I do a regular comic strip for TAM

[Dan Henk]

I started out doing it in black and white. The editor really wanted the first one colored, after I had already submitted it. I used an older comics method, and printed the cartoon on watercolor paper. I colored it, and then printed the ink drawing on a transparency, and laid that overtop. That way, the linework was still crisp, but the color was nice and painterly. The only problem is, with my heavily shaded style, it closed up the linework too much, and I didn't like it. I told the publisher I would only do it in black and grey from that point on. The third one, which I'm posting, was the one I was most pleased with, I finally felt comfortable and on a roll, when he decided he really wanted them in color again. So he started having them colored by someone else, and they looked horrible. I agreed to take up coloring duties again, and reverted to the watercolor/linework thing. But I haven't been happy with the results, they look muddy. I was thinking of switching over to doing them in almost full watercolors, with very minimal linework. Any opinions?

[TinyBird]

I have to say I have no idea what is happening in those comics.
Partially because of the writing, the sketchyness of the art and the fact that almost everything's in closeups.
I mean.. a doctor barely touches baby's legs (or then slams the kid to a wall so it cracks its skull, I really can't tell), something happens, then they're in front of a tattoo shop, and baby looks kinda unharmed?
And what's the deal with the tattoo guy? I mean the comic doesn't show he's actually doing any of the revisions the woman asks so I'm assuming he just drew the rose once, and considering that tattoo artists generally take part of a payment beforehand, his reaction is really over the top considering what we saw.
And I haven't had a tattoo, but do tattoo artists generally even do revisions while drawing on skin?

[Nezumi Works]

Some of those faces are a bit scary too. The first time we see the doctor, his whole head is skewed to the right, and the first two panels of the second page the eyes aren't aligned with anything else on the head.

Aside from the logic about the tattoo (which doesn't come anywhere close to my experience with tattooing), his reaction at the end seems utterly random. The writing as a whole isn't very clear, and doesn't really hit a "beat" at the end of the first page like it does on the second, although it seems to be a bit sudden there. A bit more care with the flow of the story would help, is this being written ahead of time as an overall story, or on a page-by-page basis?

Can't say I'm a fan of just a black line separating the panels, it seems a bit crowded. I like there to be an actual gutter, even if it's a small one.

Edited to add: The woman's reaction seems more scared than angry, which disagrees with her dialogue. You might want to take a second look there.

[Pezz]

You don't use any panel gutters. Gutters give the reader time between panels. They suggest that there is some time happening between... when you lose them everything muddles into this big blob of things happening and it becomes confusing the follow the narrative. You can have black gutters but make them at least an eight of an inch thick (or appropriate scaling down for the seemingly smaller format)

The unidirectional hatching isn't working in my opinion. Every line you add to someone's face makes them seem older and your lady looks ancient.

What size do you work at?

Also it seems you hand letter. You don't leave much space for word balloons. Words are like hot air that rises and you never want to put the dialogue below the character unless it serves a purpose or they are whispering etc. All of your word balloons are cropped at the top of the panel and this feels pretty distracting (though this may be a personal peeve). Give you dialogue room to move.

[Elwell]

PeTals, not peDals.

[Dan Henk]

I think my shading approach works better in a longer, more complex story. The question I had was about color, and no one seemed to have anything to say about that. Yes, the story is confusing. There is an explanatory top and bottom of the page paragraph telling what is going on in the story. The publisher adds those, I do not. The lettering is now all done in photoshop, and I just fill in the dialog. The problem with the abruptness of the stories, and the "crammed together feeling", is that I really need a good several pages to tell the story. They are all relayed to me by Keith Underwood, who apprenticed under the artist featured. The publisher only gives us one page to tell the stories, and the explanatory paragraphs are really needed to tell what is going on. All are based off real events, this is how artists like Mike Malone (the guy the stories is about) acted back in the 80's. I hear the thing with the gutters. The first few strips I did didn't even have any separation. I added lines to make the story a little more legible. I agree, making them thicker, or creating an actual separation, might enhance the tale. As far as things like eyelines and facial dimensions, you do know that not everyone looks like the perfection in Marvel comic book characters, right? At weird angles, and with varied facial features, they look nothing like the perfect drawings of Wonder Woman and Superman you see. I spent years of life drawing in art school, and that is one of the first things I learned.
The lines don't work with complex color, that is why I am asking for opinions. I think they work very well in black and gray.
These are some examples of my line drawing pages on a bigger scale, and my watercolors, without and lines.

[vineris]

Regarding colour: I think it would probably be better to switch to full colour or colour with less hatching. In some panels it's all right but in other panels they tend to fight against one another.

[Nezumi Works]

As far as things like eyelines and facial dimensions, you do know that not everyone looks like the perfection in Marvel comic book characters, right? At weird angles, and with varied facial features, they look nothing like the perfect drawings of Wonder Woman and Superman you see. I spent years of life drawing in art school, and that is one of the first things I learned.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds? I didn't say a damn thing about perfect drawings or superheroes. I'm talking about your stuff and the fact that normal human beings don't have one eye two inches higher than the other. They don't have skewed heads either.

I don't really give a crap how long you spent in life drawing, when it looks wrong, it's wrong.

[Springly]

You're being pretty rude to the people who've critiqued so far, but my suggestion would be to ditch the watercolour and throw down flat areas of colour in photoshop, or with some markers/pastels. The overly graphic, 'comix' style of your line art is not playing nice with your delicate colouring. Flat colour, weirdest colours possible, make em' pop. My two cents. You've already shaded in the lineart, there's really no need to shade again.

I'd do a paintover for you, but I'm unfortunately at work. Maybe later.

[Jason Rainville]

I spent years of life drawing in art school

[Springly]

^ Look, he's just quirky, aight? *straight face*

[Dan Henk]

Look, I'm not trying to be arrogant, I asked for opinions on color, and you are going off on a tangent. To me, it's a humor strip that I do for very little return, so I haven't focused on making it as perfect as a Burne Hogarth anatomy book. Not that I think it needs to be, since it doesn't involved idealized comic figures. A little distortion, a little over the top play with form and function, is all in the expected field. No eyeball is "two inches higher", and no face is skewed unnaturally. The doctor's face is actually turned slightly to the side. Not that it really matters. Look at the work of John Totleben, or any of the other pseudo realists, and you'll see they go more for a feel than a straight up picture perfect rendition of anything.
I don't think my work is beyond critique. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting it here. But there are different styles of rendering everything. I was drawing the comics in a sort of over the top, exaggerated way. I was asking for opinions on an aspect of that. You are entitled not to like it, but when you attack me for not being model perfect with all my drawings, and that is not what I even asked about, that is being rude. I'm asking for help, and I'm getting nit picked by people who probably work at Home Depot and are trying to bash me off their mom's home computer.

[Pezz]

At weird angles, and with varied facial features, they look nothing like the perfect drawings of Wonder Woman and Superman you see. I spent years of life drawing in art school, and that is one of the first things I learned.

I'm asking for help, and I'm getting nit picked by people who probably work at Home Depot and are trying to bash me off their mom's home computer.

Nope. Knee deep in 2 years at a school that specializes in narrative and comic book art run and taught by the Kubert family and many working professionals. I pay all of my own bills in my own apartment and don't do any work except for commission art while I'm in school. In the summer I help at the family business. Does this make you feel better about my critiques?

The perfect drawings of Wonder Woman and Superman? It's called being "on model" for a character design so they are instantly recognizable by people who read said comic. When your tattoo artist looks like he has downs syndrome when we first meet him but has perfectly aligned features in the panel where he's screaming about the lady being a suburban cunt, it's read as a mistake not a quirk. Period.

[Escher_fan]

Nope. Knee deep in 2 years at a school that specializes in narrative and comic book art run and taught by the Kubert family and many working professionals. I pay all of my own bills in my own apartment and don't do any work except for commission art while I'm in school. In the summer I help at the family business. Does this make you feel better about my critiques?

The perfect drawings of Wonder Woman and Superman? It's called being "on model" for a character design so they are instantly recognizable by people who read said comic. When your tattoo artist looks like he has downs syndrome when we first meet him but has perfectly aligned features in the panel where he's screaming about the lady being a suburban cunt, it's read as a mistake not a quirk. Period.

Sorry I didnt mean to rank your post at all, I was reading the thread then pressed on rate by mistake.

[Jason Rainville]

A little distortion, a little over the top play with form and function, is all in the expected field. No eyeball is "two inches higher", and no face is skewed unnaturally.

I think you need to take a closer look and get a bit more objective about your art.

The doctor's face is actually turned slightly to the side.

It isn't. We're seeing his whole face from the front, with all of his features facing completely forward. Flipping your image (or looking at it in a mirror if you don't have a graphics program) will usually make skewing more apparent. See;



It's actually a nicely drawn head when un-skewed.

Not that it really matters. Look at the work of John Totleben, or any of the other pseudo realists, and you'll see they go more for a feel than a straight up picture perfect rendition of anything.

The problem with that argument is that in John's case his stuff looks good, and the feel/distortions are consistent. With yours it all just looks like mistakes, and they don't remain consistent at all. Usually the artist has a reason For those choices. What reason did you have for the tattoo artist to look like 2 different people, one with a face face and an eye falling out and one that looks like an older adam sandler?

But there are different styles of rendering everything. I was drawing the comics in a sort of over the top, exaggerated way. I was asking for opinions on an aspect of that.

Now you're making excuses. I don't think a skewed head, a character who's eye is about to implode in one panel but then perfect in another is a "style" and I don't particularly see anything over-the-top about the comics work in the first post.

You are entitled not to like it, but when you attack me for not being model perfect with all my drawings, and that is not what I even asked about, that is being rude.

Welcome to the critique center, you get critiques on anything and everything that looks out of place so we can help you with your development. One would think an artist would want to improve on every weak aspect of his or her art.

Look, I'm not trying to be arrogant
....
I'm getting nit picked by people who probably work at Home Depot and are trying to bash me off their mom's home computer.

Try harder.

[Dan Henk]

The Joe Kubert school is a very good school. I wasn't referring to you. Yes, John Totleben is an awesome artist, and I am not saying "Oh I just do the John Totleben thing". Overall, the strips could use some work, and I see that, which is why I posted them. I have a million other projects going on, and don't pay as much attention to them as I should. That has made me unhappy with them, and I'm trying to go through and change them. It's quirky people doing quirky things, and I don't want to lose that, but I want it to be cleaner and more readable. I think some people just want to bash, and some people have good advice. I've seen this my whole life, with multiple styles of art. Vinerus and Pezzle had good advice, and will help me make the strip better, and I thank them for their input.

[Nezumi Works]

Give me a fucking break. Not a single person in this thread came here to "bash" you, and nobody has. Every comment here has been in the interest of helping your comic get better. Get over yourself. Stop being defensive when your work gets criticized, stop insulting people just trying to help, stop putting words in other people's mouths and stop making bloody excuses for yourself. You're not going to get very far in improving if you're set on seeing people giving critique as your enemy.

Going back to the on-model thing, you seem to be missing something important. You're the one making the model in the first place. It's not Wonder Woman, it's not Batman, it's not an idealized or cartoony thing, it's the character you made that looks like how you made them. As quirky or exaggerated or realistic or whatever as you want to make them, the point is you need to stick with the model you made and keep them looking like the same person no matter what. No need to change your "style" or anything like that. The problem here is you aren't sticking with your own model, and each time you draw a character it looks like a different person, not even counting drawing errors like skewed eyes/faces. Check the tattoo guy on page two, he does from downright pudgy to having a narrow face by the end of the page, you can't pass that off as just camera angle.

As far as not being happy with your work goes, you said it yourself. You put too much on your plate and it's overwhelming. That makes the solution obvious, scale back on your active projects and put more attention into the things you care about, and you'll find that the quality will improve as well as your satisfaction with them.

[Nezumi Works]

If you haven't already, you might want to read this. For one thing it puts the idea of harsh critique in perspective, and more importantly it contains a tonne of advice on comics and storytelling from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about comics than either of us.

Before you reply to anything, read that then take a look at those pages above as if someone else created them. What would you say about them?

[Dan Henk]

Yes, the critique you provided a link to is great.
Talking to me about making the main character more consistent is helpful and a good point. (I think part of the problem, is he is a historical figure, and I am working in part off photos of him that cover a ten year span. Not an excuse, I just am noticing what I am doing wrong).
The thing about borders is food for thought, and another good point. I'm not a big sequential story guy, I mainly do stuff on a much larger scale, for books, magazines, and cds, and I could use any help I can get.
I've also tattooed for 11 years, and the first two critiques were chastising me for the way I portray tattoo artists. That part is dead on, is not even related to what I was asking about, and is what immediately got my back up.

[vineris]

Arguing with people who are trying to provide help is not an effective way to convince them to try and help you in the future. Wherever the hell they work.

[Nezumi Works]

I suppose the best thing to do is make an actual model sheet for the character, maybe doing a couple of different versions for different ages if he looks radically different. That way you've got something to refer to for every comic you use him in, and you'll get a more consistent feel. As part of that, do a simplified breakdown of the design, with basic shapes (spheres, tubes, etc.) so you can use them as a guide when you're changing camera angle. Again, this is a tool for improving consistency, which in turn will help clarity from the reader's point of view.

I would imagine the trick is to separate the guy as a real person from the character you design for use in the comic. You'll obviously want it to look like him, but the more you can look at it in design terms, I think the better result you'll get.

[Dan Henk]

Now that was good advice, and I appreciate it. I am used to doing big, static images, where one scene tells everything. I think breaking things down into shapes and moving them around as they flow throw panels is a good idea. Mike Malone was a junkie who got clean, and his look did change over time, so creating models to use in each story is another good idea. So, less line work in my color comics, actual borders between panels, modeling it in thee dimensional shapes, and moving the word balloons to the top of the panels, are all new techniques I've learned that will hopefully make the strip stronger. I went to a traditional art school that focused on live drawing and painting, but not sequential art, and this is all good advice.

[Nezumi Works]

If you're at a loss about ways to make the flow more clear, try looking at how comics you respect get around the problems. As well, start studying film. There are differences of course, but film teaches a lot about camera angles, clear composition and clarity, it's worth a look.

I'm in animation myself, and one of the sayings we hear a lot is "every drawing has a history". So for each drawing you do in sequential art, try to take some time to think about how they got there and where they're going, it can help a lot.

[Dan Henk]

One thing I have noticed, and I'm a big John Totleben fan, is that his early Swamp Thing stuff with Steve Bisette is more distorted, almost never uses panel gutters, and has a very artistic flow through the page. I actually like this stuff by him the best. Given my short format, and the more real world setting, maybe I should just give up on that approach. Here is me trying it out on my first Rollo comic

[b0nehead]

At what point will this thread be regarded as flame-fest, and locked up tighter than the composition of OP's comic page?

[Nezumi Works]

At what point will this thread be regarded as flame-fest, and locked up tighter than the composition of OP's comic page?

Probably never, could you point out who's been flaming here?

Okay, turning to more important topics, namely the new page you posted. Doing a sort of collage style is valid, of course, but keep in mind that it's MUCH harder to maintain clarity and story flow than in a more formal layout with gutters and such.

I took a look at some of Totleben's stuff, and I note for a start he uses a much more definite range of values than you're using. Deep blacks, lots of space around the characters to separate them from their environment, definite models and really, really solid construction. Everything looks unquestionably three dimensional, anatomy is super good, etc. This is what you need to do here, really ramp up the solidity a lot and make the characters and their actions super clear. Take a look at this page by Totleben, see how solid Swampy and John Constantine are there, like you could just reach out and grab them? That's the sort of thing you need to aim for, make these guys really jump out of their environment.

Looking at this page, everything really seems soft and flowing together, making it seem more like a dream or hallucination than an actual event. Things flow into each other without really stopping at any one thing. I believe you need to find focal points in here and get them solid, like the page I linked to above, that'll separate out what you need. The arrangement is also a bit confusing, I end up reading the part with him punching the seat the bit with the aisle where he gets bumped, so his outburst seems to come out of nowhere. Part of that is because the mid-shot of the stewardess seems to be part of establishing the scene rather than part of the action, so my eye goes to the punching bit first, it's almost on the same level as the aisle scene.

Last two "panels" at the bottom aren't too bad, I can tell what's going on and they read in order. Maybe separate the characters from the background a little more, but that's the biggest part. Not 100% sold that a down shot is the best angle at the end, although it's not that big a deal.

In general, you need to keep working on facial anatomy and structure in general. You can do recognizable faces, but you've still got skewed heads and things can look a bit flat with this value range. Try pushing the blacks a bit more, see where it gets you.

[Dan Henk]

that link is actually to a slightly later Swamp Thing. His earlier ones flow more and are a little more abstract, in my opinion, but you are right in that they use a large amount of black, and that helps separate the scenes. With the limited amount of space, I think I'll have to stick more to the standard comic style.
Regarding facial anatomy, I learned the standard "you draw an oval circle, create a curved eyeline, nose line, mouth line" and go from there. That said, most of the figures drawn using a strict adherence to that method, all tend to have a very similar look. Like I said, I am drawing quirky characters, and I really want their individuality to shine through. It is very good advice to keep them consistent in each comic, but I don't think that straightening out their facial features into the perfect model pattern is the right move. Maybe some of the background characters, like that asian girl face at the bottom! Ha! But I Mike was an over the top character, and I don't want to lose that. Here are two pictures of the main character to show what I mean. One is him skinny, as a junkie, and the other is him later in life.

[Nezumi Works]

I still fail to see what's wrong with having his features line up because HIS ACTUAL FEATURES IN REAL LIFE LINE UP, as shown in these photos.

Drawing a head badly isn't a quirk and it isn't a "style", it's a mistake. Humans notice when things are "off" on the face very easily, so they're going to see when stuff doesn't line up the way they expect. Solid construction and "quirkiness" aren't opposites. Your resistance to "model perfect" alignment is sounding more and more like an excuse to avoid changing how you do things.

As to flow, if you have a scene that calls for a dreamy approach or perhaps a series of events covering a very short time, by all means go with a dreamy approach. It works really well in cases like that, just watch your flow from focal point to focal point and do your best to bring those spots out from the rest so the reader will know to look at them.

[Dan Henk]

If I thought I had the answer to everything, I wouldn't ask, I would insist I know.
His features in the photos do not line up perfectly. I want to capture that, which I consider as part of his unique look. I am well aware that if it looks wrong to the viewer, even if it is right, it will be perceived as a mistake. There has to be a happy medium, where I can capture the unique look of certain characters, but not make the faces skewed. I just suggested that maybe I can make the background characters a bit more uniform, something I have not focused on. I am looking for advice. You do animation. That relies on a different set of rules than realism. Everything that helps I listen to, I acknowledge, and I thank the person who suggested it. I got some great ideas, things I was doing wrong were pointed out, and I agreed with them. You are actually being dogmatic, in that you are insisting that it's your way or the highway, and if I bring up anything else, it's just my making excuses. Sorry, that doesn't work.

[Nezumi Works]

His features in the photos do not line up perfectly.

What photos you lookin' at?

In those pics they line up same as any other human who hasn't got a birth defect or similar disfigurement. Look close, like most people his pupils sit above the corners of his mouth, his eyes are parallel to it and his nose perpendicular to both. There's about one eye width between his eyes, same as most people. Left eye is same distance from the bottom of the nose as the right one, chin's below that in the middle. That's what I'm seeing in the photos. The top one he's squinting more because he's got more pudge, so his cheeks push against the bottoms of the eyes (plus he's smiling), but his skull hasn't changed shape under all that. The eyeballs are still in the same sockets, they haven't moved, the jaw's where it's always been, just covered over with more flesh.

I want to capture that, which I consider as part of his unique look. I am well aware that if it looks wrong to the viewer, even if it is right, it will be perceived as a mistake. There has to be a happy medium, where I can capture the unique look of certain characters, but not make the faces skewed.

There is. It's called constructive drawing combined with anatomy study.

You mentioned art school a while back. If it was a fine art program, they might not have dealt with people like Andrew Loomis or George Bridgeman, given they're more on the illustration side of things. If you haven't "done Loomis", so to speak, I'd recommend taking a look at his stuff. He goes a bit beyond the "draw a circle, lines for eyes and such" approach where it's a flattened sphere for the cranium yes, but the shape of the jaw varies quite a lot, and the addition of fat deposits and such really adds a lot of character. Loomis' approach is very applicable to comic work, and I would be very surprised if most realists didn't use his or similar methods.

For fun, take a look at Norman Rockwell's stuff. He and Loomis both studied under Bridgeman, and they're all sort of in the same neighborhood when it comes to methodology. Ain't nobody gonna tell me Rockwell's characters aren't quirky, and wouldn't you know, his facial features wouldn't skew if you hit 'em with a hammer.

I just suggested that maybe I can make the background characters a bit more uniform, something I have not focused on.

Can't hurt. I notice for instance, in your last strip the stewardess changes hairstyle and face shape (from pointed to round). She's also shown going forward among the seats but when she hits the guy she's going the opposite direction. Little things like that help your continuity.

You do animation. That relies on a different set of rules than realism.

And that is why you fail. </yoda>

They're actually a lot closer at heart than you'd think. Animation may be exaggerated in a lot of cases, but the movements and structure comes from real life. You'd be surprised how much anatomy study and drawing from life is involved.

You are actually being dogmatic, in that you are insisting that it's your way or the highway, and if I bring up anything else, it's just my making excuses. Sorry, that doesn't work.

You just keep thinkin' that, sunshine.

To steal XKCD's quote on science, Construction: It works, bitches!