Are photocomics not 'legit'?

[Travis Surber]

All the characters,props backgrounds etc... are drawn once and then stored in the computer.To put together each strip Kris essentially pieces every panel together like a colorforms toy.He only draws anything when he needs new stuff and then recycles the image files.At least according to him in How to Make Webcomics thats what he does.So what is that exactly if not sprite?

[JGray]

It depends on if you define sprite as a comic using prerendered imagery or as a comic that uses imagery made of easily recognized sprites. Heck, all webcomics are made out of sprites on some level.

Well, I suppose there are a few SVG comics...

[Travis Surber]

I'm afraid to call it either way.My beef with sprite comics is the number of people who try and pull a dramatic close up on a character that is just a few blocks of color

[Rob]

Well according to Wikipedia...

"Sprite comics are webcomics that use computer sprites, often taken from video games, for significant portions of their artwork."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_comic

I don't think Starslip would fit in under that definition.

[JGray]

Heavy use of cut and paste might be more appropriate? Though wikipedia tends to be either behind the times with webcomics or purposefully derisive of their existence, so it might not be the best source for evolving terminology.

[ran]

Sprite comics are generally understood to be comics made with sprites--regardless of whether those sprites are taken from old videogames or hand made, they are pixel art, specifically.

Copypasta comics are not the same thing as sprite comics. They're just as lazy, but not the same thing, especially if each image in their 'library' was hand drawn by them.

[amanda]

While I agree that copy-paste comics with hand-drawn "sprites" aren't *really* sprite comics, I grouped them together for the Drunk Duck Awards since they're so similar.

[GaborBoth]

Maybe we should just nickname them "lazy comics" altogether and see if the term catches on.

[Gar]

Ran said copypasta earlier. Looks like it was a typo, but I kinda like it.

[Gibson]

Maybe we should just nickname them "lazy comics" altogether and see if the term catches on.

Some of them are actually a lot of work. Photo comics are usually a lot of work. A lot of the hand-drawn comics are so un-travailed as to qualify as "doodles you make while on the phone with the gas company."

[Largento]

I don't believe you can blanket-statement a type of comic like that.

As with all comics, it's what the artist/creator does with it.

When I decided to do a comic in CG, I approached it no differently than I would one that I was drawing. I visualize the panels and then work to create the image. The tools may be different, but in the end, I'm still creating the same image either way.

But my motivation for doing it in CG wasn't because I *couldn't* draw it. I did it because I've become interested in CG and think my cartoons look neat in 3D. I get a kick when I recognize that something I've created in 3D looks the way it would had I drawn it.

I reject the idea of it being a copout because I know just how much work and time it takes to realize my characters, props, sets, etc. in 3D. I'm not depending on stock Poser models or working with a studio behind me that can do this work for me.

I certainly would reject the notion that my comic can be dismissed based on a blanket value judgement of "all CG comics." Just like I wouldn't believe that a comic was great just because it was hand drawn.

There are enormous ranges of quality/talent in all the types of comics.

[Funderbunk]

I completely agree. I don't feel you can just write off comics that use cut and paste comics as "lazy comics" or "copouts", and not just for the reasons Largento just gave. Comics have the advantage of consisting out of multiple disciplines. Look at the amazing creativity Ryan North can come up with reusing the exact same picture every day. In the same way, plenty of comics with gorgeous artwork that obviously took many hours and a lot of effort have horrible writing - is that "lazy"?

[klingers]

I try to take the middle road personally.

I'll be the first to admit that I use templates for my characters. It's pretty obvious if you see my stuff. There's a lot of fairly obvious cut-and-paste.

End of the day it saves time for me and keeps me on track.

The challenge for me is what I can do with those base images I have for my characters.

As I'm still learning I like to challenge myself by drawing action poses, and I always try to make the characters feel like they're doing something in the scene by giving them vivid-enough facial expressions and having them interact with their environments. I like to show them standing up and sitting down, leaning on stuff, shifting position between frames, whatever I can do to minimise the cut-and-paste elements and make the characters feel animated while avoiding the whole "talking heads" aspect.

[Pixel]

Yeah, I don't think you should just say all comics that copypaste are lazy. First of all, if from one panel to another only 1 thing is changing [like a facial expression, or one thing is moving], then copypasting the first panel's exact pose is pretty much a good thing. You WANT it to look exactly the same if the person is still and only one thing is supposed to be changing or moving.

Another example is for comedy comics where the art might take a back seat to the writing. Sometimes copypasting, whether for something like I said before or for a running joke, is actually better for the comedy. Also some people rather just focus on writing. Dinosaur Comics takes that idea to the extreme.

[mcfadyn]

For me?  If you are a really terrible drawer then maybe drawing isn't your type of 'art'  Maybe photos are the best way for you to express yourself, in which case, go for it.  Who's to say what a comic is?  It's just sequence of images and text that tell a story in a certain order.  Who the hell cares how you get there.