ELFQUEST
FORUM ARCHIVE     ABOUT EQ     READ ONLINE     SHOP    
ABOUT     READ     SHOP    

Nostalgia

spiritofthewater



cover from Yearnings, 1982

spiritofthewater



Sorry, I couldn't resist Wink

Left: "Little Sea Prince" (from the year of great cosmical conflicts).

NightAngel

Quote:
spiritofthewater




*gasps*

/Love

Strongbow has a very, very mysterious look in his eyes here.
Deep and wondering.
Thanks for sharing all these great pictures Spiritofthewater!!!!

Tavie

I just love this thread. I'm seeing quite a lot of art that's new to me, which is so much fun.

Quote:
PCoquelin



But, personally, I find she should NOT try and "prove" anything anymore...
...but make CHOICES ( and be PICKY about them, in every aspect ), from now on, instead, about next Elfquest stories AND plots.



Just curious - what do you mean by trying to "prove" anything? You mean like trying to prove that she can work with digital tools instead of traditional media?

spiritofthewater

Quote:
RichardPini

Regarding the works of art you have found by searching "Wendy Pini" - all those people who have bought them own only the physical piece of artwork. They do not own any rights to reproduce them (except, with proper credit, to show them online). It would be better if you post the link to those various web sites, rather than taking the image files and putting them here. Many web sites (elfquest.com included) have rules against taking images from the site for use elsewhere, although a link to the image is all right.



I just asked someone from www.comicartfans.com:

I have a simple question. Do you allow visitors, copying pictures on this website, and post it elsewhere on the Internet. Please let me know.

I received this answer:

I don't do anything to stop it, but if any collector finds you copying images of art they own and posting it elsewhere I can assure that you will considered a thief. Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense. If you want to show an image you should always ask the collector who owns it first. Most likely they will tell you "no", but at least you did the right thing.

I find this difficult to believe.

1.) If they don't like others copying their pictures they should not publicize them on a web page who don't do anything to stop others from copying them. Many web pages makes copying technical impossible.

2.) Extensive publicizing of an original art work usually increase it's value. If an oil painting is printed in a book about art history, or used as some kind of illustration, more people will know about it and if the painting is a good one, the value will increase, sometimes enormously.

3.) People who buy, or are in the possession of an original WP work, do it because they like EQ, and if they like EQ they may be thinking a bit different than the guy from comicartfans: "Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense." Would an Elfquest fan think like this?

I guess Richard should give an advise. Should I contact the owners? Should I bother at all? The comicartfans obviously don't have rules against copying.

You probably think that I do this a bit more important than it really is, but when you see pictures in connection with others they sometimes become more splendid. Many WP pictures inside a small room is after all way better than just one. :) (There is of course no such thing as too many WP pictures).

spiritofthewater

Quote:
NightAngel

*gasps*

/Love

Strongbow has a very, very mysterious look in his eyes here.
Deep and wondering.
Thanks for sharing all these great pictures Spiritofthewater!!!!



If you or anyone else want bigger pictures, for instance for printing, just post a message and I post the picture.

Foxeye

Quote:
spiritofthewater


3.) People who buy, or are in the possession of an original WP work, do it because they like EQ, and if they like EQ they may be thinking a bit different than the guy from comicartfans: "Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense." Would an Elfquest fan think like this?



I think it may depend on the origins of the picture. In most cases I'd say "no", but I think that if the picture was done specifically *for* that fan, they may feel differently. I'm thinking of the case of the commissioned portraits a few years back. When us coloring-book-addicts asked for permission to color these pictures, most of those who said "yes" also stipulated that those pictures should not be posted outside these forums (with the hopes that it would limit exposure).

So if it's a case of "I own this piece of original Wendy Pini art, squee", people might not mind, but if it's "Wendy drew this picture for me", the emotions might be different.

PCoquelin

Quote:
Tavie

Just curious - what do you mean by trying to "prove" anything? You mean like trying to prove that she can work with digital tools instead of traditional media?


For instance.

All along her career and work on Elfquest, from what I get from various interviews at the times, Wendy seemed all too often to have to prove she was able to do everything, to use every technique, to develop her own ways...



...while we fans have always been more than convinced of her abilities !


My point is it would be about time, for her, as an artist, to stop and watch the road behind, and to wonder, ponder, and to choose some elements for good.



Age, you know...


I can figure Wendy's reaction, already...

RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

Quote:
RichardPini

Regarding the works of art you have found by searching "Wendy Pini" - all those people who have bought them own only the physical piece of artwork. They do not own any rights to reproduce them (except, with proper credit, to show them online). It would be better if you post the link to those various web sites, rather than taking the image files and putting them here. Many web sites (elfquest.com included) have rules against taking images from the site for use elsewhere, although a link to the image is all right.



I just asked someone from www.comicartfans.com:

I have a simple question. Do you allow visitors, copying pictures on this website, and post it elsewhere on the Internet. Please let me know.

I received this answer:

I don't do anything to stop it, but if any collector finds you copying images of art they own and posting it elsewhere I can assure that you will considered a thief. Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense. If you want to show an image you should always ask the collector who owns it first. Most likely they will tell you "no", but at least you did the right thing.

I find this difficult to believe.



I hate to be a wet blanket, but this is not about what you (or anyone else) believes. It is about what the owner of the image wishes. The following analogy is not perfect, but it is useful. Many art galleries prohibit taking pictures of the artwork hanging in them. They (the gallery, the artist, or both) do not want unauthorized images circulating. Besides being a matter of copyright, more importantly, no one has the right to put their own wishes above those of the artist - and if the artist says "no" then that is that. You may think that because an image is on the web, and thus is so very easy to copy, that changes the rules. But it doesn't. The web is only a much bigger "gallery", that's all.

Quote:
spiritofthewater

1.) If they don't like others copying their pictures they should not publicize them on a web page who don't do anything to stop others from copying them. Many web pages makes copying technical impossible.



This is bad reasoning. By the same reasoning, I should not hang a painting in my house to enjoy, because it is not "impossible" for someone to break in and steal it. Also, not everyone knows how to do that technical trick on a web page. Just because you can see something, does that mean you are free to take it? There must be honor in how people and the web work together. An artist must be able simply to say "no" and have that be respected.

Quote:
spiritofthewater

2.) Extensive publicizing of an original art work usually increase it's value. If an oil painting is printed in a book about art history, or used as some kind of illustration, more people will know about it and if the painting is a good one, the value will increase, sometimes enormously.



Some artists don't care about the money value. Some do not wish ever to sell their art, or do not wish to talk of such things. That is their right. Someone who has bought a painting may wish to publicize it for sale, but that still doesn't make it right for yet another person to do so.

Quote:
spiritofthewater

3.) People who buy, or are in the possession of an original WP work, do it because they like EQ, and if they like EQ they may be thinking a bit different than the guy from comicartfans: "Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense." Would an Elfquest fan think like this?



Some fans might. Some do indeed look at Wendy's art only for the monetary value and there is nothing wrong with that. Just because Wendy or I are more flexible in allowing people to post some scans here, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same or should have to feel the same.

Quote:
spiritofthewater

I guess Richard should give an advise. Should I contact the owners? Should I bother at all? The comicartfans obviously don't have rules against copying.



My advice, which I have always given, is that you (anyone) should always contact the owner of a piece of art - not the web site it is on - for permission. It is purely a matter of respect for what are called the "moral rights" of the artist, and we in turn respect those who follow that path.

Quote:
spiritofthewater

You probably think that I do this a bit more important than it really is, but when you see pictures in connection with others they sometimes become more splendid. Many WP pictures inside a small room is after all way better than just one. :) (There is of course no such thing as too many WP pictures).



She might disagree with you about that. ;) However, we always look more kindly upon those who ask first, and who respect the answer they get, than upon those who simply do what they want without caring.

RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

Quote:
NightAngel

*gasps*

/Love

Strongbow has a very, very mysterious look in his eyes here.
Deep and wondering.
Thanks for sharing all these great pictures Spiritofthewater!!!!



If you or anyone else want bigger pictures, for instance for printing, just post a message and I post the picture.



We don't mind web-resolution scans being posted here, but larger scans for printing, sorry, that's a no-no.

Nowth

Quote:
spiritofthewater

1.) If they don't like others copying their pictures they should not publicize them on a web page who don't do anything to stop others from copying them. Many web pages makes copying technical impossible.


Looking at anything at all online will inevitably create a copy of it on your computer - and it has to!

But an absence of protection (not that it ever works!) is not a license to copy.

In a sense, that's good. I wouldn't want everything to be cluttered up with intelligence-insulting finicky Javascripts and Flash by default -- just to point out that "this isn't yours" to people who can't just take your word for it.

(Not that I always pay that much attention when posting snippets of art here and there, or when saving something nifty or funny or informative without pestering the author for permission. It's the online equivalent of saying "hey, look at this!", or of watching a movie together, or of making photocopies... something students do all the time. "Fair use", IMhO; unfortunately, my opinion, no matter how humble, isn't the last word on that. Hm. If you go here: http://www.elfquest.com/fun/EQHomages.html - there's oodles of non-WARP copyrighted art there, too. I don't even know anymore if that requires a permission or falls under fair use. The Internet seems best used as a non-commercial, open "information-sharing environment"... not as a way to manipulate other people's computers into submission. But if you check out the EUCD, DMCA, and DRM, it's like you can barely touch anything you own without breaking some intellectual property law that only lawyers and nerds know about. Watch a DVD you bought, but from your harddisk? Wham, illegal! Etc.)

Quote:
Richard Pini

(...) Just because Wendy or I are more flexible in allowing people to post some scans here, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same or should have to feel the same.



Quote:
Richard Pini

My advice, which I have always given, is that you (anyone) should always contact the owner of a piece of art - not the web site it is on - for permission. It is purely a matter of respect for what are called the "moral rights" of the artist, and we in turn respect those who follow that path.



By owner, do you mean the person who owns the physical item, or the copyright holder? I'm not sure in this case.

mournsong

Me neither. If the owner of a piece says no and the original artist says yes, who to believe?

Nowth

I suppose you could treat it like a regular book/comic/poster.

For example: that I've bought DC's "Archive" doesn't mean I have the right to let you have it or redistribute it.

But then, neither do I! I don't have the right to put it online where you could have or redistribute it.

And who can grant that right? WARP? DC? WARP and DC? WARP owns the copyright to the content. But DC produced the physical item. Perhaps they also hold the copyright for the page numbers! (If I remove the page numbers, does that make it a derivative work?)

Wait, this can be made more complicated still. If you took a picture or made a scan of somebody else's work, the (say) photograph itself might be a copyrighted work -- even if the other work, the one displayed in it, isn't yours... then what? Gah, it's enough to move to Mongolia. But I guess that might mean that, strictly speaking, both the owner of the piece and the copyright holder would have to give you their permission.

This post, by the way, is © 2009 Nowth. Whoever runs the web server has permission to include it in backups, if only because the alternative would be me not posting anymore ;)

mournsong

Wasn't there something about an "orphan art clause" or something? That it was legal to reproduce art if the original artist couldn't be - or not easily - traced for permission? Or that if you made a slight change in existing art, the copyright to the changed picture was yours? I seem to recall a big unrest among artists about that.

Ugh. It's one thing to own the copyright to your own work - quite another to protect it!

Nowth

Quote:
mournsong

Wasn't there something about an "orphan art clause" or something? That it was legal to reproduce art if the original artist couldn't be - or not easily - traced for permission? Or that if you made a slight change in existing art, the copyright to the changed picture was yours? I seem to recall a big unrest among artists about that.


I don't know. It sounds unlikely, considering the sheer financial power of the big copyright holders, or whoever backs them (recording industry, movie industry, video games...).

Doesn't copyright extend about a million years post-death these days? Like, Walt Disney is dead, too. (Oh, I think the Popeye characters, though not the trademark, recently went into the public domain... not necessarily everywhere.)

There're, I believe, exemptions for various purposes: like reviews, parody, perhaps education. Perhaps you're still allowed to make a copy for yourself and stick it to the wall. But if you have to circumvent a copy protection mechanism, or decrypt the content first... you may still be violating the law.

mournsong

Well, it was a kind of a "if you take the law literally" thing. And I suppose that it's really hard for a judge to decide what is "fair use" and what isn't - when something falls under the "orphan art clause" or maybe just generally decide who the original picture belonged to in the first place. That makes it especially hard for an artist whose artistic rights have been violated to win a case in court. Especially nowadays with the internet involved.

Nowth

There's this: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02913:

But (a) I can't read that in under a week, and (b) it didn't get enacted or whatever you call that... I don't even live in that country.

http://artslawyer.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-signed-pro-ip-act-yesterday.html

Foxeye

Quote:
mournsong

Wasn't there something about an "orphan art clause" or something? That it was legal to reproduce art if the original artist couldn't be - or not easily - traced for permission?



Ugh. I hope not, because I'd hate to see what their definition of "easily" is. Just imagine all that art put in "free clipart galleries" without credit to the artist, and then people taking things from there claiming they can't trace the artist.

[quote:f3b76eb21f]Or that if you made a slight change in existing art, the copyright to the changed picture was yours? I seem to recall a big unrest among artists about that. [/quote:f3b76eb21f]

That is derivative work, and it isn't allowed without the authorization of the original artist. Then, once it is created, it may or may not be copyrightable to the new artist. According to the US Copyright office: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

So it sounds like derivative work can be copyrighted to the new artist, BUT they still need the permission of the original artist. And it has to be some fairly extensive changes/additions.

There is always "fair use" clause, but that covers far fewer cases than people think it does.

Nowth

or should

krwordgazer

To get back to Wendy Pini's style:

Spritofthewater, you said this piece:



looked like a cathedral, and thus was less "realistic" than other pics of forests she drew later. I am assuming that by "realistic" you are referring not to whether something that is real, actually looks like that (because I have been in stands of trees that actually look very much like that-- the California Redwoods, for example)-- but to a style of art that is less romantic and more gritty, as it were?

Trollbabe

Re: the above panel: KWordgazer, I never noticed it before, but for some reason, the line about Nonna and Adar sustaining themselves upon sour berries gave me a chuckle. A creator's life is no picnic in the woods!

This has gotten off on a tangent about artists' rights, but I am glad the topic is being discussed. Over the years I have felt that the American public, at least, does not have a widespread understanding of creator's rights, any more than it appreciates the hard work and talent of creative people in general.

In a recent example of a copyright dispute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/ap-accuses-shepard-fairey_n_164045.html
I side with the Associated Press, even though many people might see it as a faceless conglomerate pressuring a lone struggling artist.

In addition to researching legal issues regarding copyrights, intellectual property and whatnot, I would invite readers to think in terms of being in a creator's shoes. Have you ever expressed an idea, a really good original one, only to see someone else steal it and take credit for it? How did it make you feel?

On the other topic, regarding Mrs. Pini's art styles over the years, I enjoy them as the parts of an emerging whole. An artist's career is like a story unfolding in chapters. Does anyone else wish that illustrator Aubrey Beardsley had survived long enough to develop a mature style?

My two cents, as I browse the forums for discussions about Elfpop's writing style over the years.

Nowth

Quote:
Trollbabe

Re: the above panel: KWordgazer, I never noticed it before, but for some reason, the line about Nonna and Adar sustaining themselves upon sour berries gave me a chuckle. A creator's life is no picnic in the woods!

This has gotten off on a tangent about artists' rights, but I am glad the topic is being discussed. Over the years I have felt that the American public, at least, does not have a widespread understanding of creator's rights, any more than it appreciates the hard work and talent of creative people in general.

In a recent example of a copyright dispute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/ap-accuses-shepard-fairey_n_164045.html
I side with the Associated Press, even though many people might see it as a faceless conglomerate pressuring a lone struggling artist.

In addition to researching legal issues regarding copyrights, intellectual property and whatnot, I would invite readers to think in terms of being in a creator's shoes. Have you ever expressed an idea, a really good original one, only to see someone else steal it and take credit for it? How did it make you feel?



But it's going too far if I can't copy some of my own ancient video tapes to DVD, just to watch them, without breaking the law... if I can't edit/remix/tinker with what I have, technically, at my disposal, not even for myself... if recording and playback devices are legally required to have inbuilt artificial restrictions limiting their usefulness... if there're legal consequences for turning up the radio not because it's noisy but because the public might accidentally catch some "illegal" music... none of that "steals" an idea -- it doesn't deprive anyone of anything in any way.

I'm all for letting people earn a living with their art. But there's a point where I wonder if I shouldn't just stop humouring the restrictions that come with it: then they'll get nothing from me, and I'll get nothing from them, and I won't have to worry about doing "wrong".

Not that most people would care to boycott anything at all, considering how unconcerned they are about their "borrowed" copies of (say) Photoshop, their illegally downloaded music, the illegal music inserted illegally in illegal fan videos illegally uploaded to Youtube, or recycling whatever strikes their fancy for avatars and signature banners and MySpace profiles.

Some of that I can agree is "wrong" -- although not necessarily worthy of prison sentences (go after the commercial bootleggers!) -- on the other hand, we have a culture dominated by popular commercial art with production values that're just not accessible to homebrewers, and quoting, referencing, reenacting, recycling, parodying and remixing this material is part of everyday life much like telling myths and fairy stories might have been part of everyday life in bygone, copyright-free eras. Perhaps some sort of right-of-way law should protect treating it as a common ...something. Or perhaps copyright law should go so crazy that people will stop feeling entitled to anything put out by anyone and spark a new creative revolution. Right. ...

Fairlighter

If you people have scared spiritofthewater off with all this legal talk, I'm going to kill all of you.

Nowth

But that would be illegal!

spiritofthewater

[quote="RichardPini"]

Quote:
spiritofthewater

Quote:
NightAngel

*gasps*

/Love

Strongbow has a very, very mysterious look in his eyes here.
Deep and wondering.
Thanks for sharing all these great pictures Spiritofthewater!!!!



If you or anyone else want bigger pictures, for instance for printing, just post a message and I post the picture.



Quote:
RichardPini

We don't mind web-resolution scans being posted here, but larger scans for printing, sorry, that's a no-no.



Do you mean printing is illegal/unethical or is it technical reasons behind it, for instance slowing down the loading process etc. ? The reason I ask is because I have never considered printing for personal use as something bad.

spiritofthewater

Quote:
RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

1.) If they don't like others copying their pictures they should not publicize them on a web page who don't do anything to stop others from copying them. Many web pages makes copying technical impossible.



This is bad reasoning. By the same reasoning, I should not hang a painting in my house to enjoy, because it is not "impossible" for someone to break in and steal it. Also, not everyone knows how to do that technical trick on a web page. Just because you can see something, does that mean you are free to take it? There must be honor in how people and the web work together. An artist must be able simply to say "no" and have that be respected.



This must be seen in connection to posting a picture, in this forum. If someone who owns an original doesn't like to have it copied over to a web page owned by those who have the copyright of the picture, they should not post it at the web at all. I have the impression that this is legal.

Quote:
RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

2.) Extensive publicizing of an original art work usually increase it's value. If an oil painting is printed in a book about art history, or used as some kind of illustration, more people will know about it and if the painting is a good one, the value will increase, sometimes enormously.



Some artists don't care about the money value. Some do not wish ever to sell their art, or do not wish to talk of such things. That is their right. Someone who has bought a painting may wish to publicize it for sale, but that still doesn't make it right for yet another person to do so.



The guy form comicartfans gave the impression that everyone where thinking like him.

Quote:
RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

3.) People who buy, or are in the possession of an original WP work, do it because they like EQ, and if they like EQ they may be thinking a bit different than the guy from comicartfans: "Collectors HATE when people scam their images for other purposes like to create fan galleries or other nonsense." Would an Elfquest fan think like this?



Some fans might. Some do indeed look at Wendy's art only for the monetary value and there is nothing wrong with that. Just because Wendy or I are more flexible in allowing people to post some scans here, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same or should have to feel the same.



It is the guy from comicartfans who thinks that everyone feels the same, not me.

Quote:
RichardPini

Quote:
spiritofthewater

I guess Richard should give an advise. Should I contact the owners? Should I bother at all? The comicartfans obviously don't have rules against copying.



My advice, which I have always given, is that you (anyone) should always contact the owner of a piece of art - not the web site it is on - for permission. It is purely a matter of respect for what are called the "moral rights" of the artist, and we in turn respect those who follow that path.



No problem. I will not bother with all of them. It is just one picture I may want to copy.

spiritofthewater

Quote:
krwordgazer

To get back to Wendy Pini's style:

Spritofthewater, you said this piece:



looked like a cathedral, and thus was less "realistic" than other pics of forests she drew later. I am assuming that by "realistic" you are referring not to whether something that is real, actually looks like that (because I have been in stands of trees that actually look very much like that-- the California Redwoods, for example)-- but to a style of art that is less romantic and more gritty, as it were?



- realistic as an unarranged, unmanipulated rendition of reality, but not so unmanipulated as naturalism. I don't think most forest views will look like the above picture, for instance the sky could very easily be grey, not blue. Very often you will not see the sky between the trees, at least not at that level.

spiritofthewater

Quote:
Fairlighter

If you people have scared spiritofthewater off with all this legal talk, I'm going to kill all of you.



I'm still here :oops: , but I must admit that I prefer pictures before legal talk, since it just looks like wallpaper, and I have seen better wallpapers.

I was just trying to find out how, or if, I could post certain pictures. Copyright issues at general need a tread of its own I think. I will not like to see this tread end up with analyses of the 1976 Betamax case, or something like that.

Nowth

Has there ever been a grey sky in Elfquest, except, perhaps, for a non-dull magnificent downpour?

RichardPini

Quote:
Nowth


By owner, do you mean the person who owns the physical item, or the copyright holder? I'm not sure in this case.



The person who owns the physical item does not control the rights to the image (unless those were negotiated at the time of the purchase). I would contact the artist.

wildfire

[quote:a7b2feb731="spiritofthewater"]
If you or anyone else want bigger pictures, for instance for printing, just post a message and I post the picture.[/quote:a7b2feb731]
I'd love a closer look on the picture of Nightfall. I think it's one of my favorite pictures of her I've ever seen Surprised

RichardPini

[quote:56b7d52bcd="spiritofthewater"][quote:56b7d52bcd="Fairlighter"]If you people have scared spiritofthewater off with all this legal talk, I'm going to kill all of you.[/quote:56b7d52bcd]

I'm still here :oops: , but I must admit that I prefer pictures before legal talk, since it just looks like wallpaper, and I have seen better wallpapers.

I was just trying to find out how, or if, I could post certain pictures. Copyright issues at general need a tread of its own I think. I will not like to see this tread end up with analyses of the 1976 Betamax case, or something like that.[/quote:56b7d52bcd]

It's all really very simple. For posting Elfquest images here, keep it to 72 dpi and no larger than 500 pixels wide.

With regard to copying something for your own personal and private use, it's already been established that that's allowable, so can we chill on that? You want to make wallpaper for your home computer? Fine. You want to print out an image from here to pin up on your wall? Go for it.

The no-no's have been well-explained here in the Scroll and on the site; look 'em up.

Nowth

I wouldn't worry about an existing 500x589 (say) pixel image having 72, 300, or 68943 dpi. It won't make a difference on the screen (where there's a 1:1 correspondence between "image file pixels" and "screen pixels"). And in print the same file at a higher dpi setting will simply turn out smaller.

Right?

Though if you scan at high dpi then you can get print quality ("pirateable") image files. Of course, at the same file size (or pixel size) they'll also contain a much smaller "piece" of the original -- so in that sense it's a tradeoff.

Hm, well.

Augh. Every time dpi and pixels come up I have to try to sort them out in my mind...

spiritofthewater

I think I have been inside the 72 dpi/500 pixels wide limits even if I did not know about them. I will anyway take a look at the biggest pictures I have posted and resize them if it is necessary.

spiritofthewater



Ad for "The Elfquest Companion", supplement to the Elfquest Role Playing Game, from Lodestone #17

spiritofthewater

from the "Deadspaw 4" portfolio, 1982

(This reminds me about this country's public offices (Norwegian) and it's no accident that "troll" is a Norwegian invention. In a few days I will even have to make one of them a visit). :(

spiritofthewater



same as above

spiritofthewater



after a successful fighting

spiritofthewater



Isn't this your city PCoquelin? You must be one of the very few scrollers who actually live in a city which is drawn by Wendy Pini.

You are not working in one of the buildings? Grin

(I think it is important to underline that WP has not written the manuscript, which the editor obviously was to sloppy to correct).

I forgot to mention that this is taken from Johnny Quest #2, 1986

spiritofthewater

I think I have broken the picture size rule several times in this tread, since the maximum width sometimes exceeds 500 pixels. (just noticed). I have only been thinking about the best possible view of the pictures, but I can rearrange a bit if anyone want it. (the problem will be that some of the pictures will get a bit blurred impression, therefore I am insecure what to do). :?:

Fairlighter

[quote:cc85b8f18d="spiritofthewater"]I think I have broken the picture size rule several times in this tread, since the maximum width sometimes exceeds 500 pixels. (just noticed). I have only been thinking about the best possible view of the pictures, but I can rearrange a bit if anyone want it. (the problem will be that some of the pictures will get a bit blurred impression, therefore I am insecure what to do). :?:[/quote:cc85b8f18d]

Stop worrying about it. Richard will get you if you need gettin'.

Embala

These last ones are so funny Grin

mournsong

Hey... is that the same warrior elf as the one in a portfolio... or a calendar or something?

Nowth

What is that troll thing about?

RichardPini

[quote:b3fd335b3f="Nowth"]What is that troll thing about?[/quote:b3fd335b3f]

Wendy did a guest bit of art and I did a guest bit of doggerel for a sort-of portfolio, sort-of collection many years ago (1982), called "Deadspawn." The details are lost in the mists of time.

Not sure how long this link will be good, but here's a little information on it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Deadspawn-4-VF+-1982_W0QQitemZ280266085529QQcmdZViewItem

spiritofthewater

[quote:82d2ac3350="mournsong"]Hey... is that the same warrior elf as the one in a portfolio... or a calendar or something?[/quote:82d2ac3350]

He is taken from a portfolio. (deadspaw 4, currently for sale at ebay). The back side picture has already been posted. The backside shows a bakshi-elf with a viking helmet, riding a horse. That picture has already been posted somewhere, and it's one scrollers who are using him as an avatar.

Nowth

[quote:ebbfe0f5ef="RichardPini"][quote:ebbfe0f5ef="Nowth"]What is that troll thing about?[/quote:ebbfe0f5ef]

Wendy did a guest bit of art and I did a guest bit of doggerel for a sort-of portfolio, sort-of collection many years ago (1982), called "Deadspawn." The details are lost in the mists of time.

Not sure how long this link will be good, but here's a little information on it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Deadspawn-4-VF+-1982_W0QQitemZ280266085529QQcmdZViewItem[/quote:ebbfe0f5ef]
Thanks for the info.

It looks like the Elfquest universe after some curious atavistic regression...

RichardPini

[quote:90ea59c030="spiritofthewater"][quote:90ea59c030="mournsong"]Hey... is that the same warrior elf as the one in a portfolio... or a calendar or something?[/quote:90ea59c030]

He is taken from a portfolio. (deadspaw 4, currently for sale at ebay). The back side picture has already been posted. The backside shows a bakshi-elf with a viking helmet, riding a horse. That picture has already been posted somewhere, and it's one scrollers who are using him as an avatar.[/quote:90ea59c030]

Actually, the portfolio came after Wendy had done a painting, years earlier.

[img:90ea59c030]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/richardpini/working/wannastartS.jpg[/img:90ea59c030]

She was amused by some Shetland ponies on a farm nearby, who were standing in the rain, looking very unhappy, and wanted to capture their attitude. The pony is the star; the nameless elf became an accessory.

Apogee

I sense that those ponies also had something to do with the Nohumps that Skywise and Cutter encounter in EQ. :D

mournsong

So was this before or after ElfQuest came around? As the style still looks very Bakshi-Wizards-inspired...

RichardPini

[quote:2a5ab4a1ae="Apogee"]I sense that those ponies also had something to do with the Nohumps that Skywise and Cutter encounter in EQ. :D[/quote:2a5ab4a1ae]

You sense correctly, grasshopper.

RichardPini

[quote:47aebfe25f="mournsong"]So was this before or after ElfQuest came around? As the style still looks very Bakshi-Wizards-inspired...[/quote:47aebfe25f]

Concurrent with the beginning of EQ, late 1970s, I believe.

Ginevra

I remember that picture and wondered if she had been inspired by the movie Wizards at all.

Skya

He kinda reminds me of this piece which my friend Sue Wachowski painted last year.

[img:5f7c30c571]http://wyrd-games.net/photopost/data/538/medium/bernardsticth.jpg[/img:5f7c30c571]

I guess now I know who he was throwing off his back. :)

LeeM

I just stumbled across ths thread, and it reminded me that I had some old magazines with Wendy's pre-EQ illustrations in them. There's a little bit of nudity, but I don't think any of it counts as NSFW.

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/allegiances(galaxy_2-75).jpg[/img:7afc64547b]
Detail from [i:7afc64547b]Galaxy[/i:7afc64547b], February 1975, illustrating "Allegiances" by... um... didn't actually make a note of that, and the magazine is now in a box somewhere. And no, I don't remember why the scan doesn't show the entire cover.

{edit} OK, "Allegiances" is by Michael Bishop. There's a small scan of the cover at http://www.parigibooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=23524&CLSN_2441=122270449424413f80b68103a23dfadc . {/edit}

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/the_eternity_engine(galaxy_6-75).jpg[/img:7afc64547b]
Likewise, a detail from [i:7afc64547b]Galaxy[/i:7afc64547b], June 1975, illustrating "The Eternity Engine". I'm pretty sure that was by Jack Williamson.

{edit}Confirmed. There's a 'customer image' of this issue on Amazon, slightly blurry, at http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000OJFUNY/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all . {/edit}

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/galaxyshowcase6-75.gif[/img:7afc64547b]
[i:7afc64547b]Galaxy Showcase[/i:7afc64547b], also in the June 75 issue. This was a place for artists to post one-off pieces of artwork. If the planet doesn't have an oxygen atmosphere, what's the cigarette using for combustion?

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/a_nice_girl_like_me(galaxy_9-75).gif[/img:7afc64547b]
[i:7afc64547b]Galaxy[/i:7afc64547b], September 1975. Illustration for "A Nice Girl Like Me" - author's name once again forgot.

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/evening_song_night_dancer(galaxy_9-75).gif[/img:7afc64547b]
[i:7afc64547b]Galaxy[/i:7afc64547b], also September 1975. Illustration for "Evening Song, Night Dancer". I'm not too happy with the way the scan blurs the guy's face, but it's all I've got.

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/dreams_of_ash(galileo1_1976).gif[/img:7afc64547b]
[i:7afc64547b]Galileo[/i:7afc64547b] #1, 1976. Illustration for "Dreams of Ash". Featuring a woman who's half-human and half-animal... whatever will they think of next???

[img:7afc64547b]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/growing_up(galileo1_1976).gif[/img:7afc64547b]
Also from [i:7afc64547b]Galileo[/i:7afc64547b] #1, my favourite of this batch. Illustration for "Growing Up", which I'm pretty sure was by Damien Broderick. A simple, bold composition for what was actually a densely-written and obtuse bit of metaphysical philosophy. You can hardly blame me for forgetting the story and remembering the picture, can you?

I do have a couple of other issues of [i:7afc64547b]Galaxy[/i:7afc64547b] with art by Wendy, but finding and scanning them could be a bit of a challenge, so that's it for now.

spiritofthewater

[quote:341f5f40b4="Lee M"]

[img:341f5f40b4]http://www.p-synd.com/wild/wp/galaxyshowcase6-75.gif[/img:341f5f40b4]
[i:341f5f40b4]Galaxy Showcase[/i:341f5f40b4], also in the June 75 issue. This was a place for artists to post one-off pieces of artwork. If the planet doesn't have an oxygen atmosphere, what's the cigarette using for combustion?
[/quote:341f5f40b4]

I don't know, but this isn't very earthly connected. Surprised

spiritofthewater

Here is another one from Galaxy. This is from sept.74

spiritofthewater

another from Galaxy, oct.74

spiritofthewater

Worlds of IF, june 74

spiritofthewater



from: The "Elfficial" Fan Club Handbook 1984, drawing seems to be from 1979

Embala

Great new old stuff here :D

I love the drwings of the Swimmers and the "Wild Ones" - they remember me very much of the later elves. And the Cat, of course.

spiritofthewater

They are incredible careless those two elves!! I mean Skywise is sitting on top of all the comics, and he hasn't even bothered to take off his dirty boots!!! THIS IS NO WAY TO TREAT COMICS !!!

What a nightmare there must be to have these elves in your apartment, for instance, they may suddenly find out that they will listen to music, they tear everything out of the shelves and they end up sitting on your whole record collection..... *shudders*

mournsong

That's why I made [i:fcdcccf1d7]my[/i:fcdcccf1d7] elves live in the basement. Grin

spiritofthewater





from Apa -L fanzine, 1970. Wendy must have been 18 or 19 when she drew this!

spiritofthewater



Does anyone know where this is taken from ?

Nowth

Looks Melnibonéan. (Not the last bit, of course. The ones before it.)

RichardPini

[quote:ff940ae2c6="spiritofthewater"]

Does anyone know where this is taken from ?[/quote:ff940ae2c6]

It was a commission (late 70s? early 80s?) by Steve Geppi, the owner of Diamond Comics. He wanted a piece of art to be used as an advertisement for his comics stores (this was well before Diamond Distribution) in an edition of the [i:ff940ae2c6]Overstreet Price Guide.[/i:ff940ae2c6]

LeeM

[quote:821641b926="spiritofthewater"]another from Galaxy, oct.74

[/quote:821641b926]

Ah, yes, Edgar Pangborn. Superb writer, but he had an upsetting tendency to kill off some of his most sympathetic characters. I do have the issue with Wendy's cover for this story, but as I mentioned I can't put my hands on it just at the moment.

spiritofthewater

[quote:a27546c26d="RichardPini"]It was a commission (late 70s? early 80s?) by Steve Geppi, the owner of Diamond Comics. He wanted a piece of art to be used as an advertisement for his comics stores (this was well before Diamond Distribution) in an edition of the [i:a27546c26d]Overstreet Price Guide.[/i:a27546c26d][/quote:a27546c26d]

I guess it must be from Overstreet Price Guide Update # 1, 1982. Please correct if I'm wrong.

RichardPini

[quote:9288425c83="spiritofthewater"][quote:9288425c83="RichardPini"]It was a commission (late 70s? early 80s?) by Steve Geppi, the owner of Diamond Comics. He wanted a piece of art to be used as an advertisement for his comics stores (this was well before Diamond Distribution) in an edition of the [i:9288425c83]Overstreet Price Guide.[/i:9288425c83][/quote:9288425c83]

I guess it must be from Overstreet Price Guide Update # 1, 1982. Please correct if I'm wrong.[/quote:9288425c83]

I don't remember what year, but it was in one of the regular annual editions, not an update.

spiritofthewater



from Galaxy july 74

spiritofthewater



from Galaxy aug. 74

spiritofthewater

....

I'm taking a chance of breaking the frames here, but I do it because of the facial expressions. They are a bit difficult to see in a smaller version. Picture is from Galaxy aug.74

spiritofthewater



from Galaxy jan.75 (when I was born :oops: ), by Freff and Pini. I guess Freff has painted the background and Pini the figure.

spiritofthewater



Galaxy oct.75, by Pini and Pini (to quote Galaxy). I don't think I will try to speculate what R.Pini has done with this painting. :oops:

spiritofthewater



another one from Galaxy oct.75

Embala

How do you dig all this? No idea thare could be so many of them! Of course ... there must have been a life before EQ Wink

RichardPini

[quote:2f1ce0dee5="spiritofthewater"]

from Galaxy jan.75 (when I was born :oops: ), by Freff and Pini. I guess Freff has painted the background and Pini the figure.

[/quote:2f1ce0dee5]

Again, if memory serves, Freff provided the pencils for the figure only, and Wendy finished it and colored the entire piece. She does hands a lot better than are shown here.

RichardPini

[quote:8e064914c0="spiritofthewater"]

Galaxy oct.75, by Pini and Pini (to quote Galaxy). I don't think I will try to speculate what R.Pini has done with this painting. :oops:[/quote:8e064914c0]

It's safer that way. ;)

I was working at the Museum of Science (in the Hayden Planetarium, actually) at the time this cover was done, and had set myself the task of learning the airbrush. The smoke effects coming out of the Earwig-mobile, and the lighting on the clouds in the background are mine. This piece of art is notable as it is the very first appearance of the "Warp" acronym, years before the company was formed.

spiritofthewater

I was not expecting WP to paint abstract free-form pictures. It must be one of the very few, but perhaps this part of the universe actually looks like this in the story. It's after all an illustration to a story where "earth is just a shadow world", to quote Galaxy.

Icemoon

hey, I don't remember when , but I remember, that I saw a picture of Titania and Obero, by wendy ....
I can't describe how much I loved those image ...
they were so impressive, so magnificient, so full of noblesse ...

Does anyone know of what pictures I speak about ? Does anyone know WHERE are they ??

spiritofthewater

[quote:28c6fad4e6="Embala"]How do you dig all this? No idea thare could be so many of them! Of course ... there must have been a life before EQ Wink[/quote:28c6fad4e6]

I'm just curious about WP's work. You will see more in a few days.

Embala

[url=http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=97325958&colorNo=0&pr=F]Oberon[/url] and [url=http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=97326303&colorNo=0&pr=F]Titania[/url] for [b:9db117ef96]Icemoon[/b:9db117ef96]

Go to [b:9db117ef96]Elfquest Shop @ CafePress[/b:9db117ef96] -> Posters & Prints ... You'll find lots ot wonderful pictures - EQ and others :D [i:9db117ef96](maybe you must be a little patient for loading)[/i:9db117ef96]

Icemoon

THAAAAAAAAANKIES embala !!!!

**BIG HUGGS to my dear embalaaa**

I'm happy you found them !!!!!

**dancing around the computer**

LeeM

[quote:1642350992="spiritofthewater"][quote:1642350992="Embala"]How do you dig all this? No idea thare could be so many of them! Of course ... there must have been a life before EQ Wink[/quote:1642350992]

I'm just curious about WP's work. You will see more in a few days.[/quote:1642350992]

Many thanks for finding these pics. Saves me having to dig through huge piles of boxes! :D

spiritofthewater

It's pictures like this that really makes you want to collect WP art.



I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Nightfall prefer to dress, when no one is watching her, or at least when she thinks no one is watching her. In 1980 this was probably OK since she would posing secretly only for the owner and a few others. Then came Internet:



...something Nightfall never could think of and never expected, and if Nightfall could meet me now she would probably be mad as hell.

For a few weeks ago it was sold at [i:1462dc5ea2]hakes.com[/i:1462dc5ea2], same system as ebay only a bit smaller. It was sold together with this:



...for only a little more than $200. FAR TOO LITTLE in my opinion. From now on I really have to search the whole www regularly for original WP art. You may never know what you actually can find!!!

spiritofthewater

1980

Sold at [i:19e9611780]hakes[/i:19e9611780] at the same time as the pictures above.

1979

1980

spiritofthewater



This is from "The Fantasy Showcase Tarot" published in 1980, signed W.Fletcher. If I should have a guess I would say that this was made in the end of the sixties since the colors are so strong and vivid.

spiritofthewater



from Galaxy aug 75

spiritofthewater

I think this one belongs here too. It's really too good to only be seen in the Leetah tread.



Embala

You are a great "finder"!

The EQ pictures are absolute fantistic. Seeing other art is really interesting. I really like the bluesinned elf - great colors.

:twisted: Just imagine how mad Nightfall would be if this one would be used as an avatar?

[img:6a153865c6]http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/Etumla/Avatar/AV_Nightfall_naughty.jpg[/img:6a153865c6] Grin

btw: pretty Leetah isn't showing fullsize :(

spiritofthewater

[quote:c4e56d4e31="Embala"]btw: pretty Leetah isn't showing fullsize :([/quote:c4e56d4e31]

It should be OK now.

Skya

Wow, I really like the style of those 1980 drawings. Looks like a mix of markers and colored pencil. Not something I'd have ever thought to try, but it works really well for the soft and yet still shiny feel of the elves.

Nowth

[quote:af8885be03="spiritofthewater"]It's pictures like this that really makes you want to collect WP art.



I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Nightfall prefer to dress, when no one is watching her, or at least when she thinks no one is watching her. In 1980 this was probably OK since she would posing secretly only for the owner and a few others. Then came Internet:



...something Nightfall never could think of and never expected, and if Nightfall could meet me now she would probably be mad as hell. [/quote:af8885be03]
transparent leather! otherwise, it's the usual original outfit, innit...

RichardPini

[quote:1c0401efad="Nowth"][quote:1c0401efad="spiritofthewater"]It's pictures like this that really makes you want to collect WP art.



I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Nightfall prefer to dress, when no one is watching her, or at least when she thinks no one is watching her. In 1980 this was probably OK since she would posing secretly only for the owner and a few others. Then came Internet:



...something Nightfall never could think of and never expected, and if Nightfall could meet me now she would probably be mad as hell. [/quote:1c0401efad]
transparent leather! otherwise, it's the usual original outfit, innit...[/quote:1c0401efad]

Oh come on, people, it is not "transparent leather." She's clearly wearing breeches; you can see the stitching. The color has changed over time (likely because the original owner didn't take the care any art deserves) to the point where the red dyes in the "pants" have faded to yield the same tone as Nightfall's skin.

Nowth

[quote:1a2fe8e05c="RichardPini"][quote:1a2fe8e05c="Nowth"][quote:1a2fe8e05c="spiritofthewater"]It's pictures like this that really makes you want to collect WP art.



I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Nightfall prefer to dress, when no one is watching her, or at least when she thinks no one is watching her. In 1980 this was probably OK since she would posing secretly only for the owner and a few others. Then came Internet:



...something Nightfall never could think of and never expected, and if Nightfall could meet me now she would probably be mad as hell. [/quote:1a2fe8e05c]
transparent leather! otherwise, it's the usual original outfit, innit...[/quote:1a2fe8e05c]

Oh come on, people, it is not "transparent leather." She's clearly wearing breeches; you can see the stitching. The color has changed over time (likely because the original owner didn't take the care any art deserves) to the point where the red dyes in the "pants" have faded to yield the same tone as Nightfall's skin.[/quote:1a2fe8e05c]
Sorta what I meant. It's all there -- the fur lining, the stitches, the scabbard, the tearing -- but the leather itself is tight enough to look as if it weren't there.

I'm sure some artists do it on purpose

spiritofthewater

The only thing left of Nightfalls breeches is a stich. Grin (I'm sooo sad I was to late to buy this drawing). I've never seen that fading can improve an artwork before now.

spiritofthewater

I have now re-scanned several of the images in this tread, since many of them were distorted buy the scanner I first used. Many of the pictures I have posted are now in better quality, for instance the portraits from the Journey to Sorrow's End novelization. Some the pictures I have replaced still exists as quoted pictures. On page 7 something strange has happened because of the replacement. The right part of the frame of the quoted pictures is prolonged. If there is anything I can do to make it look right, please let me know.

spiritofthewater





before and after, from Overstreet's Comic Book price update #1 1982. Ad is used in several editions.





I think this is one of the very few times Suntop and Ember is pictured in profile.

spiritofthewater



cover from Galaxy nov 1977

NEXT PAGE