••

John Buscema.

As a kid, I could look at, say, the Blackhawks, and know their uniforms were
black, not blue. I could then look at a picture of Superman and know that
his hair was not blue, despite the same color highlight the Blackhawks had
on their uniforms.

When Spider-Man came along, I knew his costume was red and black, as I
knew the X-Men's school uniforms were yellow and black. At the same
time, no matter how many blacks were added to the shadowing, I knew
Daredevil wore red.

Black Panther - highlight is not true color

Daredevil - highlight is true color

Spider-Man - highlight is not true color

Black Bolt - highlight is not true color

Superman's hair - highlight is not true color

Hulk's hair - highlight is true color

There's sense in all this that really should be common.

A "black"-named character, ya know, what other color would he be?

A human character, unaltered in appearance by any circumstance, even if his hair has blue highlights, it's pretty plain his hair ain't blue -- shouldn't the Hulk obviously not fit that basic rule?

Given that rule, seeing Spider-Man appear far more black than blue, shouldn't the same rule clearly apply?

For him, for the X-Men, any character, no matter the black plus highlight combination. Unless there's a further clue in the name, and usually the clues aren't very hard to decipher. Daredevil, colored red -- "devil," red -- not only entirely appropriate but complementary colors in western culture for century upon century.

A kid just gets this, or should, because coloring is not a trick. Take the images for what they are, and you don't get hung up on coloring because you don't even have to think about it.

A "black"-named character, ya know, what other color would he be?

Black Goliath?

My introduction to Spider-Man was via Ross Andru: definitely light blue.

IMP.

Since the computer coloring era began all that wonderful blue hair has disappeared. I sure miss it .