today's comic advice posting from the big boy published graphic novelist: stop thoughtlessly shading your comics. stop it. i see you reaching for the multiply layer, i see you selecting that slightly purple, slightly blue color to add shadows to the edges of your characters. oh my god get your hand away from the airbrush.
comics is a storytelling medium, which means that it's also a medium for conveying information. you are conveying information about the scene to me.
what information is your shading conveying, and what does that contribute to the scene? i mean, ideally you're telling me where the light is coming from, but...do i actually have to care about that? if the lighting isn't key to the mood of the scene...does it need to be there?
we're outside. things would have shadows, because there's a light source (The Sun) but don't you understand that just from the fact the characters are clearly drawn outside? does putting soft shadows under their arms and at the bottoms of their shirts convey that better? or is it already clear without that?
we're inside. there's probably some light coming in from the window, or maybe from a bulb in the ceiling. is there a mood you want to convey with the scene? is the light source contributing to the mood? is the light only coming in from the window, to remind us the room is dark? is there a spotlight on someone? is the lighting significant? if it's not, what is the shading telling me that i couldn't otherwise guess?
and in the same realm of that previous comic example i just used, and this one i will be explicitly prescriptivist about--if you MUST include shading, please don't put it on the panels where the characters are doing the big cartoonish expressions. it doesn't look good. it Just doesn't look good. you're turning a 2 dimensional shape into a 3 dimensional object for no reason other than 'well i did it to the rest of the comic' and it looks bad. it draws attention to itself, it makes everything stiff and constructed, you lose the animation inherent to the gesture. you are doing disney vhs cover shit to me.
but this all isn't to say that you should never ever involve shading in your comics. but it's more that you need to use it intelligently, not just because you think it 'would' be there. there 'would' be one million more wrinkles in everybody's shirts than we ever want to draw and nobody's advising you to do that in comics. but if there should be one million wrinkles in a shirt, to draw attention to the fact that it's wrinkled, that's a different story.
and comics are about telling a story.
if you found this advice useful, or liked the look of the examples i was using, you should read my comic.
I've been getting back into comics while I wait for more info from my concept job, and I thought I'd make a post about something very important to me, which is COMIC PANEL VARIATION and HOW TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Also, yes, before you ask, these rules can absolutely be broken. I strategically break them to create a noticeable shift or flow in the storytelling, like so:
You can also probably make your own set of 5 IN 5 rules! I like to draw facial expressions and backgrounds and hands (like a masochist), so my 5 in 5 is definitely geared towards that. If you like to make more quiet, introspective comics, you could throw in a panel with NO DIALOGUE every 5 pages, or a mood panel with no characters, for example!
im gonna level with you my arm was already shot today but also i spent like a solid four hours finishing the book i was reading, rain checking the hourlies for a better day later this week BUT please accept a small selection from the last few sets i did uh...several years ago now...
In the 80’s as computer animation was on the rise one of the thorniest problems was “how do we get this thing we made on the computer… OFF the computer?” There were a lot of unique solutions, but the one I’m fascinated by most is Disney’s solution of using a plotter.
A plotter acted as sort of a 3D printer but for 2D images. There was a ball point pen that could move up and down, and the paper underneath could be moved in and out. Using CAD based programs you could plot points in 2D space and the plotter would draw the lines between them and even do geometric shapes!
When it came time to do The Great Mouse Detective, the animators at Disney wanted to do more dynamic shots for the climatic battle inside Big Ben. Drawing all those gears and cogs would be a nightmare for the animators, so they experimented with using 3D animation.
But this was still the early 80’s. There was no digital ink and paint program, no way to merge the 2D animated characters with the 3D animated backgrounds digitally. So how did they get the 3D animated backgrounds out of the computer?
By drawing each frame on the plotter.
Every frame was printed out on the plotter, and then xeroxed onto animation cels, and then hand painted like traditional 2D animation cels are.
But why the plotter? If they were gonna have to export every frame anyway, why not use a printer? Well… because printers back then just weren’t very good. A plotter uses points and physically draws the line between them, much like how vector graphics work. It yielded a much smoother and higher fidelity line than if they just printed them out.
This was still a massive undertaking, but it was probably the best solution to getting the dynamic camera moves they wanted out on paper. 2D animation was drawn over top and then both layers of animation cels were filmed frame by frame.
And that’s how you got dynamic shots like this in the mid 80’s! 3D animated backgrounds, printed with a plotter, xeroxed onto animation cels, hand painted, and then re-photographed with the 2D animation on top!
This technique would be the standard way Disney got their 3D animation out of the computer for their 2D films… right up until The Rescuers Down Under which was the first fully digital animated feature. That movie used PIXAR’s proprietary CAPS System (hey that name sounds familiar 😉) to combine everything digitally. But that’ll have to be a story for another time!
I had a feeling someone was gonna bring this up, and I debated talking about it in the original post. But I decided against that because as much as I absolutely adore Castle of Cagliostro the actual animation behind it in comparison to what Disney wanted to do with Great Mouse Detective is so vastly different I felt it would detract from the point of the post. But since where here now let’s get into it 😃
The key differences between the two are camera movement and shifting perspective. In Cagliostro the backgrounds remain static 2D, meaning the animators aren’t trying to redraw every frame with a moving shifting perspective. They aren’t doing the sweeping dynamic camera moves Disney wanted for Great Mouse Detective. That reduces a lot of the work load on Cagliostro because they only need to animate the gears on 3-4 frame loops per scene.
Disney wanted more dynamic movement, where the camera could sweep in and around the scene. That places a HUGE amount of work on the animators to ensure that everything is being drawn in perspective while it’s moving. I can’t even begin to think about how much work and effort would’ve had to go into this sequence if it was done entirely by hand. It would’ve been a nightmare!
Please don’t get me wrong. I absolutely LOVE Castle of Cagliostro. It’s an amazing movie, especially knowing its history and the crunch they were under to get it made in such a short time. But it’s not exactly a 1:1 skill check comparison. Cagliostro used the fact the camera wasn’t moving much to reduce the work load and relied heavily on looping animation.
But if you’re looking for a 1:1 comparison skill check I’ve got you covered!
See, the purpose of this post was to talk about how the computer was making it easier on animators by not making them have to draw every frame in perfect perspective. If you wanted a comparable skill check then I would instead suggest comparing the clock tower sequence in Great Mouse Detective to the airplanes in Porco Rosso.
Every single shot of the planes in that film was done by hand. Miyazaki famously refused to use CGI for the longest time on any of his films. If Porco Rosso had been animated by anyone else, those planes would’ve been CGI planes. So every shot, every dogfight, every moment of these planes flying around and turning slowly in perspective was done meticulously by hand, and it looks absolutely AMAZING! That’s a technical marvel in and of itself!
Oh and if you want more examples of animators being absolutely INSANE and doing everything by hand, I strongly recommend the works of Richard Williams. Not only was he instrumental in making Who Framed Roger Rabbit look so convincing, he’s also the insane artist who animated things like this:
You wanna talk insane skills? How about animating every single card in a deck of cards as they fly about the screen? The guy was a technical perfectionist!
I get wanting to compare the clock tower sequence from The Castle of Cagliostro to the Big Ben sequence in the Great Mouse Detective. Story wise they are doing very similar things: having the hero fight the villain on giant moving gears. But the execution of how that was achieved is so VASTLY different it’s really not fair comparing them at all on a technical level. And I hope me pointing that out doesn’t make anyone think I’m being dismissive of Cagliostro either.
Ukazu says, a rising tide lifts all boats, including the S.S. Check, Please! She’s hopeful that the success of Heated Rivalry, as well as another queer romance graphic novel-turned-TV show Heartstopper, will make the dream of seeing her work onscreen into a reality: The book has been optioned for adaptation. — Vanity Fair
Check, Please! has been optioned for a film/television adaptation. A while ago, actually—and that’s lovely. Nevertheless, the vast majority of options do not become television because it takes a million things going right to get projects off the ground.
That being said.
Ahem.
Speaking of getting projects off the ground...
From when Bitty first stepped out into the rink at Faber, to when he kissed the ice at graduation, we've all been part of this fun, weird, magical world of Samwell hockey. But when I left the world of Samwell hockey, I left knowing Jack and Bitty's story was done. Bitty's journey as the first openly gay NCAA Division I hockey captain was done. We baked the last pie; we shut off the lights at the kegster; the story was complete.
…But as I looked around I realized, I had one more story to tell.
Which is why I'm thrilled to announce that a brand new volume of Check, Please! will be serialized in 2026. Dozens of new comics, exciting update drops, your favorite characters with brand new storylines, and characters you've yet to meet.
Hello, Internet Land—SMH is coming home.
This fifth year of Check, Please! will be filled with shenanigans, drama, hockey, pies, Haus parties, and a new message of acceptance that is near and dear to me. And it's been brewing over the last year and half! But with the latest boom in queer hockey stories, I figured, hey! ¯\(ツ)/¯ Here's another one to look forward to. :)
Marginalized athletes still face harmful bigotry, and for this reason, queer sports stories are more important than ever. I love Samwell hockey and how each of you has embraced this roster of athletes.
There's so much more to come.
Ngozi
🏒🥧❤️
=
MORE NEWS? SURE:
I’ll be at Emerald City Comic Con 2026, and yes, I will be dropping exclusive details about Check, Please! Year Fived during my spotlight panel: Ngozi Ukazu - From Check, Please! to DC and Back! (Be there!)
Follow me on Patreon for behind-the-scenes on the making of Check, Please!: Year Five. I'm gonna livestream...a lot.
If only there were an original mm romance that you could read right now while you wait for more Year Five updates! Good news—John Rich & The Big Picture is very cute and laugh-out-loud funny and you can read it now, for free.
My latest graphic novel FLIP has made the best-of lists for the New York Public Library, the A.V. Club, Kirkus Books, School & Library Journal—and more. Get it here.
janainaart
jacobvanloon
origamiaround
jbbartram-illu
