediscovering all these heroes and series, there is something that I am not so crazy about**: the art on today's books. I figured that what bothers me more is the colour, not so much the pencil/ink. Yes, some art (pencil) seems a little to "modern" for my taste but most of the time I can understand it and live with it; but the colour... I assume that most if not all the colour are painted digitally...which might be the reason I don't like it. It's too "digital".

It also seems that reading the digital version of the book is even worse. To finish it off, I don't dislike them all. For ex: The Joker, Batman, Nightwing and some others I like it.

So what are your thoughts on today's art? Do you all like it? Does some people read only old comics because of the art?

Thanks.

----------


## CosmiComic

I have noticed differences between old and new comics. I haven't really seen what's "better". I need to take a closer look

----------


## Alessandro78

All kinds of art is subjective, therefore, there is no "better" art. I just wanted to know the opinion on today's art in general, your preferences. Just to make it clear: my opinion in today's art does not make this art "bad art". It's just an opinion.

----------


## CosmiComic

> All kinds of art is subjective, therefore, there is no "better" art. I just wanted to know the opinion on today's art in general, your preferences. Just to make it clear: my opinion in today's art does not make this art "bad art". It's just an opinion.


Ok. I haven't noticed it much myself tbh

----------


## Jim Kelly

I feel like, the more effects driven and digital the art, the less integrated with the story it feels. It's like the writer is doing all the work of telling the story--through dialogue and captions--while the artist is off doing something else and not really involved in the sequential art of story telling.

----------


## captchuck

My biggest problem is that some panels have layouts that can't be easily read. It shouldn't take a long time to figure out which character is which.

----------


## Alessandro78

> I feel like, the more effects driven and digital the art, the less integrated with the story it feels. It's like the writer is doing all the work of telling the story--through dialogue and captions--while the artist is off doing something else and not really involved in the sequential art of story telling.


I agree with you.

----------


## Alessandro78

> My biggest problem is that some panels have layouts that can't be easily read. It shouldn't take a long time to figure out which character is which.


Sometimes I feel the same. Pages should be beautifully simple to read/understand. Too much complexity kills the main purpose of the book.

----------


## green_garnish

For some time there has been an impression that the story should mostly be told through art rather than words.  This is extremely limiting to both art forms and results in a more transitory,  less engaging form of storytelling.

----------


## Zelena

What can I add to what has been already said…

As someone who started reading comics with Jean-Michel Charlier and Christopher Claremont, I’m not afraid of words in comics. A comic with Jean-Michel Charlier (64 pages) lasted at least three quarters of an hour… Three quarters of an hour of adventures.

What saddens me the most in modern US comics is that the comics feel like a pretext for showing “pretty pictures” and not a mean to tell compelling stories: few panels per pages, a story that could tell with half as many pages, poor transitions from a panel to another, characters posing pretentiously in panels… It’s so shallow and stereotypical. Hermetical sometimes when the purpose is not obvious.

A comic can be so good with a good writer and a talented artist who knows his job.

And, yes, OP, I’m not fond of digital colorization, too… Maybe with an artist who takes his/her time, it screams less computer… Most of time, it just feels cheap and out-of-place.

----------


## Alan2099

Just talking about colors, there's a huge difference between the old stuff and the new stuff.  

Let's look at a recolor Jack Kirby image for illustration.  



With the old style, the focus is clear.  The colors really pop drawing your eyes to where they need to be.  Thor is a bold larger than life figure and his bright colors help convey that.   Galactus is shown as a psychedelic abstract character.  He has an inhuman presences and while his presence is there, the character himself really isn't.  


Newer style there's less of a focus.  You have to be realistic so can't use the colors to draw your eyes the same way.  Thor is no longer larger than life.  He's just a guy in a costume.  Even though Galactus is kinda see through, you don't get any strange feelings from the character.  He's just kinda hanging out.  

Another issue is the characters aren't really separated from the background enough.  In the recolor, the little cosmic storm at the bottom draws as much attention as Thor.  

That's just my issues with colors.  With character designs it gets even worse.  Costumes used to be simple and striking.  They presented a larger than life feel that helped to sell idea of superheroes being these huge almost mythical figures.  Now superheroes are just guys wearing tactical gear and body armor.

----------


## Zelena

Indeed, closer you are to the “ligne claire” (“keeping essential traits, removing the accessory ones” Töppfer, 1913), more you produce a drawing that has a inherent strength and a more legible picture.




You can decide to vary the level of detail on the picture to point the gaze on what is interesting.


And if you don’t follow realism, you can use color in a creative and expressive way:



Today there’s certainly a decrease in quality and in creativity…

----------


## captchuck

> Just talking about colors, there's a huge difference between the old stuff and the new stuff.  
> 
> Let's look at a recolor Jack Kirby image for illustration.  
> 
> With the old style, the focus is clear.  The colors really pop drawing your eyes to where they need to be.  Thor is a bold larger than life figure and his bright colors help convey that.   Galactus is shown as a psychedelic abstract character.  He has an inhuman presences and while his presence is there, the character himself really isn't.  
> 
> 
> Newer style there's less of a focus.  You have to be realistic so can't use the colors to draw your eyes the same way.  Thor is no longer larger than life.  He's just a guy in a costume.  Even though Galactus is kinda see through, you don't get any strange feelings from the character.  He's just kinda hanging out.  
> 
> ...


The Kirby original is better in every way. The cropping out of Thor's hand is annoying in the later version. The cropping of Galactus makes him look less regal.

----------


## Alan2099

> Indeed, closer you are to the “ligne claire” (“keeping essential traits, removing the accessory ones” Töppfer, 1913), more you produce a drawing that has a inherent strength and a more legible picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can decide to vary the level of detail on the picture to point the gaze on what is interesting.
> 
> 
> And if you don’t follow realism, you can use color in a creative and expressive way:
> ...


Thank you.  You said that more intelligently than I ever could have.

----------


## Jim Kelly

> Indeed, closer you are to the “ligne claire” (“keeping essential traits, removing the accessory ones” Töppfer, 1913), more you produce a drawing that has a inherent strength and a more legible picture.


Adding to that, something I realized as a kid reading comics is that the inkers were using heavier line weight to make certain figures and details pop in the foreground, and less line weight for backgrounds--and the amount of line weight would vary depending on what the inker wanted to bring out.

I don't see that as much anymore--it's a lot of lines with the same weight. Or, even if the inker is using line weight, then the colourist comes along and changes that bold black line to another colour that melts into the rest of the colours, undermining the whole point of those black lines.

----------


## Zelena

> Adding to that, something I realized as a kid reading comics is that the inkers were using heavier line weight to make certain figures and details pop in the foreground, and less line weight for backgrounds--and the amount of line weight would vary depending on what the inker wanted to bring out.
> 
> I don't see that as much anymore--it's a lot of lines with the same weight. Or, even if the inker is using line weight, then the colourist comes along and changes that bold black line to another colour that melts into the rest of the colours, undermining the whole point of those black lines.




I had this comic once (30 years old comic) the lines of the links of the chains in the foreground were made in a much heavier weight than the ones on the links in the background. The perspective effect was stunning.

In France and I think it’s also the case in Europe, there’s usually one artist with one writer. I never met this duo “penciller + inker”. It provides much coherence in style, I think.

----------


## BeastieRunner

> I feel like, the more effects driven and digital the art, the less integrated with the story it feels. It's like the writer is doing all the work of telling the story--through dialogue and captions--while the artist is off doing something else and not really involved in the sequential art of story telling.


I noticed that, too!



> My biggest problem is that some panels have layouts that can't be easily read. It shouldn't take a long time to figure out which character is which.


The logic of some modern panel placement makes is read differently. I wonder if that is partially on prupose or just bad design?

For example the Allreds did some fun paneling in Silver Surfer but it made sense. Lemire's Trillium plays with paneling, too.

But both made sense and had an internal logic that you could quickly surmise.

Whereas in some recent comics that have had weird panels, it rendered the story nonsensical and it was hard to suss out the correct order. It wasn't a fun game.  :Frown:

----------


## captchuck

> I noticed that, too!
> 
> The logic of some modern panel placement makes is read differently. I wonder if that is partially on prupose or just bad design?
> 
> For example the Allreds did some fun paneling in Silver Surfer but it made sense. Lemire's Trillium plays with paneling, too.
> 
> But both made sense and had an internal logic that you could quickly surmise.
> 
> Whereas in some recent comics that have had weird panels, it rendered the story nonsensical and it was hard to suss out the correct order. It wasn't a fun game.


I loved the Allred's Surfer Books. Both the layout and color made sense.

On the other hand, in a recent Avengers comics, everything was on fire for a good part of the issue and everything was a garish yellow and orange and red with no contrast. The characters fighting through most of the issue were not rendered clearly enough to figure out what I was seeing. Is it a leg, an arm, a foot? I had no idea. Never mind that I also couldn't tell who was who. I ended up just skimming the book because visually,  I couldn't make it out.

----------


## Dr. Skeleton

I grew up on the years of Kirby, Byrne, Lee, McFarlane, etc, and I've noticed a lot of amateurs being hired in today's industry lately.  Art styles with no dynamics or backbone, like it was all done at a lazy, fast pace.  I think DC has better artists than Marvel as they have some vets working with the company.  John Romita Jr.'s artstyle has aged so badly as of late, I dunno if it's due to age or just losing touch.  I wish I could see artists with style reminicent of yesterday's artists, Idk if anybody else feels the same way.

----------


## TiaraPenny

The second I saw you say lazy, fast pace, I immediately thought of Romita Jr.  His work in Action Comics was notoriously horrendous there.

The lazy, rushed feel is widespread and it's due to industry pressures -- like always.  Instead of polished artwork, some of the illustrations look like hastily done sketches which are marketed as being "modern."  Lazy, heavily shaded coloring is "gritty."  Dichromatic coloring is "cleverly stylized."  Like Superman Red and Blue.  The fact that these styles are all cheaper and faster to churn out is no coincidence.  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Dr. Skeleton

> The second I saw you lazy, fast pace, I immediately thought of Romita Jr.  His work in Action Comics was notoriously horrendous there.
> 
> The lazy, rushed feel is widespread and it's due to industry pressures -- like always.  Instead of polished artwork, some of the illustrations look like hastily done sketches which are marketed as being "modern."  Lazy, heavily shaded coloring is "gritty."  Dichromatic coloring is "cleverly stylized."  Like Superman Red and Blue.  The fact that these styles are all cheaper and faster to churn out is no coincidence.


Yeah, compare his old work to his current work, it wasn't a change for the better unlike other artists that had rather evolved and people would immediately know who drew that comic.  If the lazy, fast pace comic art has become a thing now, this is one of the reasons why I yearn for old school comics.

----------


## leapyear baby

> Yeah, compare his old work to his current work, it wasn't a change for the better unlike other artists that had rather evolved and people would immediately know who drew that comic.  If the lazy, fast pace comic art has become a thing now, this is one of the reasons why I yearn for old school comics.


Oh.... people def know who Romita Jr is immediately these days too... just not in a good way...

----------


## Alessandro78

I dropped some books from my list, not because of the art but I was spending a little too much money. Anyways, I agree with you all. Someone said about the European's way of working (writer + one artist); I'm an amateur artist and I prefer doing all by myself: pencil, ink, colour. When I discovered that there are about 3 artists working on the same art, I was shocked. Not saying that doesn't work, but in my opinion a "one man band" is more authentic. Again, my humble opinion.

At the moment from the books I am reading, my two favourite artists by far are Nic Klein (Thor - Donny Cates) and Viktor Bogdanovic (Batman Detective Comics).

----------


## captchuck

> I dropped some books from my list, not because of the art but I was spending a little too much money. Anyways, I agree with you all. Someone said about the European's way of working (writer + one artist); I'm an amateur artist and I prefer doing all by myself: pencil, ink, colour. When I discovered that there are about 3 artists working on the same art, I was shocked. Not saying that doesn't work, but in my opinion a "one man band" is more authentic. Again, my humble opinion.
> 
> At the moment from the books I am reading, my two favourite artists by far are Nic Klein (Thor - Donny Cates) and Viktor Bogdanovic (Batman Detective Comics).



I think one of the problems is very complex art because it is needed when a series is about dozens of characters at a time. It becomes too much for an artist or two to handle a put out the book on time!

----------


## Zelena

> I think one of the problems is very complex art because it is needed when a series is about dozens of characters at a time. It becomes too much for an artist or two to handle a put out the book on time!


The difference is the number of publications (once in a while, each year in Europe vs every month in US) and how the comic is considered and consumed. It remains an handmade product in Europe while in US (and in Japan) its a product of an industry.

Next to the US comics I read when I was a child, there were the hardcovers my brother bought regularly that needed something like months to produce it was more expensive but there were 64 pages, a lot of texts and I needed almost an hour to read them. And there were first published ten, twenty years ago

----------


## Jim Kelly

> I think one of the problems is very complex art because it is needed when a series is about dozens of characters at a time. It becomes too much for an artist or two to handle a put out the book on time!


This is mainly because the current aesthetic demands overly detailed pages--where the details don't add anything to the story. I see this as just gilding the lily so the consumer can see how much they got for their money--versus ephemeral things like composition which are not readily apparent.

Classic cartooning was about reducing the image to the basic essentials. Don't do with several lines what can be done with one. When you get to the essential elements of the figure, movement and expression--the panels don't need to be over-crowded.

Mike Sekowsky's work on the Justice League doesn't get enough respect--his pages are a lesson in how to tell a story with several characters. Sekowsky apparently would spend an hour with a blank page thinking about the lay-out and then in minutes put it down on paper.

----------


## Zelena

> Classic cartooning was about reducing the image to the basic essentials. Don't do with several lines what can be done with one. When you get to the essential elements of the figure, movement and expression--the panels don't need to be over-crowded.


This way of considering comics was also the result of less sophisticated methods of printing media. Even if the color was ugly, the black line was there, making sense and conveying the information.

What I found sad are comics that are way too quick to read: no enough text. It doesnt make feel I got for my money. Beautiful pages are a plus, what matters is the journey and it mustnt be too short

----------


## captchuck

> This is mainly because the current aesthetic demands overly detailed pages--where the details don't add anything to the story. I see this as just gilding the lily so the consumer can see how much they got for their money--versus ephemeral things like composition which are not readily apparent.
> 
> Classic cartooning was about reducing the image to the basic essentials. Don't do with several lines what can be done with one. When you get to the essential elements of the figure, movement and expression--the panels don't need to be over-crowded.
> 
> Mike Sekowsky's work on the Justice League doesn't get enough respect--his pages are a lesson in how to tell a story with several characters. Sekowsky apparently would spend an hour with a blank page thinking about the lay-out and then in minutes put it down on paper.


Yes, This is a very good example of how to make things clear. Mike Sekowsky was a master of this. There are a lot of characters here, but they were always identified well early in the issue so that even a brand new reader could follow the story.

----------


## Xheight

> Oh.... people def know who Romita Jr is immediately these days too... just not in a good way...


well for someone who just weeded and threw away comic boxes of spiderman and others JR jr was in the keep pile.

----------


## Xheight

> This is mainly because the current aesthetic demands overly detailed pages--where the details don't add anything to the story. I see this as just gilding the lily so the consumer can see how much they got for their money--versus ephemeral things like composition which are not readily apparent.
> 
> Classic cartooning was about reducing the image to the basic essentials. Don't do with several lines what can be done with one. When you get to the essential elements of the figure, movement and expression--the panels don't need to be over-crowded.
> 
> Mike Sekowsky's work on the Justice League doesn't get enough respect--his pages are a lesson in how to tell a story with several characters. Sekowsky apparently would spend an hour with a blank page thinking about the lay-out and then in minutes put it down on paper.


thank you for the insight and pages, so true about impact and story essentials.

----------


## FFJamie94

It's... there's  lot more to it than I think People have really talked about.
For me, it comes down to a lot of factors, one is the move to digital colouring, it may not be for everyone, but there's certainly a lot more to play with there and it's a less tedious and cheaper than the old ways of colouring. 
The most important part however is how it's seen, and that's the paper it's printed on/ tablet you are using.

I really, really, REALLY hate the paper Marvel uses, it's cheap, too easily destroyed and it limits the otherwise beautiful artwork on display. Compare that the paper DC is printed on, it's thicker but also the colours pop out more. The Demon Days One-shots are some of the best looking books I've seen from Marvel in a while, but the paper limits it too much. It spoils the look for me. If this was printed on the kind of paper DC uses, it'll pop out more.

A lot of the older books, mostly from 1960's-1990's had pretty rubbish paper, but it worked for the most part. It held together and the art work pops out, there's no interference when reading it. 

Anyway, that's my war on crappy paper.

----------


## 80sForever

The 1980s will always be the peak for me, with a handful of talents that continued in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Amazing comic book cover design/artwork went the way of the dodo around the time of Previews/advanced solicitations.

We live in a world where Jim Lee is Chief Creative Officer of DC Comics and Todd McFarlane runs Image Comics. Both men were mavericks and non-traditional, but they call the shots today and set the new standards. They also like labor on the cheap and don't put much stake in classically trained artists, so it's amateur hour with artwork processed on Macs.

----------


## Sunvox

Prior to this week the last comic I bought was sometime in 1979.  This week I pulled out my box of 220 Silver and Bronze Age comics and started photographing and cataloging each one.  At first my intent was to take advantage of the current market conditions and sell a few of my more valuable books, but I quickly discovered that I was and am still fond of comics and suddenly I wanted to add to my collection rather than sell some off.  Anyways, to the point of this thread.  As a 56 year old I am very set in my ways and find it difficult, at times, to enjoy newer media.  I enjoy old movies and shows and hate the plethora of "Walking Dead" type entertainment, and when my college age children laugh hysterically at a 3 second Vine video of someone looking at a melon and smashing it with a sledgehammer or some such equally silly behavior, I find little humor personally.  All this to say that upon visiting two local comic book stores and perusing the current offerings I found myself longing for the "old style" of art.  As has been said over and over here, I am not passing judgement at all, and I am the first to realize when it's time to step aside and let a new generation take the turn it wants, but just adding to the OP's sentiment that I, too, find older comic book art more appealing than modern.  Anyways, that's it for my first meaningful post here.

Might be interesting to note that as a result the only additions I have made to my collection so far are a handful of Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, and Nova books that were missing from my string of 1-10 of each series, and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them and admiring the art in a way completely different than 10 year old me.  :Smile:

----------


## kcekada

I do miss the Kirby type of storytelling. While his actual art style was very stylized (and not always pleasing), the energy in his work was amazing -- and pretty much determined the Marvel style. Even DC Silver Age artists like Gil Kane employed this style when at Marvel. That seems largely missing from new age artists.  But younger generations may not like that bombastic approach. 

I also miss the old brush style of inking that gave more depth to illustrations. When everything is inked with the same line stroke -- it's boring to me. 

Oh, and covers -- rarely wow me the way they did in the Bronze Age.

----------


## Kirby101

> I do miss the Kirby type of storytelling. While his actual art style was very stylized (and not always pleasing), the energy in his work was amazing -- and pretty much determined the Marvel style. Even DC Silver Age artists like Gil Kane employed this style when at Marvel. That seems largely missing from new age artists.  But younger generations may not like that bombastic approach. 
> 
> I also miss the old brush style of inking that gave more depth to illustrations. When everything is inked with the same line stroke -- it's boring to me. 
> 
> Oh, and covers -- rarely wow me the way they did in the Bronze Age.



Amen Brother! But I disagree that Kirby's art wasn't pleasing. It just wasn't overworked. The thing is he was dynamic and while you could tell he was interested in doing cool pictures at times (his splash and double splash pages) he made storytelling the priority over pretty pictures.

----------


## Johnathan

> Amen Brother! But I disagree that Kirby's art wasn't pleasing. It just wasn't overworked. The thing is he was dynamic and while you could tell he was interested in doing cool pictures at times (his splash and double splash pages) he made storytelling the priority over pretty pictures.


During his early period at Marvel, Kirby's pencils were also much better than the final inked and colored comics on the stand. The rushed production process did not encourage great art and Kirby, Colleta, Infantino, etc. were more concerned about taking care of their families than achieving perfection. "Don't let perfect get in the way of good" was the defining motto. 

The 80's had John Byrne and George Perez in America and the initial wave of British artists as well, Moebius had been a strong influence in Europe and Katsuhiro Otomo really changed the landscape in Manga at that time as well - obviuously Moebius was fairly influential across the world as you can see in Manga and American comics as well. 

However, I have to admit the variety of comic book art today and the general skill level for the professionals is quite high - though the fundamentals of depicting a story in comics sometimes seem a bit lacking. However, while the 80's had great sequential storytelling, the 90's had a lot of terrific artists that weren't great at telling the story on the page.

----------


## Zelena

> During his early period at Marvel, Kirby's pencils were also much better than the final inked and colored comics on the stand. The rushed production process did not encourage great art and Kirby, Colleta, Infantino, etc. were more concerned about taking care of their families than achieving perfection. "Don't let perfect get in the way of good" was the defining motto.


Kirby’s artwork works very well with some subjects and in black and white in my opinion. His style, a bit rough, a bit bizarre, is well suited for prehistoric ages…

----------


## Zelena

> However, I have to admit the variety of comic book art today and the general skill level for the professionals is quite high - though the fundamentals of depicting a story in comics sometimes seem a bit lacking. However, while the 80's had great sequential storytelling, the 90's had a lot of terrific artists that weren't great at telling the story on the page.


Nowadays, a lot of artists make pretty pictures but the faces are expressionless and lack personality… I don’t think they are better artists than the previous ones. With social network, they just have quick feedback and seem to live for the praises.

----------


## Johnathan

> Nowadays, a lot of artists make pretty pictures but the faces are expressionless and lack personality… I don’t think they are better artists than the previous ones. With social network, they just have quick feedback and seem to live for the praises.


Yes - the artistry does not seem to be as much a concern for many artists. They are terrific craftspeople and the tools available make it much easier to develop those skills and the ability to interact with other artists online and get quick feedback certainly is an advantage the classic artists did not have. It's not really a serious criticism of the artists, but more that there isn't greater demand for artistry or artistic innovation from the audience.

----------


## Zelena

> Yes - the artistry does not seem to be as much a concern for many artists. They are terrific craftspeople and the tools available make it much easier to develop those skills and the ability to interact with other artists online and get quick feedback certainly is an advantage the classic artists did not have. It's not really a serious criticism of the artists, but more that there isn't greater demand for artistry or artistic innovation from the audience.


I dont think comic artists were doing experimental and audacious artworks in the past because there was a demand for it. The artists were their first critic and were just having fun in doing things.

When you are starting doing things just for the paycheck or to hear how good you are you are making less efforts and become lazy.

----------


## CliffHanger2

I think a lot of today's comic art is beautiful. But it lacks personality and passion. Nice to look at but nothing to revisit or learn from.

----------


## daredevil1

It doesn't look right to me. It looks like graffiti art, too influenced by DeviantArt (or whatever that tumblr stuff is) drawn by people who don't read comics at all or know the history of the character and influences to keep in mind. Most of it is junk. I remember people didn't like the big anime influence that Joe Mad and the Gen X'ers brought, but at the time it was offset by the traditional old guard. Now the "old guard" is even worse because they can't even draw anymore, like Romita Jr, Bagley, etc.

----------


## Johnathan

> It doesn't look right to me. It looks like graffiti art, too influenced by DeviantArt (or whatever that tumblr stuff is) drawn by people who don't read comics at all or know the history of the character and influences to keep in mind. Most of it is junk. I remember people didn't like the big anime influence that Joe Mad and the Gen X'ers brought, but at the time it was offset by the traditional old guard. Now the "old guard" is even worse because they can't even draw anymore, like Romita Jr, Bagley, etc.


I think a lot of those artists still take the "old guard" approach in that the more pages an artist has to deliver, the art will suffer. Guys like Romita Jr. who had several titles on many different books with tons of characters, are real workhorses and craftsmen who can do that amount of work, but have to have a style than can be put on the page quickly. Same with Manga which has even tighter work demands. Work ethic is even more important than talent - but that is true in any business.

For me, though the art in comics is no worse than it ever was and can be a lot better in many cases today than ten or twenty years ago, the comics are just getting too expensive for any improvement in story or art. As prices approach $6.00 for a single 20-30 page story (that is probably just one chapter in an arc of 6 or more issues), only a few top notch comics are going to justify that, and they aren't likely to be from DC or Marvel.

----------


## Lee Stone

I'm one of the few people out there that prefers the flat colors of old.

I actually prefer the first of these two:

----------


## Jim Kelly

ditto what Lee said

----------


## DotMessenger

The old ones are definitely more expressive. I have nothing at hand to show for comparison, but the replies above already illustrate the same point. The same can be said about cartoons.

----------


## Ozymandias

> I'm one of the few people out there that prefers the flat colors of old.
> 
> I actually prefer the first of these two:


Maybe we aren't a majority, but I doubt we're just a few. As I mentioned in the Miracleman Omnibus thread, I prefer the 80's coloring to the new one, for example.

Digital coloring is OK if the artist knows from the beginning that it's going to be used, but applying that palette to comics drawn with the four color process in mind... it's tricky. The only case when I went for it is the Walt Simonson Thor Omnibus. I still have both that and the floppies and like them equally. I can't decide which version to keep.

In general, I prefer when they reprint with the old colors, even if using new printers and paper will render a different result, like the Epic collection and most omnibi.

----------


## Zelena

> Maybe we aren't a majority, but I doubt we're just a few. As I mentioned in the Miracleman Omnibus thread, I prefer the 80's coloring to the new one, for example.
> 
> Digital coloring is OK if the artist knows from the beginning that it's going to be used, but applying that palette to comics drawn with the four color process in mind... it's tricky. The only case when I went for it is the Walt Simonson Thor Omnibus. I still have both that and the floppies and like them equally. I can't decide which version to keep.
> 
> In general, I prefer when they reprint with the old colors, even if using new printers and paper will render a different result, like the Epic collection and most omnibi.


The problem with this new coloring is that the colorist doesnt mean to know when to stop and doesnt have a global vision More you color and more you change what is already there and has already been done. All these details created fragmented surfaces and the eye of the watcher is a bit lost

Is this a problem of tool? Or expertise? Both probably When the process is slow, you have time to think and have reflexion on what you do. I reread at the moment old comics and Im surprised to see half-way colored panels: the colorist has apparently considered that it was better this way that it functions better with the other panels.

----------


## Johnathan

> I think a lot of today's comic art is beautiful. But it lacks personality and passion. Nice to look at but nothing to revisit or learn from.


It is tough when comics in general do not have the "heat" they once did. Back in the 80's and 90's the comics had a wild variety and they captured something of the spirit of the readership. Then a kind of nostalgia set in on one side and a false "progressive edge" on the other. No matter how technically good the art becomes, it rarely speaks to the hearts of the readers in the same way. 

Eventually that will turn around - comics always go through cycles, but like mentioned above, that will be difficult when it costs $6.00 to buy one issue.

----------

