My wonderful idea for a webcomic

[Lovesthorn]

Well i am starting a web comic... but its kinda diffrent see its going to be done in photos so instead of it being drawn its going to have real people.
its a romance, nothing goofy, i will have the plot up. but i need some advice on the concept. what do the rest of you guys have to say?

[Robin Pierce]

Well i am starting a web comic... but its kinda diffrent see its going to be done in photos so instead of it being drawn its going to have real people.
its a romance, nothing goofy, i will have the plot up. but i need some advice on the concept. what do the rest of you guys have to say?

Moving this to TT&T as it's really the closest forum to accomodate such a thread.

And my personal advice: don't do it, don't do itoh god don't do it.

[Kirb]

[Jesusabdullah]

First, it's been done before. For example, I'm Always Right was made by One Of Us (Laemkral), and A Softer World is kinda well known. I honestly haven't read either. :/ In a similar vein are Legostar Galactica (by our very own Dr. Legostar) and IWC, both made using photographs of legos (and, in the case of IWC, gaming miniatures and pictures of the author). I read part of LG and lots of IWC. The point is, this isn't a revolutionary idea.

Second: Photo comics aren't that popular, and there's a reason for that. In my experience, people prefer drawings, even crappy ones, to captioned photographs. It's possible to fight this with great writing (I can vouch for IWC's, and LG is pretty clever as well), but most people can't write well enough to pull this off. Even these comics, arguably all written by decent writers, have reached only modest popularity. So, you can either go forward knowing this (as many people aching to write comics but knowing that they can't draw to save their lives have), try your hand at drawing, or get someone else to draw for you. Or, I suppose you could give up too, but hopelessness isn't really what's cool.

Finally, you've been very vague. If you wanted anything other than, "photo comics: Are they awesome (y/N)" (we said N, it seems) then we really can't help you*.

*Okay, maybe that's a lie, because I do have a thought about "romance, nothing goofy." If by "goofy" you mean "humorous," then I'd just like to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that in fact I would much prefer lulz with my romances. Of course, I'm not really one for chick flicks romance comics. I did hear good things about Mv's old comic (I think she'd prefer linkage to her new comic), which I understand to be a romance kinda thing...I mean, if you're looking for How To Do It Right or something.

[Jekkal]

Comics have a visual language that can't be duplicated in photos (unless animated). I discuss it in far deeper length in this blog article on Hand-drawn vs. 3D graphics.

Simply put, I strongly advise against doing photo comics.

[Dr Neo Lao]

I'm going to go against the grain and say that photo webcomics can be good when they have a decent amount of effort put into them.

Arguably, the same can be said of almost any medium, but I see so many photo webcomics where the author made very little effort with the photography. Those that use people are normally pretty cruddy and those that use toys / miniatures suffer from lack of posability.

Having said that, I really like the Action Figure Comics photocomic(s) because A - he uses good photography and lighting, B - the story is reasonably well thought out and C - the faces are all 'drawn' on as an aftereffect which gives a much greater range of expression to the toys.

[Magpye]

Oh please no, not a photo comic, particularly not a romance comic. It was bad enough when they did it in Just 17.

Put simply, my objections are that photographs must be perfectly posed to come near to conveying the depth and range of emotion which can, strangely enough, be conveyed in a few pencil marks. Photographs tend to be full of ephemera which can pull the eye away from your central subject, particularly when using human subjects. You will find that exaggerated emotion does not play well or look good on human features. You have continuity issues to consider, if you cannot complete a whole scene in a single sitting (and consider that some stories may draw out a single scene over months' worth of updates. You should have a excellent and near flawless knowledge of composition, and a good knowledge of the effects which can be achieved using filters (either physical or using computer software) - and the wisdom not to over-use these filters.

You must also consider the fact that most photo-romances, when treated with seriousness by the creators, are cheesier than a truck load full of mature cheddar, laughable at best and truly cringe-inducing at worst. Photo comics tend to lend themselves to joke comics, as there is less emphasis on the subtleties of the characters' body language and emotions, and more focus on the script as a basis for the joke.

I am not saying it cannot be done. I'm saying that if I was you, I wouldn't do it.

[Lovesthorn]

But i talked with a bunch of people on this from diffrent forums they where a lot nicer and gave a few suggestions but here i just get the NO ITS A LAME IDEA type thing. why?

[Mason]

My comment may have nothing to do with this thread. But please, change you damn avatar, Lovesthorn.

[KWill]

But i talked with a bunch of people on this from diffrent forums they where a lot nicer and gave a few suggestions but here i just get the NO ITS A LAME IDEA type thing. why?

Because sometimes the truth hurts. People here are more honest than nice. It's probably better in the long run. And please change your avatar before you do give someone a seizure or migraines.

[Lovesthorn]

no thats not what i mean what i mean is that they helped not just said that it was crap and dont do it.

[KWill]

The two people that were pointed out as having experience in photowebcomicking haven't responded yet, so it's not surprising that few others have much advice on how to do it right, due to lack of experience. Dr Neo Lao has offered some advice.

But also consider that you didn't ask for advice on how to do it, merely whether we thought it was a good idea. Most of the answers have been quite honest; don't be insulted that they're not necessarily what you wanted. They are what you asked for.

But thanks for editing the avatar. =)

[Td501]

Not to mention, people are a heck of a lot less dependable than toys. LegoStar can put out a new comic whenever he wants to. A live actor photo comic can have serious scheduling issues. Also more is demanded from a live actor comic. Toys don't need to get the right poses or facial expressions down to not look like crap. Also, sets and camera angles are far easier to put together for toy comics.

So while all photo comics seem very difficult to pull off, live actor comics are even more so. I've yet to see one with actual people in it that looks even remotely appealing.

[Jekkal]

But i talked with a bunch of people on this from diffrent forums they where a lot nicer and gave a few suggestions but here i just get the NO ITS A LAME IDEA type thing. why?

If you read my blog article, I did a heck of a lot more than just say it was a lame idea. If you haven't read it before, you really need to. If you're going to insist on this, fine, but you absolutely MUST understand the limitations of the medium.

Photocomics -- ESPECIALLY those featuring humans -- havea lot of baggage and constraints on it that you don't need or want to deal with. Almost all of the photocomics that people have expressed as worthwhile are featuring toys / action figures, which I think says a lot for the same of suspension of disbelief comics require. Unless yours is in this vein and you're willing to "enhance" the images you use to make them sufficiently comical, you should not use photocomics because of those constraints.

I want to say the revulsion most folk have in this forum to the idea is because

• We're comic creators, and the idea that photographic work is an acceptable substitute for a comic drawing is, to say the least, an insult. Not that photography isn't a valuable art form, but photographs have become such a commodity that it's not equivalent to the level of effort the average drawing takes.
• We've read a lot more comics combined than you or any other single person could read, so we have a collective level of intelligence about photocomics and what works / what doesn't. Especially what doesn't.
• Most people who make photocomics don't have a general education in how illustrated comics / visual storytelling work -- It's NOT like a movie, and if you go into it with this mindset you're not going to do very well. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pick up some of Scott McCloud's books on comics and at least learn what I'm talking about -- a crudely drawn comic may not need to fully understand visual storytelling, but because you're going to convey so much in a photograph with each panel, YOU DO.
• Most people who focus on "beautiful" / realistic art tend to fall short in the writing department. Your art is going to come across as blisteringly Mary-Sue perfect in a photocomic, so you've GOT to be careful to not let the images overshadow the plot.

If this sounds harsh, it's only because we want to make sure that people start making good webcomics by learning from the mistakes of others, and not necessarily by making your own mistakes. In lieu of actual advice, people have decided to just tell you it's best avoided instead (which it is).

I hope you're willing to take this all in stride as opposed to thinking we're trying to prevent you from doing a comic. If you must, take photos (your own!)and then trace the parts that are important to what you need / want to do. It's not perfect, but at least you'll avoid the classic pitfalls realistic art causes.

[Siabur]

You can look at it like this, you are in this for everyone who reads webcomics to love you. Or you can make the type of comic you want because you enjoy it. There could be a middle ground but it rarely happens. people will either like it or hate it. Originallity is hard to find. SO my recommendation is give it a shot, you will pick up very quickly whether or not it's working for yourself or for others. You might as well try, and if you fail, you will have one way that doesn't work. Good luck!

[Kirb]

But i talked with a bunch of people on this from diffrent forums they where a lot nicer and gave a few suggestions but here i just get the NO ITS A LAME IDEA type thing. why?

You asked for comments on whether the concept was good or not, I gave you mine. Your post was vague, and all it did was tell me that it was 'going to have real people, and it was going to be a romance.'

And the title 'My wonderful idea for a webcomic.'
I don't think it's a wonderful idea, and I still don't.

If you wanted me to sugarcoat my opinions you should have asked.

[Jesusabdullah]

But i talked with a bunch of people on this from diffrent forums they where a lot nicer and gave a few suggestions but here i just get the NO ITS A LAME IDEA type thing. why?

Because sometimes the truth hurts. People here are more honest than nice. It's probably better in the long run. And please change your avatar before you do give someone a seizure or migraines.

Hey now, I told you why I didn't like the idea.

But, in general, you'll find that we're a more honest group to ask this sort of thing to. We've trained ourselves to give honest artistic critiques and whatnot even when it could hurt the feelings of the critique-receiving person. As Kirb suggested, CG is a no-sugarcoat zone. Also, I've found that (in general--there are exceptions) your buddies will like almost anything you do, whether it's actually good or merely mediochre, and therefore can't be trusted.

Edit: First,

A live actor photo comic can have serious scheduling issues.

Isn't this part of why I'm Always Right ended?

Second,

We're comic creators, and the idea that photographic work is an acceptable substitute for a comic drawing is, to say the least, an insult. Not that photography isn't a valuable art form, but photographs have become such a commodity that it's not equivalent to the level of effort the average drawing takes.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'insult' part. I mean, I enjoy Daily Dinosaur Comics, and Ryan North usually doesn't have to draw anything (and when he does it's just some quick mspaint action) there at all. Again, though, North carries his work with awesome writing, and chances are that you will not be able to write anywhere near as good as him on a consistent basis. I could be wrong, but are you really willing to take that risk?

Third: Siabur is pretty much right. If you're dead-set on making this comic whether or not people actually like it, then we can't stop you and CG will accept practically anything that doesn't break someone's copyright. If you're asking us what we think of them, though, you probably want to make something lots of people could potentially like, in which case a romance photo-comic is probably a bad idea. Either way you decide to go, you'll learn something about comics and about yourself.

[Lovesthorn]

Well thank you for your replies and comments on this idea i am still planing to go through with the idea and i hope you take some time to read it once i get the site finished.

~Lovesthorn

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Good luck, yo. Pitching ideas rarely sells around here, especially since execution can make all the difference in the world. I've seen the most original ideas fall flat, while so-called overdone concepts shine because of good writing and art.

I haven't really seen a photo comic I like yet, but perhaps a skilled photographer that knows what they're doing could pull it off.

[Lovesthorn]

well i will post the link and see what you guys think