Why does modern coloring suck?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why does modern coloring suck?
Why does modern coloring suck?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Everything is colored in a vacuum. They look at the official Batman colors and color Batman. The official Bane colors and color Bane. There's no understanding of the piece as a whole, so you get shit like the one on the left having everything lit from above with a sinister yellow light, while the one on the right doesn't even think about the lighting of the scene.
This anon is almost right. The main issue is that the coloring is done by someone other than the artist. Western comics (primarily Big Two) comics, are done in an assembly line manner, with different artists doing different parts of the process. The colorist doesn't really know what the artist had in mind, and just tosses something out.
When Bolland recolored The Killing Joke it fricking sucked.
How do you frick up that badly. I guess he'd say it's his original vision for the art but it fricking sucks. Removes all of the unique character of the work.
Well:
>Brian: I wrote lengthy notes to John about my preference for November colours and the flash-back scenes in monochrome. Then I waited. Titan had acquired the publishing rites in the UK. I waited some more. I then heard that copies of the printed book had arrived at Titan. I asked someone at Titan how it looked - how the colours looked. He said "kinda garish". I eventually got hold of a copy and went into shock. Purple! Orange! I took to my bed inconsolable for two days. Alan had already departed from DC and has, for his own reasons, disassociated himself from the Killing Joke. Alan was always great company and a great raconteur, and I miss him terribly.
He even removed Batman's yellow oval.
Bolland has an interesting definition of "November colors." He made everything drab and gray.
I'm just glad his colored version is considered the inferior version, despite what he may think.
>He even removed Batman's yellow oval.
This is why I don't take the "original intention" thing seriously. The way he drew Batman's symbol was clearly the contemporary version. Saying that he would've preferred the pre-new look version(which is a fair assumption, since he loves Dick Sprang) is pointless when, as a batbook made in 88, he likely would've still kept the yellow oval. Same thing goes for the digital colors- the colors he would've had access too with doc martin dyes would be different from what he would choose 15 years later on photoshop.
No it didn't, original coloring is a hackjob.
finding them gaudy is one thing, calling it a hackob is another.
If you ignore the artist's vision to just spray shit out of your ass on the pages then you're a hack. The flashback sequence in particular is a massive frick up.
Yes he is.
For whatever reason, he strongly disagreed with the notion that the flashbacks should be in black and white. It's not a frick-up, it was his call to make as the colorist. No one takes issue with Watchmen's colors.
>b-but the artistic visionimo
Good thing? Good. Shit things? Shit. No one cares about your vision, Brian.
I don't agree with all the coloring choices he made with TKJ, but the guy who colored Watchmen was not a hack.
NTA but that's not an argument, I'd even call the artist from Watchmen a hack, just look at what he did after that and it's an endless stream of crap, just listen to him talk and he'll say he likes the dumbest lamest capeshit ever made, and when you consider how thorough Moore's scripts are then I can't give credit to Gibbons, it would be like praising an actor as a genius because he was in a brilliant movie from a genius filmmaker.
What are you saying? Give Me Liberty was great, and The Originals was still quite good. I'll always appreciate Gibbons because he inks and letters his own stuff, and he sometimes strays for standard formats.
>What are you saying?
He's saying he doesn't read many comics.
> just listen to him talk and he'll say he likes the dumbest lamest capeshit ever made
Like?
You're wrong, Brian.
You're wrong, John.
Ok contrarian
You're out of your depth and need to shut the frick up.
Iirc the original killing joke was colored in gouache. Alex Ross prefers that paint for a reason
The original was done in the same manner.
yeah he really thought he said something there. its always been an assembly line
because it's digital. anything digital sucks by default
Digital coloring is fine, the problem is entirely with poor gradients.
I like 90's digital coloring and some 00's work, it wasn't till late 2000's/early 2010's most things got really muddy and super muted.
I should've posted a better page.
Digital colorists wanting to add detail to drawings, there is a reason that as shows 90s digital coloring looks best because the artists had a lot of restrictions with the at the time new technology.
That's why Robot during the middle of Invincible looks so ugly, because the colorist wants to make him look 3D for example.
Case and point Maxx was digitally colored originally and recolored and while recolor isn't bad, it's not lively and far darker and muddier.
(not the scans for the original aren't as good as the actual book which I own and looks better)
https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Maxx-1993
https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Maxx-Maxximized
both digital.
the irony is that a lot of early digital colors were flat and a lot of early 90's colors that seemed digital were airbrushed.
Not really. There were a lot of 90s comics that were digital and surprisingly a lot were better colored than modern comics. I think there's something that was forgotten in the process, or maybe modern-digital just changed something that needed to be reconsidered
They don't teach gamut mapping
Fear of contrast
It looks like Batman is just laying on a great dane.
The coloring isn't the only downgrade, that DC logo is a MASSIVE downgrade as well. The buckshot DC logo is the GOAT.
They can't use stars in the DC logo now due to their own legal frickups
Why? What's the issue?
They sued the DC Shoes sneaker company for infringement and lost, so they switched to the toilet logo to avoid paying them
Combination of a few things: different kind of paper used in floppies, artistic trends within the industry changing, the switch to digital, and a general lowering of standards for every facet of comics over the passed 35ish years.
i have both of these, is the old print worth anything ? i wouldnt know how to check.
God dang those big thick juicy Bane nipples.
Bane has a shit looking glove for both covers
Kelley Jones has never been known for following character designs to a T
publisher can't affoard good artists
Semi-related, but I notice this a lot about modern live-action and its color correction. Even when it's trying to be colorful, it comes off as really bland. A lot of shit nowadays is very unpleasant visually.
To be fair, who the hell would actually want to read Knightfall, or even worse: Knightquest
It was a good story arc.
because they use computers that auto gradient and auto fill while following the same shitty tutorials. they do not understnad color theory, know how to draw and are not artists. they do not understand how light works. they dont understand print and how inks will affect it. they are paid $2 a page for a reason.
While the right looks worse than the left, it's not like the latter looks good. Bane and Batman sorta blend into each other.