The extra shadow on his face jumped out to me more because the character is obviously supposed to have big plump cheeks and jowls, but that ink line makes it look like he has more chiseled features.
Big John always praised Sinnot, DeZuniga for thier inking of his work, but hated Alcala's inking of him which was universally loved (by Conan fans at least). Enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this. Lot's of thoughtful comments too.
No butchering here, son. Tom cleaned up and improved the drawing quite a bit. And added more dramatic lighting. Plus he has a dynamic, expressive ink line. Buscemas pencils are very rough.
Totally agree! Mr. Palmer was an excellent artist in his own right, not just an 'inker'. His line weights are so expressive and don't look 'plastic' like lots of others' work.
Focusing on line rather than design is the #1 reason pencilers hate their inkers. The top 25% of inkers are great at this but there is a reason the bottom 75% of inkers are disappearing.
Don't agree,Tom Palmer was a wonderful inker no doubt, but, in the panel where the character is getting shot, Tom complete changes the angle of the face and expression of the character(one of the many things Big John was a master at) by not reading John's pencils correctly and putting the nose in the wrong place and it results in a much weaker face and we now get a big bulbused nosed character with a less dynamic expression, who looks nothing like he did in the previous panel.
I can see what Tom was aiming for compositionally, but he didn't commit to it fully: he would have needed to achieve a mostly dark silhouette, in effect nearly inverting the pencils. Going for a compromise with shapes that are "carved up" like in this panel rarely works because it adds visual noise that doesn't read as shape, form or texture. Perhaps Tom rushed into a mistake, thought "I'll just black it out" and ended up painting himself into a corner. The colors could still save it, though.
I disagree with your analysis. The mumbo jumbo about design is ridiculous. IMO. I’m a pro too…this isn’t a off the cuff opinion of some fan. I love seeing the full pencils of John. But outside of that this abstract talk nonsense is mind blowing gobbledygook. You’re bring something forth that’s only in your mind. Beyond that you’re commenting on guys who were doing 2-5 pages a day back then. They were laying it down. The idea that they were thinking this through is silly. This was a get it done job…that’s it. Palmer who was known for his lighting tricks attempts to account for the lightbulb. These were full pencils most likely from a plot outline old school Marvel system. The light bulb was John’s idea unless it was in the plot synopsis. So dinging Tom on this is wrong headed to begin with. It’s ill conceived by Buscema. And yes, the writing breaks up the design to the extent that you’re leaving space for copy but have no idea really how much to leave. You’re working in the dark. It is interesting to see how much liberties Palmer took with Buscema’s pencils. But the things you nitpick about are silly. John in this case knocked down a figure not really accounting for lighting it with that bulb, let alone any bounce light. So Palmer being his own special kind of genius played with it. Did it work perfectly…? Probably not. But that panel was probably inked in 15-20 minutes and then on to the next panel. When I worked in a studio with Jack Abel he told me he HAD TO INK 14-17 panels a DAY minimum to keep the lights on in his life. That’s what was going on in them days. The idea that there were other considerations going on is ridiculous. I just read a Richard Friend piece where he took 2 days to ink a page of Travis Charest work to try to land the gig. He was a pro at the time. Buscema and Palmer were not afforded that kind of time or luxury. So while you walked back your statement for the video in the video…people who don’t know much deserve a clearer, imo, picture, of how that art was being made. I think overall you were way overboard about all of it. But…that’s just my opinion…informed as it is.
It's funny, I was discussing the light bulb with a fellow pro. We both had the same theory that it was possibly put in by a bullpen-style artist in editorial, because it is so out of design and perspective. That said, you could not possibly be more wrong about the abstract part. I won't go into detail here but I will be teaching it on this channel. I've already taught it to my students and their work improved by leaps. Not understanding the abstract principles is the #1 reason most artist's work is bad inside and outside of comics.
"Butchering" is simply inaccurate in this case.
The extra shadow on his face jumped out to me more because the character is obviously supposed to have big plump cheeks and jowls, but that ink line makes it look like he has more chiseled features.
Big John always praised Sinnot, DeZuniga for thier inking of his work, but hated Alcala's inking of him which was universally loved (by Conan fans at least). Enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this. Lot's of thoughtful comments too.
This was an awesome analysis! I’m in desperate need of Applied abstract graphic design in ilustration keep’em coming
Excellent thank you!,
No butchering here, son. Tom cleaned up and improved the drawing quite a bit. And added more dramatic lighting. Plus he has a dynamic, expressive ink line. Buscemas pencils are very rough.
Totally agree! Mr. Palmer was an excellent artist in his own right, not just an 'inker'. His line weights are so expressive and don't look 'plastic' like lots of others' work.
Focusing on line rather than design is the #1 reason pencilers hate their inkers. The top 25% of inkers are great at this but there is a reason the bottom 75% of inkers are disappearing.
Don't agree,Tom Palmer was a wonderful inker no doubt, but, in the panel where the character is getting shot, Tom complete changes the angle of the face and expression of the character(one of the many things Big John was a master at) by not reading John's pencils correctly and putting the nose in the wrong place and it results in a much weaker face and we now get a big bulbused nosed character with a less dynamic expression, who looks nothing like he did in the previous panel.
I can see what Tom was aiming for compositionally, but he didn't commit to it fully: he would have needed to achieve a mostly dark silhouette, in effect nearly inverting the pencils. Going for a compromise with shapes that are "carved up" like in this panel rarely works because it adds visual noise that doesn't read as shape, form or texture. Perhaps Tom rushed into a mistake, thought "I'll just black it out" and ended up painting himself into a corner. The colors could still save it, though.
I disagree with your analysis. The mumbo jumbo about design is ridiculous. IMO. I’m a pro too…this isn’t a off the cuff opinion of some fan. I love seeing the full pencils of John. But outside of that this abstract talk nonsense is mind blowing gobbledygook. You’re bring something forth that’s only in your mind. Beyond that you’re commenting on guys who were doing 2-5 pages a day back then. They were laying it down. The idea that they were thinking this through is silly. This was a get it done job…that’s it. Palmer who was known for his lighting tricks attempts to account for the lightbulb. These were full pencils most likely from a plot outline old school Marvel system. The light bulb was John’s idea unless it was in the plot synopsis. So dinging Tom on this is wrong headed to begin with. It’s ill conceived by Buscema. And yes, the writing breaks up the design to the extent that you’re leaving space for copy but have no idea really how much to leave. You’re working in the dark. It is interesting to see how much liberties Palmer took with Buscema’s pencils. But the things you nitpick about are silly. John in this case knocked down a figure not really accounting for lighting it with that bulb, let alone any bounce light. So Palmer being his own special kind of genius played with it. Did it work perfectly…? Probably not. But that panel was probably inked in 15-20 minutes and then on to the next panel. When I worked in a studio with Jack Abel he told me he HAD TO INK 14-17 panels a DAY minimum to keep the lights on in his life. That’s what was going on in them days. The idea that there were other considerations going on is ridiculous. I just read a Richard Friend piece where he took 2 days to ink a page of Travis Charest work to try to land the gig. He was a pro at the time. Buscema and Palmer were not afforded that kind of time or luxury. So while you walked back your statement for the video in the video…people who don’t know much deserve a clearer, imo, picture, of how that art was being made. I think overall you were way overboard about all of it. But…that’s just my opinion…informed as it is.
It's funny, I was discussing the light bulb with a fellow pro. We both had the same theory that it was possibly put in by a bullpen-style artist in editorial, because it is so out of design and perspective. That said, you could not possibly be more wrong about the abstract part. I won't go into detail here but I will be teaching it on this channel. I've already taught it to my students and their work improved by leaps. Not understanding the abstract principles is the #1 reason most artist's work is bad inside and outside of comics.
Where's your work, btw?