Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 186
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    476
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Seems to work fine on my Cintiq.
    ~ ~ { My sketchbooK } ~ ~
    Santa Barbara Drawing Group, On Meetup.


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 759 Times in 489 Posts
    Painting can only be learned with paint. Digital image making isn't painting. In a place called conceptart.org I expect that the majority of people here are interested in a "character" design more than in the way it's painted, the look and characteristics of the depicted things and how they fit within their game world more than the media in which they are depicted. "Digital painting" isn't easier than actual painting because it doesn't exist, and design doesn't change regardless of whether you do it in real media or on a computer. Making a digital image simulate an actual painting is actually harder than making the painting for real because all the accidents that happen in reality don't happen automatically on a computer, they have to be designed. The reality is that the best painters don't make the best designers, and annoyance comes from designers being told that they have to be painters first.
    Sketchbook

    What is the right thing to do?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:


  5. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    Making a digital image simulate an actual painting is actually harder than making the painting for real because all the accidents that happen in reality don't happen automatically on a computer, they have to be designed.
    First part of that is true (imo). Second part though I agree with if you are trying to "simulate" natural media...at the same time I stumble across all kinds of interesting "accidents" when working digitally that I could not have planned, designed or predicted. Oddly enough, in my working approach I find digital more creative by far than traditional. With traditional media I have a pretty good idea where I'm heading and what I need to do to get there...with digital it meanders and leads me into all kinds of undiscovered country. But that's just me, and we already know I'm weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    The reality is that the best painters don't make the best designers, and annoyance comes from designers being told that they have to be painters first.
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  6. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,799
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,263 Times in 2,075 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Does it matter if I use rotate within the program? Alt drag works fine on Open Canvas, E drag also works great in Painter, Home and iirc End do just fine in Easy Paint tool Sai.

    Then again if it has to be the object that moves, the Motion computing LE1700 also does this physically, not just a cintiq. (Tablet PC)

  7. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 759 Times in 489 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?
    I should have written "concept artist" instead of "designer". Then just look at the statements:
    All concept artists are painters.
    All painters are concept artists.
    Each artist-type has a primary set of skills that they need to learn. It makes more sense to spend the most time on the most relevant information. For example dpaint brought up perspective, I think it's better to learn perspective with sketchup, the effect is like tetris where the game continues to play in your mind even after you put it down, you wind up doing way more geometrical manipulations than you could on paper.


    Another thing I felt like bringing up is the overratedness of the materiality of paint. Paint is basically dirt. If you see a wet paint sign you don't run over to the wall in the hopes of smearing your shirt to raise it's value. The value in paint doesn't come automatically in it's physical existence but in the way it's used. From the point of view of a designer the most important thing about making an image is that it should look interesting. No one watches a blank screen, it takes a skilled designer to get people to look at what's showing on it.
    Sketchbook

    What is the right thing to do?

  8. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Sure - totally agree there, with the slight exception that we are talking about the material nature of paint...at least as opposed to the virtual nature of pixels.

    On the designer point...that was a little why I was confused...I don't think anyone is saying a designer or concept person needs to be a painter...or vice-versa. Where I think those of us engaged in both both get annoyed, and try to make some distinction, is when the designer also wants to be considered a painter...not the other way around.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  10. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,347
    Thanks
    3,073
    Thanked 6,420 Times in 2,681 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    Another thing I felt like bringing up is the overratedness of the materiality of paint. Paint is basically dirt. If you see a wet paint sign you don't run over to the wall in the hopes of smearing your shirt to raise it's value. The value in paint doesn't come automatically in it's physical existence but in the way it's used. From the point of view of a designer the most important thing about making an image is that it should look interesting. No one watches a blank screen, it takes a skilled designer to get people to look at what's showing on it.
    I'm talking about creating a physical object, with skill, gives you the image and the ability to make prints and the actual object; digital can't do that yet and that is a huge stumbling block for the Op in fine art.

  11. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 759 Times in 489 Posts
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    Sketchbook

    What is the right thing to do?

  12. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    I don't paint en plein air so that is not my argument. My argument is quite simple: one will never be the other and really doesn't need to. Some were making the argument of value which I agree with to a point.

    But making that statement about the materiality of paint with your experience actually stuns me. Materiality only begins with material. The end product introduces to levels of sensory perception that a digital print can't. I am a surface junkie. And you well know that something can be painted with no discernible brushstrokes and still have a quality of surface that makes you want to bite or lick it. Have never gotten that with print on image on the screen. Am I misunderstanding you?

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  14. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    Hmmmm...no, you're misreading or attributing many things to me here I'm not saying at all. And I don't buy that painting is inferior to sculpture...again, different things. It is because (representational) painting is an illusion that it requires a different approach than sculpture. The advantage of sculpture is the very fact that it exists in three dimensions...you don't have to understand illusion to make it work (and yes I know classical, large scale sculpture often takes into account viewer's perspective and so builds in distortion so it looks correct).

    You also don't have to go outside to paint from life.

    I've also mentioned many times that my experience with digital, even in the fine art gallery realm, has been positive and has never been frowned upon. But I'm not trying to say it's painting.

    On the "tradition" thing...absolutely not saying it isn't respected because it doesn't have tradition behind it...in fact I'm not even saying it isn't respected...just not as painting. And no one has made the case that it is the same as painting...just a lot of wishing.

    Again, the synthesizer guys aren't respected as violin players...not because they don't understand music...but because they aren't playing a violin. You'll never hear them bitch about it because they go "Fuck yeah... listen to this stuff I can do...".

    All I'm saying is they're different and trying to make them the same is absurd.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  15. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,347
    Thanks
    3,073
    Thanked 6,420 Times in 2,681 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    I've never made the argument painting is sculpture. I've made the argument that most painting and oil painting in particular, is three dimensional and sculptural. Not the same thing as sculpture.

    People on here are making the argument digital creation is the same as traditional painting which it's not, except in a most superficial way. I've pointed out all the ways they are not the same but people just want something that has no basis in reality yet. My arguments about painting from life still stand; your ability to paint anything is shown in your ability to paint from life, or lack there of. The more tools you need to acomplish something the more it lessens your ability. The reason what I do traditionally is so respected is because it requires more skill than gadgets. Even with in the fine art world, that is true for representational painting. Portrait painters who work from life are more respected than ones who project or work from photos. Same for figure painters. It is reflected in the prices paid for their work.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  17. #132
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 759 Times in 489 Posts
    I was specifially responding to
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously.
    .
    and his emphasis on
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    the actual object.
    "Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception. " Was a lame summary of what Plato would say about painting, I was trying to say that the argument of paint vs digital mirrored the old argument about sculpture versus paint. Dpaint has specifally said that painting digitally take less skill, that is a direct quote. If this assertion is true then he, and everyone else, should be able to easily mimic Craig Mullins's or Android's style.

    The different artistic mediums that exist aren't automatially important to me, it's the artists who cause the existance of the artworks that is important to me. To me the efficient cause is more important than the material cause, and I respect a great artist working digitally as much as I would a great writer, neither of them creates a material work. When I talk about digital work I mean it in all of it's possiblities not just the ability to make an image sort of like a painting, personally I'm interested in interactive media - video games more than painting. I believe that digital work ultimately takes more skill than painting, since it includes music, acting, game design, programming... it's possiblities are really only limited by the person doing it.
    Sketchbook

    What is the right thing to do?

  18. #133
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,548 Posts
    I too care much more about the execution and statement made by the artist...within their unique spheres. I like Sargent equally as much as I like Syd Mead, Android Jones, Frank Lloyd Wright, Andy Goldsworthy and Moebius. In addition, just so no one is confused by my violin analogies...give me a great synth guy any day over a great violinist.

    I do think dpaint makes a good point though...heirarchies do exist in art...fine art, commercial, production, doesn't matter...those heirarchies owe their very existence to the skill, training and experience required. I just try to keep them separate and in their own context - apples to apples.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  19. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    T.O via Newfoundland
    Posts
    1,535
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 644 Times in 530 Posts
    I've had people admire some of my work until they found out it was painted in photoshop.
    Their head automatically dials to "photo put through cheesy filters."
    I used to try to explain to them - no - I use this mystical creature called a "tablet" and draw it from scratch - blah blah blah.
    Now I just paint and let the rest of the world do as they please.

    having said that, I learned oils in school, and gouache and I think they both taught me miles of things I probably wouldn't know if I had studied digital alone.
    Even the first "colour mixing" class taught me things about colours I never knew- warms vs cool- and how red + blue can equal a billion different things based on the type of red, and type of blue.

    Getting your hands dirty is a great learning tool and I think everyone should spend time working traditionally in their art journey.

    I agree with the people that say digital is easier because it has major tools that save headaches and time.
    but there is a stigma on it that I think is greatly undeserved.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitnrun View Post
    So, based off my small amount of experience, and the replies I've received from those Digital folks brave enough tell me how they do it (which I can count on one hand btw), it seems as if Photoshop is doing the majority of the work, and making all the real decisions.
    Photoshop cannot make decisions. it is a program. It does exactly how much or little that you tell it to.

    Instead of using thinners and oils, you're using a layer in which a slider adjusts the opacity. In this example, don't tell me the digital folks have to work as hard to get the opacity just right.
    This is true - and it's awesome. lol - but we still have to "choose" an opacity- photoshop doesn't say - hey 43 % would be swell- go with that!

    Instead of having to decide which paint brush to use (synthetic or something nice like red sable), digital folks have only to hit [ and ] OR Shift+[ or Shift +] to adjust brush size and softness. Traditional artists have to select the brush (storage and maintenance of the brush is also something digital users do not have to worry about), and decide if the softness/hardness of the bristles is adequate for their painting. Digital folks make that same decision here, however this task is not as difficult for them in my opinion.
    It's just as difficult- but much less expensive. I've painted traditionally and there's brushes for purposes. I know which brush I like for filling- I know which one I like for detailing- In total I only own a dozen and I've never missed any I don't have.

    With photoshop I have way way more to choose from- they can be any hardness and opacity - that I Choose - there's options for scattering, texture, dynamics, and dynamic colour.
    Photoshop also allows you to create your own brush shapes.
    12 options vs infinite options...


    Also, and lastly, Ctrl+Z.. I don't see any traditional artists who can simply go a step backward as if their last flawed brush stroke *never* happened. We can go back and manipulate it, but in the end, that mistake still occurred and can still have a bearing on the final work.
    This one's true for sure! I love undo. But pencil's have erasers... just sayin'.

    This is why I feel as if Digital folks don't have half the work traditional artists do - at least not in technique.
    Photoshop doesn't eliminate the need for knowledge. If you don't know how light works your paintings will still look like junk - if you don't know perspective- if you don't know colour theory, or anatomy.
    How are you defining work? Many digital paintings take weeks to do.
    is 50 hours of digital work less work than 50 hours of traditional work? It's less frustrating, and you've probably gone much farther in your piece but 50 = 50.

    I choose to work digitally because it's cheap, clean, and attains a level of esthetic that satisfies my personal needs.
    I have a tonne of respect for anyone with the patience to work traditionally
    but I have no time for people that think digital work takes no skill or effort
    and even less time for anyone who thinks they're better then me for any reason.

    When your in school or at work, you have to bite the bullet and do what the teacher / boss asks you to do. But what every you choose to do outside of that only has to satisfy you.

    / end rant lol

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rhubix For This Useful Post:


  21. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    I've had people admire some of my work until they found out it was painted in photoshop.
    Their head automatically dials to "photo put through cheesy filters."
    I used to try to explain to them - no - I use this mystical creature called a "tablet" and draw it from scratch - blah blah blah.
    Now I just paint and let the rest of the world do as they please.
    And here's the problem I have...disdain for the viewer, be it a peer, teacher or anyone who doesn't buy into the idea that a digital painting is the same as painting. Heck, not even worth the effort to explain it because they just don't know what they're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    I agree with the people that say digital is easier because it has major tools that save headaches and time.
    but there is a stigma on it that I think is greatly undeserved.
    OK...so make the case that it doesn't deserve the "stigma" you think exists.
    Please discuss artifact, scale, surface, longevity, evidence of the artist's hand, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    With photoshop I have way way more to choose from- they can be any hardness and opacity - that I Choose - there's options for scattering, texture, dynamics, and dynamic colour.
    Photoshop also allows you to create your own brush shapes.
    12 options vs infinite options...
    Not using your brushes right. Cracks me up...I have far more options for scattering, texture, dynamics and color in one brush than all of the brushes in PS. I "choose" the hardness, opacity, edge quality and any other "brush dynamic" all fairly subconciously at this point...though I do really think about marks, texture and other aspects of brush calligraphy as a painting comes to finish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    ...but I have no time for people that think digital work takes no skill or effort
    and even less time for anyone who thinks they're better then me for any reason.
    Did you miss this?:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flake View Post
    Nobody is frowning upon digital art. Most of the grumpy old dinosaurs use PS daily.
    I only frown on the idea that they're the same thing.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Colorist/Digital Inker/Vector Artist/Graphic Designer for hire
    By ianar in forum Artists Available for Work!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2011, 05:49 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
  3. 2D Digital Abstract Artist, Very Dark Digital work 7+ years Experience
    By TheXArts in forum Artists Available for Work!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2005, 12:19 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast