Post beautiful black and white images and comics, trad or digital, lets not let this die quickly again
>>7246833
>>7247035LOL
i never knew manga could look good
>>72493384ft batman
>>7246833My inner nine-year-old is autistically screeching that a tyrannosaurus has two fingers not three. But I love the notan of this image. Here is an Arthur Adams
finally a good fucking thread
Not exactly linework but cool as fuck anyway
>>7249409batmanlet
>>7249444
Marc Silvestri
>>7250525shame that this dude works in capeslop
I really love classic book illustrations. I really want to write my own books and just fill them with my own drawings, it'd be so much fun.
>>7252233I'm just now noticing with this piece that Joubert didn't use outer contour lines, but used lines to create the form and values. It sort of has a unique look that makes it look like a classic print/engraving.
Man I love Franz Frazetta, not for the coom aspect, but for the feel of the lines. Here's some I found in /hr/
R. Crumb is great too
Question for the thread: What does "bad" inking look like exactly and how can we help aspiring inkers or digital artists distinguish between good inking and bad inking habits. And if we can get an idea of what good inking is, would that mean there is also a hierarchy of skill in inking?
>>7255539>Lines are deliberate>Avoids tangents (Lines should join as a T instead of an X)>Thick lines indicate shadow, proximity, and silhouette>Thin lines indicate light, distance, and fine detail>Solid control of tone when hatching>Balanced composition on fills>Hatching indicates form with its curve>Texture detail used as shadow and midtones>More contrast around focal point and foreground objects>More detail on/around focal point
>>7255643That's good inking, you ultrafaggot
>>7255940>He doesn't understand negative spacengmi
>>7255539For me, the main issue is that it has to be readable, even from a distance. You should be able to understand what's going on without much effort (unless the intention is to create complexity). Even in that case, if the artist wants to create something complicated for a specific reason, they need to provide some indications on how to view the objects and in what orderpic related is a good guide but those are not hard rules, like everything in art you can do whatever you want, the problem with beginners is that they often don't think about what they're doing; they just act without considering the bigger pictureAt the end of the day, you are still working with values. Even if you are only using line art, you are working with two values and you have to know how to control light and shadow or how to convey form properly
Nice thread
>>7255539> would that mean there is also a hierarchy of skill in inking?Yeah kinda, but it's not a linear thing.Some inkers suck because they don't know how to draw or compose well to begin with for example.Those aside, bad inking specifically often happens when people have bad control on how to achieve tone with ink: they tend to layer fine hatches over and over to build up tone, that's noisy and inefficient, and not aesthetic from up close.Go study Guptill's book on ink for more
>>7257777Wow, also checked.
>>7246861Femoids when they think they're deep so they use they/them pronouns and become a neolesbian but they're just retarded bitches:
>>7257798I think she's just enjoying some piano, man
>>7257835nta but i feel he's definitely onto something
>>7257961>>7257964I'll make sure to drip feed so that this thread doesn't die :3
>>7257968Free bump because I enjoy your images very much
I wish some madlad would scan that giant Hal Foster book with all the uncolored pages.
>>7257961this toppi?
Why are lines so seductive bros? Like there is nothing more appealing to my eye than beautiful lines.
>>7258660repeating patterns make ape brain go brr
>>7257982Thanks anon.>>7258284I have no idea I just have it saved on my PC...
>>7258696
>>7258765
>>7258883
>>7258885
>>7258886
>>7258888
Does anyone have any tips on how to make digital inking feel more natural? I like sketching digitally because it's comfortable, I can resize my canvas, draw as much as I want, etc. I don't have that same comfortable feeling with digital inking at all.
>>7258958I own two Krenkel sketches. Love his stuff
>>7258958I struggle with this as well and have been looking for a solution for a while now. Jimmy Reyes and Ryan Benjamin have a video or two about digital inking which at least gave me some ideas on how to fix my problem.
>>7258957
>>7259535
>>7259782
>>7258971Really? An original? Can you take a picture of it? How did you get it, or how much did it cost?
>>7258284It's Ohishi Masaru, who seems basically unknown outside of Japan. I don't think any of his works are fully translated. It's a shame because his drawings are really good.
>>7246863Who did this one
Some 10 years ago I asked a painter I really liked what his opinion was on some draughtsmen I enjoyed, like Booth, and he said he was pretty much indifferent towards ink artists. At the time I thought he didn't understand their appeal or something, and was disappointed with that response. Now I really do see how scant a medium it is. Once you begin to understand painting, you can only enjoy the kind of sketches like pic related, and not the "line art" for its own sake. I remember being obsessed with Booth, I had a collection of probably few hundreds of his works, but today I feel nothing when looking at them. Kind of sad, really.
>>7260925>I had a collection of probably few hundreds of his works, but today I feel nothing when looking at them. Kind of sad, really.Time to sell them? Must be worth a fortune.
>>7258958I tried to make digital inking work for years. I just went back to inking traditionally because then you can focus on making it look good instead of devoting all that effort to just making it look like ink.
>>7260931I don't know if you're jesting or not, but I just meant digital pictures, of course.Honestly, I'm not even sure I completely stand by what I just said above, some of these are still pretty cool. I guess I just haven't taken a proper look in a long while!
>>7260934>I just went back to inking traditionally because then you can focus on making it look good instead of devoting all that effort to just making it look like ink.That's exactly how I feel. It's such a nuisance to get digital inking to "work" if that makes any sense. Pic related was probably the only time I felt some satisfaction with digital inking. I'm thinking I'm going to just start printing my digital sketches and ink them traditionally.
>>7255539All of this >>7255643. The only thing I would add from my experience learning inking is to distinguish the "technical" from "stylistic choices". Good/Bad applies to the handling of the technical aspects (all of the things listed by the above referenced post), but something can be "good" but "not your thing." I hate the New Yorker style, continuous line drawings, even though when done well they are "good." My taste leans more toward the ligne claire style, which has it's own challenges in how to handle the technical side. Goodspeed anon. Hope to see you in the Inktober threads
Digital
>>7261018Hi Dave =)
>>7257490We recently had a thread on /co/ about the art styles of artists like Bruce Timm. Shane Glines was one of the artists brought up.
>>7260925>he said he was pretty much indifferent towards ink artists.Sounds like a cock gargling faggot, ngl.
Raphael
>>7260925>Now I really do see how scant a medium it is.Your taste simply regressed.
>>7260925> Now I really do see how scant a medium it isThat's one important reasons for inks to be interesting, the constraints.> Once you begin to understand painting, you can only enjoy the kind of sketches like pic related,Why so? Those sketches are mere preliminary studies, I barely enjoy them anymore than that. And I do both paint and ink to a reasonable extent.> he said he was pretty much indifferent towards ink artists.Well, did he ever actually seriously inked? Perhaps he was indifferent because he didn't understood it to begin with. Or, was subconsciously intimidated: it forced him to give up on his established expertise and admit being a beginner once more (it's a common behavior)
>>7260574
>>7260934>you can focus on making it look good instead of devoting all that effort to just making it look like inkWhy do you try to imitate real ink in the first place?Take the principals of ink drawing and just use them in photoshop. If your fundis are good, if your lines are dynamic, if you know how to move your hand your drawings will look good in any medium. You can start with the simplest binary brush and add up features as needed.
>>7261734
>>7261018that's amazing
>>7262690I think it's very overworked, no sense for focus and composition. Focus is everywhere, like in horror vacui. What are all the tiny details good for? Looks only slightly better than your usual ai slop covered with fake details.
>>7262762>Looks only slightly better than your usual ai slop covered with fake details.That's because he was the number one artist to feed to those systems in the early days, you fucking cretin. God, we're now at the point where fucking morons actually dismiss incredible artists for "looking like AI slop". Fuck this timeline, truly. My sole hope is that you're trolling, but I'm pretty sure you're not.
>>7262881I never understood why people worshipped this guy.Him being a pleb idol long predates AI.
>>7263180This is now a Dave Rapoza appreciation thread
>>7263180Hi Dave =) Cool drawing Big Fan!
>>7263181
>>7263184
>>7257798anon i think you might enjoy life more if you just start having sex with men
Anon can you recommend me artists with this rendering style with little or no line weight rendering? Has it a name, how can i google it?I found this style works best for me for digital inking, want to find some more inspiration.
>>7263601Katsuya Terada does it a lot as well.
>>7263601>Has it a nameAre you thinking "Ligne Claire"? >Coined by Joost Swarte in 1977, ligne claire describes comic art that gives equal weight and consideration to every line on the page. By forgoing shading with ink, the artist creates a depth of field on the page that brings equal amounts of focus to the background and foreground.
>>7263697Picture he posted doesn't look very ligne claire.One of the defining features of clear line is no hatching.
>>7263697Not quite, but thanks, good to know. I found Moebius in the list of artists who is working in it, but he uses hatching to render his ink drawings, it's not as flat as the Tin Tin for example. I have his artbook with inks only (40 days dans le desert) and its quite what i was looking for.
what specifically is wrong with a drawing like this? Like the neck and head lines are smooth and look correct, but they're not as good as some things posted here with millions of tiny lines.
>>7263745>what specifically is wrong with a drawing like this?Its very obvious it was traced from a photo. The artist behind it has zero, skills, its obvious as well.I would think it is some kind of uncanny valley effect, its fake and off putting.
>>7263745There's no sense of form (in the face) making it look flat. The way the hair was done gives some sense of form, which further flattens the face.
Of course, ole Arthur has to be in the thread
Any simple lineart inspo?Lots of black, not insanely neat, etc.
>>7264507Hugo Pratt comics
>>7264507I love this guy's work
>>7264507Not sure if this counts as simple but
>>7264545Damn this is beautiful. An art style done right
>>7264507
>>7246862Tiepolo?
>>7264558Not really what I'm looking forKubo's work is very labored, even if he makes it look easy.
>>7264603More e.g.Characters with a lot of black and white on their costumes are really fun.Handling dark skin in this sort of style though... I'm not so sure. I'd have to use gray for the skin.Trying to hatch it might not look good.
>>7264507>>7264657>>7264660Yuji Himukai's style is pretty simple when it comes to lineart since his focus is more on character design and color
>>7263745Look at the thumbnails. Pieces here tend to layer black, grey and white. Otherwise, they alternate busy patches with light or hatched patches and white elements.Those make an image both complex and readable.
Anyone else have resources on learning to render with ink? I've read through both of Alphonso Dunn's books but they haven't quite clicked for me.
>>7250004Fuck. That looks so eerie. Nice
>>7249572what book?
Love this sort of rough, techpen-like lineart
>>7246840so this is the Éowyn we were robbed of by artless modern "cinema"
>>7249409>>7249751it's a cosplaying dwarf, you fools
>>7260633damn, he's really soulful
>>7265811I hate Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I fell asleep two times in the third one.I remember when I saw the trailer from "The 13th warrior" from John Mctiernan, I wished so fucking hard for that to be a Lord Of the Ring movie, and also to have Blind Guardian's song at the end, but, I guess we will never have thathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MajXUcUI9D0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHTZKHQm9y0
>>7265540Artist?
>>7262881I think he's great, but this isn't a sketch, it's a greyscale painting, which is what i think makes some people dismiss it. I personally make a difference between "sketching" and "pencil painting"
>>7265823> I guess we will never have thatOne of the many things that lie downstream from hanging bankers and bankrupting fractional reserve-fed "investors"
>>7265540I like this edgy style, with dynamic, messy lines. But i was never able to do it digital.>>7265811>ÉowynI mean the drawing is very good, in itself at least. But too dark phantasy and american to be true to Tolkien.But the stupidest thing about is, it makes zero sense. The hole twist was about Eowyn looking like a man in the armor. No man can kill the king of Nazgul prohecy and so on, makes no sense in this illustration.Technically there should be a hobbit behind him as well, who really kills him in the end...
>>7266037IIRC the "no man" thing was made up for the movie and wasn't in the book, but you're right I don't think she could have passed as one of the male rohirrim warriors dressed like that and with that kind of figure
>>7266041I don't know what you mean, they may have changed the dialog in the movies, but the prophecy was in the books.
is my line art pretty good or do I still have ways to go
>>7266165Everyone always has a ways to go, but I like your work.m and really like your texture work. A little criticism, if you are open to it from someone not posting their work on this post, I think the face, feet, and hands are a little askew. But I still saved it to my inspo folder
>>7266165it looks like a children's book illustration, very nice
>>7257979Hows this study here look?
>>7266868Fucked quality
>>7266871Looks good.
>>7266871Nice study, but wtf is that scribbling
>>7267174Yeah dont know why I wrote that stuff, Im awful at writing and usually leave lettering blank
>>7265137>>7265136>>7265135>>7265131These are stunning. I may be fucking retarded cause I didn't see it, but who is the artist.Posting something I always though was beautiful
>>7268359Georges Bess
>>7246833Anyone have tips on how to get good at this? I'm not a complete beginner, I do have some art abilities but when I go through this thread I wonder how I could ever reach this ability, but I am dedicated to this. How do I get good
>>7268693You will get good by filling up sketchbooks.
>>7268693Get a tablet, start tracing classic comic artists. Trace Loomis. Get used to that classic western vintage comic art stylization from the '40s and '50s.
>>7268883No need to trace Loomis - he literally shows you how to construct the heads. I think that is better desu
>>7270163I like this, it feels very light
>>7266293I'm just gonna post more of that artist
bump goddammit
Bump I said.
>>7265540Give the fucking artist name, you stupid cunt bitch!!
https://www.deviantart.com/bigkneeloverYour welcome
>>7275508meant for >>7274610
>>7275508Its not him.
>>7275676Apologies I must have sent the wrong attachment, heres the user here https://www.deviantart.com/moophro/art/Makima-Comic-Page-1-936113710
>>7275896>>7275508Sir, if I may, I think you mistake yourself once more! How tragic.
>>7275896You must be retarded, or something.
>>7275961Ahh shame, I'd actually just found the artist
>>7276400Cho, weird guy.
OC
>>7276812Looks good in thumbnail. Could use some work when full res. Hard to see the clothing texture or patterns behind the sword.
bump
>>7276766>weird guyhuh?
>>7277030Yeah, look at that. It would be like if Jim Lee does coom, being a high profile talented family man. Cho does disgusting risque coom and publish it. He have a great american comic style, and show himself as a successful family man american artist, yet he draws pornography. And he posts pictures of her family there? I don't know about you, but that's at least "weird", to me.If you're gonna be doing coom as a "career" at least keep a low profile, and most important, keep your family out of it.
>>7277046whoa ey tone it down with the anti-lewdimism why do you hate women so much? fucking racist
>>7277048I love coom. I just said that it was "weird", didn't I? A family man publishing coom and exposing his family like that on that porn environment. That's not healthy for them. He's not making batman comics, he's making open pornography, and I love his work. But I just find "weird" the whole exposing he does of that. That's all.
Guys look at this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_ipI3vqD0
>>7277215Yet another woman being a woman: it's so harder for men to make it.
>>7277226Did you see the video? She's fucking amazing
>>7277215>>7277226menbros, not like this...
>>7266041>wasn't in the bookThe only difference in this case is that Eowyn reveals she is a woman before fighting the witch king in the book.
noriyoshi ohrai
I wish I could lineart roughRough line art that is so confident and good looking is so hard to me...
>>7257798Rent free
>>7277234no she's not :-/ that's what cute women do to men brain, and why we used to veil them a little> can't draw a cylinder in perspective> noisy use of line> chaotic use of line weight
>>7277915I watched some random bits of video and haven't seen a single frame with her face. And yes, she utterly mogs 99% of /ic/ and you are just a craboid sandnigger. Now PYW. Trad only.
>>7277930> Now PYW. Trad only.You really need someone to post their work to accept "that cylinder is crooked", do you.I'm a trad, I do ink reasonably well, way better than she does actually, believe it or not. I don't want to be associated with that place filled with ill-mannered people.No, you're just being possessed by your weenie and refuse to accept the truth, so you find excuses to cope. Or you're still beg enough not to see clearly. Your choice:>
>>7277215Woah, she's good
>>7278108>>noisy use of line>>chaotic use of line weightI disagree. Now post your inking.
>>7278108>wall of cope>no work postedDidn't read faggot
>>7277054>he's making open pornographyStop making hyperbole bullshit up, Cho does nudes but he does not do porn art. Making up hyperbole crap totally makes you look like an idiot.
Bump
Blimp
>Lineart thread>no Lineart postednice job guysLemme save this thread
This is how you bump btw
Stippling
>>7282780>>7282781>>7282782>>7282813Thanks anon. You're a true one.
>>7282895Youre welcome!
>>7284863dam thats smaller quality than i thought
panosian
>>7284865Jose Gonzalez's stuff on the original Vampirella was so good. I never saw the Warren comics as a little kid because I lived in a town that would never put that stuff on the racks, just Marvel and DC. Finally getting the see all that Warren stuff years and years later, all those crazy talents spanish artists Warren had draw Vampirella, Creepy and Eerie, so awesome.
>>7285250Thanks for the info
I return once more with even more dragon men!
>>7286016Aaah, i love Max Dunbar
>>7286026dude's art is fantastici wanna incorporate some of his style into my line art
bumpo
I've not run out of dragon men just yet
All the examples here are fantastic, I love themIs it okay to post some experimental or unconventional line art too? I need some inspo. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been studying my fundies for a couple of years, and I’m familiar with perspective, anatomy, composition, and figure drawing basics. But I still struggle because I want to tell stories through my art and I want to create a lot. I can’t spend forever perfecting the line art for every drawing.I’m looking for examples that look great but aren’t necessarily perfect or super professional at first glance—pieces that clearly come from artists who know what they’re doing and have developed their own style to suit their needs, not because they lack skills or haven’t studied enough
>>7289954
>>7289957
>>7289962
>>7289954I like Togashi's art for all the reason's you mentioned
More Dunbar!
>>7291076He really likes drawing Dragonborns
Like this one quite a bit
>>7291079Well, he's drawn tons and tons of DnD stuffIt's not really that he draws lots of Dragonborn, but much rather that I like dragon men
Anons, I'm running out of Dragon MenI don't think I can keep this thread much longer...It may be over very soon
>>7265540Bump on sauce
>>7294543garbage
>>7246861holy fucking shit.I will never draw something this good.Why even live
>>7295455its extremely time consuming. you can learn to draw like booth. its not impossible. but will you spend 100 hours on a single inked image? literally couple hours for a couple inch square of grass inking. like autistic level inking. digital can help with mistakes and line work, but can tell. guys posted in this thread do it for modern inkers. more like they combine digital with their trad work. they still have talent and skill. but the look is 'off' for finished work because digital assist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZiopESzIAoheres a quick little tutorial for inking blades of grass in similar styles to booth, etc. she has some ok vids. not amazing. but can give some quick insight into rendering like these people. richard friend has a lot more detailed rendering tutorials from early in his channel. render like wrightson, etc. shows how to use brush and pigma microns to ink properly if you really want to learn.
>>7295455>I will never draw something this good.If you tried hard enough, you could. For having gone through that hassle, it's difficult, in the sense that you need to be resilient to failure, or grow that resilience in the process: try fail, try, fail, try, fail, gain a little, try fail, try fail, gain a little, try, fail, grab a nugget, try, fail, try, fail... over and over.I don't believe it's harder than doing skillful gouaches or oils, for what it's worth. Perhaps it looks more impressive? Rarer for sure
>>7295964What american accent is this? Is it LA? It sounds like she's asking a question every sentence.t. anglo
>>7246833Is that gold ink?
Bumpink
>>7299333post a pic when bump, dammit
>>7299583I love this, too bad the ugly polished with ugly colors style is more popular in comics
>>7299775don't you think it looks unfinish and unpolished for a final work? Do you think that will be popular in manga or comic? If it does not convert to sales, how will it be sustainable?
>>7257798It's just mental illness, anyone who claim they/them, it is a demonic thing, we are many.
>>7299789I don't know about the sales aspect, I just think pic related is like a toddler defacing a work of art with colored markers in my opinion.
>>7299793Technically speaking, i feel this piece is different, because it is inked and colored, it could be from the same artist or from various different artists. Not sure, but from the cover, there is 3 names, maybe 1 draw, 1 ink and 1 color.
>>7299797>there is 3 names, maybe 1 draw, 1 ink and 1 colorYes that's what they do in comics, usually the sketch and ink look great and then comes the color guy and massacres everything. I'm not part of the comic audience so maybe they love colors so much they just don't care or they prefer it.
>>7299800Colors done right creates emotions, depths and spice up the characters. Color is the umami of art. And people tend to want to look at colorful art.
>>7299804Mangas are black and white and they're much more popular than colored comics. They also tend to have better art, and some comics have very ugly art so maybe they're using colors to muddle everything.
>>7299814Isn't marvel more profitable?
>>7299872Marvel comics? I don't think so.
>>7299878Marvel as a brand made more money than the entire franchise of Manga industry. Comic + movies, they made like 30 billion. The Manga industry + movies about 7 billion. Yeah, I think you are a bit off.
>>7299907I don't care about capeshit movies and sucking off Marvel's revenue which probably also includes toys and videogames as well, mangas are still vastly more popular than printed comics, I'm not even a weeb and I like French/Belgian stuff a lot more but it's an undeniable fact.
>>7299814manga isnt black and white. it is greyscale, typically from toner packs/digitally applied.
>>7262881no it looks like someone shit all over it.
>>7263186>>7263180>>7263181>>7263184>>7261259>>7263182got triggered huh kek pathetic. go shill your crap somwhere else
>>7265823>>7265811what a bunch of fucking faggots. cant you enjoy anything without cooming? if you hate those movies, you simply have no taste.
>>7299793you sound like a pretentious retard, no offense. your taste is your taste, faggot. colors make everything better, you bleak cunt.
>>7301548Look at European BDs and learn to color then comic mong, because your comic colors look like shit and ruin otherwise amazing art.
this is it guys. my last dragon man.make it count, dont let this thread die...
oh no, i didnt realize...
