Are photocomics not 'legit'?

[thedugs]

Hi all,

I'm wondering how everyone feels about photocomics. One of the three strips on our site started out as a photocomic but due to some negative feedback changed to hand-drawn. Another of our strips uses photo backgrounds.

Does the forum feel there is a place for photos in a webcomic? Or should a comic be, by nature, entirely drawn?

[NoahRodenbeek]

I tried photos a few times.  I ran filters over them in Photoshop so they looked somewhat artsy, but it didn't hide the fact that I'd used photos.  I didn't get any negative feedback, but I did get a feeling that I was cheating myself.  Webcomics should be about practicing and getting better.

That should never stop someone from using photos though, there are definitely artistic applications for them.  I tend to think of it as more of a metaphorical juxtoposition.  Like in Family Guy when Peter trips acid and "things get a little too real" they show a guy in a Peter costume sitting in a real park. 

[thedugs]

Interesting that you bring up the 'making things too real' analogy, because when one of our strips switched from photos to hand-drawn, the author actually made that part of the story and had a rip in the fabric of space time (or something equally as strange) change the whole world to a less real, cartoony version.

I understand the 'wanting to improve yourself' idea (which I do) but I guess my follow up question would be- would you read a photocomic? If you found it funny, would the fact that it had photos not matter, or would you dismiss it due to the fact it had no artistic merit?

[KidGalactus]

A comic is a comic is a comic. Photos or not. They're the same thing.

Do what you can with what you got. Just remember that there's a stigma about photo comics and art snobs will kind of look down their noses at you. Even if they don't know anything about art. Just give your product some thought, dude. If you're not going to have that added draw of interesting looking art or the artist's mystique, your comic had better be really compelling/funny.

Brian Michael Bendis' first comic people noticed, I believe it's called Jinx was a photo comic and just look at him now!

[Pete]

Photocomics are like regular comics - if they are done well, there can be an audience for it.  I don't know what your definition of "legit" is, but yes, they are perfectly acceptable as a form of sequential art.

One of the best examples is Reprographics.  Chris Yates produces a funny comic with well-composed photos, and I've been a fan of it for several years.  Unfortunately, the other two photocomics I used to be a fan of both disappeared/stopped updating.  But they shared the similarities with Reprographics - they were consistently funny and well composed.

Conversely, I've seen really bad photocomics.  Usually these have poor quality pictures, or they are good photos that ruined by someone's inability to use Photoshop, or they just aren't funny/have a good story.

[WilliamHuntJr]

As long as they are your photos and not something you took from someone else then it is ok.

[NoahRodenbeek]

"A comic is a comic is a comic. Photos or not. They're the same thing. "

word.

[amanda]

I have a photo comic and an illustrated comic.  While there are a handful of crossover readers, it's pretty clear that each comic has different audiences.  Of course, the subject matter is different, too ^.^

In any case, I've only ever received positive feedback regarding the photo comic.  You'll always run into potential readers who won't like the look and therefore won't read the comic, but really that goes for anything.  For example, I'm not a fan of stick figures, so I tend to not read stick figure comics (xkcd being a notable exception).  Some people don't like manga-styled comics.  Some people don't like photo comics.

I think you'll run into more people who are anti-photos.  My own opinion of photo comics is kind of on the low side for the most part; however, I do feel it's a legitimate medium and worth the look if done correctly ^.^

[Rob]

I feel the same way as most everyone else here. Photo Comics have their place and can be just as creative and entertaining as anything else. Plus there is this art form.... what do they call it... oh yeah... photography! There's a whole section with tons of sub sections at Deviantart. Adding some speech bubbles doesn't diminish the value of photography as an art it transforms it into a storytelling medium.

Compelling content can come in a novel or a bubble gum wrapper and everything has an audience. Photo comics may have a slightly more limited audience initially than drawn comics but the point of the images is to tell a story. If the story good the audience will show up.

Or as Rodney Dangerfield said "if the roast beef is rare... they'll be back!"

[mwytrykus]

I"m surprised there aren't more photo comics. I'd like to see more. They're just as valid a method of making a comic to me as anything else. Look at movies, you got some that are photographed (live-action) and some that are drawn or computer generated (animation). I do not see why comics should be any different.

I'd also like to see more CGI comics ala Dreamland Chronicles.

[JGray]

There are some amazing photo comics out there. Night Zero (http://www.nightzero.com/index.html) and Union of Heroes (http://www.unionofheroes.com/) are two good examples of comics with excellent production values. And anyone who turns their noses up, believing that these are somehow a cheat and easier? Read the stats. One chapter of Night Zero took 52 hours to photograph (which doesn't include writing time, storyboarding time, the time it takes to line up the actors, work out the make up and special effects, post production editing...), took 17 actors, 15 crew members, 2774 shots, and apparently close to $10,000 to make.

That seems like a hell of a lot of work to me.

[Rob]

Union of Heroes with the Erzengel!

I lost track of that one when the webomics.com forums went down for the second time. Thank you J for bringing it up. I was thinking about it yesterday when trying to think about how to respond to this thread and couldn't remember the name.

I love that comic. Bookmarking this time.

[LegendWoodsman]

This topic reminds me of reading A Drifting Life when manga creators in Japan were defining manga and seeing if their form/style of comics should be given a different name. If photocomics aren't legit, are webcomics legit?

[Funderbunk]

Instead of asking if they are legit, try and ask "why wouldn't they be 'legit'?" and see what you get.

Because I certainly can't think of any reason why they wouldn't be. If 3D comics can be as great as the The Dreamland Chronicles, then photo comics have just as much potential. It's about the image, not the way you made it.

[HarringtonAW]

There are some amazing photo comics out there. Night Zero (http://www.nightzero.com/index.html) and Union of Heroes (http://www.unionofheroes.com/) are two good examples of comics with excellent production values.

Those are a couple of my favorite comics, along with The Pure and Hidden Truth, another photocomic. I tend to follow comics predominately because I like the art, and as far as art goes you can't do much better than a photo of the real thing, right?

-S