Erik Larsen's debate on inkers and colorists on twitter.

I don't know if anybody else has watched this debate between Tom Feister, Mark Brooks, Laura Martin, Ron Marz, Dave McCaig against Erik Larsen because of the notion he thinks a good inker and colorist should NOT get paid royalties because they do not move the needle on sales, and comes across as unimportant. He literally just said

"If a given inker moves more comics--a Nowlan or McFarlane--should his participation be the same as a tracer?"

Homeboy just went "Chasing Amy" with the tracer terminology. Now I've butted heads with people before (my heated arguments with a certain DC artist are things of urban legend now. I was called an "astronaut dad-fucker". Yet people still wait 3 hours or more to talk to this guy. Insane.) but when you disrespect people who make your book look good, that's even more insane. Maybe it's because I've gotten in the habit of dissecting books to where all the pieces are seen as their own to make the collective piece look either horrible or great, in which sales the book or doesn't.

I mean, have you SEEN a bad coloring job on an otherwise great book? Maybe it's just me, but I'll buy a book with Karl Story's name on it or Laura Martin or Nei Ruffino just because I know it won't LOOK as bad.

Then again, Larsen's book only sells, what, 5K issues? Maybe he needs to look into better colorists then.

If you haven't check out the debate: @erikjlarsen, @markbrooksart, @tomfeister, @ronmarz

Is this on twitter? I've never been an Erik Larsen fan. Never bought anything with his name attached to it. What I guess Mr. Larsen doesn't get is that if you don't have a good inker, your art will wind up looking like shit and the color adds mood to the panel. He's a overrated ass.

I get what Larsen is saying. I'm not downplaying the role of a good inker and colorist. They play an important role in the final outcome of a book but Larsen is right in saying that they don't move books. Maybe that will change hey maybe that is changing now. Writers and Artist are the man cogs that move books.

Maybe the reason a penciller's name is able to move so many books is thanks in part to a great inker or colorist making their work look so good. I've long thought Erik Larsen was a douchemonkey, this only further cements my claim.

Rath99 wrote:I get what Larsen is saying. I'm not downplaying the role of a good inker and colorist. They play an important role in the final outcome of a book but Larsen is right in saying that they don't move books. Maybe that will change hey maybe that is changing now. Writers and Artist are the man cogs that move books.

I just think it's weird that colorists and inkers don't get the recognition and it feels like he's setting those workers back. I mean, honestly, would people buy a book of just finished pencils?

There are those who believe that people who edit movies deserve more credit that what they get since they put it all together. I think it is similar to the work of an inker and colorist. Josh makes a great point in saying that a colorist or inker could make an artists work stand out more and more popular. Ultimately there are more people that work on good books than are fully given credit for.

BTW..I would by a book that was just penciled. Love how it looks.

Does Erik Larsen's name sell books anymore? I hope not.

Joshua wrote:Maybe the reason a penciller's name is able to move so many books is thanks in part to a great inker or colorist making their work look so good. I've long thought Erik Larsen was a douchemonkey, this only further cements my claim.

I have to agree. As has been said before in this thread, while the inkers and colorists do not get as much attention and acclaim, they are important and personally, I think they should get more attention and acclaim for their work.

I wish I had that article that showed what inkers do. I read it long time ago but it certainly sent home the message of how important those guys are. It had a pencilled Batman panel and then it showed the same panel by 3 different inkers.

In any case, why don't inkers and colorsits get more attention? It's one of the things that bothers me about the comics business.

I think the whole team should get credit because an uninked, uncolored book would look boring.

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:

Joshua wrote:Maybe the reason a penciller's name is able to move so many books is thanks in part to a great inker or colorist making their work look so good. I've long thought Erik Larsen was a douchemonkey, this only further cements my claim.

I have to agree. As has been said before in this thread, while the inkers and colorists do not get as much attention and acclaim, they are important and personally, I think they should get more attention and acclaim for their work.

I wish I had that article that showed what inkers do. I read it long time ago but it certainly sent home the message of how important those guys are. It had a pencilled Batman panel and then it showed the same panel by 3 different inkers.

In any case, why don't inkers and colorsits get more attention? It's one of the things that bothers me about the comics business.

Agreed. Both are very important, colorists in particular play a huge role in telling a story, just look at Blackest Night and even Siege for that. The coloring by Alex Sinclair for BN and Laura Martin for Siege is just gorgeous and a big reason the art was so good for both series. One thing I love about Bendis is that he constantly gives a lot of credit to the inkers and particularly the colorists on his books.

prescribeddrone wrote:I think the whole team should get credit because an uninked, uncolored book would look boring.

Hmm... Not necessarily. It all depends on what the artist (the penciler, in this case) aims for. Joshau Middleton and Cary Nord both did an excellent work with no ink (see NYX and Conan, respectively). There are beautiful B&W comic books out there.

I know what you meant, but that statement makes it sound like you diss any comic work that doesn't contain all the ingredients you list. You should've said it only applies to comic books that are intended be a mix of pencil+ink+color.

As for the resepct inkers get or should/shouldn't get: Many fans of Jack Kirby calim that only when Joe Sinnott started penciling his work on Fantastic Four in 1965, the artwork was at its finest.

And we speak about the recognition of other creators that are not the writer or penciler, what about Todd Klein and Richard Starkings' popularity as leterrers? Stan Sakai went from a leterrer to a famous writer/artist. Joe and Adam Kubert started as inkers. And there are many, many others. While a lot of them move to writing/penciling at some point, some remain "loyal" to their original profession and are still popular enough to be recognized just for that (Todd Klein, for example).

A good inker can save an artist's reputation. Their pencils do not always look that good, and an inker can make or break their art, so show some respect. 'nuff said.

Agreed. A lot of the tone and emotional content on a panel comes from the inker and the colorist.

The only colorist that deserves recognition is the Paint Bucket tool. Really I couldn't name 5 colorists. This to me says a lot about people that do the whole project themselves liek Clayton Crain or Alex Ross, and many many more.

Anymore lots of ink and color is added digitally so they are mattering less and less. I think its learning to trace and use the proper tools though. I think the artist should do their own inking and covers and end the debate. People buy comics for the artist and writer not the inker or editor or whatever else.