Talk:Digital comic

Digital comics as comics sold on CD-rom

There are now companies (such as Gitcorp) that sell comic book collections on CD-roms (.pdf format usually), and they refer to these collections as Digital Comics. This is another potential use of the term and I think we should include it in the article as a separate paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.5.62 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 September 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Walpaper 7h anniversary aecomics.jpg

Image:Walpaper 7h anniversary aecomics.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEED PIX PLS

NEED PIX PLS NEED PIX PLS NEED PIX PLS NEED PIX PLS NEED PIX PLS 76.67.53.103 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've assessed this and failed it on refs and support material. It has the look of an older article before we had the new inline citation style, and it needs bringing up to date with that. An infobox or image would also help. Hiding T 10:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital comics online

Digital comics also increasingly refers to comics available online, either for viewing online or for download, sometimes in the .cbr format. I wonder if this article should take that into account. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1985 ?

I know digital comics made before 1985 : Philippe Gerbaud & Toffe (two graphics designers) work on Lisa or on the then top secret Macintosh computer. See for instance : http://www.hyperbate.com/dernier/?p=14156#comment-12796 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.115.159 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership or Licensing?

I have been trying to find this out online, but haven't found clear and concise answers very quickly.

Are digital comics like sold like digital materials are sold from Itunes where you download it and own it as a file that is up to you to back up and protect? (Or like E-books in most cases?)

Or do you license the material and have to have a constant internet connection to read your comic books?

(I ask because of 'The New 52' from DC Comics where all of their books will be online in addition to physical editions.)

This seems like something that a digital comics article should be able to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.60 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royalties

I stumbled on this time.com article while researching something else. If I remember to come back to it, I might want to add something about royalties for digital comics. But I'm putting it here for everyone in case I forget. http://techland.time.com/2010/06/24/dcs-digital-participation-for-creators-new-or-not/ --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend To Add

ZoltanWiki (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend the following edit:

In History section:

As story telling evolves through digital distribution, animation and motion graphics are added to comics. In 2015, animator and graphic artist, Zoltan Barati released an interactive and fully featured animation comic book, Immortals and Indigenous on iBooks, Apple iTunes like distribution for tablet and desktop computers. The graphic illustration and animation are rendered in 3D. This form of digital content creation allowed the use of moving camera views, zooming in still image or video clip, turntables with acting key characters, 3D clothing and hair simulation, visual effects, such as impact, smoke, fire, particle, fluid, fracture, soft and rigid body dynamic simulations. The book was published by Digitone Pictures.

In Chronology section:

- 2015: Immortals and Indigenous / Talent on iBooks. Interactive content leveraging 3D modeling, texturing, facial and character animation, motion graphics, 3D clothing and hair design / simulation, 3D lighting / rendering, and visual effects by Zoltan Barati, Digitone Pictures.

Notes to editors:

I had lengthy discussion with an editor whether my recommended addition is within the guidelines and as a result I opened up this talked page discussion as I believe it is within the guideline:

- The edit is informative.

- Since the surrounding paragraphs contains example of author, publisher or book title as an example, I would think it would be fair and informative to include these in my additions as well.

- The example book Immortals and Indigenous is published and distributed through Apple iTunes, a reliable third party. (I am not an Apple employee, and I am not getting paid for making the edit.)

- According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, ... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.

- Listing the released book Immortals and Indigenous as an example, not only match the surrounding style, it serves as evidence of distributed material and helps understanding the edit through an example.

- Since there is a free preview sample version of the book, the financial advancement could be minimal or none. Because of the free sample preview, the edit does not advance more than the interest of Wikipedia.

- The edit is little-known but valuable. I am a subject matter expert as I author such books and subject matter experts are encouraged to edit according to Wikipedia.

- Even though the edit is informative, it would not oppose or challenge the existing information.

- Our discussion with an editor went on that an edit would need trade journals, mainstream newspaper backing and referred me to notability. However, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, it is stated that notability determination is related to whether a topic would have a separate article on its own. These are guidelines only to outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit content of an article or list. My addition is simply an addition to an existing topic and backed by reputable third party distribution as explained above.

- After further discussion, I was referred to undue weight section (According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight) However, my addition is not opposing a majority view. My information is an addition to majority position. I do not argue whether comic books, or digital content distribution stop using ink illustration or sprite animation. I simply stated other, such as 3D format exists and released and this is a factual statement with example. It is not demonstrating a different viewpoint from majority view. According to these guidelines "John Doe had the highest batting..." or "Many people think...." should not be used and I am not using such argument or statement. But the edit would be an informative addition.

- During our discussion, it also came up whether the link highlight of Immortal and Indigenous or the link highlight of www.DigitonePictures.com can be included in the body of the text or to provide below the External Link section. According to Wikipedia whether to include external link in the body text can discussed case-by-case. Thus, I would like to recommend to include link highlight in the body of the text for easy readability so that the viewer can quickly find the example and helps user understand. If you’d rather keep the link highlight at bottom at the External link section, I can accept that.

The external links would be:

Immortals and Indigenous

Digitone Pictures

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digital comic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130216021354/http://corporate.wowio.com:80/publishers/ to http://corporate.wowio.com/publishers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital comic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221102053/http://comicsalliance.com/digital-comics-drm-free-image-expo/ to http://comicsalliance.com/digital-comics-drm-free-image-expo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split

This article seems to be about two distinct topics, which could better be handled separately. Using digital tools to make comics, and using the internet to distribute them are separate subjects. They only thing they have in common is a common ambiguous name. There are lots of print comics made using digital tools, and lots of digitally-distributed comics made using pencil and ink. I'm not sure what terminology to use to distinguish them, but I think we should, even if it means just calling them digital comics creation and digital comics distribution, and making this a disambiguation page. Oh, and webcomic should probably be factored into this discussion too, as it's a form of digital distribution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems rather obvious, since I supported it at the template talk as well.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was not what I meant when I made my comment in Template talk:Comics, but this is an interesting idea regardless. Grabbing my copy of Reinventing Comics (which I suppose should be one of the better sources on this topic, though it is obviously dated), we see Scott McCloud defining three aspects of the "digital revolution": "Digital production", "Digital delivery", and "Digital comics". Digital production sees a lot of overlap with digital art and computer art, however, and I am not sure if an article on digital production for comics specifically is necessary. Digital distribution refers to a huge degree to webcomics, but it is at least a bit bigger than that, as it also covers downloading images without viewing such on a web browser. Lastly, "digital comics" is today completely covered by webcomics. It primarily describes the infinite canvas. If we were to choose a scope for these two articles, what would they be? I don't believe this is really a solution to the inherent problem that digital comics generally refer to webcomics these days. Is there a solution? Possibly. If we take "digital comics" as comics that are downloaded and downplay the connection to webcomics, things might make more sense. I am not sure what sources to use for these, however. I remember that when I tried to research French webcomics, "BD numérique" (digital comics) generally referred to downloadable comics, to be read on tablets and e-readers. Perhaps our solution is here? ~Mable (chat) 17:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read quite a bit about webcomics, but I don't feel like an expert enough to really say what the best solution is yet... ~Mable (chat) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital art is mainly non-illustrative, and computer art is about AI generating art. Digital illustration is a closer match, but the content of this section wouldn't fit into that article. Maybe it would be better recast as History of digital art in comics?

They blur together in the middle but downloaded digital comics and webcomics really are different beasts as distribution methods: one is a transactional analog of buying a book, the other is a more interactive analog to following a blog. I guess I'd be inclined to leave webcomic as it is, and focus this article on the business of downloaded comics. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly feel like the whole "digital comics creation" could be deleted, as it feels like a weird chronology of comics made with digital tools. In that regard, I definitely get where you're coming from when suggesting a "History of digital art in comics", but I simply don't think this is a topic worth having an article for. If it is, then it definitely wouldn't look like this. Digital production is everywhere in the comics industry today. I do believe nearly all webcomics are at least colored using digital tools these days, if not created outright. Major comics companies - your DCs and Marvels - use digital tools a lot for their comics. A chronology of random 80s and 90s webcomics and comics that were made through digital tools is just kinda ridiculous. Scott McCloud isn't even mentioned in the article, eventhough he was a huge proponent of digitally-produced comics in the late 90s and early 2000s, before it was the standard. EDIT: adding signature ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital comic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128171318/http://mag.awn.com/index.php?article_no=296 to http://mag.awn.com/index.php?article_no=296

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed to distinguish from Webcomic

My intuitive description of the difference between the two are that webcomics refer to comic strip-like comics, while "Digital comic" refers to Marvel/DC-style comics but online. However, Webcomic states "Webcomics range from traditional comic strips and graphic novels to avant garde comics, and cover many genres, styles, and subjects." Further clarification on the difference between the two terms should be made, because as their lead paragraphs are written, they seem to overlap significantly enough to consider merging. 9³ (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is arbitrary and subjective, but (with lots of exceptions) it's as much a difference of business model as format/content: "web comics" are usually free to read, while "digital comics" usually require payment. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]