Tag: digital art

Periodic record #1: Stress

January 23rd, 2023

Just to clarify: this entry is casual in nature. I realize it has three different topics, and make no claims as to whether it is a good example of my editing or writing skill. 😜 I basically just don’t want to hold onto it any longer; it was meant to serve as a time and experience marker, and I’m into my second day on writing and editing it (more, if you consider the image work).

Lethargy

For some reason, even though both my time spent in action and my self-care has improved, I’ve had a difficult time motivating myself over the last several days. By, “time spent in action,” I mean time spent doing something other than being still. My sleep hygiene is improving — I’m having fewer long-term awakenings during the night, having more control over those I do have, and losing weight as a consequence (of both sleeping better, and not eating late at night).

I suppose a lot of work has gone into trying to recover my computer. The battery just failed of old age (it was puffy when we took it out). It’s a work-in-progress; I may have fixed it, but I’m not sure. I’ll have to power it down and back up (again), to know.

But that, and some tension around the household, have probably drained some of my energy via out-and-out stress.

Then there is the entire prospect of becoming part of the workforce again. I was able to recover a lot of information (job search sites) from the drive I had been using, but not before one of my browsers decided to scramble the order of my Bookmarks when I set them up to Sync. I don’t think there’s an “Undo” button to restore them, but I did (thankfully) have a backup. I’ve had to spend time, then, restoring and unscrambling the randomized Bookmarks (though at least their folders held), which also means that I’ve spent time editing them, which kept me up past midnight, within the last week.

Tech problems. I think it had to do with confusion over which machine’s copy of the Bookmarks file took precedence when setting up Sync. Instead of asking me, it just assumed it knew what I wanted, and destroyed my order (for a different order in which, I can’t see the logic). Because, of course, I don’t care which of my hundreds (I’m guessing, here) of files or folders come first in my Toolbar, right?

Ugh. Not to mention that I literally would not know if I lost content…

Graphic Arts: incremental learning

Anyhow…my last post was actually based on an image I had made, and had been playing around with on a couple of different image editors. At the endpoint of that draft, however, I saw that the image itself was extraneous to the content, so I didn’t post it. (I nearly didn’t post what I have, here.)

Detail of selection “halo”

Illustration example colored with selections in Photoshop

What I had been trying to do was take a .PNG file, isolate all of the linework (without greyscale halo), and copy it to a transparent layer — then export that transparent layer to a different program, for coloring. (Ideally, this would be the top layer in the file, so everything else would only show up behind it.) I have since learned that I can just change Blending Modes and color on top of the original image, fine — without dealing with minimizing the halo, or importing things from a separate program. This eliminates the issue with pixelization.

By, “halo,” I mean that it’s possible to sample all points of one color (in this case, black) from the image no matter where they are — but specify too wide a tolerance for this, and you’ll keep the smoothness of your lines, along with a (in my experience, opaque: maybe I can tweak this) greyscale artifact surrounding all of them. With too small a tolerance, your lines will show up pixelated once transferred. That may require re-drawing the image…and I’m not sure anyone actually wants to re-draw something they already drew out once, to their satisfaction.

Smudging over a hidden line, is different. I’m not sure if I’m able to restrict the layers sampled by the smudge tool…in which case, it would be good to outline areas of shadow or highlight with something lighter and less-visible, like mechanical pencil, or at least hard pencil, rather than using black fineliner.

Illustration example colored with Procreate

I have some choice words for the “Export” function where it comes to the mobile version of Photoshop. I didn’t realize my machine is technically a mobile device with limited capability, in comparison to a desktop or laptop computer. Apparently, to “Export” (say, to the Web) means to reduce the file size as much as possible, meaning a ton of detail is lost on file conversion. That’s not great, if you want to continue to work on your graphics without things getting pixelated. (There may be a way to work around this, which I’m simply too new to know of.)

On the other hand, now that I see what that “colored” (greyed-in) sketch looks like in a Web browser, I’m more willing to forgive the lapse in resolution. Sure, in 20 years we’ll look back on it and regret the stage of our technology in which .PNGs looked like .BMPs, but until then it should be fine, right? 😉

If you’re working for Web distribution (and only current-generation Web distribution), using “Export” is fine, as you’re already at the maximum most browsers can handle. If you’re making something for print — like, on paper — that’s another thing, entirely. Print files need a minimum of 300 dpi (dots per inch), for optimum reproduction; and they should be saved (and edited) with a resolution of at least 600 dpi, space allowing.

When it comes to the Web, one may be able to skate by on 72 ppi (points per inch; dpi and ppi are essentially the same thing, but one is on paper and the other, a screen), though I sometimes crank it up to 180, just in case I want to expand the image a bit in the browser.

There’s also the fact that Apple’s displays have a bit more sharpness than most PCs, which I had been adjusting for, without recalling why I was doing it.

I’ve noticed that if I want to add color to a transparent .PNG (which would help differentiate objects without the addition of texture), I have to either scan it in, in color (not greyscale) — even if the image only contains black-and-white data — or (I haven’t tried this yet) change the color space on the PC version of the editor while having that file open, before accessing it from any other device.

This, of course, means that if I’m working from a tablet and the color space is by default greyscale — I’m not sure I can do anything to alter that, from the tablet.

Further thinking on jobs (this is an ongoing theme)

I guess the final part of this, if I’m looking at what I originally intended to write here, has to do with the entire work/life balance, issue. That is, there is the question of exactly how much money I’d need in order to maintain the quality of life I have, now (where, for example, I even have the option of getting a machine specifically focused on writing and art, or of repairing a failing machine).

There are several different career paths I have in front of me — most of which, are interrelated. The others (visual arts and beadwork), can be hobbies. Of course, that only leaves Editing and Librarianship as practical, pure work options: things I wouldn’t do, if I weren’t getting paid to do them.

Well, actually; there is the entire thing about Illustration, as well. What I’m missing there, can be resolved, essentially just through practice and study — but much more so, practice. Building skill in Graphic Arts, is the major reason I got a tablet. The benefits of having a tablet for digital art are many; there is so much to get into on that topic, that it would best be addressed in another post.

Writing is something I’m going to do, regardless of whether or not I get paid for it; the benefits are too strong, and my comfort with the medium too high, not to work with it. Creative Writing, at least, dredges up a lot of psychological issues and makes them visible. I don’t necessarily want to deal with those issues full-time (it’s essentially my therapy right now), and neither can I necessarily process my trauma and heal, on a conveniently predetermined timetable. It also may be implicit, but I doubt writing Fiction will pay the bills.

Having seen a lot of job ads asking for help in Writing…makes the idea of living off of Writing (say, for a company), seem relatively depleted in terms of, “soul.” But yeah…I trained in Literature. And I don’t know if I want to explain that allusion.

Illustration also at least has the potential of being peaceful, by being engrossing. How that works out in an employment situation, I’m not sure; I would think deadlines would take away the relaxing quality of the work. This is why I’ve been looking at using my skills in a self-published Graphic-Novel-type form…probably hosted online. But I have no projects in the pipeline for that, right now…save the one I developed at the end of my Art AA (which I have no idea how to end on a positive note).

What I tend to write about and what I tend to draw about, aren’t necessarily the same. That might be a good thing. I won’t really be able to develop a story in Sequential Art without a lot of drawing…that much is clear.

One final note:

I seem to keep thinking that I can do what I want to do and not earn a lot of money, or I can integrate into society and get paid. I’m not going to comment on it now, but it’s something to notice for the future.
Ecolines

November 23rd, 2022
I’ve been able to get back to the experimental illustration I started a little over a week ago. There were several points I was paying attention to:
1. Do I enjoy this work? (Answer: yes)
2. Am I capable of doing this work? (Answer: yes)
3. How do my art materials work together in this instance? (This was made with Ecoline transparent watercolors, on Fabriano Mixed Media paper…I want to try hot-pressed Watercolor paper next, and there’s nothing stopping me)
4. What does this look like when scanned and uploaded? (See below right)
5. Is it feasible to work a comic on paper as versus making it born-digital? (Answer: probably, but it might be more stressful than it has to be)
At the ice rink (check the knee skew)

Right now I’m fairly fatigued. I’m writing this out because unless I push myself, I’ll probably miss out on recording my immediate experiences. I’ve probably already waited too long to catch all of them.

Working with all of the materials I had to engage, was actually a nice thing. I did learn some things directly. One: adding color to lineart is going to be messy. It’s to my advantage not to overwork areas in an attempt to “fix” something which may become a serendipitous point of interest in the final image. Two: Layering colors, to an extent, can draw attention away from the mess. Three: the Ecolines look massively better when they’re mixed with each other! Four: I understand now why one of my teachers tried to encourage me to be messy (as versus perfectionist). There is no perfection in this. Only difference.

And, of course, the more you try to correct a perceived mistake, the worse it may get. That would especially seem to be so, where it comes to watercolors — though I’d actually go a step further like someone here, and call Ecolines, “inks,” not, “watercolors.” The reason for this is that they’re dye-based, whereas most quality tube (i.e. not liquid) watercolors are pigment-based.

(I probably shouldn’t get into Lake pigments…which are essentially precipitated insoluble dyes which act as pigments [but may fade], if I’m correct. But that essentially moves beyond the difference between solution [dyes] and mixture [paints], to more obviously Chemistry-centric thought that I have a hard time engaging after a couple of decades out of Chemistry class.)

Dyes are great for illustration, where you don’t want to obscure your underlying linework; not-so-great for longevity, where you want, in a sense, to time-proof your work. Illustration media aren’t necessarily meant to last over centuries or millennia in the same way Fine Art media are. We should be happy that the original Astro Boy illustration boards even still exist…

I have read that watercolor itself has only been considered seriously as a Fine Art medium, with the introduction of permanent, lightfast pigments. But that kind of begins to lead me down the road to discuss the use of commercial pigments as artist’s materials (e.g. the whole thing about Quinacridone Gold [PO49])…which I don’t have either the experience or education to talk about.

Then there’s the obvious caveat that a very large number of old oil paintings really don’t convey the same experience as they did when they were new, due to the darkening of varnish and the use of fugitive colors. The term fugitive colors is applied to colorants which change in nature, over time — by UV exposure, exposure to air, exposure to microbes, etc.

I’m not certain when the whole, “colored pencil drawings aren’t real art because they fade,” argument came into being, or, “watercolors aren’t real art because they fade,” similarly. It’s just extremely hypocritical when you have a bunch of brownish oil paintings in museums. I mean, seriously. No one knew they weren’t supposed to be like that, until they tried to clean them. I suppose one can cite naivete…

Then there’s the whole gender issue at the Bauhaus (women could paint in watercolor but were discouraged from oils), which seems ridiculous to me, but I would have been supremely anachronistic in that time period, anyway.

So you have dye-based colorants — which may change in character over time (though this isn’t an issue if they’re immediately scanned into an archival digital format like .TIFF: I went cheaper at a 1200 dpi .JPEG [much simplified for the Web]) — and pigment-based colorants, which are more permanent as a rule, but not necessarily totally permanent. Pigments are small particles, dyes are not: it’s harder to bleach a particle or oxidize a particle, for example.

When one is working digitally, however — that’s a totally different ball game; and it is worth it to ask whether, when something is intended to be seen digitally, is it worth it just to create it first in a digital environment?

I’m pretty sure that falls down to personal preference…there are aspects of working digitally that just do not compare to working by hand, on paper or canvas, instead of a tablet. The softness or snap of a brush, or the blossoming qualities of certain watercolor paints on certain papers (and not other papers)…I would not expect to be mirrored exactly in a digital environment.

This is precisely because it varies so much in a real-world environment, and there are so many issues at play (such as the dampness and absorbency of the paper, the amount of water in [and characteristics of] the brush, the quality of touch, the quality of paint, etc.: I have four different Prussian Blues which perform four different ways on the same paper, despite using the same pigment [yes, I was nitpicky]).

That’s not to even get into the differences in lead constitution between different brands of graphite pencil…(Derwents, as a class, are the most crumbly graphite pencils I own, for example…it’s kind of annoying.)

But that’s edging beyond my level of knowledge. I did take a number of classes in Digital Art, but I’m still not experienced enough to really know what I’m talking about. In five years, I might have better insight.

What I can say is that I don’t think digital art will ever fully replace the experience of making traditional art; but there are definite advantages to digital art. The ability to delete what you didn’t want to do: but did anyway, is one of them.

Most of the work on the above scan — inking and coloring (by hand, obviously, from my errors) — was done on the 22nd. I’m much better (much more practiced) at monochrome drawing, than with colors; the thing is, I’m very into color. Much more so than one might be able to tell, from looking at this blog. I think that a fascination with color is an advantage from the start: especially, looking at how difficult it can be to use color effectively.

I am not a professional Illustrator at this point; but given my current employment options, combined with my personal constitution, it’s attractive as a vocation. That’s if I can get my skills up to a professional level, which will not come without my believing in myself enough to devote time and presence of mind, among other resources, to practice.

I am coming to the point of acknowledging that my imagination is probably one of my more extreme strengths…which can be a double-edged sword. I’ve mentioned before, some of what can go along with that — especially given the fact that I deal with mental configurations which include both a tendency to catastrophize, and a vulnerability to false beliefs (which…you know, those two things could be the same).

This is the major reason that I veered away from Creative Writing after my Undergraduate degree was over. To a lesser extent, I got into Visual Arts when I realized how challenging it would be to have control over a world of my own making, when my mind had not been reined in.

There does seem to be something to the analogy of trying to ride a wild horse, when it comes to mental health…

…I say, never having ridden a horse. Not even once, neigh?

(Now I’m unconsciously getting into polyglot humor. I’m sorry.)

There’s a lot that changes in twenty years, including one’s self-knowledge, and ability to notice when one starts spiraling in a direction one does not want to spiral down. I’m sure it’s noticeable from the backlog of posts, here, that I can start to go off on a tangent and then, by surprise, maybe the post’s primary content ends up being that tangent. I’m not entirely sure why it happens…I’ve just been told to keep writing.
Re-entering illustration

June 8th, 2022

One of the things that I understand now which I didn’t, so much, when I began drawing again: I shouldn’t expect the same type of stories to arise from the visual part of my brain, as versus the verbal part! An example is this momentarily femme-dressing character, whose backstory I have not worked out yet…

This was just for practice; I can see a number of places where I need to be more involved in environmental design 🙂

Over the past several days, I’ve been re-entering what I feel essentially to be, an Illustration mode. I am not entirely sure this is accurate, as I have not formally studied Illustration: I’ve just seen it (a lot), and known people who were into it.

Copic Cool Grey
value scale on
Deleter Comic
paper.

…And, yeah, I was heavily into manga and (slightly less into) comics when I was younger.

At this point in my process, I’m just giving myself enough leeway to draw what comes to mind, as versus the stories that come up through a repeated practice of drawing. The only reason I know about the latter: it’s how my original writing practice began, when the stories became too complex to handle through drawing alone.

It’s also worth mentioning that a lot of what I’m dealing with in my life, and which I expect to come out through my art/writing, has to deal with reality being different from appearances. I’m not entirely sure how that’s going to surface; I only know that it’s a major issue with me right now, and so it probably, will. I had been reading in Malik Shabazz’s How to Draw Black People…and realized I already have my own views on character design. In my view, a character’s visual design isn’t necessarily an expression of who the character is. That may work in fiction and film, but it is incongruent with social reality.

I find the idea of the character looking like an expression of their identity to be problematic. In reality, except in rare cases such as with gender dysphoria, we don’t get to choose our bodies — and even then, the only major slider (or mix/match) you get is between phenotypically masculine and phenotypically feminine. There is elective plastic surgery, but that is an opportunity beyond the economic reach of very many people.

What I’m trying to say is that for the regular person, there is only so much which can be done to change one’s appearance to match one’s identity. Mostly, it would be done through clothing, muscle tone or weight, hair, makeup (and rarely, tattoos) — with varying levels of difficulty. These are the things we have choices over. Things like race and physical sex, height, etc.; not so much. I’ve seen people in considerable levels of distress because what they look like does not “match” who they are...and I am not sure where the expectation comes from that it, “should,” or that it ever does, for anyone.

As regards reading…well, I have a lot to get through on graphic art — and I’m just beginning. I’ve started recording the titles of anything I read deeply (whatever the topic), in my daily planner; though this has been going on for less than a week. I do, however, have a copy of Drawing Words and Writing Pictures by Jessica Abel and Matt Madden…which I first found years ago, and decided to get my own copy. The book has been sitting on the shelf for years, unread, it appears: I haven’t highlighted anything.

In the same thread is Wonderbook: The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction, by Jeff Vandermeer. This was a gift from my sibling — again, from some years ago. That book, I’m a bit farther into…but it is very difficult to say what Wonderbook is about, due to its organization.

It’s worth noting that I’ve read in at least two books, recently, of the usefulness of limiting the number of values (shades and tints) in a composition. (How to Paint Fast, Loose & Bold, by Patti Mollica, and …something else which I cannot remember, though I do now have a copy of Pen & Ink Drawing: A Simple Guide, by Alphonso Dunn. Though I’m fairly certain, now that I think of it, that it couldn’t have come from that latter book. I’ll leave the mention up here to remind myself to look at it, though.)

That is, even if one does have all twelve Copic Cool Grey shades plus Black (see left), a printer (I assume they mean a standard home printer) won’t necessarily be able to sense the difference. This could cause unintended distortions if the image is printed on paper and not just to a screen; though I’m pretty sure that at least Photoshop has a way of communicating a more subtle language of tone to the printer than the printer has, itself.

I’ve just tried printing out a closer-to-original version of the above illustration, and the distortions are…mostly negligible. (The printer didn’t know what to do with the white areas in the drawing, so there is light grey rectangular artifacting in, for example, the white of the computer screen; and certain other areas which were supposed to be totally white [the windowsill; and the light shining through the sleeve], now are not.)

I did the underdrawing in Non-Photo-Blue mechanical pencil (specifically a Pilot Color ENO 0.7), then went over the drawing with my old Microns (not the new ones, in case the pencil gummed up the nibs; they seem to be fine, except for the one which was already running dry when I started this), and then erased the underdrawing. (I did not, in this case, make a master copy of the linework before dropping in values; in the future, I may want to.) After that I went in with the Copic markers, starting with the lightest values and gradually working darker (though some areas, like the chair, merited blocking in at a relatively early stage, to allow me to see the dynamics of the entire composition).

I also need to remember to reserve the light areas when doing said blocking-in; the character’s face could use some modeling.

I actually did this on paper which had Non-Photo Blue ruling, which I was able to eliminate by essentially erasing everything with a Cyan or Blue hue. I selected the entire image and made a Black & White adjustment layer over the top, then adjusted the slider for the Cyan color channel. This does mean I had to scan the piece in, in color — although with the adjustment layer, it appears achromatic.

For my own reference, I should add that the initial drawing was done on new Deleter Comic Paper. Now that they’ve started putting notices on the paper in English, I can read that the paper is said to perform better when used sooner…whereas I have some Deleter paper which may be over a decade old, by now (purchased when anime was at its high point in the US, historically speaking).

Right now I have no idea where I put my initial value test on what must have been the older version of this paper; but it’s worth saying that this paper does have a shelf life, or they’re just making it better, now. Either this, or I’ve gotten a lot better with the alcohol markers, in a very short amount of time (which I suppose, is actually possible).

You’ll notice that some of the Copics in that value chart on the left side of this post — particularly the midrange greys — have white specks. That is not digital artifacting; the paper itself actually does look this way (only, in-person, of course, it’s much clearer). Here, I’ll show you:

This is pretty much as close as I can get with my scanner. At this range (1200 dpi), the dots (which Deleter states are part of the paper manufacturing process) are pretty evident.

But again, these don’t really become noticeable except between C-7 and C-4. Go any darker, and the dots aren’t as visible; go any lighter, and they start to blend into the background. Given how well the paper performs overall…I’m inclined to see it as just a quirk. (Of greater concern to me is the potential environmental impact of whatever these little dots are; but I can see it being in the same category as Chartpak markers: you get something that performs beautifully, at a cost.)

I’ve also found that I am much more practiced at linework, than I am at shading. I’m intentionally not showing the overlay which I made of this drawing…because trust me, it’s really — I mean, seriously, beginner’s work. Once I put the overlay and the linework together, there were a number of things I could see. The most apparent of these, is that when I’m working with value, I’m looking at modeling form and baseline color; whereas when I’m working with line, a lot of it is delineating edges and texture. It may be redundant, then…to outline the shine marks on the hair (though I notice I shade differently in fineliner and in marker: I’m much better at visualizing the form without the tone interfering with it).

I also need to recall how to work in different clothing (that is, I need to imagine the clothing hopefully before beginning the drawing, and work in how the hair will fall before encountering an oddity with the edges of the hair and the beginning of the clothing) and imagine the form beyond the picture plane. That is, in the drawing at the top of this post, I had to think out the position of the figure…but I know I did not work out the position of her lower body, other than that she was leaning forward.

In the image to the left…well, it gave me practice in joining the neck to the torso and to the head; but my tendency to broaden the shoulders of my female figures kind of went a bit far (which is why the image is cropped the way it is). This is likely due to the exaggerated perspective that I’ve found in manga and anime, which often distorts, among other things, the distance and angle between the eyes and nose. (I’m still working on unlearning this.)

The image to the left (or just above, on mobile) is just a line drawing that I did on Bee Paper Company, “Pen Sketcher’s,” paper. I recall it being smoother than it is, but it is at least eight years old, telling from my first dated sketch. It also may have felt very smooth to me at the time, because it was one of my first encounters with paper which was made to be used with fineliners.

Anyhow, it’s about time for me to log off! Time for me to get back to work, and try and figure out the rest of my life. 🙂 See you soon!
Testing marker papers with Copics

May 24th, 2022

A few nights ago, I did a great deal of work in testing out different papers with the greyscale Copics I have had for years and not used. Night before last, I made scans of some of the more successful trials. Last night, I edited this document and worked on image adjusting.

As versus my last entry, I scanned in the initial documents at 1200 dpi, and saved the data to .JPEG format. This seems sufficient to retain the details of paper texture. In my last post, I noted the texture was resolving into mottled dots at 600 dpi in .JPEG format. 600 dpi in .TIFF wasn’t an issue, though: I could still see the paper texture, and I really don’t know precisely why. I mean, sure: .TIFF saves all the information it can…but I didn’t change the resolution. Does that mean that if I’m saving a file in .TIFF format, I can make it lower-res?

I dug up six different paper samples to test with the Copics. Four of these were either “Marker” or “Layout” paper, while the last one was “Comic” paper. (The other one…we shall not mention.) This time while testing the papers, I tried to saturate the papers with each ink, before declaring one or another smooth or splotchy. Because I did this, I at least can see some of the places where I used C-0 or C-00 markers (which, being extreme tints of Cool Grey, are almost totally clear).

This is a (necessarily) low-res image of how the Copic Cool Grey markers looked on Canson Pro Layout Marker paper.
Altered scan settings: Gamma = 3.0, Brightness =-30, Greyscale (discarded color information)

Out of the first four marker and layout papers I tried, Canson Pro Layout Marker paper performed the best. It’s very white, very smooth, and the ink penetrated evenly enough that this paper had the least splotches in the inked areas. It is heavier than all of the other Marker/Layout papers I had, but lighter than the Comic paper. The smooth ink distribution with a minimum of white speckles, cause me to hope that this paper could be viable help where it comes to visual storytelling, going forward.

Apologies for the slight difference in font sizes and clarity, between this and the following sample: in the first, I typed in the text layers before resizing; in the second, after. I used the same markers, and to the best of my memory, the same scan settings.

Borden & Riley #37 Boris Marker Layout paper used with Copic 100 Black and Cool Grey series.
Altered scan settings: Gamma = 3.0, Brightness =-30, Greyscale (discarded color information)

And yes, I do see C-7 being darker than C-8 in both of those trials.

I’ve decided to place #37 Boris Marker Layout Paper by Borden & Riley (just above) in second place, here. There are undeniably differences between this paper and the Canson Pro Layout; notably, the Borden & Riley paper is more textured in the colored areas. This means that there is more value variation in relation to the paper grain. I think, but am not positive, that this will present some different effects upon laying in digital colors.

The reason I’m listing the #37 Boris Marker paper above Deleter NEOPIKO paper, is the evenness with which the #37 took up the Copic ink. The ink was relatively “self-leveling” on this paper, whereas with the NEOPIKO, the markers are darker in some areas than others — and it’s not due to the grain of the paper showing through.

I had gauged the NEOPIKO to be more of a second-place contender, until I looked carefully at the scans, and then carefully at the original. I’m not sure whether it’s due to the paper itself, or my inexperienced marker technique, but the work is a little blotchy. On the above two images, there may be textures, but at least the colors are relatively flat and even.

…I’m thinking you’ll forgive me if I don’t want to put together another low-res value scale.

I may be able to figure out whether the problem is technique or material, in the near future — especially since I have an idea of how to work, now, and am planning to get some transparent acetate sheeting to lay in between the marker paper and the initial pen-and-ink artwork. Doing this, I should be able to work in layers with value and color, without sacrificing my initial ink work.

NEOPIKO paper is much thinner than the Canson Pro Layout Marker paper, although when laid side-by-side over a doodle I made with a very fine black Multiliner, they seem to have about the same translucency. In comparison, Borden & Riley’s #37 Boris Marker paper is a little more translucent than NEOPIKO.

The NEOPIKO paper is also a little off-white, whereas the Canson is bright white, and Borden & Riley is advertised as “Bright White”. It’s hard to tell under artificial lighting, though. I don’t think my scanner will be able to tell, either: at least not if I scan in greyscale with a black-point reference, and keep altering my settings and tweaks, anyway.

The Comic paper I tried out was Deleter Comic Manuscript Paper, “type-B”, which basically just means it’s plain white. “[T]ype-A” has rulers printed in Non-Photo Blue on its edges, to help with layout. (I don’t remember having tested whether we are beyond the time when, “Non-Photo Blue,” meant something…I’ve had “Non-Photo-Blue” pencils be detected by scanners, but apparently these marks can be digitally removed.)

The “type-B” paper I used appears to be 110kg in weight, while what I see for sale today seems to be a heavier 135kg. You may be able to find this at stores or websites that specialize in Asian stationery; I picked mine up from a Japanese-language bookstore, a very long time ago — along with some screentones, which I was able to use on this paper.

This is actually a really nice and smooth paper to use with the Multiliners, which made me happy when I could produce internal line variation via changing pressure and “flicking” the Multiliner up at the end of a stroke. (Though, never bear down on a multiliner; it’s just sad when they break.) Deleter’s Comic manuscript paper feels relatively hard, as well. So far as translucency goes, it is essentially fairly opaque: it seems to be more of a base layer than an overlay. Tracing over pencil roughs onto this paper would require physical backlighting…if it could be done satisfactorily at all.

The Deleter Comic Manuscript Paper (not the Deleter NEOPIKO Paper Pad, which is expressly made to take NEOPIKO alcohol markers, though it also works with other alcohol markers) took the Copics relatively well, but there are white speckles in many of my “colors” (I used my Cool Grey series from C10 to C00, plus Black [100], and didn’t test any of the alcohol markers with actual chroma, or [noticeable] color values).

As well…I don’t know how to say this, but the Comic paper soaks up a lot more ink than the Marker papers, so it’s easier to get unintended color variation by just pressing more firmly with a brush nib. This is the same issue I found with the Deleter NEOPIKO paper, but it’s less pronounced in the Deleter Comic paper.

One other nice thing about the Deleter papers: they come in Standard International Paper Sizes, meaning that — in the US, at least — flatbed scanners which take 8.5″x11″ paper may also be able to scan A4 and smaller papers without having to cut them down. 9″x12″ is a more common art paper size to find in the US, and it’s decently close to A4, but may have to have some material trimmed away before scanning. This would be in order to fit the paper entirely onto the scanner bed. Avoiding paper overhang at the scanning step, avoids gaining shadows at the edges of your digital document.

I’ll need to experiment with my method, and I’ll likely be wrong about some of this, but in the below, I brainstorm how to approach the problem of making my work.

I’m hoping to use the Deleter Comic Manuscript Paper as a base to work out my pencil sketches and inks (black-on-white), then layer clear acetate over it, and the Marker paper over that. This should allow me to try out tones without committing to them, and without marking my original page.

Two aligned images like this (an inking layer, and a tone or color layer) might be able to be overlaid using a graphics program — though I haven’t tried it, yet. Right now I’m thinking of scanning in my lineart as a transparent .PNG, and using it as an upper layer in my document.

Yesterday was the first time I actually tried to digitally overlay any color on top of the grayscale tones I’ve shown above, though I should remember that I can shuffle the order of the layers.

A number of blending modes within my image-editing program look pretty awesome, but I still have to re-learn how to make a custom selection (or shape) and fill it. I also found that adding in a color overlay at greater than 50% opacity with a Normal blending mode will begin to obscure the underlayers. Adding in a color overlay at lower than 50% opacity and Normal blending mode will result in paler colors and stronger dark tones.

I’ve got to investigate this further. For example, I haven’t really experimented with overlaying a dark color yet. Overlaying a relatively light color can make the dark tones look like they’re mixed with opaque white, clouding them out. I have a feeling that overlaying a dark tone may make things look like they’re mixed with black…but I’m not sure yet; I haven’t tried.

I could try to overlay my lineart or tones, on top of colors, and use the blending modes on those upper layers (and not the lower ones) to preserve their intensity. If I’m right, I do think there is a Hue Shift capability in my image-editing software. I could use this to change the color of my lineart by isolating it in a selection, copy/pasting it into a different layer, and shifting the hue information in that layer. But I’m not sure if the lineart has to have a hue, for that technique to work.

I just mean to record my presently-inexperienced brainstorming about how to consider moving forward with the technical end of this project. I haven’t yet researched how professional comics artists use these materials; nor have I gotten into depth about how digital artists do their work. I’m thinking, though, that most of us don’t know what we’re doing, at first. At least I’m at a level of comfort, playing around with this.

I have more to say, but it can wait: I’m beginning to move into the nature of the markers I’ve tested, at this point, and that seems to be a different subject.

I also need to work on developing the story for this project. I meant to do it yesterday, but spent most of the day editing this post and experimenting with the technical side of things. At least I’ve learned something, though!

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with any of the brands or software tools I’ve reviewed today, they have not compensated me in any way, and my materials were purchased with my own funds.
It’s amazing what you find when you get your head out of the ground

May 19th, 2022

I have been going through my markers. Particularly, the greyscale ones. I have to expand upon my second-to-last post, where I spoke about Copics. While Copics are very expensive, I tried them out again today, and I can see why people would pay that amount for them.

In comparison to my other greyscale markers, these being Tombow Dual Brush Pens (the water-based version) and Faber-Castell PITT brush pens (also water-based, but water-resistant when dry, whereas Tombow Dual Brush Pens’ inks still flow if re-wet), the difference between each shade of grey is most consistent with the Copics. In addition, the Copics have some of the palest tints of grey I have ever seen — although some of these are too pale for my scanner to see.

You can see below, a scan of Copic Cool Grey #10 to #2, plus black (#100) and Special Black (#110), the last of which is basically just a more neutral, less blue-leaning black. Copic does note that Special Black is slightly less intense than their regular Black.

Looks like I’ll have to revisit how to edit out stray marks…along with removing color data.

Comparatively speaking, the other two greyscale marker kinds I have, stop at a mid-grey (Tombow N75 and PITT Big Brush 232): about a C5, if I match it up to the Copic Cool Grey value scale I made (above) — where I edited out C1 and C0, as they were essentially invisible in the scan. I had to pick a cutoff threshold while preserving what I could of the values of the rest of the range. I think I got it pretty accurate, but it’s pretty safe to say that my screen isn’t set up the same way as yours.

In comparison, Copic gets way lighter, with C4 to C0: though I have little idea what C0 is used for, as it isn’t even visible to the eye (maybe, blending?). C1 is only barely visible to the eye.

The above image was the best I was able to get of the swatch tests I did today, with my scanner and image-editing software. I decided to focus on the Copics to give you an idea of the value range of the Cool Grey series. I do have scans of both the Tombow Cool Grey line and the Pitt Big Brush Cool Grey line…but both are heavily biased towards darker values, and not easily usable, if one wants a full range from black through midtones, to faint and clear. (Remember, I have art supplies from around six years ago; it’s possible that the value gaps have been closed by now.)

For future reference, to get (mostly) everything visible, on scanning the above, I had to set Brightness at -100, Contrast at 0, and Gamma at +3.0; then apply another Brightness adjustment of +25, and a Contrast adjustment of -50, after scanning. I also applied an Unsharp Mask at the scanning stage, before I learned that it probably wasn’t helping.

And yes, it is better to scan these things, than photograph them!

I’m not sure whether the choices I have now, in grayscale markers, are due to what my art stores stocked, or what I bought, or whether the ranges really did peter out at the pale end. In any case, I’ve had to discard some today (not the Copics; they were fine), due to the fact that they were drying up. (I can see the case for Copics being refillable, here.)

I do clearly remember not being able to find all the hypothetical versions of either Cool or Warm Grey in PITT brush pens. I think I found fragments of each range, with the majority of the pens available being extremely close to each other in terms of value (a.k.a. lightness or darkness), most of them being a middling dark or very dark, even though they were (technically) different inks. Then there would be a jump to some lighter value, with nothing (at least, no achromatic grey) in between. The spacing between the greys (at least, the Cool Greys) in Copics is much more regular (or was, when I bought mine).

As regards Tombows, I have the six shades from N15 (black) to N75 (a medium-light grey). Looking online, it seems that there are lighter versions of these — and two of them in the same hue range (N85 and N95) — but whether I’ve actually seen them in reality, is a different question. It actually looks like a bunch of the lighter Tombows have hue differences in addition to value, which is…just, not ideal, if you’re looking for standardization.

So the Copics appear very good where it comes to the regularity and standardization of ink mixes (which is reminding me of the regularity of bead sizes produced by Miyuki in their Delica brand: a wide color range and high level of accuracy in bead size and shape, mean that Delicas are better for some forms of work, than others: it depends on what you intend to make, whether they’re worth it). This could either swing for or against the artist, depending on the intended use and intended outcome of the art.

If the art is to be scanned into a computer, then one may very well want standardized tones with little or no color input, in order to gain a better idea of what the final product is going to look like, at the stage where colors (or tones) are being laid out. As I can see today, however…the paper matters, as well. (It may well also be that the scanner, and the scanner settings, matter; I’ve spent a good part of today, tinkering with these.)

I’m finding a lot of artifacting around the centers of my swatches, which tells me that the scanner is picking up grains of color. I can see them myself, on looking at the front of the paper: it’s not entirely a trick of the data. Looking at the back of the paper, I can see where the paper was saturated and where it was not-quite-so. If I’m correct, the darker flecks mark the places where the ink penetrated deeper.

I might be able to get around this by scanning the image in as a .TIFF and not a .JPEG, in the first place. Image compression could lead to the artifacting; and .JPEGs are a “lossy” compression mechanism, meaning there is no recovering what came before: I’d just have to scan it in, again. I also may be able to modulate the flecking by using a lighter marker (like a C1, C0, or 00) to fully and evenly saturate the paper and distribute the ink…

If, however, the artist is looking for varied shades of grey, and it doesn’t matter at all what the digital value of the grey is — for instance, if one has a Fine Art application where permanence matters, or where something is meant to stand alone and not be reproduced — then there are less expensive, more varied, and more archival alternatives to markers. Ideally, a person would have access to both…but not everyone actually needs, both.

Today I was using a Deleter NEOPIKO pad to test these out. What I can say: the brush nibs on both the Copics and the Blick Studio Brush markers felt very smooth on this surface; and neither of them bled through to the second page. The NEOPIKO pad is specifically designed for alcohol markers, meaning that in using the (water-based) Tombows, the surface became slightly distorted. I should let you know, though, that Tombows now have an alcohol-based line called ABT PRO. I haven’t yet tried them; I only came across them by accident while trying to look up the color range of the Tombow Dual Brush Pens.

I have some other Marker papers I can try: I haven’t done it yet because I’ve been screwing around with the digital end of things and investigating weirdnesses. There’s really no way to know how this stuff is going to work, without actually trying to do it and seeing what happens.

There may also be some way to finesse the use and scanning/digital retouching of the Copics and Blick Studio markers that I’m presently unaware of, as I have not used alcohol markers extensively, in the past. Anyway, I should note here to both experiment with the touch and saturation of the markers into the paper, and also to try out the two or three marker papers other than NEOPIKO, which I have and are still being produced, and see if anything turns out any better.

I’m hoping that I actually will be able to color my sketches by hand, and not totally depend on an image-editing program and tablet, to be able to do it in any serious way (which involves selections, and layer masks, and fills, and whatever else — though I just realized that if I made a layer mask…I may be able to paint over it with the brush tool [for a hard edge] and blend out the resultant soft edge).

But, you know, it is always a possibility that I could do sketches in pencil and lineart/inking over those sketches, black-on-white (which would be why the paper is translucent, I’m thinking), then transfer the work to the computer, arrange the pages, and add in transparent layers of color…or something like that. I’m not sure if the page composition comes before or after the coloring…but I’d have to learn to use page layout software, regardless.

I think that might be one of the only ways to preserve a clean white (or transparent) background, as well, while preserving all the distinct tones on top of that background. (If I turn up the Brightness to 100, I lose most of my work.) There should be a way to turn all the white in a scan to transparency (.PNG), however, and then put in a white (or other-colored) background behind it.

Yeah, I’m getting flashbacks to the Digital Arts program that I ended up migrating away from, for the regular Art program…but now that I’ve got some drawing and painting skills, why not migrate back in?

If you’re going to ask me if I’ve ever done all of this before, I would have to say that I can’t recall doing it — although I have sketched directly onto a tablet (not my favorite thing — I’m used to working larger, and I appreciate the feedback of traditional materials more than stylus-to-tablet), and I have made inked linework and transferred it in by scanning…I think?

I’ve also played around with transparent .PNGs before — not that it’s my absolute favorite thing to do…but that’s probably because I don’t understand everything about why the program does what it does (e.g. keeping an enclosed area of white, white, instead of turning it transparent like the rest of the white). Though, hey: now I’m getting flashbacks of Art Alive! for the Sega Genesis (which I played with — a lot — as a kid). 🙂 Not to mention the Paint program on the computer when I would be at work with M, as a kid…

As a note: I’ve now tried scanning things in as a .TIFF file; and the individual speckles in the middle of the swatches, have resolved into paper texture! The .TIFF is huge; however, I can see it being of use to scan and store finished (or nearly-finished) work. (I use the term, “nearly finished,” loosely.)

It’s getting pretty late; maybe I can knock out my second night of getting to bed by 10:30 tonight? (HA!) The principle of the thing is to try it though, right?

And yes, this took me 8 hours to write, again…I gotta do something to keep track of my time…

Oh! The other thing I realized is that adding in colors digitally, could save a lot of money, on colors: the major drawback to illustrating with markers is, of course, having to buy the markers. I’m pretty sure I don’t want to drop a lot of cash on a lot more Copics (other than possibly a more neutral or warm grey series)…which might become an issue if I illustrate by hand, in full-color, as I had hoped. With the computer, though…I’m much more secure with black-and-white and greyscale. I can take something that’s monochrome and easily add in transparent colors on top of it, and experiment with them, to my heart’s content.

I did take Color Dynamics, though the class was made for painting (subtractive color), not digital art (additive or subtractive color). I may be able to retake the class again, and this time focus more intensely on Digital Art (they’ve added this bit in since I took it) — or, experiment on my own, and do some reading on color spaces for Graphic Arts. No, I don’t totally understand RGB: not yet.

The last thing I’ll mention here is that it has become apparent to me tonight that it is very possible to work in the field of Digital Art, remotely. This is a big thing I’ve wanted for this stage of the Pandemic…and it does make sense to give it a try! After all, if I’m working on my own, I’m building skills — and not everyone will have those skills; even to the point I’m at, tonight, where I’ve had to run multiple images through the wringer to try and troubleshoot them.

There’s also the possibility of working with graphics in Digital Archives…