Poll is optional, but I figured it could help for those who don't have time for writing a comment.

I'm curious on which would appeal to you more, and since a lot of you would be the people "buying" a book for a child anyway it makes this question all the more relevant.

I personally think that both are nice, but if I had to pick one or the other I'd probably pick traditional since it's more "down to earth" in my mind, and also more "idealistic" for a child to copy than a perfectly drawn down to the pixel picture in a digital program.

What are your ideas, thoughts, comments?

I'm not set in my ways on this, my mind can be changed or expanded!



~ God Bless ~


~ Moko

I don't care about how the art was produced so much as the artwork itself.

I'll echo merrak. It is more about the style matching the tone of the story.

Though children's books are purchased by adults who tend to be driven by nostalgia. Because of this, today's adults will connect better with illustrations that match those of their childhood memories of books and would (I'd speculate) lean towards more traditional illustrations. In another generation or two the adults that grew up on computer rendered tv shows will probably feel nostalgic about that and consider hand illustrations much like someone today views a linocut print!

-RobA>

Depends on the story. Rumplestiltskin would probably not be in bright colours and probably would be pen or some sort of line drawing. The Very Hungry Caterpillar lends itself to bright colours and vivid imagery so poster paint and digital art are acceptable.
I have also seen some stunning coloured pencil illustrations that suited the story.

I illustrated this kids book in watercolor and then edited it digitally later. http://www.homerthehelicopter.com/about.php
The reason is watercolor has a very tactile storybook nature, that is very hard to achieve with digital only. There is no reason why you have to choose. You will want to work in 300dpi at the width and height of your final print however.

Since a book cover is printed you cannot differentiate between if the original was drawn traditionally or digitally. If you want to use the computer to draw in a way that looks like it was done traditionally, you generally can.

Personally I like covers that do not make it clear which method was used (i.e. using lens-flares and other digital effects - or photos - does not appeal to me).
.
Griatch

I would go for either traditional media or a digital imitation of traditional media. I don't think "perfect" artwork is very exciting for children and even a doodle would be more fun for them than a clean, digital work of art.

That's a fair view!
After-all, if it's drawn with a high class program or on an illustration board but looks terrible what difference does it make?



I can say that I never thought of that until I thought of the books I used to "read" (I tended to love the artwork more than read xD), I grew up on books that are from 1940s-1980s (My mother wanted me to like old things I suppose xD) so pretty much all traditional art work and I prefer that type of artwork in books...

I personally view computer art with awe-fulled-contempt.
Although I like to watch some movies and shows using it, and if I was to animate I would use GIMP or something like that because I can't perfectly duplicate something on paper but something about it just irritates me...These days some of the computer generated stuff, although meant to be fun, it seems to go down to the child's ability to draw instead of gently pushing them to aim higher to get better, things like hands (IMO!) and stuff unless it's a non human character shouldn't be butchered to the point where a child thinks if they draw a totally horrific hand or something else it's perfect when there is so much better stuff to make them so much better than that. (Not to diss style, if a person likes that style nothing wrong with them!)




True! Story does matter, to a point. - Colored pencil is an option for some stuff yes, God knows I have enough pencils. xD



Haha awwwww, he's a cute little helicopter!
I like your art style, it's not overly complex to the point a child gets frustrated but it's still got that detailed mature look in a way. Nice work!

I was thinking maybe mixing would help, for like lighting and stuff.
Thanks for the tip!



I'm the opposite of you on this, I'd rather know which method was used, but I do agree that a picture or something blatantly trying to get attention for over use of effects could be a turn off. Photos also sometimes irritate me, but I guess it depends on the book.



I agree with that to a point, I think it depends on the child, some children prefer more detail so they can get lost in the story they see in their head more than what's on the paper! But there is a point where a child can get frustrated too.
But it also depends on their age, a 3 year old might prefer something just above a doodle, and a 6 or 7 year old might prefer more fleshed out characters, whereas an 11 year old would like to see super detail!


Nice responses so far, if anyone else wants to add to this feel free!

Sure thing! I was thinking of trying to do some watercolour brushes for GIMP. It would be nowhere near as good as the real thing, but you could probably make it look reasonable by colouring first, and adding brushes as a finishing touch. I've used splatter brushes this way, and it looks real enough as long as there is adequate variation in the set.

MyPaint has watercolor brushes, it's kinda hard to do watercolor on the computer unless you add a filter. lol

I'll go with what Merrak already said. It doesn't matter to me so much what you used to make art. It's more important to feel spoken to by what you created.

There is a kind of stigma attached to digital art. I see it flare up once in a while when traditional artists will tell you all about their choice of medium, and paper and colors and composition and how you just simply cannot achieve the same effect in digital format. But then I see amazing art on Deviant Art created entirely digital, whether it's in 3D or a 2D program like PS or GIMP. Digital art that may or may not look like traditional art. Even some that look like a photo. Is it any less art because you can't touch it? You think they'll let you touch the Mona Lisa?

What makes the left hand better than the right? That the thumb is on the right side? We live in an age where it is possible to express yourself any way you choose. There is a guy in Australia that paints amazing pictures with his own blood. Is he going too far? Maybe. But he's really good at airbrushing and since it's unique in that freaky artist way, it's art.

I don't know about children's books, it's not my field. But like anything you're trying to sell to a target audience, you want to get a feel for what they like. It effectively doesn't matter what YOU like, if THEY are happy with it. The covers I've made were 100% done in gimp with photo stock and effects. My clients are happy, their books are selling and in turn that makes me happy. I'd rather be making space art, but it just doesn't pay as good.

So really, I suppose, now that I've gone off on a tangent: It depends what you want to achieve and what medium you're comfortable working in as to what will end up on, or in, your book.

To some extent I'm going to have to disagree with this statement, I think that the books for younger children will use the picture to help tell the story as well because not many words will be used, then as the child gets older and more structured sentences are included then images will become more of a line art drawing with text wrapping around it.

@ h4erty: I think you're actually agreeing with my point more than dissagreeing with it.

@ ek22:Interesting points.