/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6722974
The background is clearly a photo.

>>6722987
The background is white.
Must be a pretty shitty picture.

>>6722987
like most manga its traced over person with some bug eyes too

>>6722981
Good one

>>6722998
It isn't even traced, the contrast and brightness was just fucked with.

>>6723024
screen tone.. thread ruined.

>>6722998
Flowers aren't traced, it's just a picture turned monochrome digitally or even just a simple photocopy

>>6723271
who's the artist?

>>6723284
ohishi masaru

>>6723037
OP’s image ruined the thread since it’s a photo

>>6723271
>>6723289
thank you, his work is beautiful

>>6722987
Correction: The background (you mean the foreground, btw) LOOKS like a photo. You have no way to prove that it IS a photo, nor does anybody have a way to prove it ISN'T. Your sole proof is that it looks realistic, which isn't proof at all.
Your immediate assumption that anything skillful is actually "cheated" only handicaps you.

>>6722981
F for realism no server would be behind the line like that

>>6722981

>>6723360
We had an eastern euro who used to finger bang one of the linecooks while she used to make people's food late into the shift (bar hour usually at like 11)

He also used to fingerbang her in his 1999 honda then go and portion the pasta without washing his hands and mumble to himself that he hopes people don't mind a little kitty with their chicken penne

Kamome Shirahama is my goal

Larry Bob Phillips

Jérôme Zonder. His work is pretty impressive, I'd love to see this one for real.

Love pure line drawings but making a comic with them instead of screentones would take forever

I would post if 4shit globohomo bullshit had no captcha. At this point its just retarded, site is dead and slowboards are underground for years now. Why the fuck is there a fucking captcha, oh i know why- MONEY to buy a fucking le whatever.

>>6723773
who made that

>>6723832
Kino.

>>6723322
It’s a phot cuck, it’s a common process with manga as they have to meet deadlines https://youtu.be/oZ_0l-fdFVQ

>>6723322
>Correction: The background (you mean the foreground, btw) LOOKS like a photo. You have no way to prove that it IS a photo
Are you 5y old or what?

>>6723322
Correction you are stupid as shit

>>6723322
yeah we have no proof this is a thing you can easily make in photoshop in 5 minutes, I'm sure the artist drew every one and each daisy and all those noisy artifacts have been carefully drawn by he himself, and are not at all caused by compressing the levels

>>6723384
lol we had a bartender who spoke Spanish and would overcharge and keep change from Mexicans who couldn't speak English and tell anyone about it

>>6723375
That's so beautiful and well done. Shame about the single ugly generic female face.

>>6724056
Hahahaha your effort is not lost on me anon , good shit

>>6723322
Correction: You're a faggot (You actually like men, btw) AND you like dick. You have no way to prove that you DON'T like penis, nor does any woman want to have sex with you in the FIRST PLACE. Your sole proof for not being a faggot, is that you're not, which isn't proof at all.
Your immediate assumption that "you aren't a fag" only makes you look handicapped.

Yotsuba has great backgrounds

>>6724692
you know he doesnt actually draw these right? just the characters they paste on top of the backgrounds.

>>6724675
NTA; tiresome, get a life dude

>>6724716
NTA2; so what? one could still learn from this anyway

>>6724716
well, it's a serialized manga, so at the very least, an assistant drew it, if not, traced it. Still great for pen and ink study though

>>6723947
>shows somebody else doing it, decades after the image in contention was made, using technology that didn't exist at the time

>>6723952
Prove it's a photo.

>>6724056
>yeah we have no proof this is a thing you can easily make in photoshop in 5 minutes
We can do it easily now, yes. That isn't proof that this image, made in the early 80s, utilized such techniques.
>noisy artifacts
Those happen all the time in ink drawings -- ink from a pen or brush not flowing completely creates a lighter line, which shows up as very thin and broken once scanned and then printed.

All this cope just to avoid admitting that maybe somebody somewhere once upon a time could draw environments well enough to look similar to a binarized photo.

>>6724716
What exactly do you mean by that? It was very clearly drawn by somebody, if not Azuma.

>>6724724
Nice boat.

>>6724724
Posterisation in a darkroom, with a little drawing on top to redefine flowers perhaps. I think he drew it though, maybe drawing all the flowers drove him mad.

>>6724724
Yes photo editing totally didn’t exist in the 80s kek

>>6724753
I never said that. Logic isn't your strong suit, huh.

>>6724724
>That isn't proof that this image, made in the early 80s, utilized such techniques.
Yes, it used darkroom equivalent of those techniques instead.

>>6724765
We're right back to square one, anon. You're still just saying "it's a photo" where the sole evidence you're basing this claim on is that "it looks photorealistic". This isn't proof, and like I said to start with, you can't prove it. So why are you so adamant that it's a photograph?
I should point out, by the way, that I'm not saying it ISN'T a photo. I'm simply saying that seeing something photorealistic and instantly assuming it's faked, not even considering that it was done the hard way, with nothing to back that up simply pushes you to never consider the alternative. This is bad because it leads one to think there's only one way to achieve something, which is obviously antithetical to artistic pursuits, especially in limited mediums like pen & ink where creative solutions are a huge part of the medium.

>>6723322
>its not a photo, you're just coping
>ok it is a photo, but who cares? >no rules just tools

which is it?

>>6725094
Who are you quoting?
I never said it wasn't a photo, I never said that it was a photo, I never implied that nobody cares, I never implied that the method to achieve that look didn't matter.
Why are you projecting completely unrelated concepts onto my post?

>>6723818

https://twitter.com/niconemiri

>>6724724
You are so fucking dumb it hurts anon.
The discrepancy between the drawn girl and the photocopied/posterized flowers is just too nitceable.
Stop opening your mouth. Breathe through your nose.

>>6725122
Before telling others when they should or should not speak on a topic, you should at least try to understand at least one of the basic concepts of cartooning. The whole point of using a realistic environment in the first place is to contrast with the simple character. It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway -- we're not discussing whether or not it's photorealistic, that is obvious to anybody with eyes, the question is whether or we're looking at an actual photo or a replication of one or simply a drawing that resembles one. And the point I'm making has nothing to do whether he did or did not, the point I'm making is that you're handicapping yourself by assuming that it could not have been drawn by hand simply because it looks realistic.

>>6725130
>The whole point of using a realistic environment in the first place is to contrast with the simple character.
Nope, in most cases the whole point is to save time.

>>6725149
Complete nonsense. It does not save time, not for the author unless they're drawing the backgrounds themselves (and they're likely not). The "shortcut" of basing realistic backgrounds on photography, or integrating photography into the work, is not done to save time, it's done to make those realistic backgrounds possible in the first place. It still takes a bunch of time to make them work, despite what anon's quick bash-together example here >>6724056 would lead you to believe. More time than it takes to draw a background in a less realistic style, with or without reference. You can see how much time it takes in Asano Inio's work, both in the video posted earlier in the thread and in the manben video where he explains his process in detail, it's emphasized that despite being based on photography or 3D, this is not done for speed (because it isn't fast), but for the effect of ultradetailed backgrounds contrasting comparatively simple characters.
Not only is this backed up by the author's explanations, I've experienced this in my own work -- if I'm short on time for a page, I'm sure as fuck not going to start editing photos, I'm going to draw something quick and simple. The usage of photography is, more often than not, a choice made to achieve an effect, not merely a shortcut.

>>6725156
>It does not save time
That`s a lie.

>>6725160
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4sk4ji
We see him detailing over a binarized photo around 15min in. Compared to drawing a simpler background, he's 1. going out and taking the photos 2. Processing them, the quick bit 3. Drawing over them so they actually look right 4. Presumably handing off to assistants to apply tones/effects.
If it were truly to simply cut corners, then just spending 15-30min drawing a simplified environment is absolutely faster than this process.

>>6725167
Guy you posted is using the photo as a high detailed reference. OPs example does not, they just use the pretty much as is. This is done to save time

>>6725130
lol those are a lot of statements and very little references

>>6725156
>Complete nonsense. It does not save time
This is how I know you are either a beginner or a complete retard.

>>6725167
>Compared to drawing a simpler background
Who ever talked about simple backgrounds?
Tracing over photos objectively takes you less time than referencing a photo trying to achieve the same level of realism.
You are a fucking idiot.

>>6722998
pyw

>>6723947
>>6724056
>>6723322
>>6722974
I hope you retards are aware this manga is from 1984
That doesn't mean its not a photo background but he clearly didn't run it through a fucking photoshop filter

>>6725485
older ones xerox them multiple times to generate the effect. todd mcfarlane used to do it for some of his backgrounds, like baseball stadiums, etc. we arent going to carbon date your fucking garbage manga trash and verify how the bugman traced it.

>itt: cope

>>6725404
Inio Asano is one of the artists people shit on the most for involving photos/3D into his artwork, and he was brought up earlier in the thread. The video straight up shows him using the photos for more than just "reference".

>>6725445
>a lot of those statements
I made 2 statements in that post: that the point of using a realistic background contrasting a simple character is for the masking effect, and that this is a basic concept of cartooning. The latter doesn't need to be backed up by evidence as it's a statement of opinion, the former is demonstrably true, supported by the source of my image (Understand Comics) and highly likely in the case of the author in the OP, whether he was conscious of the effect or not. Unlike whether or not the environment in the image was handdrawn, there's no real room for reasonable doubt about this, he was very much going for a masking effect with his comics.

>>6725452
I've been drawing comics for a decade. You learned something new.

>>6725456
Try to follow the conversation, anon.
"It's lazy/a shortcut to use a photo" -> "But it takes less time to draw a simpler background quickly" -> "Therefore there must be a reason to still go for a realistic background even when it wouldn't normally possible to draw one and when a simple background would take less time"
Sure are a lot of people calling me an idiot for pointing out their blind assumption, and then merely defending my logic.

>>6725916
pyw larper

>>6725920
Sure, here's a page with both simple backgrounds (drawn quickly) and a more realistic background with photo ref (drawn by an assistant, not me).

>>6725922
you should be embarrassed

>>6725930
The only thing to be embarrassed about is that I'm spending potential drawing time arguing with anons on /ic/.

>>6725941
I suppose I’d be avoiding it too in your circumstances

>>6725922
Sir, I know you mean well, but you're kinda projecting some workflow quirks in your arguments. Using posterisation with photos *is* a time saving method even if the author chooses to redraw over it etc. The argument that you have to take the time to snap pictures is also invalidated if they have stock ready from going on vacations etc.

>>6725922
What shitty art direction

>>6725984
>Sir, I know you mean well, but you're kinda projecting some workflow quirks in your arguments. Using posterisation with photos *is* a time saving method even if the author chooses to redraw over it etc
I assumed that was the case too, until I had to actually do it and discovered that no, it's not. When you're going to draw a realistic environment, using a photo is faster than drawing it by hand, but drawing a non-photoreal environment is faster than both, so drawing photoreal will always be slower than not. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but you guys don't seem to be following. Authors are specifically choosing photoreal environments despite that taking more time than non-photoreal, which is a clear artistic decision made with intent. The "lazy" approach would be to compromise on that intent and instead draw a quick, non-photoreal background.

>>6725548
Post your work or hang yourself

>>6725548
One 9/11 wasn't enough

>>6726646
Didn`t read the thread but pyw.

>>6725922
Awful.

>>6726661
>>6726067
>>6725930
Nta, you guys have rudness to say this shit without posting your work, really.

>>6726667
The other anon deserve it lol

>>6726672
No. It is weak overall but not bad. And what did you deserve buddy, pyw, ill say it.

>>6726674
I’m >>6725984 retard. I’m usually encouraging anon whenever he posts but this time he really projected hard.

>>6725922
You seriously shouldn't be talking kek.

>>6726076
>but drawing a non-photoreal environment is faster than both
Literally nobody was arguing this, you dense idiot.

>>6726676
>I’m >>6725984 retard.
Cool but where is your work?
And im retard now because you are angry like a child, cool.
Pyw im gonna encourage you.

>>6726683
Why should I? I didn’t insult him. Pyw if you want me to pyw.

>>6726682
People were arguing it, it's just so far removed from the original argument that it's pointless to even discuss.

>>6725130
Is this comic by Scott McCloud? Is he retarded? Whoever it is, he's just pulling shit out of his ass, it's all assumptions based on personal opinions, written with so much confidence that it pisses me off.
>The combination of a detailed bacground and a stylized character's puropose is that it allows the readers to MASK themselves in the character and self-insert
More likely, the reason human faces are drawn in more stylized ways is that our innate face recognition system makes it so that it's easier to convey strong emotions through facial expressions by using less realistic artstyles. We can immediately see a face in just three dots in a circle, the same can't be said about trees and cars. Drawing faces allows for more freedom and stylization than anything else.
>the masking effect
The retard even gave it a name, to something that doesn't exist.
>in Japan it was virtually a national style!
Another idiotic far fetched claim.

I can't believe someone like him is trying to teach stuff. I've never heard so many baseless claims one after another. Did he even stop to think 5 seconds about his "theories" before writing them like a comic book guru?

>>6726703
>More likely, the reason human faces are drawn in more stylized ways is that our innate face recognition system makes it so that it's easier to convey strong emotions through facial expressions by using less realistic artstyles.
Congrats anon you just regurgitated what he was saying.
>The retard even gave it a name, to something that doesn't exist.
He neither invented nor popularized the term, but reducing a complicated idea into a single word is common practice in education and communication in general so I don't see why you have a problem with it here. And what do you mean it "doesn't exist"? You explained the phenomenon in your previous paragraph. You clearly agree it exists.
>Another idiotic far fetched claim.
The only dumb part is the "was", but hindsight is 20/20.

>>6726703
>Is this comic by Scott McCloud? Is he retarded? Whoever it is, he's just pulling shit out of his ass
Kek, ngmi.

>>6725916
>drawing a simple background is faster
Yeah, no shit, but they want a detailed background so they use a photo to save time.
>inb4 it's literally impossible to draw a realistic environment without using a photo
If you believe this then you're a beg who has no business lecturing other people

>>6726938
Nta but depends on defenition of realism.
James Gurney is great, does he draws without refs?
On other hand GI stuff fits description of realism.
Stop calling everyone beg without proving your point. Guys ffs why is /ic users are so immature. C`mon. You both are faggots btw- inb4 Le THIS AND THAT.

>>6726956
>why is /ic users are so immature
I've got a theory: they can't get punched in the face for being assholes. The lack of punitions prevents the lesson from being learnt, and so they keep on behaving like little people.

>>6725485
>What are photocopier machines?

>>6726975
>I've got a theory: they can't get punched in the face for being assholes.
Yes, just like Mike Tyson said.
>The lack of punitions prevents the lesson from being learnt, and so they keep on behaving like little people.
Yeah, you can only laugh at clowns.

>>6725922
Better than 95% of /ic/, hold your head high, king

>>6726956
I get your point, so just to be clear, when I say "using a photo", I mean editing it, giving it minor touch ups and pasting your characters on top. I don't mean, using it as reference to create something new which just draws inspiration from it.

>>6726975
50.137891,8.688599
I'll be waiting

>>6726731
>>6726703
NTA
>Congrats anon you just regurgitated what he was saying
He didn't say that, he's saying comic book readers need stylized characters so they can self insert, he literally says a set of lines to BE. He confusingly calls this masking for some reason, even though masking already has a meaning in visual art. The implication is that realistically drawn characters are too much for the audience, revealing how little he thinks of you.
Saying stylized faces and figures are drawn that way because
>our innate face recognition system makes it so that it's easier to convey strong emotions through facial expressions by using less realistic artstyles
is more honest, the fact is realistic faces can also show a lot of expression but its not as easy to pull off convicingly for the artistVww

>>6727039
>He confusingly calls this masking for some reason, even though masking already has a meaning in visual art.
He doesn`t know...

>>6727012
>I'll be waiting
I've got other ways of proceeding than punching you in the face. But one is forced to recognize that it's how the average men has proceeded for centuries, so the theory holds, at large scale (while it can break at individual scale).

> Teuton
It's on bro, it's on. Just stay right there.

>>6726667
>pyw
Ok, that's from last year though.

>>6726667
>>6726067

>>6722974

>>6726938
>inb4 it's literally impossible to draw a realistic environment without using a photo
I've been saying the entire time that it's possible the image in the OP was drawn without using a photo.

>>6725922
Timmy looks like he's fucking 13, why is he acting kawaii like he's 4

>>6723804
I feel like i recoginse this series, whats it from?

>>6727656
City Hunter?

They say just follow the contour of the objects but none of the art posted here follow them

>>6727659
Beg detected, lurk moar. You dont know the termins.

>>6727454
And why would they use a photo then?

>>6727454
It's not impossible to draw the same image without using a photo. But since that's a manga, it would be impossible to draw it in time.

>>6722974
All joy was sucked out of my life when I learned that many manga creators use photos for backgrounds and don't draw it themselves. It's a big fat lie and many people don't know. People who use photos so heavily in their art are almost as bad as prompters.

>>6727923
>It's a big fat lie
They never claimed to draw everything and all by themselves.

>>6727927
That is the usual assumption. That the lines in a comic are fully hand-drawn. Or that the digital artwork is made manually by hand. Just like AI fake artists should label their images as AI-created, maybe comics that heavily use photos should be called something like "photocomic".

>>6727923
>>6727930
You don't draw and especially not professionally

What an awful thread

>>6727931
Using photos is not drawing. There are actual artists who meticulously hand-draw amazingly detailed backgrounds. I appreciate that. Wowing a clueless audience with photos that are put through filters to appear hand-drawn is not something that deserves that same appreciation. Sure, it also takes some work but it's essentially a different artform and media.

>>6727658
City Hunter is Tsukasa Hojo's.

That page looks like it's from Ryoichi Ikegami.
So probably on of his works

>>6722981
source?

Bringing the thread back on track by posting actual amazing art, you're welcome

Love me some joao. I'd like to give etching a shot.

>>6727940
Making a comic is not about drawing, it's about telling a story. I've seen comics where everything is skilfully hand-drawn but the story is shit and the narration is unbearable. And guess what? I've stopped reading it.
I think you don't understand how tight-scheduled making a manga is.

>>6727974
>>6727975
Sources?

Suprised I havent seen any KJG or Karl Kopinski or Clare Wendling

>>6727999
>Making a comic is not about drawing, it's about telling a story.
Making a movie is not about filming, it's about telling a story. So a book is a movie and a comic too!
It doesn't matter what the industry is doing today. Most people think of hand-drawn stylized pictures to tell stories when they think of the word "comic" or "manga". Using photos with filters is a shortcut to drawing, it's to create something that looks hand-drawn without actually drawing. It's the big industry lie because I don't think most people know of this.

>>6728000
joaoruas.com

>>6727940
>>6728007
You will be singing a different tune once you work under these same deadlines. Not that you'll ever make it.

>>6728026
Who cares what you have to say? You have likely built AI and photobashing into your workflow. We must become faster, faster, and faster. The deadline is our master. Anything goes for true artists, the goal is that sweet green paper.

>>6728032
>You have likely built AI and photobashing into your workflow.
I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night.

>>6728032
>AIfag using reverse psychology