Ferran Delgado's picture
Posted by: Ferran Delgado | April 19, 2013

Lettering by...

Artie Simek.
Great addition to the site!

Anonymous's picture
Posted by: Anonymous (not verified) | April 19, 2013

A *beautiful* page! Without

A *beautiful* page! Without question my favorite Kirby inker. A treasured item I have is a hand written letter from Chic encouraging me with my art. A true gentleman and one hell of a talent.

Joe Madajewski's picture
Posted by: Joe Madajewski (not verified) | April 19, 2013

Thor 107 page

I see originally this was a lot larger and it is quite evident even to an untrained eye that the comics pages were an old style 'cut and paste' some more blatantly obvious than others
Since I do NOT have all the answers could someone explain how the 'pages' worked in the 60's to this rube ;-0
I would like to know how they 'downsized' these images from a lot larger bristol board original!
In 1964 there were NO digital images or scanners
I can just imagine what this would have looked like if Mike Royer did the inks!!!
Even a link to a URL explaining would be appreciated
kc

drdroom's picture
Posted by: drdroom | April 20, 2013

Back in the day

...they would take a picture with a deal called a stat camera, and then make a transparent print or negative (I'm not sure) on clear plastic at the print size which would then be used to make the printing plate via the use of light sensitive chemical coatings or some such. It was like a medieval alchemists laboratory.
On your other point, Royer inks might not have looked all that different. Jack's pencils in this period were less finished than the ones Royer worked from in the '70s.

drdroom's picture
Posted by: drdroom | April 20, 2013

Did you know

...the EDIT comment field doesn't have a simple delete option? I somehow double posted my last comment, can't seem to get rid of it, so I changed it to this. Kirby Rules!

John S.'s picture
Posted by: John S. | April 20, 2013

Re: Back in the day

My understanding is that the line art was photographed with a Process Camera, not a stat camera. I always thought they were two different things. Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on process cameras...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_camera
The stat cameras I've seen were smaller affairs than the process cameras pictured in this article and were mostly used for purposes similar to what we'd use a photocopier for today. A stat camera could generally be set up in a large room in an office, but a process camera was usually too big for that. Interestingly, however, Wikipedia also has an article on stat cameras that gives essentially the same description as the one in the process-camera article, so go figure...

starquack's picture
Posted by: starquack | April 20, 2013

stat cameras

I'm a graphic designer who came up in the age before computers. We used to use both terms interchangeably. They are the same thing, though I'm sure there were different size models. The kind I worked on were large, kind of like an old bellows camera turned on its side. There would be a wall between where you load the film and the other side, where you placed the art in a large glass holder.
This is a piece of original art. You can tell because the different shades of ink can be clearly seen, where some has been applied more watered down than in other places. You can see the white out, and colored pencil notes in the margins. A stat camera is usually used for high contrast BW, to eliminate values and increase the contrast in line art like this. In the comics industry, they were used to make reductions of the original art so that printing plates could be made.

Mike T's picture
Posted by: Mike T | March 15, 2015

Stoney Gargoyle

Nobody could ink the Gargoyle like Stone could. Then again, nobody had so many chances at it either. Still, you have to admit that he totally looks like he's carved out of granite or some other kind of, er, Stone.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
X