I know they're rare, but what are your thoughts on photo comics? Do you think they can be as good as an illustrated comic?

I totally love a good fumetti - i think they are a fascinating medium.

Of course, most fumetti's are not very good (which is Sturgeon's law, after all) and i think people tend to see them as being "easy" as in "easier than drawing." But of course, a fumetti is just as hard to make as anything else, and just as hard to make GOOD.

I would love to make a fumetti, it's totally on my list of things to do.

I'm considering moving this to the comic discussion section.

DD once had a photo comic where some guys dressed up as some ninjas, robots, and a zombie, and they staged spectacular battles in public areas and used photos for the panels. I really liked it. There was quite a bit of charm to seeing people do something like that near a mall with confused onlookers. I'd definitely enjoy a comic like that more than a poorly-illustrated comic.

But I think I'd like a well-illustrated comic more than a photo comic.

Yeah, I think I will move this to comic discussion. But I hope the discussion continues there.

One of the first comics I was introduced to was A Softer World . It's lovely. I like photo comics if they have actual people in them typically. I have yet to see a comic with photos of action figures that has pulled me in, though.

I agree with Hawk in that I'd rather see a well-drawn comic than a photo comic, but I'm open to a photo story comic with strong writing or a photo panel comic that remains witty or compelling despite the ever-shifting subject matter.

I wont lie, the couple photo comics I've seen are fairly interesting. It would be pretty funny to see real life people acting out their characters feelings (or whatever).

Personally, I like illustrated and that's just 'cause I'm so used to the traditional comic medium (pen/pencil to paper).

Photo comics are still a developng medium. I think they have potential but right now with all the tutorial, drawing classes, tools & programs specifically designed for drawin there is no question a well drawn comic will trump a photo comic.

It is HARD to go a good photo comic. I've been working on one and I've found a MAJOR problem is affording a good enough camera to properly capture motion. If you can't the whole thing typically looks badly possed or has to be heavily edited.

Now if you are doing a toy fair theater or the like it isn't quite so bad but even so their are harsh limitations if you don't have the proper technology.

I hope if photo comics start to take off craft stores will start to carry more stuff for customizing figurines and things of that nature.

Here's my take.

Drawn comics - more effective for serious and dramatic comics.

Photo comics - more effective for comedy. I'd laugh seeing manipulated photos such as this.

They interest me, but I haven't seem many that are good.
The main reason is that with action figures you can't really show expressions. And I find that they can be the funniest part of a comic.

Also taking pictures of people for a comic is great. I read a comic (Greater than Colon O) that had a FEW of their comics like that, and they were great.



Lastly, Hawk, if you could find that comic you talked about, link it. It sounds epic.

I guess there's multiple layers to this question, too, because there are flat-out photo comics (which I agree, are great for comedy...and probably very hokey for drama / action), and then there's photo-manipulated comics (for example, the graphic novel sequences in the Max Payne video game).

The toy-photo comics haven't really kept my interest (although, a few have made me read them for quite a few pages, like Alien Loves Predator). And yes, I think that photo comics can be much easier to make - but usually you can tell the amount of time put into a project by the look of it. If it looks poor, then sure - it was probably a rush job. I've occasionally slipped a few photo backgrounds into my comics.

But yes, I was talking about photo comics...not photo-manipulated. Because I'm thinking about doing a story arc with photos, just to do something different.

Good discussion so far, let's keep it going. Anyone else found any "good" photo comics? Or outright terrible ones?

Haha, I ought to like photo-comics because my major comic is one, but to tell the truth I'm pretty indifferent.

You can do things with photos that wouldn't work if it was drawn, just as you can the other way around. I don't know how good an example my own comic is, because I don't tell a story, I don't make jokes, and there's not a single living human being anywhere near my photos. I guess it's pretty weird, but it just wouldn't work as well with drawings. I wouldn't be able to make the same subtle referances and "reveal" the "meaning" in the text as I tend to do. I don't think I'd be able to make it at all actually.

But that's not really what this is about, is it? If I had a story to tell I'd prefer to do it with drawings, and I tend to read most illustrated comics. Photo-comics have to offer something different or a really really good story. And that really is unfair, but drawings then to express feelings more clearly. You get the important things pointed out to you so tosay.
I hope that made sense.

To answer the actual question: Sure, photo-comics can be just as good as drawn, but I see them as a different subgenre, so it's sorta like asking if detective novels can be as good as science fiction. ;)

Finding a real photo comic is hard, because 9 times out of 10 they are poorly staged jokes that only the author and a few select friends will understand. Oh, and of course the comics told with action figures. How thrilling. Most of those are pretty dismal, but a few actually do have a lot of work put into them.

I guess it's just like any media. Me, I prefer an illustrated comic, but I wouldn't balk at reading a good photo comic. Trevor mentioned Max Payne, and I love the idea of a stylized graphic novel like from the original game. I would read that in a heartbeat! But I don't see it as happening anytime soon. Imagine bringing together an actual cast for a dramatic photo comic! That would really be something. :)

But honestly, I see so few quality ones, that I generally ignore them unless they are recommended to me.

I don't care, as long as it's good.

amanda
One of the first comics I was introduced to was A Softer World . It's lovely. I like photo comics if they have actual people in them typically. I have yet to see a comic with photos of action figures that has pulled me in, though.

I agree with Hawk in that I'd rather see a well-drawn comic than a photo comic, but I'm open to a photo story comic with strong writing or a photo panel comic that remains witty or compelling despite the ever-shifting subject matter.

i think the strength of a softer world is the writing. not the photos. it could just be a black background and i still would like the writing. if opposite it wouldn't work.

I'm surprised at how positive the reaction has been to this. Not that I'm against Photo Comics - far from it! But I so often see derision heaped on other forms of "non-drawn" comics (sprite, poser etc) that I'm surprised people see this form as being so different.

Personally, I'm all about the writing. Beautiful hand-drawn illustrations will always attract my eye but they won't hold my attention for long if the story isn't interesting or the characters aren't engaging. As long as the writing is strong, however, I don't really mind whether the artwork in a comic is put together with pencils, sprites, inks, computer programs or photos.

I'm with the writing crowd on this one, I can overlook the art, a sprite or two, photographs and so on, as long as the writing and story appeals to me.

I adore A Softer World to bits and pieces, but as has been stated, with ASW, it's the writing that's the strength - the photos are simply a good background to paste the words on.

... On the whole, I think I prefer illustrated comics. Not that photo-comics are intrinsically bad, but I think that there's a more personal expression in illustrations - photographs present the world as-is, even if it can be twisted with lighting and angles and so on, whereas drawing something gives you the liberty to simply leave some things undefined. Style becomes more apparent with illustrated comics.

Star Wars tails tried to do a few photo manipulation stories but they were all pretty terrible. The writting was lousy and since the main character all had to be photoshopped from the movies they looked pretty awkward.

http://www.photowebcomics.com/ has a whole top list of photo comics.

DAJB: The thing is people are negative on sprite comics because they've seen so many BAD ones. Sprite comics are all over the place and since sadly many no tallents first try a sprite comic the crap ratio is WAAAAAY above what it is compaired to other styles so lots of people have developed negative feelings towards them as a whole. Likewise with many other art forms.

Photo comics are still very small in number so people are still largely a blank slate. The art form hasn't been over run with crap so people are still willing to give it a chance. With luck as the tools become more robust and the technology required cheeper photo comics will continue to climb in quality.

I've done two photo comics thus far and I must say that the largest challenge is finding a solid concept that works with your resources. Sets and background were a serious problem and still are for me due to the small amout of space I have. I can build a backdrop or a set but I have no way to store it. Additionally taking photos outside risks ruining props and costumes (as well as forcing you to explain yourself to many stupidly gawking strangers) and even the camera itself. So it can be tough to put together many concepts.

I did on about a radio DJ which while fun I eventually cut because I just couldn't turn my room into anything the resembled a radio station and so I just had to darken the background as much as I could so you couldn't see much and put all the focus on the for ground.

A short I did for the old Starving Artist though went much better. We got solid props and managed to do some quality stuff with what we had. It helped that the whole things was supposed to be goofy.

I personally think there is a strong possiblity for a Cloverfield/Blairwitch type photo comic to be serious and taken seriously. You won't see that however until photo comics start getting more respect because for all the effort it takes to put together a photo comic you could just make a movie instead which would probably be MUCH easier and almost certainly better recieved. I could rattle of half a dozen vidoes on You Tube that could have been done better as a photo comic for various reasons but the fact remains is that it is more popular and better respected to just do a movie where you can bring the all important emotional manipulator sound into play which is an awful powerful tool to give up.

You really have to take full advantage of some of the unique strengths of comics to justify surrending the power of music to set mood and tip the audiance as to the tone and feel of scene.

Well, if it's well done, a photo comic can be just as good as an illustrated one.

Actually, I've never seen a photo comic other than a softer world, and my all too brief comic "Clear". A Softer World is very minimalistic, but also very very good. I do enjoy it. I'll have to take a look at that photo comic list.

Here's mine: www.drunkduck.com/Clear
I really loved making it and it seemed to garner positive responses, but it just took SO MUCH work using my cruddy computer and image editing programs. I would love to return to it someday.

Oh dear. From what I've learned, most people don't like photo comics.

I have a comic, YU+ME , that has been going for over four years. Around January, the story took a twist in which it was revealed that the story up until this point had been a dream, and when the character woke up, everything was told in photos.
Now, I thought the uproar would be about the "It was all a dream" thing (which can be really cliche, but I mixed it up a lot to try to make it original). But most everyone was okay with that. I didn't get any complaints about it.
What did set everybody's panties alight was the photocomic part of it. They hated it. Readership dropped drastically for that one issue, and I was constantly getting emails about how I needed to return to "real" art or they'd stop reading.
Luckily, I hadn't planned on doing more than one issue that way. The character eventually fell back to sleep.

My personal thoughts on photocomics? I'm not fond of them. I only did them because it made sense to the story. While making them, I found that they took ten times longer to make, and I really could have done better work if I'd stuck to what I do best.

megan_rose
Oh dear. From what I've learned, most people don't like photo comics.

I have a comic, YU+ME , that has been going for over four years. Around January, the story took a twist in which it was revealed that the story up until this point had been a dream, and when the character woke up, everything was told in photos.
Now, I thought the uproar would be about the "It was all a dream" thing (which can be really cliche, but I mixed it up a lot to try to make it original). But most everyone was okay with that. I didn't get any complaints about it.
What did set everybody's panties alight was the photocomic part of it. They hated it. Readership dropped drastically for that one issue, and I was constantly getting emails about how I needed to return to "real" art or they'd stop reading.
Luckily, I hadn't planned on doing more than one issue that way. The character eventually fell back to sleep.

Heh, actually, I'm a reader of YU+ME, and I never minded the photo bit. I thought you utilized it very well. It was convincing (something I hardly say about most photo work) and wasn't distracting at all.

I'll admit I was pleased to return to the art, but I for one didn't mind the shift. :)

In terms of telling a story, I personally prefer illustration over photo for the same reason I prefer simplified art over detailed "realism" and I usually prefer animated movies/series over live action. -- I find illustration more expressive. Drawn work can really emphasize or even exaggerate things in a way photography can't. I think the simplification of setting and figures speaks to me on a deeper level. I'm not really sure why, but it does. (I have cried many times during animated series and movies but have rarely been so moved by live action.)

However, for a gag strip, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. As long as the joke is good and the art/photos are clear and present what is intended, I enjoy anything from stick-figures to detailed realism to photo-manipulation equally.

I'd prefer a film over a photo comic using real people.

Now... if a photo comic were like those cat-er-day photos with commentary.... comedy gold! Photo comics are great when they use props and toys.

In the end I'd prefer drawn comics. I like drawing styles for comics more. I think they print better in a book form vs a photo comic.

Everyone keeps mentioning about how many photo comics that they've seen are bad. Out of curiosity (or ignorance on my part), what makes them bad outside of the writing? Goofy props / stagged locations? What would you like to see in a photo comic, if you're into them?

I agree that there are many genres that would make photo and photo manipulation comics difficult to do, but I think the minimalist / comedy approach that I'm doing for @$$hole! for this story arc has met with some positive reactions - I think mostly because it's something new and refreshing.

My biggest issue is grainy or poor quality photos. I also like really vivid, smooth colors, and photos just...don't appeal. It's also harder to convey energy and motion with photos of posed action figures than it is with drawings.

Well when it comes to photo comics, it's really the acting for me. It takes quite a bit of acting to achieve anything more than goofing off in front of a camera. If it isn't convincing in some form, comedic or otherwise, than what's the point?

Also, as Amanda already stated, the quality of the photos is important.

With your last comic, Trevor, I found it to be very funny because your expressions matched the dialog very well and they were good quality photos to boot. With a photo comic you often don't have characters to interact with and develop, so the writing and acting are vital to sustain my interest.

Steely Gaze
With your last comic, Trevor, I found it to be very funny because your expressions matched the dialog very well and they were good quality photos to boot. With a photo comic you often don't have characters to interact with and develop, so the writing and acting are vital to sustain my interest.

Thanks for the compliment on my photo comic experiment. As for the quality issue, I suppose genre comics (ie: sci-fi, fantasy, period stories, etc) could be cheesy / difficult to pull off. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have easy access to a space station or a star ship or a dragon or anything. ;P

However, I've done 4 photo comics already, and I think it can be pretty funny for what I'm using it for. However, I admit that it's difficult to get a "cast" together and have a photographer take decent shots. People turn out blurry or grainy or something, and it kind of takes you out of the moment.

The problem with photo comics is that it takes a person with excellent illustration and photography skills to do it right.

Laying out a page and doing it well in a way that captures attention and paces the story well is something that a lot of illustrators are still working on after 4 or 5 years of college it seems. On top of that, most pro photographers who I've talked to end up with a keeper photo ratio of about 100 crap photos to 1 good one. That makes good photography harder than good illustration in my opinion and when you're storytelling, having those good quality photos would make the difference between a quality work and something assembled from vacation photos taken with an old disposable camera ( Let's face it, when was the last time someone asked to buy one of those old photos of you sitting sunburned and fat on a cruise ship? ). So add in the necessity of taking exceptionally clear ( ie: little film grain and good focus. ) photos and you end up with a comic that almost requires twice the amount of skill than the norm. Plus, when you consider the knowledge and people to do good sets and well acted scenes, you almost have to realize that what they'd be photographing wouldn't be a comic, but rather a theatre production. You'd either have to be a Renaissance man or have a whole theatre and film production crew helping you. And at that point, you might as well say the heck with it and just produce a movie. At a certain point, to do it well and do it right for a decent storyline photocomic, it just becomes way more practical to do other things. The medium just doesn't fit as well to the concept as illustration does for most comics.

I think it would be a bit more possible if you broke the traditional thought process and had a good illustrator or sculptor and a good photographer working together instead of one person who was overall good at comicking. It would definitely have to come from a different mindset than most comic book creators have though, and if you ask me at that point they'd probably follow a different path than comics anyway.

trevoramueller
I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have easy access to a space station or a star ship or a dragon or anything. ;P

I do, but that's not the point. :P

That's where a green screen and some computer editing would come in handy. I have seen it done, and done fairly well, but for most people it just won't work. Iba's right in that it takes more time and skill to do a complicated photo comic well. Of course, it would be easier for gag comics, but I tend to favor comics with storylines, so that would explain my skepticism as to photo comics. :)

Photo comics? Hmm... first thing that pops into my brain is those stupid stories in shitty pop music magazines that were all the rage here in the 90s (bought a couple myself cause they often added movie posters, usually one or two per issue).

But they can work.

Personally I prefer the idea of using photos as basis for artwork. That is NOT tracing and pretending that you drew it yourself. What I mean is using photos of people and inserting them into painted background, perhaps even blending it all together by making the photos look slightly painted too. I actually have something like that in mind for a large project that I'm hoping to start working on in a couple of years. Going to be a blend of photos (made by me OR of me with occasional stock photo thrown in for things I can't shot), 3d images, hand drawn images, textures and what not, all painted over for unified look.

I remember reading a good toy photo comic, Cloud's Mystery Hour. That thing was absolutely absurd but in an enjoyable way.