front page  ·  comicbook reviews  ·  interviews  ·  comics  ·  merchandise  ·  columns  ·  contact  ·  newsfeed: rss xml  ·  links

Special Feature   The Dark Half By Adam McGovern Published: 2008-03-28

(Continued from Page 1)

CCdC: Are the best inkers those who bring forth and preserve the penciler’s intent with the closest fidelity like a great backup band, or those who add their own flavor, as in an all-start duet?

BA: Many have their own opinions on this. I feel that the best inking is that with the “greatest fidelity” so that it brings something to the table and enhances the intent of the pencil work but doesn’t alter the integrity of it or overwhelm it. This is easier to accomplish over time as the pencil and ink artists develop a synergy and get into each other’s heads. However, “finishing” forces the inker to bring more of their “own flavor” as they’re completing the drawing from the barest of sketches at times and then resolving it in ink.

CCdC: As a followup to that last question, is there a place for inking now that digital processes allow for pencilers to bypass that stage or digitally enhance their own work — and if so, is the essential factor in inking’s importance the involvement of a human hand, or the addition of another stylistic voice?

“Inkers are, bottom line, illustrators, with their own specialties.” — Bob Almond

BA: The digital process is but another option to consider in the production of comic books in this tech-savvy industry. Official “digital inking,” using a wand and tablet or wand on screen, is not utilized on a wide scale and is almost exclusively used by the original pencilers. The misnomer “digital inking,” the process of darkening/enhancing pencil art files in Photoshop, has been a cost-cutting measure and, like traditional inking itself, an effort to speed up the production process. But the results have been mixed in terms of quality. Depending on the work of the penciler and/or color artist the work can be sketchy or muddy and almost always, IMHO, lacking in “punch.” As much as the colorist can add to the depth, weight, light sources, effects, etc., without the inker to elaborate and do the same in elegant ink lines the work seems weaker to me. So to answer your question, this is certainly a case of the involvement of a human hand and the addition of another stylistic voice. The role of the inker has diminished a bit today but I believe there’s still a place for it for this reason.

CCdC: Could it be that you see the role of the inker as not just collaborator but contributor? Among fans it’s legendary that Kirby’s perfecting of The Thing’s skin-texture seems to have been driven by Joe Sinnott’s refinements. Is the feedback loop of an art-partner something not just good for comics but necessary?

BA: Yes and yes. An inker is like the artistic editor. S/he can enhance the work where necessary to make it more polished, more textured, more weighty, more atmospheric, etc., especially over weaker pencils. But they can also fix mistakes, anatomy, change or redo sections where necessary, sometimes items that the editor wouldn’t catch or know about. These [also] may not necessarily be items that the color artist would catch or be able to fix.

CCdC: Is a distinctive texture the only way an inker develops a personality? There was never any mistaking the embellishments of a Tony DeZuniga or the photo-esque detailing of a Klaus Janson, yet many fans could also pick out a Sinnott or Palmiotti not from their look but their clean and assured method. Is this the way inkers themselves distinguish and admire each other’s work?

BA: While our job is to serve the pencil art, by nature the human hand (ego?) of the artist is going to shine through with their style and decision-making. This is what they bring to the table. But by uniting these two voices the hope is to generate something that will be stronger than either of the voices alone.

“Fans rarely see the pencil work — they are seeing the inker’s reinterpretation of it.” — Bob Almond

CCdC: Do many inkers aspire to doing full art in the way that many pencilers seem to aspire to write? What specific goals and ambitions does an inker go into his or her profession with?

BA: This has changed over time and varies from person to person. Inkers are, bottom line, illustrators, with their own specialties (and weaknesses). For most of the medium’s history, “inkers” were simply artists who were faster or better at the inking and thus found it more lucrative as a career choice. For the most part they [also] have a resume of work in which they [both] drew and [then] inked their own work (Sinnott, Ayers, Colletta, M. Anderson, Adkins, Giordano, etc.). Artists didn’t enter the biz to be inkers. Some discovered that while they could certainly draw well they may not have the same storytelling skills, flair or power as a Kirby or Buscema so instead they developed into talented ink artists. Some [of] these folks would do solo work occasionally, or it would develop over time (Giacoia, Milgrom, Austin, Janson, McLeod, Layton, Palmer, Palmiotti, Buckingham, Merino, etc.) or they would move toward painting and other work (DeMulder, Rubenstein, etc.).

Starting around the ’90s I started to notice folks producing inking samples in an attempt to enter the business. Maybe many of the innovative inkers before them inspired them to go that direct route or maybe some of these folks simply recognized that they were weaker as pencil artists and accepted that, hoping to excel in ink. These artists could very well hope to develop into pro pencilers down the road. It’s obviously proven to work before. And inkers, apparently, like pencilers, also aspire to write, as in the cases of Layton, Milgrom, Champagne, Palmiotti, Austin, etc.

CCdC: What’s the least-known secret or important fact about how inking works and what the importance of the inker is? What do you think are the challenges and as-yet unrealized potential for the profession in the future?

BA: Answering the last part first, like any other line of work, inkers need to keep themselves tech-savvy along with constantly honing their traditional skills to stay competitive in this changing market. The letterers and colorists who didn’t do this found themselves squeezed out of the workplace. We have to be adaptable. Only the best and most adaptable will persevere.

Fans rarely see the pencil work the inker worked on. They are seeing the inker’s reinterpretation of it. Some pencilers are very polished but others, while exhibiting strong sequential skills and dynamic visuals, render in a loose or sketchy manner. This means that an inker made them look better. This synergy is such a tightly-woven fusion that many don’t know what part of the work is whose. As such, this is why the inker has been credited with the penciler over time. But today, the inker, for the most part, is “invisible” by both this fusion and the increasing lack of recognition. With the Inkwell Awards, we “see” the invisible ink(er).

Please bookmark the site and vote, friends! Thanks much!