Hiya Fox!
>"David" <vulpine_at_...> wrote:
>...but this bit of nitpicks has too
>many nits in my opinion.
Absolutely well within the realm of possibilities.
That's why I structured the post with a build-in
Devil's Advocate - aka: Editor's Note - to counter
the nit(s).
Value of artwork observations fall into the catagory
of "eye-of-the-beholder". Your position is just as valid.
[I think the value range of my observational posts are
between zero and one-half of one percent. But ya
never know. IRL I probably have red lined the
observations, then let the artist challenge/complain
about the issuance. (Sneakier way is to let the cleanup
artist(s) "fix" the artwork.) It also, depends heavily on
what the current project guidelines are, ie, Canon/Bible.]
You would be fun and challenging to have at a storyboard
session.
FOX: It is not needed.
INK: Yes, it is. Now do it.
FOX: Isn't.
INK: Is.
FOX:: Isn't.
INK: Is.
FOX: Isn't.
INK: Isn't.
FOX: Is.
INK: Ok. Is. You win.
FOX: Right...wait...what???? Hold the phone!
(Storyboarders are very mature individuals....cough.
Why are the writers laughing?)
>there is such a thing as too much detail.
Absolutely. Too much, too little. What to keep,
what to throw out - The bane of every artist.
[For beginning illustrators out there I ain't kidding
about the bane part. James has already been bitten by
the bane critter - CnC coloring; If it had been a full moon
he would forever try to color everything he drew.
Naw...just kidding. ;)]
P.S. Still like that unintended optical boob illusion.
P.S.S. Hope I haven't ticked vulpine off....
Received on Wed Jan 05 2011 - 22:48:03 CST