Are photocomics not 'legit'?

[Gar]

We've all read Scott McCloud, of course it's legitimate! I think people who don't read comics might be more comfortable with photo comics than with drawn ones, and I'm backing that claim up with absolutely nothing.

It's kind of a tricky medium though, your actors need to be able to hold the right expression long enough to take the picture. If you have them just act out the scene and take photos then it might not read well in the comic, so you'd need to pay attention to framing and lighting and arrange the image you want.

I think if it's a photo comic because someone is too lazy to draw, then that comes across. If it's a photo comic because you want to take photos and turn them into a comic/do a comic with photos then you can get some stellar results. Take pride in your work and hone your skills.

[wendyw]

Photocomics are completely legit. Sure, there are some bad ones, but there are some absolutely hideous drawn comics as well.

I think they can be an aquiured taste and I understand why, but that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with them. I draw comics and I take photos and I am pretty happy with some of the results from both, but combining the two? I am seriously in awe of anyone who can pull it off well.

[GaborBoth]

No matter how much work is in them and no matter how great story they may have, I hate photocomics - mainly for the same reasons why I don't like 3d comics.

[Rob]

No matter how much work is in them and no matter how great story they may have, I hate photocomics - mainly for the same reasons why I don't like 3d comics.

Yes but that's a personal taste thing and has nothing to do with whether or not they are a legitimate form of comicing.

[JGray]

No matter how much work is in them and no matter how great story they may have, I hate photocomics - mainly for the same reasons why I don't like 3d comics.

You said:

I'll be honest, all 3d comics look the same to me. The lack of real facial expressions, curves, cloth folds, exaggerations, no stylizing or use of mask-effect, the mannequin-poses, and I could go on. They all feel stiff to me compared to drawn comics, even the higher quality ones. Exceptions probably exist, I guess.

How does this apply to photo comics? There can't be a lack of real facial expressions, curves, cloth folds, and so forth because these are photographs of real people with real faces, real clothes, and real curves.

[Knara]

It's kind of a tricky medium though, your actors need to be able to hold the right expression long enough to take the picture. If you have them just act out the scene and take photos then it might not read well in the comic, so you'd need to pay attention to framing and lighting and arrange the image you want.

Ever seen a video of an adult photo shoot (or hell, even a cheesecake/bikini shoot)?  This is exactly what they are.  Only difference is that in a photo comic, you add word balloons?

Seems a well-established art form to me.

[GaborBoth]

Rob, I said yes, they are legit, but I still dislike them. It was an opinion, I never meant it to do anything in discussing if they are "legit" or not, which they obviously are.

How does this apply to photo comics? There can't be a lack of real facial expressions, curves, cloth folds, and so forth because these are photographs of real people with real faces, real clothes, and real curves.

Of course I did not mean exactly the same things. But the realistic poses, often the bad acting, lack of lines and the word balloons feeling out of the place make photocomics unreadable for me. These are the points I compared them to 3d comics. I should've been more specific.

[Rob]

Rob, I said yes, they are legit, but I still dislike them. It was an opinion, I never meant it to do anything in discussing if they are "legit" or not, which they obviously are.

How does this apply to photo comics? There can't be a lack of real facial expressions, curves, cloth folds, and so forth because these are photographs of real people with real faces, real clothes, and real curves.

Of course I did not mean exactly the same things. But the realistic poses, often the bad acting, lack of lines and the word balloons feeling out of the place make photocomics unreadable for me. These are the points I compared them to 3d comics. I should've been more specific.

My bad. Must have missed that.

[Gar]

Ever seen a video of an adult photo shoot (or hell, even a cheesecake/bikini shoot)?  This is exactly what they are.  Only difference is that in a photo comic, you add word balloons?

Seems a well-established art form to me.

Never been to an adult photo shoot, I guess I'll take the paid tour of the studio next time.

There was a good photocomic I stumbled on a while ago where the guy wrote stuff on a blackboard and had it as an element of the photo, so there wasn't that kind of jarring disjointed look you often get with speech balloons in photocomics.

[Gibson]

It seems to me that a photocomic is to motion pictures what illustrated comics are to cartoons. It's the same medium, just different tools used to make the visuals. If a photocomic has bad posing (or acting), then that's just a flaw in the craftsmanship, not a flaw in the medium. Some of them are admittedly poorly done, but others aren't. Plus, consider photocomics where the "actors" are action figures or stuffed animals...the one that springs to mind is Pulp Stiktion, which has some of the funniest panel work I've seen. Also, not to flatter, but I've been reading Amanda's But Not Really and, even though the posing is cheesy, not only does the cheesiness bring a lot to the feel of the work, but it wouldn't be even close to as interesting if it had been illustrated. Photos in a comic is nothing more than a choice, it doesn't make it any less or more valid as a comic, just harder to pull off convincingly.

[Knara]

Ever seen a video of an adult photo shoot (or hell, even a cheesecake/bikini shoot)?  This is exactly what they are.  Only difference is that in a photo comic, you add word balloons?

Seems a well-established art form to me.

Never been to an adult photo shoot, I guess I'll take the paid tour of the studio next time.

The Internet makes all things possible  ;)

[Gar]

Come with me and you'll be in a world of Pure imagination</Wonka>

[Fatolbaldguy]

In 2008 I wanted to put my characters in a mall parking lot. I did not want to draw a thousand cars so I cheated. I took a photo of a parking lot and thresholded it (is that even a word?) it worked well and I got a couple of positive comments. I then had to do interiors of the mall and I was hating life so I resorted to photo backgrounds and I liked the result. I was still drawing the charaters but I wasn't killing time with poor back grounds. I used the photos pretty liberally for quite some time before I found Google Sketchup. Here is a free program in which I can design any thing or place my heart desires. In addition I can go to the 3D warehouse and find "props" I like the way the comic looks right now. Am I cheating?....kinda but the work is visually pleasing (at least to me) I can design a star ship and pose it any number of ways and never have to start freaking out about perspective and oh I drew it to fat, too long, too skinny. It is always right. I am now trying to build the Institute Island Volcano which I hate to draw. I did an experiment once in which I had two characters in the back ground of the comic setting up the next update while two other characters in the fore ground had a conversation. No one saw the setup. They were all surprised when the update happened even though I had fore shadowed it. My conclusion? No one looks at the background. They will be turned off by bad background but they wont even see good backgraound because it fits with the inage so well. Yes I do believe that photo comics are legit some are great some are bad. Poser comics? yes some are great some are bad. Sprite comics (Gasp) Some are great some are not. the only type of comics that are bad are the ones not done. You will never improve or find you nich unless you practice practice practice. After all thats how you get to Carnigy Hall or in our case a table at the San Diego Comiccon

[Travis Surber]

Photocomics are legit(at least But Not Really is legit)Sprite can be good if done right(Starslip Crisis is a great example of how to do that)but to me the only "bad" webcomics are the lazy ones.I've seen several where the artist draws the character's ONCE with one expression and pose and then just photoshop's them into each panel.It's even crazier when they try to put props in the character's hands. "Oh look Fable has both hands in his pockets yet is holding a gun and a 40oz"

[Rob]

Starslip isn't a sprite comic.

8-Bit Theater, Diesel Sweeties; now those are sprite comics.

At least I think so. Maybe I'm fuzzy on the sprite definition.

::::goes to wikipedia::::::

Nope I was right. Starslip definitely not a sprite comic. The others are.  ;)