Butchered Cover Art (Eberron!!!)

[illustratus6776]

Sadly my first post to this site will be about how the cover of Wizards of the Coast's up comming game Eberron done by the great and powerful Wayne Reynolds was butchered.

I've seen the original painting and it is amazing. Then I see the preview of the cover and it looks like somebody has desaturated it, cut it up, and covered it with crap.

This has happened to me several times where somebody has taken my work and thrashed it for there final product and I wanted to know what you all thought about it.

[illustratus6776]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eb/20040217a

This link should take you to where you can see this cover. Swear I'm not trying to be negative but this thing hurts my eyes.

[JohnDeHope3]

What's the original look like?

[DanielSchenstrom]

Well, you'd think the editor, or art director made a mock up forst, to show Wayne what they were going to do.

I haven't seen a 3e cover yet that I like (but FR and OA are decent), I just enjoy paintings more than the faux old fantasy tome look they've gone for. This is sort of the worst of both worlds.

It could be improved by getting rid of the rope/root thing that goes across the painted image.

I'll be buying it anyway, the settings are all I buy for 3E since I'm still playing using 2nd ed rules.

[illustratus6776]

I'm sure the Art director did make a mock up of what he wanted, however. This doesn't always get explained to the artist. Most art directors are real picky about what they want. You do exactly what they say or you won't get used again.

Can't speak about WOC's relationship with the artist who did the cover, but it's happened to me several times where I submit my artwork to the client and when I see the results back someone has changed it so much I hardly recognize it. Never for the better(Just my opinion of course.)

While your on the topic of the setting. Eberron's being touted as a "higher tech" magic world, but it looks like the same fantasy world as always (art wise anyway). Nothing new nothing special. I'll stick to Forgotten Realms.

[Socar MYLES]

[mildly tasteless joke removed]

[illustratus6776]

True. Sometimes its a love/hate relationship in this business. But you've got to admit when someone takes your work you've spent time and effort on and then does something that makes you want to take your name off it , it sucks.

I don't count myself as a tempermental artist or anything, but this is a huge pet peave of mine. That's why I want to find out what people think about it.

[aprillee]

I figure that I'm hired to do the illustration and after that, it's out of my hands... Unless I have a contract that says I get to control layout and typefaces and how the cover design goes.

I get paid--that's all they owe me. I have no say otherwise. Although I guess I could make suggestions if I really had a strong opintion about it. But usually I don't.

[Eric Lofgren]

I have to admit, that is pretty harsh to do to a piece of art. Why even bother to get Reynolds to do it if you're just going to cover most of it up and wash it out? His work needs zero layout embellishment in my opinion.

[illustratus6776]

Exactly.

The cover is supposed to be the best artwork of the book. It's supposed to say "Pick me up and buy me." It's not supposed to say "Wow look at this stinky book, now run away screaming!!!"

WOTC can do what they want to the cover, and I know they don't care a wit about my opinion. But you'll have to forgive me if it urkes me a little when this type of thing happens. Have to vent.

The question has this ever happened to any of you?

[Partridge]

Originally posted by Eric Lofgren
I have to admit, that is pretty harsh to do to a piece of art. Why even bother to get Reynolds to do it if you're just going to cover most of it up and wash it out? His work needs zero layout embellishment in my opinion.

Maybe the full version of the image will be present on the inside of the book.

[JSpektr]

Speaking as an art director, if my vision for a book is to have a mostly concealed, washed out image on the cover, then that's what I'm going to do, regardless of how awesome the image I get from the artist is. Presumably the AD told the artist that was the plan, but even if he didn't, so what? If they are a good AD, then they did what they did for a good reason, not because they're some kind of evil art hater.

Let's say you paint the greatest image of a dragon flying ever made... but it's for a book about orcs. Is the AD evil for rejecting your image? No. What if the design of the book calls for a monocrome image that looks like it's painted on faded parchment? If the AD takes out all your glorious color, and distresses your image, are they evil? No. What if every book in the series has a specific look, and they change your image to fit that look? Does that make them evil? Still no.

I'm an artist too, and I know it can be hard to swallow your ego with these things. But that's what professionals do. Illustrations aren't sold so they can be hung in a museum, they're sold to be used as part of someone else's creative vision. If you can't respect your AD's creative vision, and what they do with the art they paid you for, why should they respect yours?

[Eric Lofgren]

I appreciate where you're coming from, JSpektr, but there are reasonable limits at times :) Let's face it, you can be sure that Wayne Reynold's art on the cover helps to sell a book now, not the dog's breakfast on the cover I saw.


All a matter of opinion though :)

[Jon H]

Originally posted by aprillee
I figure that I'm hired to do the illustration and after that, it's out of my hands... Unless I have a contract that says I get to control layout and typefaces and how the cover design goes.

I get paid--that's all they owe me. I have no say otherwise. Although I guess I could make suggestions if I really had a strong opintion about it. But usually I don't.

Agreed.

[illustratus6776]

Easy there, jspektr, this isn't a rant against art directors and no one is calling anyone evil. My complaint is that I feal an amazing piece of artwork has been, lets just say, made far less amazing. Aside from egos being bruised, the decision seams to be a poor marketing decision as well.

Lets face it this book is going to sell. It's wizards of the coast for crying out loud. But lets just say it wasn't, can you honestly say you would even give it a second look if it were on the shelf next to the other books out there who have much much much better looking covers.

I was at the last convension in vegas a couple weeks ago. I can honestly say I would not have even picked it up. In my opinion the cover should make you pick the book up. I'm sorry in this case it fails to do so.

[Captain_Slackass]

while I see both side's points here, let's keep in mind that the buld of the folks buying these books ultimately dont care what's on the cover. speaking as an on and off gamer over the years, I only cared if the information in the book was useful to the game I was trying to run; a nice cover was just an added bonus, not a buying point.

as a freelancer, I dont care how they botch my artwork as long as the check clears. I'll still have a scan of the original on my site (once it's back up) for potential clients to see, in all it's original glory.

-the Cap'n

[illustratus6776]

Sorry Captain, have to disagree with you (somewhat). I do agree that people are not going to make there purchase based on the cover alone, however, that's not what the cover is for. It's advertizing, it's supposed to make you pick up that book as opposed to picking up the competitions book. If the book is not even picked up then the book isn't sold at all.

If the cover wasn't important then all companies could save money by just putting blank covers on the books and letting the buyers use luck or psychic powers to choose wich book they think they will like. For that matter why illustrate the book at all if it doesn't matter to the content. Think of all the money that can be saved. Course then we're all out of jobs.

WOTC can get away with crappy covers you'll look through it anyway, but lesser known companies can not afford that luxury.

As a freelancer myself I do care what happens to my work after it leaves my hand. That's advertizing for me for the next project. And it has been my experience that what I have done in the past can help or hurt my career, feed my family, pay rent.... ect.

[BenPowis]

Originally posted by illustratus6776
But lets just say it wasn't, can you honestly say you would even give it a second look if it were on the shelf next to the other books out there who have much much much better looking covers.


I think its an eye catching cover. And to be honest its probley safe to assume the majority of peolpe who will buy the book wont give a stuff about the painting, the books pretty recogniseable as a WotC title thanks to the graphic design.

[illustratus6776]

(Insert disparaging sigh)

Eye catching it may be, but not as eye catching as it could have been.


Please review my original post.

[Socar MYLES]

Well, an art director, depending on what your contract with him says, IS within his rights to mangle your art in whatever way he pleases. That much is true. But an artist is within HIS rights to politely decline any further work from that art director. I have done that before in cases where payment has been excessively late, or communication has been extraordinarily bad. I haven't yet refused work because of mangling, but if I felt it was egregiously horrible, I certainly might. It's in the interests of the art director to maintain an honest and amiable relationship with the artist (and vice versa, of course.) It's very possible that this art director did, and that the artist is fine with it. I would continue working with him, myself, if he had told me that was what he planned to do with my work ahead of time. If I learned about it when the book went to press, however, I may stop returning his calls.

[Eric Lofgren]

I'm assuming that this is the cover in question. Unfortunately, I can't find a better version than this one-

http://www.ericlofgren.com/eric/eberron

Upon further inspection, I wonder if perhaps this is just a montage of images from inside the book. Maybe there wasn't even specific artwork contracted for the cover of the book. It still seems like such an odd piece to use on the launch of something, though.

For my own safety :) -
© 1995-2004 Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[illustratus6776]

If this is a montage, and not a cut up original (I could still swear I've seen a better version of this as an original somewhere) why desaturate it and cover it with crud. Eberron's supposed to be "Huge and revolutionary" according to the hype.

WOTC has done far better than this. This is just my opinion, but I would have let Wayne Renolds do a kickbut cover and have been done with it.

[JSpektr]

First off, I'm not saying it's a great cover, or that the AD wasn't 100% wrong. What I am saying in that it shouldn't be made into a case of artist vs. AD.

And who can say why the cover ended up the way it did? Perhaps the art that was turned in wasn't appropriate (for whatever reason), and this was the best solution available before the deadline hit. Perhaps upper management demanded things be done a certain way, and this was the best compromise. Sure, it could be a shame the original art wasn't showcased better, but it could also be a shame the original art didn't fit better with what the AD wanted or how the book ended up looking like for external reasons.

All design is a series of compromises. If the AD did they job right, this cover is the best it could be given the circumstances and requirements they had to work with. Without knowing those factors, we shouldn't rush to judgement.

And let's not forget, ADs read this forum. If I was one of them, and was looking for an artist right now, and I had a cover idea that involved heavy manipulation of an image, I would be paying careful attention to who said what on this thread. Always worth keeping that in mind.

[Eric Lofgren]

Originally posted by JSpektr


And let's not forget, ADs read this forum. If I was one of them, and was looking for an artist right now, and I had a cover idea that involved heavy manipulation of an image, I would be paying careful attention to who said what on this thread. Always worth keeping that in mind.

Ouch :( That's a little heavy isn't it? It's really a pretty harmless conversation in my mind. Perhaps I'm naive, though.

[Michelle Lyons]

It is a harmless conversation. But at the same time, if that's the sort of thing they plan to do with their covers, wouldn't you want them noting that it's not something you're okay with? This is not to say they won't hire you or use your work, just that hopefully (for both sides) they won't hire you and use your work for something like the Eberron cover. It's just a better choice to fit the job to the artist, really.

[JSpektr]

I'm not saying anyone's career is at stake or anything. But I know when I art direct, I will take liberties with the art I commission if that's what the project requires. That includes extensive PhotoShop alteration of it, recoloring, or even calling in another artist to do touchup if necessary.

Since I consider the cover in question to be well within the bounds of what an AD can and should do (regardless of whether it was well done), I, personally, would keep that in mind when looking at artists that have openly denounced ADs doing that sort of thing. I wouldn't want to work with someone that was going to get upset when I did things I considered perfectly within the normal bounds of my job.

Disclaimer: I've never been AD on an rpg product, just mainstream advertising and packaging projects. As is frequently the case, the attitude in the mainstream design world is considerably different. That said, if I did AD an rpg product, I wouldn't treat it any differently than my mainstream work.

[Eric Lofgren]

Originally posted by JSpektr


As is frequently the case, the attitude in the mainstream design world is considerably different.

How so? I think I can guess what you're meaning though.

And just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the AD taking whatever liberties they deem necessary on my artwork to do the book cover tasks at hand. If it gets altered, so be it. That's their job and they are bound to know way better than I what's best suited on the front of a book. I do know that if I was AD, though, I would consider highly giving an opportunity to a lesser experienced artist (re:less costly perhaps) the cover chores on a book, rather than a considerable talent like Wayne Reynolds, if I knew ahead of time that the work was going to be altered so heavily.

But then again, I'm not an AD :)

[Socar MYLES]

As I said earlier, it's pretty bad policy to make major changes without discussing it with the artist first, especially if you're going to have another artist retouch it or run Photoshop filters on it. Sure, you're perfectly within your rights IF the contract doesn't say otherwise (which many of mine do), but why risk ruining your working relationship with a good artist? If some art director painted over my work without asking--especially if he did a bad job--I'd be busy to him for the foreseeable future. If he asked first, it would be another matter entirely...there's a chance I'd just say "No, don't print the picture at all", but it's not that big a chance, and I'd appreciate being asked.

[fireMonkey]

I think it all depends on situation. In the RPG industry you really don't have "star" artists who can make or break a title. And especially with newer artist who don't have alot of clout. But it's totally different in an industry that is art driven like comics. Big name artists can sometimes have much more pull than an art director. In that type of situation one would really think twice before messing with the art. It would be easier to repace an AD than a hot selling artist.

Right now I wouldn't care if a publisher edit my work until it looks unrecognizable, as long as I get paid on time. But I'm pretty sure if it was done to some of the top guys, I'd doubt that they would want to work with that publisher again. But then if you paid that much dough for one of the big boys, it would be stupid to not to show their work at it's best. Especially since that woud be a big selling point. So I guess it really wouldn't happen to one of them.

[JSpektr]

Originally posted by Eric Lofgren
How so? I think I can guess what you're meaning though.


The mainstream attitude is more detached. I work with 2 other (was 3, but hollywood is suing us and we had to lay off 1/3 of the company) designers, and it's not unusual at all for us to hand each other a partially finished piece and have one of the other guys rework it. That's just part of the job. That goes for art too. I did an illustration for one of our boxes, one of the other designers took it, recolored it, changed parts of it, and then heavily manipulated it. I didn't bat an eye, because it was all part of the job.

And it's not because of lack of dedication, or not liking your work. I pour my heart and soul into my ads, boxes, posters and fliers. But if someone else has some input, and wants to change stuff around, that's cool. You have to stand back and let someone else be creative, you can't act as though you're the only one that knows what art is, even when that means someone changes your personal vision into something different.

Yes, in the mainstream world there are egos, everyone isn't some kind of Budhist master of painting. But when I do mainstream Art Direction, if an illustrator or photographer complains about what I've done with their work, then they probably don't get hired next time. Unless you're the top in the industry, you're probably more replaceable to the AD than the paying job is to you.

If you've got tons of work, and can make demands on what is done with it, then more power to you. But that's not an attitude I take with my art, or expect those I work with to take.

[Socar MYLES]

JSpektr, I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying, or at least the intent behind it. It's not about ego, or thinking you're the only person who knows what art is--it's about not wanting to be embarrassed in public. If an art director makes a change that's a definite improvement, that's fine. If he makes it look WORSE, it's an embarrassment to the artist. The art director doesn't generally sign his name to the butchered work (much as one might wish he would), so you're stuck with people thinking YOU made the horrible mess they're seeing. Unless you're paying me a small fortune, I can live without a job that's going to, say, make it look like I have suddenly abandoned my grasp of colour theory.

[Eric Lofgren]

Originally posted by JSpektr
The mainstream attitude is more detached.

I hear you :)

I think that this might illustrate what I've always said about persistance in working in the Rpg field. It's fuelled mostly with well intentioned, but very possibly, misplaced passion for the subject matter. For me at any rate. It's certainly not the money that keeps me doing this. But there is so much enjoyment ot be had in doing it.

And yet, what Socar is saying rings quite true to my ears. Of course, I am a bit biased on that as an artist and not an AD or designer. But I think we can sometimes get quite attached to the artwork we produce and more precisely, how that artwork will be received by the viewing public. Once again, that's speaking on behalf of my own perceptions and experiences. Wayne Reynolds likely operates at a tad higher level than myself :)

I think this is an intersing topic that I never thought much of before. I just hope any AD's reading it (apart from those that have already) don't take the content of it in a negative way. I believe that illustratus6776 was merely expressing his support of a favourite artist of his, is all. An artist that I quite appreciate as well.

[JSpektr]

Have to edit, that ninja-like Eric snuck in a post before I got mine up, and now the beginning of it makes no sense.

Eric brings up an excellent point. I understand the passion rpg artists have for their craft. They're a lot closer to fine artists than mainstream artists are, and they have to be, considering the pay scale. They have passion for their work... and that may be the main issue here. Everyone agrees that a change that improves a piece is good, and one that ruins it is bad, but who gets to judge which one is which?

An AD always thinks they're changing things for the better, as I'm sure the AD on the Oberron book did. While it might be clear to you that someone did something bad to your work, it may not be clear, or even true, to them. Under that reality, better not to deal with artists that have overly negative reactions to changes, since its impossible to know in advance whether your own changes will be viewed as positive or not.

Sure, I'd still gripe if one of my illustrations was butchered. But it would be more of a "shrug my shoulders and look to the future" type thing, not a full-out rant or declaration not to work with the AD in queston ever again. In the future I'd probably just make sure to communicate more clearly with them, so that whatever created the problem doesn't happen again. In my experience, it's usually miscommunication that's to blame, not incompetance or bad intentions.

I also don't really grok the embaressment issue. I have an illustration on a box on store shelves* right now that I'm not happy with at all. It's maybe 30% of what I could do given the proper circumstances. It's not even good enough that I'd post it here for critique. But I'm not embaressed. It was what the job demanded, and it was changed to fit the job, and that's the end of it.

BTW, just to be clear, I'm thinking in terms of art for which all rights have been purchased. In my mainstream work, we almost always buy full rights. You don't want to have a corporate mascot created, then see it on a competitor's label. It's also normal practise to re-use and repurpose an image multiple times, and full-rights is the only cost effective way to do that. It seems to be normal practise in the rpg market not to buy full rights, and under those circumstances I might AD a project differently.

Anyway, good discussion, insomnia finally fading, must be up in 5 hours to design 30 new product boxes. Peace out.

*Best Buy, Fry's, and CompUSA, tens of thousands of boxes. Cover of GamesXCopy, if you're curious. Not trying to brag, not even a little, I'm just saying that if I wanted to be embarressed about it, I definately could be.

[Socar MYLES]

That's the whole point I'm making--it IS possible to know how the artist's going to receive the changes--you just SHOW them what you did before going to press. Art directors have painted over my work before, believing they were improving it, and simply made it look stylistically inconsistent. In those cases, I said "Oh, I see your point--let me just finish that for you", and repainted the area in question myself, incorporating the art director's idea. Because they showed me their revisions before going to press, we were able to come to an agreement that suited both of us better than the original image would have done.

Honestly, if an art director were to treat one of my paintings like the one from WOTC treated this particular one, I wouldn't be too perturbed. It is not a good layout, and it doesn't look very eye-catching, but you can still tell the art itself is good, underneath. What would concern me would be an art director trying to repaint something and not doing a good job of it. Considering the fact that I've got a lot of jobs via people who've seen my art in existing publications, I do want my work to be represented as well as possible. If an art director sees fit to add clumsy brushstrokes, Photoshop filters, or poor anatomy, I want to be able to make countersuggestions before he goes ahead and shows it to the public like that.

It's pretty unlikely that I'd refuse to allow someone I signed a contract with to publish my work, even if they did make a mess of it. I hate to leave anyone in the lurch. They would have to do something truly heinous for me to put my foot down. However, as I mentioned, I don't like to work with art directors who aren't going to be up front with me. The way I see it, it's no great loss on either side--there are lots of artists they can replace me with, and there's no shortage of work for me to replace THEM with.

[Jon H]

I certainly can't speak for everyone here, JSPektr, but I certainly feel very much the same as you do. Maybe because I've done what you call "mainstream" stuff, or maybe its just because of my general outlook (which is not determined by what field of illustration I'm working in...)

In some ways I feel, as I have done in the past you're creating something of a straw man argument when you lump all RPG artists onto one boat, one attitude.

Thing is most RPG artists, certainly the more successful and widely published ones are not speaking in this thread. Nor are they even on this board.

The issue here boils down to "Someone doesnt like this cover and wants to make a fuss about it". Its not an empirically bad cover. The client buys all rights to the work, so the client can do what they like with it. If you dont like it change jobs or renegotiate your contract. Seriously.

edited for spelling

[Jon H]

Oh, I just wanted to add, I agree with you about the bad-mouthing Ads thing J.

Robert Raper is like THE guy I would like to work with in this field. I dont think he's reading this ticking names off a list...but i do think it'd be bad practice for me to be slating his work in public.

0.02

Edit: There's been some post editing since I wrote this, so I get to edit mine too...My post may not make as much sense now...flawless redundancy! :)

[Socar MYLES]

I don't think anyone has said anything overly bad about his work--a bit of healthy criticism never did anyone any harm. I honestly don't think that cover has a whole lot of impact. I wouldn't say it's horrible, but the book does not scream "Pick me up!" to me. YMMV, of course.


(The fact that I have absolutely no plans to apply for work from WOTC has nothing to do with it, either!)

[EDIT] - Also, just to make it absolutely clear, when I was talking about art directors who don't communicate well with artists, or treat them with respect, I was not talking about this guy. I have no idea if he and the artist collaborated on the cover layout or not. My comments in this thread were made in a general sense, not targeted specifically at any art director.

[Jon H]

Originally posted by Socar MYLES


(The fact that I have absolutely no plans to apply for work from WOTC has nothing to do with it, either!)

lol! :)

[illustratus6776]

After reading everyones posts(Thank you by the way it was very informative) perhaps my use of the word "Butchered" was inapropriate. This was never meant as a AD vs. Artist discussion. Obviously I am not psychic and have no Idea what the parties involved agreed to or discussed or the rational behind they're decisions. All those involved should have the same goal wich is to sell the product. In my opinion weekening your advertizing (the cover) is a bad decision no matter who makes it.

Let me try to restate my ctitique about this cover. I still feal that this cover is not nearly as good as it could be. Knowing who is publishing it and the size of thier budget makes this cover bizarre to me. This cover in not bad but it is not good either. When your trying to sell something it's only common sense that you try to make your presentation the best it can be.

For those artists who say they don't care what happens to it after it leaves thier hand. Are you high! This is advertizing for yourself too. Who knows if some AD will see some painting you've done, like it, and give you a commision somewhere down the road. I tell you that's not going to happen at all if the one peice of art they see from you looks like crap. It's not about EGO. If you can't put your ego aside in this business your in the wrong line of work. It's about paying the rent and putting food on the table.

[Jon H]

I tend to think that most work comes from sending art to editors direct, them seeing my work at my website or through face to face meetings using copies of original work rather than product. Speaking personally I dont think I've ever been hired directly because an AD has seen work I had in a book.

Clearly others may have different experiences, but it accounts for why, for myself, I'm less concerned about what a company does with my work. A lot of the cover work I've done has been cropped so tight as to lose a great deal of what I personally regard as compositional integrety. I'm not bothered though because I dont send in scans of the book covers, I send in prints of the raw work. And ironically enough the ADs looking at the raw work are probably thinking "That'd look better cropped real tight" :)

Most of my stuff thats newly in print is 6 months to a year old, so its not the best advert for where I'm at right now anyway.

As an aside Illustratus, what's your name and what work have you done? I'm interested becuase its weird speaking to someone without any knowledge of who they are or how good their work is...You know, you could be awesomely prolific and very experienced, so I should be totally taking on board what you have to say. Or you might have done the cover to the 'D20 guide to Piecers' for $20, in which case I'll take what you say with a pinch of salt...

[Eric Lofgren]

Originally posted by Jon H
Or you might have done the cover to the 'D20 guide to Piecers' for $20, in which case I'll take what you say with a pinch of salt...

As they say in Tangency, "Laugh point!". In which case you get one Mr. Hodgson. Two in fact :D

[Jon H]

Actually a cover for a book on Piercers could rock.

Nice upshot of a dude getting pierced right in front of his shocked dungeon compadres. Like a wizard dropping a lantern, maybe a cleric leaping forward with cure serious at the ready..the piercers beady but malevolent eyes cold and imperious, smoking with the patience of ages...


See what I've done there? Rock? Piercers... ...nevermind.

[Sam From Hell]

Originally posted by JSpektr
And let's not forget, ADs read this forum.


OH MY GOD.

Please let me use this oportunity that everytime I post something in this forum I ritually remove all my clothes!

Like TOTALLY TOTALLY NAKED.

Thats all.


Edit: Coherency

Happy aprils fool everyone!

[Eric Lofgren]

Originally posted by Jon H
Actually a cover for a book on Piercers could rock.

Nice upshot of a dude getting pierced right in front of his shocked dungeon compadres. SIZE]

Getting a Prince Albert :eek:




You have to do this cover, Jon. IT would be priceless. Getting someone to pose for it may be the actual tough part, though :p

[illustratus6776]

Jon H, I think you should take everthing that anyone here says with a grain of salt simply because we all seem to have such different experiences in our careers. Personally I can say that I have recieved a lot of business from AD's seeing my work printed somewhere and taking the time to seek me out for a project. Just one of the reasons I take this subject so personally. My past work has really affected my present cash flow.

As for who I am and what I've done. Names will be withheld to protect the guilty. :D How else am I going to complain bitterly about about things like this and get off relatively scott free. ;)

[JSpektr]

Personally, I think if you're doing great work, and it's in your portfolio, that's what will be considered by an AD in any industry. In the mainstream world, when I pick up an illustration catalog from an agent, or look at the illustrations in a Print annual, they are the originals, not the final printed product. Most ADs understand that someone else is involved when its a final, printed product, and they want to see the original, not what someone else has done to your work.

After all, the AD could have ruined your stuff, or vastly improved it, and neither case gives them something that tells them whether they want to hire you.

In my design portfolio (where they do want to see final work), I will occasionally put a "before" and "after" image if my original work or concept was severely changed by someone else, or on the orders of someone else. I think something similar would work fine for an artist that feels their image has been lessened by the design work done on it.

I suppose my perspective, like Jon's, comes from the fact that the vast majority of my work comes from communicating directly with prospective clients, either through meetings, sending a portfolio, or through a contact. Granted, I don't work much in the rpg world, so my experience is probably very different, and I try to keep that in mind.

[Jon H]

Originally posted by illustratus6776
As for who I am and what I've done. Names will be withheld to protect the guilty. :D How else am I going to complain bitterly about about things like this and get off relatively scott free. ;)

Damn! So you DID do the cover to the D20 guide to Piercers for $20. I so wanted that gig man.
:D:D:D:D

[illustratus6776]

Damn, ya caught me. Not only that I've got so many peircings myself I jingle when I walk and I set off metal detectors a mile away.

P.S. Anyone have any Iodine I think this is infected.:D

[philreed]

Originally posted by Jon H
The issue here boils down to "Someone doesnt like this cover and wants to make a fuss about it".

If you think this is bad just imagine what I'm going through with the GURPS covers.

[Jon H]

Originally posted by philreed
If you think this is bad just imagine what I'm going through with the GURPS covers.

Phil, I think reading those threads provoked my slightly adverse reaction to this thread.

Something feels very wrong about the whole GURPS 4E debate to me.

And I really feel for the poor guy who painted those images used in the mock ups, too. You'd think he peed on someone's momma they way he's been torn apart.

[pawsplay]

I would have used a slimmer border, and washed out the art in a nice sepia color or something. But I'm not an artist, or an art director, I'm just someone who likes fantasy art.

It's definitely true that the "ugly antique book" covers don't tie you to working with a specific artist who demands increasingly impressive fees.

[illustratus6776]

Originally posted by pawsplay
It's definitely true that the "ugly antique book" covers don't tie you to working with a specific artist who demands increasingly impressive fees.

No offense but what a terrible line of reasoning for a decision like that. That's like saying, "You know If we intentionally make our covers a little crappier, sure it will hurt our sales, but we'll save a couple bucks on the cover."

Like I said WOTC might be able to get away with it, but there's no way any other company can afford to do that.

[pawsplay]

Like I said WOTC might be able to get away with it, but there's no way any other company can afford to do that.


It would be a decision tied to a company who gains more from brand identity and independence from individual creators than from attractive cover art.

[philreed]

Originally posted by Jon H
Phil, I think reading those threads provoked my slightly adverse reaction to this thread.

Something feels very wrong about the whole GURPS 4E debate to me.

And I really feel for the poor guy who painted those images used in the mock ups, too. You'd think he peed on someone's momma they way he's been torn apart.

Well, it's all better now. Stressful but better.