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?
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.
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?
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!
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 (http://www.chrisyates.net/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.
As long as they are your photos and not something you took from someone else then it is ok.
"A comic is a comic is a comic. Photos or not. They're the same thing. "
word.
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 ^.^
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!"
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.
There are some amazing photo comics out there. Night Zero (http://www.nightzero.com/index.html (http://www.nightzero.com/index.html)) and Union of Heroes (http://www.unionofheroes.com/ (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.
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.
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?
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.
QuoteThere 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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: GaborBoth on March 04, 2010, 11:51:52 AM
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.
Quote from: GaborBoth on March 04, 2010, 11:51:52 AM
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:
QuoteI'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.
Quote from: Gar on March 03, 2010, 12:59:07 PM
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: GaborBoth on March 05, 2010, 06:05:18 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Knara on March 04, 2010, 07:02:22 PM
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.
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 (http://pulpstiktion.smackjeeves.com), 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.
Quote from: Gar on March 08, 2010, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: Knara on March 04, 2010, 07:02:22 PM
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 ;)
Come with me and you'll be in a world of Pure imagination</Wonka>
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
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"
Starslip (http://starslip.com/) isn't a sprite comic.
8-Bit Theater, (http://www.nuklearpower.com/8-bit-theater/) Diesel Sweeties (http://dieselsweeties.com/); 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. ;)
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?
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...
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
Well according to Wikipedia...
Quote"Sprite comics are webcomics that use computer sprites, often taken from video games, for significant portions of their artwork."Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_comic
I don't think Starslip would fit in under that definition.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we should just nickname them "lazy comics" altogether and see if the term catches on.
Ran said copypasta earlier. Looks like it was a typo, but I kinda like it.
Quote from: GaborBoth on April 28, 2010, 04:35:31 PMMaybe 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."
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.
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 (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php). 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"?
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.
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.
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.