DC Universe Neal Adams Vol. 1

[Red Oak Kid]

There may have been an old thread about this book, but I can't find it.

I was wondering if anyone here has the DC Universe Neal Adams Vol. 1 book that collects some of his early non superhero work for DC.

I noticed that there may be two covers for this. One cover shows a goofy looking Robin and the other Teen Titans. The cover shown at Amazon is an old drawing of some DC heroes that Adams did for some DC promotion. Maybe it was for one of those DC calendars from the 70s.

DC Universe Vol 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Illustrated-Neal-Adams-Vol/dp/1401219179/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241482294&sr=1-14)

I was wondering about the reproduction of this book since one of the comments at Amazon said the line work was obscured by computer coloring.

[Reptisaurus!]

Well, *I* don't have it, but the library does. It's the electrocuted Robin covers.

It's... OK. There are maybe eight or ten short stories, one long Teen Titans story, and a bunch of archival material - Uncolored (maybe uninked? I forget) pages, a few recent covers, four (non-consecutive) pages that Neal did for a Mike Friedrich JLA story, some in-house ads that ran in DC books where Superman teaches kids to have self-esteem... Stuff like that. \

And the guy on Amazon is right about the coloring on the finished stories: It's the same (obnoxious) approach to coloring as in the Batman volumes.

[Red Oak Kid]

Well, *I* don't have it, but the library does. It's the electrocuted Robin covers.

It's... OK. There are maybe eight or ten short stories, one long Teen Titans story, and a bunch of archival material - Uncolored (maybe uninked? I forget) pages, a few recent covers, four (non-consecutive) pages that Neal did for a Mike Friedrich JLA story, some in-house ads that ran in DC books where Superman teaches kids to have self-esteem... Stuff like that. \

And the guy on Amazon is right about the coloring on the finished stories: It's the same (obnoxious) approach to coloring as in the Batman volumes.

Thanks Repti.

The only thing that sounds of interest to me is the JLA pages. Don't think I've heard of those before.

The thing I like most about Adams' work is his fine line inking. I'll never understand how they can justify covering it up with stupid computer coloring.:mad:

[Reptisaurus!]

Thanks Repti.

The only thing that sounds of interest to me is the JLA pages. Don't think I've heard of those before.


And it is only 4 pages of a 22 page story. For 40 bucks I'd think they could throw in the rest of the issue, gratis.

The thing I like most about Adams' work is his fine line inking. I'll never understand how they can justify covering it up with stupid computer coloring.:mad:

It's basically Adams' decision innit? I don't get it either. There's still some good material in the book and I'm glad I took the time to look through it, but I'd be a lot happier if the coloring stayed closer to the original.

[Red Oak Kid]

And it is only 4 pages of a 22 page story. For 40 bucks I'd think they could throw in the rest of the issue, gratis.

It's basically Adams' decision innit? I don't get it either. There's still some good material in the book and I'm glad I took the time to look through it, but I'd be a lot happier if the coloring stayed closer to the original.

I doubt that Adams drew more than those 4 pages. If DC had a complete story drawn by Adams I think they would have had it inked and published many years ago.

I know Adams was involved in the computer coloring on some of the Batman and Deadman stories that were collected in books. But I'm not sure if he or his Continuity Co. were involved in this book. But based on things he as written on his website he seems to think computer coloring improves reprints of his work.:confused:

[Cherokee Jack]

I doubt that Adams drew more than those 4 pages. If DC had a complete story drawn by Adams I think they would have had it inked and published many years ago.

:


I would guess those four pages are from JLA # 94, and featured Deadman. At least I think that's the issue #. There was a time when I retained all that knowledge. :smile:

[Red Oak Kid]

I would guess those four pages are from JLA # 94, and featured Deadman. At least I think that's the issue #. There was a time when I retained all that knowledge. :smile:

Adams definitely did four pages in JLA 94. And it was written by Mike Friedrich. That's probably it.

He also did 6 Deadman pages in Challengers of the Unknown 74. The rest of the story was done by George Tuska. I had to look that one up.

[Sir Tim Drake]

It's basically Adams' decision innit?

The trouble is, Neal Adams today is a different person from the Neal Adams who drew those pages. And the current Neal Adams should know better than to meddle with the work of another artist (i.e. the past Neal Adams).

[Alex Dragon]

The trouble is, Neal Adams today is a different person from the Neal Adams who drew those pages. And the current Neal Adams should know better than to meddle with the work of another artist (i.e. the past Neal Adams).

That's just how most artists are. They look at their past stuff and see the flaws. If they are given a chance to correct what they feel they did wrong in many cases they will. The fans and Neal aren't looking at the art in the same way. Many of the fans want the work to remain the same as it was originally done flaws and all because they want a momento of that time. Neal, on the other hand wants his art looking as good as it can be for the newer fans and himself as well. The artist side of me tends to agree with Neal but I can understand people wanting the work to stay the same as it originally was.

Personally, I prefer the updated computer coloring when it's done correctly. I think in some cases in some of the reprinted Adams work some of the coloring was a tad too bright and not subtle enough and I didn't always like the color choices made. I believe Neal's kid did the coloring I'm referring to. I can understand Neal wanting to give his kid a shot at the work but he (she?) might not have been the best choice.

[Red Oak Kid]

Personally, I prefer the updated computer coloring when it's done correctly. I think in some cases in some of the reprinted Adams work some of the coloring was a tad too bright and not subtle enough and I didn't always like the color choices made. I believe Neal's kid did the coloring I'm referring to. I can understand Neal wanting to give his kid a shot at the work but he (she?) might not have been the best choice.

Some of the Batman hardback reprints were colored at Continuity by Cory Adams who was Neal's first wife and who still work for Continuity. She colored just about all of the Continuity Comics titles. I'm not questioning her coloring ability.

The great thing about old comic books is that the coloring was kept simple to keep costs low. A byproduct of this is that the line work was allowed to shine thru.

As I've said before, part of the problem is that no matter how nice a page may look on the computer, the image has to be separated out onto metal printing plates and ink has to be applied to paper in a press. The quality of the inks and paper has a great deal to do with the finished product.

[Alex Dragon]

Some of the Batman hardback reprints were colored at Continuity by Cory Adams who was Neal's first wife and who still work for Continuity. She colored just about all of the Continuity Comics titles. I'm not questioning her coloring ability.

Hmmm...I had no idea Cory Adams was Neal's wife. I just assumed it was one of his kids.

The great thing about old comic books is that the coloring was kept simple to keep costs low. A byproduct of this is that the line work was allowed to shine thru.

I'm sure it still can allow the inks to shine through. But some of that stuff was done years ago probably before digital coloring programs were as powerful and versatile as they are today. But more than anything it's probably that the colors are so vibrant that they compete with the inks and the inks simply don't stand out as much. I personally liked the re-colored stuff better but yeah, I think it was a bit too vibrant/bright. I have no problem with the how the inks ended up looking (as I recall) but it's all personal tastes. I'd bet that the newer/younger fans preferred the digital coloring.

As I've said before, part of the problem is that no matter how nice a page may look on the computer, the image has to be separated out onto metal printing plates and ink has to be applied to paper in a press. The quality of the inks and paper has a great deal to do with the finished product.

True...

But the main thing I was trying to get across in my other post was that I totally understand why Neal decided on altering his past work. As much as the fans may be happy with the original coloring Neal himself might not have been. He didn't color the books himself back then and I'm sure he would've made different choices. Also, if he was going to bother with having them re-colored why not go with the most advanced coloring available to him at the time? I'm sure Neal considered the fans who wanted to see his work as it was originally presented but quite frankly there's plenty of reprints of Neal's work that were unaltered. I'm sure he saw the more expensive hardcovers as something more special and wanted to give fans his work as he thought it should be.

Maybe the new coloring didn't reproduce exactly as he may have liked it but I'm pretty sure he still prefferred it over the original coloring.

[Drusilla lives!]

The trouble is, Neal Adams today is a different person from the Neal Adams who drew those pages. And the current Neal Adams should know better than to meddle with the work of another artist (i.e. the past Neal Adams).

I agree, what's done is done with regard to pencil work and inking. I'm not sure about coloring though. On the one hand, re-coloring old works may give them a renewed appeal with the younger audience... but then again, it is also disrespectful to the artists (colorists) that originally did the work. We sometimes forget that the comic book art form is (more often then not) a collaborative one.

But sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the effects of age and a true re-color job (although it's sometimes rather obvious). I happened to be playing around with some photo software and decided to see what some page scans of some old comics might look like with some adjustments (basically for temperature, tint and color saturation)... I was rather surprised at some of the results (see attached).

[benday-dot]

I agree, what's done is done with regard to pencil work and inking. I'm not sure about coloring though. On the one hand, re-coloring old works may give them a renewed appeal with the younger audience... but then again, it is also disrespectful to the artists (colorists) that originally did the work. We sometimes forget that the comic book art form is (more often then not) a collaborative one.

But sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the effects of age and a true re-color job (although it's sometimes rather obvious). I happened to be playing around with some photo software and decided to see what some page scans of some old comics might look like with some adjustments (basically for temperature, tint and color saturation)... I was rather surprised at some of the results (see attached).

Thanks for that Dru. I have been and still am a fan of the warmer tones of the naturally aged pages. They have a patina of authenticity that just engages me more, and despite the Jurassic dating of some the of older pages the more organic aura of the untouched (or heavily and humanly touched, if you will) panels renders them, paradoxically, more alive to me. But maybe I am just too ancient myself to adapt.

[benday-dot]

With regard to Adams, I am not surprised he has embraced computer colouring. He always was, even while taking late Silver Age comicdom by storm back in the day, a big proponent of innovation and new technologies in both the artistic and production side of the biz. His was certainly a tendency to adopt new graphic arts techniques perhaps often used just outside of the two-bit world of comics, but not so much within.

Having said that... I too dislike very much all the newly colourized Adams tomes I have seen (including the Batman volume and one under discussion here.)

[Red Oak Kid]

But the main thing I was trying to get across in my other post was that I totally understand why Neal decided on altering his past work. As much as the fans may be happy with the original coloring Neal himself might not have been. He didn't color the books himself back then and I'm sure he would've made different choices. .

Actually Adams colored the majority of the work he did for DC in the 60s. He colored most of his DC covers in consultation with Jack Adler and he also colored many DC covers drawn by other artists. Prior to coloring at DC he had colored his Ben Casey Sundays. Check out Alter Ego 56 for the details.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinion of computer coloring is "right" and theirs is wrong. I agree that most people probably like the computer colored reprints. Adams seems to prefer them to the original coloring.

When those stories were drawn in the 60s and 70s computer coloring did not exist. Therefore it was up to the inker to indicate form with the inked line. They used feathering and crosshatching to model shapes. The computer coloring does the same. IMO it is redundant to have the computer colors applied to art that wasn't created with computer coloring in mind. Computer coloring is great on new art where the artist knows beforehand that it will be computer colored.

To me, using computer coloring techniques on old art is like colorizing black and white films. But this is just my own preference and I know I am in the minority.

[Reptisaurus!]

I agree, what's done is done with regard to pencil work and inking. I'm not sure about coloring though. On the one hand, re-coloring old works may give them a renewed appeal with the younger audience... but then again, it is also disrespectful to the artists (colorists) that originally did the work. We sometimes forget that the comic book art form is (more often then not) a collaborative one.


Yeah.

And I think, for me, it comes down to a judgement call on the original work. A lot of late-seventies/early-eighties Marvels (ferinstance) were atrociously colored, and SHOULD be recolored if their reprinted. It was just sloppy, sloppy work allround.

But it's also true that good colorists who cared about their job could do some fairly spectacular work with the limited palate available to them - Adams, parodixically, among 'em. And you should have some respect for that.

But sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the effects of age and a true re-color job (although it's sometimes rather obvious). I happened to be playing around with some photo software and decided to see what some page scans of some old comics might look like with some adjustments (basically for temperature, tint and color saturation)... I was rather surprised at some of the results (see attached).

Ha! Nice!

[Sir Tim Drake]

IMO it is redundant to have the computer colors applied to art that wasn't created with computer coloring in mind. Computer coloring is great on new art where the artist knows beforehand that it will be computer colored.

This is exactly my opinion, except I'm not sure if "redundant" is the word I'd use... maybe I'd call it "anachronistic".

[Drusilla lives!]

...
Ha! Nice!

You know, I'm always shocked at some of the results I get when I do that. For instance, after getting a good set of baseline (temperature, tint and saturation) settings for the first page I usually like to apply them to the next few pages and the cover to see what emerges color-wise... I find it's a lot of fun trying to turn back the hand of time.

I don't want to deviate from the thread topic too much, but I'll leave you with this last pair (see attached) as an example. Where in the world did all that color come from (or should I say go)?!? Ah, the terrible toll time takes on us all... and our comics. :)

[MDG]

I think the problem I have with some reprints is when the work goes beyond restoring the artwork to trying to repair or "improve" it after the fact. I'm also not a fan of most recoloring, especially computer rendering over art that was designed (in terms of the inking) to be printed with "flat" colors.

I'm a bog fan or Alex Toth, but in the 80s he recolored some of his 50s horror and romance stories (not computer, but with techniques that weren't limited by traditional hand-separation) and I didn't like the way he did them--although he approached color very much the way he used gray tones.

[Alex Dragon]

When those stories were drawn in the 60s and 70s computer coloring did not exist. Therefore it was up to the inker to indicate form with the inked line. They used feathering and crosshatching to model shapes. The computer coloring does the same. IMO it is redundant to have the computer colors applied to art that wasn't created with computer coloring in mind. Computer coloring is great on new art where the artist knows beforehand that it will be computer colored.

To me, using computer coloring techniques on old art is like colorizing black and white films. But this is just my own preference and I know I am in the minority.

Let's not forget whose work we're talking about here. I'm sure Neal could lecture for hours on coloring techniques of the old days, computer coloring inking and color theories. He made choices and has a preference. I think that he was aware of the things you point out and that's probably why the inks are muted or don't "shine through" as much as you remember them or would like them to be.

I think crosshatching and feathering can work with computer coloring. It all falls down to the choices of color and saturation applied and the amount of modelling/rendering being done with the colors. When the penciller and the colorist are two different people I know that what you speak of may be more of a problem because both may feel that the rendering/modelling is better served by them handling it. But in this case it's the work of one artist who is making the choices of his own work.

Not saying you're right or wrong in your preference, just offerring a perspective from another viewpoint.

[Red Oak Kid]

I think that he was aware of the things you point out and that's probably why the inks are muted or don't "shine through" as much as you remember them or would like them to be.

Not saying you're right or wrong in your preference, just offerring a perspective from another viewpoint.

Well, you are saying that my opinion is based on my faulty memory. Just for the record, I have the original comic book printings of the Neal Adams drawn stories right in front of me. I don't have to try and remember how they looked.

[InfoBroker]

Actually Adams colored the majority of the work he did for DC in the 60s. He colored most of his DC covers in consultation with Jack Adler and he also colored many DC covers drawn by other artists. Prior to coloring at DC he had colored his Ben Casey Sundays. Check out Alter Ego 56 for the details.

He also showed some of DC's production staff how the innards of Marie Severin's color palette and mixing worked. He did this cold from just looking at the printed books.

The fella knew his stuff...

- jb the "my Martin Color Dyes dried out a long time ago" ib -

[InfoBroker]

Let's not forget whose work we're talking about here. I'm sure Neal could lecture for hours on coloring techniques of the old days, computer coloring inking and color theories. He made choices and has a preference. I think that he was aware of the things you point out and that's probably why the inks are muted or don't "shine through" as much as you remember them or would like them to be.

Muddy colors are muddy.

Memory, muddy or otherwise (and in the case of Red Oak, one of the most knowledgeable Neal Adams fans hanging here at CBR; it's an otherwise!) has nothing to do with it.

-jb the ib -

[Alex Dragon]

Well, you are saying that my opinion is based on my faulty memory. Just for the record, I have the original comic book printings of the Neal Adams drawn stories right in front of me. I don't have to try and remember how they looked.

I have no idea who you are and if you were going by memory or you have the books in front of you or whatever. I thought I covered all possiblities by saying "As you remember" or "As you would like them to be". I simply floated a couple of theories out there on why the books may look like they do and why Neal may have made the choices he made. I thought I was offering up harmless opinions.

[benday-dot]

While we are on the track of the merits, or lack thereof, of the rendering of computer colouring to comic books once produced by old school methods I had a chance, while visiting my LCS this afternoon, to take a gander at the first issue of Marvel's at long last reprised series of the classic Lee/Kirby Tales of Asgard backup strip to the Silver Age Journey into Mystery/Thor comics.

The backup has long been a favourite of mine, and I know too of many others around here. Tales of Asgard is an often overlooked gem that ought to be sitting near the pinnacle of the Kirby cannon IMO. Many of us dreamed of seeing an affordable trade collection assembling all in one place the entirety of this colourful series.

Since I first noticed the early solicitations of this 70th anniversary year series several months back this looked liked it could have been something liked that. But it was the phrase, included in that advanced press, excitedly promoting "with all new modern colouing!" that had me just a little nervous.

Well, I saw issue #1 today, and the verdict?

Massively disappointed.

I can't say how far from the original Kirby look and feel this new series has drifted. The modeling completely obscures the original Kirby effort of force and grandeur. It strips the texture holus bolus from the work. Even those fans who decry the inks of Colletta atop Kirby's pencils (and those same folks often actually do exceptionally lend some praise to the embellisher's Thor work) will not even be pleased that that inker's trademark scratchy woodcut look has entirely vanished. Ditto to Chic Stone, Paul Reinman and all the others who lent their inking talent to this wonderful series way back when. Really, it looks like all human hands have vanished from this digital farrago.

Yes, definitely not the long awaited Tales of Asgard return we'd hoped for. Thankfully, I have most of the originals, or at least earlier flawed, but still infinitely preferably reprint versions, of this great Kirby creation to savour.