Firstly, lemme say this is more in reference to print comics rather than webcomics.

Presonally, the digital stuff, while they undoubtedly look good, it somehow gives off a less personal, mass produced feel. I don't know if it's just me, but 10 years or so ago, before digital art became staple, there seemed to have a wider range of art styles; More varied inkings, paints, zippo-tone, etc.

While I know one can create varied effects and art styles on the computer (how one does it beats me), a lot of mordern digital art looks the same to me.

I dunno, whaddya think?

I think it depends on the artist. If I don't digitally screw with my art it feels incomplete or sloppy to me. But I think theres many art styles that would suffer from being translated into digital.

I think that's a very interesting question. I tend to have a little more appreciation for art that was made with traditional art supplies instead of digitally done. I know both can look great, but it seems like traditial mediums are more challenging and lack that "undo" feature.

I do pretty much everything digitally and have a tough time with actual paint or markers. That's kind of why I appreciate the traditional stuff. And this applies not just to comics, but to all art I view.

Webcomics are digital so it would make sense that most artists use digital means to make their comics. There isn't a webcomic out there that's completely traditional; you still have to scan and twick with it before you put it online. Also most digital comics are first traditionally drawn, scanned, then digitally messed with.

I would consiter myself a traditional webcomic artist, but I admit I twick with many effects in photoshop to make my pages look just right. I guess what you mean is how the comic is colored/toned/lineworked.

For the most part, I think in the webcomic world most people don't care much for traditional compared to digital work. I see more people think good art must be perfectly clean to be worthy to be read or looked into.

With print comics very very few of the big ones do JUST pen paper and ink kinda art. A few do (hirokai samura's blade of the imortal comes to mind) but I think it's honestly better if there's a medium of both new and old.

Penciling done on paper, color done on computer for example:can look really good depending on who does it, and it can change the look of the artist (i.e. salvador larocca). I think comics are working to a medium, and it'll stay that way for a bit.

The main problem to me is digital art seems to be becoming so stock that fewer people are thinking "hey what if I draw my comic/graphic novel with (insert medium here)" instead of "yeah, I'll just draw it with my wacom and colour it with (insert program here) cause all the cool kids are doing it"

It's a long standing debate, how much should art change with the digital medium.

To me, like I said before, it has to be a medium. You cannot forget where you've started from and you have to know the history of art. But you should use the new tools as tools, not crutches.

Digital art has a lot of potential, but it will always lack the tangibility of physical art. But with a variable canvas, digital will be able to do things that traditional tools will never be able to do.

It's just all in how they're used really.

Yeah, especially some people like Mike Dedato, and Leinil Francis Yu, and Oliver Copiel. They do very good pencil work.

I like old fasioned but im stuck with digital cause scanners are to much freaking money -_-

well I'm stuck to traditional because I was born with a rare birth defect called photoshop-disability-psychosis

Not that I'm complaining though. I like traditional styles

it's how you look at it. for me i can see a lot of style in digital. you just have to see a lot to start differentiating stylesjust like any art form

I've always used some combination of the two. My comics are drawn mostly traditional, but all the screentones are added digitally - though I could do them traditioanlly if I really wanted to. But, tones are a liiiiittle expensive, and a toning program like ComicWorks or MangaStudio is really a money saver when you come right down to it. Of course, all of the text is Photoshop.

I don't think the digital tonework really takes away from the mostly traditional feel of my work, though. I feel like it could be mistaked for real tones - because the tone program is just a bunch of real tones that were scanned into a computer anyways. I also agree with some of the others that in some cases, it's really just part of the artist's sensibilities and style. I'd like to achieve some sort of balance though, to be able to do both traditional AND digital work to a decent extent. Variation, change, evolution as an artist is key, n'est-ce pas?

I also tend to think that as digital artwork programs grow nad change they will better be able to emulate the look and feel of traidtional work - so this lifeles feeling won't be as much of a debate. Although, how an artists wields the technology would factor into that. The tangible quality of traditional art will always remain, though. It's a little difficult to emulate the true texture of a traditional artwork just with printed out digital media. Even in my uncle's studio, when they print out giclee's on canvas, he has to go back and detial the painting with real paint to give it that 'painted texture' feeling, otherwise it just looks kinda flat.

Whoa =_=; sorry for the long response.

i like digital cause you can undo steps and experiment and the fact that you don't have to worry about running out of art supplies. I can replicate my artwork as many times and play with it as much as I can without thinking too much of ruining the whole.

I went to Metropolitan Museum of Art yesterday so I got to look at a lot of work by people who are/were masters of traditional materials such as oil paints, arcrylic, etc. However that got me thinking that althought traditionalists probably hate programs like Photoshop, that's only because they're so used to the other stuff. I'm sure many great painters used oil paint because that's what people used at the time. But since we live in a world where photoshop and other programs can be used, should we not experiment with what it can do? That doesn't mean we have to be anti-traditional, but instead we should keep an open mind. There's upsides and downsides to each medium. In digital art you can play around with things and not worry about mistakes. However many traditionalists would say that a "mistake" can be turned into something better than what you started with. It all hinges on what you believe.

But try to keep an open mind and don't go to extremes on either end. Balance is best in all things.

I'm not limited to digital, I do all my pencils by hand and then ink and color them digitally. I perfer it that way because I can mess around with major things like posture and musculature easier.

I really think a hybrid of the two is the best way to go, if I could transfer an oil painting to photoshop and add after effects to the finished peice, I totally would.

Hang on, there's art NOT made with computers? when did that happen?

Mimarin
Hang on, there's art NOT made with computers? when did that happen?

Tuesday.

theduckofanime

Mimarin
Hang on, there's art NOT made with computers? when did that happen?

Tuesday.

Tuesday, around 6000 BCE.

from cave wall to canvas..it's just part of the evolution of art.
people will just have to deal with it, because it's staying.