Added 1 new A* page:

• A* Episode 15, Page 51

Spent a good bit of time playing with new drawing tools that arrived from the internet today. Some were successful (and used for this latest A* page!), some were not--a learning experience, shall we say! I'll go into that more tomorrow; for now, I give you this strange winged man-boy I drew for my Sunday fairy tale comic, The Princess and the Giant, currently going through a dream phase that seems to be getting increasingly weird:

Added 1 new A* page:

• A* Episode 15, Page 52

The successful part of that package of art supplies that arrived yesterday was a new type of brush: a Raphaël 8404, size 3--I picked a size 3 since that's the same size number as the brushes I'd been using, Winsor & Newton Series 7s, but the Raphaël sizes are actually about one size larger; you can see the "size 3" Raphaël sorta dwarfing the "size 3" W&N here:



(The tape on the end of the W&N's handle signifies that it's my old W&N, the one I'm just using for white paint (which is kinda gloppy and rough on bristles) now--not that the handle broke or anything.)

I've done these past two A* pages with the Raphaël, and I have to say I'm exceedingly pleased with its performance. Yay French brush (the company, which is named something else that is rather boring, was founded in the late 1700s, which they say makes them the longest-running brush manufacturer around today)! And you might not have suspected it but it is actually cheaper than the W&N, or perhaps I should put that the other way around and say the W&N is more expensive, about twice as much for a similar physical size.

Now, my original A* brush was a German one (a Da Vinci "Maestro") that was also half the price of the British Winsor & Newtons, but that one was about the same size, had some small bristle problems from the beginning, and only lasted about half as long before it lost what useful point (the sharp tip the bristles are supposed to form when wet so you can paint tiny lines) it had started with. So far, the bristles of the Raphaël feel at least as nice as the W&N, and there are, well, a lot more of them. Also, I dunno if it's the increased size, or some difference in the bristles, but I've found I can do some really long delicate feathering with the Raphaël--like with the shading on Selenis' pants today, and on her hand yesterday--that I simply never found the W&N really wanting to do.

It's nice to have a bigger brush, too, since it can do bigger lines in a single stroke; and particularly with ink wash, it comes in handy in its greater capacity for carrying water and ink--this means I have to go back to the well less frequently, and since I'm currently mixing ink wash grays "on the fly" in the brush itself, rather than pre-mixing them in tidy separate jars, this means I can do larger areas of the same tone, so in general the work should be less patchy and dabby (that isn't really a word) looking.

In his book on inking that a kindly reader got for me recently from my Amazon Wish List (<3), professional inker Klaus Jansen says he does most of his work with a Raphaël size *4*--which would be a W&N size 5, approximately. :o I suppose it takes more control to handle larger and larger brushes, especially if you still want to be able to do small lines with them, which I do, but I think I'm going to get myself a size 4 and see how that goes, because if I can still do small lines with it, then in theory it will be even more useful than the size 3 I'm using now.

Added 1 new A* page:

• A* Episode 15, Page 53

The art supplies I got that have not been so successful have been parts for dip pens. I got some from the local art supply mega-store recently, but the ones I could use (I was missing a handle for a few of them) weren't quite the type most comic inkers use, as it turned out; so I ordered the right ones and the right handles. (The helper lady at the art supply store was nearly as clueless about them as I was, unfortunately; here's an example that will show experienced dip pen users just how ignorant we were: I asked "Do you have Hunt nibs?" and she replied "No, we just have Speedball"; those who know their stuff will know that those two are one and the same, at least since 1997 when they were all put under the "Speedball" brand, which also covers other things like inks and so forth--the confusing thing though is that the packaging says only "Speedball," and the nibs themselves have only "Hunt" engraved on them (which is hard to read through the packaging). Pretty feeble rebranding effort there if ya ask me, and one that leaves noobs such as myself confused.)

So the doodles I showed in that recent post were made with a "22" nib, which is too big and too rigid for proper comic work; it was also chewing into even the heavy paper and Bristol I tried it on if I tried inking over the same spot a few times, as you would want to do to get a solid black area, or for crosshatching. Not cool! So I was hoping the smaller nibs comic artists use would be more forgiving on the paper, and also easier to move around and use for a variety of line widths and styles.

Well, here's the result of my attempts with the little nib collection I now have--I've placed the nibs themselves next to their identifying number, and the doodles around that area of the paper were done with that same nib:



Blech! Anyway... The "102" in the upper left is the "crow quill" you may see some inkers talking about--it's probably the most commonly recommended for comic inking, at least that I've seen on the internet. It's small but pretty darn stiff, and with two or three cross-hatches would start chewing into the paper with its needle-like point.

"103" (upper right) was recommended in that book on inking by Klaus Jansen, and it's nice and flexible, but the ink just doesn't seem to want to come down from that cross-shaped reservoir (when you dip these into ink, a drop of ink collects at the hole above the tip, and is supposed to flow down the nib when you apply pressure to spread the two halves of the nib apart slightly)--I spent a *long* time trying to get it to flow consistently, and tried three different 103s, but just couldn't get them working reliably; plus, the tip is *so* flexible that I bent two of them (the halves of the nib wouldn't snap back together without a gap), and in testing the third one just to see what would happen if I applied just a *little* more pressure than one would think to do, **PANG!** half of the nib snapped off and darn well could have put my eye out. And anyway even though it was really flexible, it would still chew into the paper a bit on repeated crossings.

"109" (lower left) was probably the most successful--somewhat flexible, without ink flow problems--but yep would still chew up inked paper; you can kind of see it in the darker blotches in the heavy black areas I tried to make.

"22" is a big, fairly inflexible nib that I had before and used to make the doodles shown under the first link in this post; I kind of like the loose, thin lines you can get when moving it with very little pressure, but its big size makes it even more paper-chewy--although it is topped in that department by the even bigger "56."

Well, I'm probably doing this wrong. It isn't coming intuitively like the brush and pencil do--although I've used those extensively before, so it's just as likely simply a matter of familiarity and practice, or lack thereof--and the way you can only move the tip in certain directions due to how its knife-like tip moves on the paper feels uncomfortable and restrictive. I want to be able to make the type of hard lines these nibs can do that a brush can't really, but I don't think I'm gonna be able to jump in and do that with them; and anyway I suspect the chance of chewing up the paper with the tip will always remain, especially since what I really want to do with them is loads of overlapping cross-hatching and hard, dark, blocky areas; I wonder if this happens to the pros (and I don't see how it can't, at least once in a while)--I suppose it doesn't really show up in their scanned linework anyway, since (I think?) the usual method of getting linework ready seems to include using 50% Threshold in Photoshop to simplify it to pure black and white, which would make the chewed-up areas just as black as the non-chewed-up areas. But you can't do that with ink wash, and anyway I want my originals to look nice, since I plan to sell them and don't want people to be disappointed with how they look in person!

So this is probably the end of my flirtation with dip pens for the time being. I tried doing some semi-"hard" lines around the figures with this new brush of mine on today's A* page, and was surprised how successful it was at doing a thin, fairly steady line. It still isn't quite nib-sharp, but I've got another tool waiting for me at the post office that should be, so maybe I'll get a chance to play with that tomorrow.

Maybe you could try one of those "ball-tip" nibs. They're not sharp at all and you can go wild with the cross-hatching. I'm not too sure about the proper flow-rate for ink, but it seems to me that if you introduced a tiny amount of detergent (eg: 1 drop of diluted solution with an eye-dropper) to the ink supply it would have to flow better through that gap from the reservoir to the tip.

Oh! Hey, that's an excellent suggestion, I didn't even realize they had those. From the looks of the ones in Speedball's catalogue (page 55), the round-tipped ones (style "B") produce uniform width lines, but that could still be useful (the other tool I have coming only does uniform lines, also). I'll have to order a couple and give them a try. Thanks for the tip (har)! :)

There are lots of fountain-type pens made for drawing and calligraphy. I have a relatively cheap brand pen made in Germany for many years called Rotring. They come in a variety of tips and widths, and use cartridges or an optional old-style lever reservior to fill with what ever ink you desire to use. Some of the upper-grade super deluxe drawing pens are $100- $200 and more, but they boast incredible features and durability. People like the Urban Sketchers go on and on about these pens, which are all you really need (besides a piece of paper) for the most minimal of art kits...

http://www.urbansketchers.org/

Ah! Is it one of their ArtPens?

http://www.dickblick.com/products/rotring-art-pens

Those look pretty neat. I'm not sure it would work for my purposes though as the ink they use is not waterproof, and even with the converter you're not supposed to use India ink in them (I suppose because it dries and clogs?). Dang.

BUT I've actually just got one of their Rapidographs which I'm about to try out for the first time. Exciting!

Yeah. That's the one. The nib doesn't come to a sharp point but a tiny ball which glides smoothly where the old crow-quill digs in and cuts the paper.
That green sumi ink works just fine, and you only have to moisten and wipe the tip to get it going again. If you save the pen for last it won't matter if the ink is permanent or not.
When I was in a graphics-phase (eye roll) I used rapidographs, which have replaceable tips, but are just not the same as a "real ink pen". They're more like glorified markers but they work fine.
In the end its all about how each tool or method becomes part of what you're doing, and trying the options to find out if they're right for you or not. Even the cheapest ink-dip pen can produce a masterpiece, but your style and method have to be in the right mode. A delicate sense of touch with a sharp-pointed pen isn't something you're going to develop if you like to work fast.

Ah hm that is interesting then. I may give one of those a shot if the ball-tip Speedball nibs don't pan out.


I'm glad you said that because it probably will save me a lot of frustration! I don't really work fast overall, but I like to be able to make quick strokes, and to be able to overlap strokes and really get them going thick, and that seems to amount to about the same thing as far as my poor paper is concerned.

Added 1 new A* page:

• A* Episode 15, Page 54

I got some good inking tool tips from people on the A* forum and on Google+. Thanks guys!

Today's new tool that I just retrieved from the post office is a Rotring Rapidograph, which is what they call a "technical pen"--it can draw a very fine, fixed-width line. Rotring is a German company--the name means "red ring" in German--although probably a general downturn in technical pen sales over the past decade or so of increasing computer dominance led to their being bought by what I think is an American company somewhat recently, who apparently discontinued some of their products. They still make their flagship Rapidographs, though! Here's the one I got, in its sections:



I included the box at bottom because in French and a few other languages it calls the ink used "India ink" ("encre de Chine" or "China ink" as the French call it :P), which is nice to know because that's what I use on A* with my brushes--I hadn't seen the ink type mentioned in online documentation.

As you may be able to tell from that darkish photo, the Rotring Rapidograph uses ink cartridges; this is different from the American-made "Koh-i-Noor" Rapidographs, which are more common (and cheaper) here: Koh-i-Noor is a Czech company that Rotring licensed to make and distribute their own brand of Rapidographs in the US; their Rapidographs use entirely different mechanisms, such as a refillable ink reservoir. Even though theirs are cheaper to buy here, I went with the Rotring Rapidograph because whereas the Koh-i-Noor pens are said to be finicky, hard to clean, and prone to clogging, users seem to have nothing but good to say about the German ones.

The Rotring site says their tips get as tiny as 0.1 mm! I went with a more modest 0.25 mm tip, which is still shockingly tiny--it looks and feels like a thin needle. Here it is next to a standard ball point pen tip:



Tiny! I find it hard to imagine how small the 0.1 mm tip must be. :o

As you can see, aside from the tip and the pocket clip, the rest of the pen is plastic, but screws together easily and tightly. It's pretty light weight.

I will leave you guessing for now as to whether or not I liked it, because it's getting late! Doodles tomorrow!

~~~~~~

Still I can't resist a word or two more about Koh-i-Noor, because the name got me wondering. They're named after the massive Koh-i-Noor diamond, a rock discovered in India in the 1200s. Since then it passed from ruler to ruler as a spoil of war, primarily; it was in Afghanistan in 1790, when the Koh-i-Noor company was founded--the ruler there had gotten it after the Persian shah who had captured it (and named it Koh-i-Noor, which means "Mountain of Light" in Persian) from the Indian shah was assassinated.

No wonder with this bloody history that the jewel is said to be cursed, and will bring misfortune upon whoever possesses it--unless the possessor is a woman! Well that was a handy technicality when the British more or less conquered India, and handed the Koh-i-Noor to Queen Victoria in 1850, who made it one of the British crown jewels; it is currently in the crown of Queen Elizabeth ("the late Queen Mother").

I like this valuation of the Koh-i-Noor in the memoirs of Babur (circa 1530), the first Mughal emperor (their line descended from Genghis Khan!), and a possessor of the stone: "Babur held the stone's value to be such as to feed the whole world for two and a half days."

Here's a photo of a copy of the Koh-i-Noor (apparently the British royalty aren't big on photographing their jewels) from a Munich museum; this reflects its "new cut," a redesign from its earlier cut that had proven unpopular at the Great Exhibition in 1851; so the next year the Queen's mineralogist drastically cut the stone "from 186 1/16 carats (37.21 g) to its current 105.602 carats (21.61 g)":


image by Chris 73 (source)