Has the digital process of making comics meant that comics look better digitally than compared to print these days? Jim Rugg suggests that that may be the case, pointing to the first issue of Mike Mignola’s Hellboy in Hell as an example:
Compared to print, today’s digital displays are extremely subtle, capable of displaying millions of colors. I assume Dave Stewart colored Hellboy in Hell #1 digitally. Then digital proofs were shared with and ultimately approved by Scott Allie and Mike Mignola. These are probably the versions we see in the digital copies of Hellboy in Hell #1, and they are striking.
I think this might be where one problem occurs. It’s like riding a bike. When you learn to ride a bike, it is almost impossible to unlearn it. And after you’ve spent hours staring at an image (on screen, paper, or canvas – it doesn’t matter), like the cartoonist, colorist, and editor presumably have, it’s hard to approach it with fresh eyes. Heck, after I looked at the digital edition of Hellboy in Hell #1, I was able to appreciate some of the details I had missed in the print edition because I knew where to find them.
Furthermore, if you get a copy of the print book a few days or week before the book is hitting shops, would anyone besides Chris Ware destroy the print run because the contrast is a little less than perfect?