Results 14 to 26 of 37
June 30th, 2012 #14
Don't worry about it. Some people are just nasty. The same situation could accur if you were an watercolorist. People fight -- some even enjoy it.
On a side note, if Photoshop could actually do everything for you, then it would be worth the small fortune that Adobe charges.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberJune 30th, 2012 #15
June 30th, 2012 #16
June 30th, 2012 #17
July 1st, 2012 #18
July 1st, 2012 #19
Something I continually have to work on myself:
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
July 1st, 2012 #20
The Following User Says Thank You to Noah Bradley For This Useful Post:
July 1st, 2012 #21
Here is a test. That person is wrong if what you do with traditional mediums from life, looks as good as your Photoshop work, if it doesn't look the same then the program has all of the creativity and they are right.
For one, paint in Photoshop isn't runny and doesn't get on your clothes, and to get cell style shading as smooth as one does on computer, I would have to actually paint cells, while the process of traditional cell painting is completely different than what it's like on computer as you have to paint on the back, everything is mirrored, paints may mix or form bubbles, one may accidentally wipe a line and ruin it all, the black pens may not come in the right size...
When doing collages, you can get headaches from the glue, or cut yourself. Painting may get you dirty, and I personally can't handle dirt.
Starting over with traditional media would mean waste and expenses, while Photshop provides endless "paper" and "ink".
So one may understand a technique, be capable of applying it, or know about anatomy, color, light etc., but mimicking things like this: http://fav.me/d4t12zu in traditional media, would involve painting a cell for the lineart, cutting up my precious bunny shirt I merely had to scan for this, meticulously painting the musical notes in bleach while in the picture they are a screen layer of a downloaded texture, and how to get that rainbow effect? Making a collage in traditional media, sure, no problem, and drawing those characters is also easy, but otherwise?
This is not a question of skill, but of unreasonable workload. If I took the time and invested the money in all the materials and their appliccation, I could more or less do it. But it would be insanity.
Once you understand what you are doing, Photoshop CAN make it easier for you to apply your knowledge, I never denied that. The knowledge just has to come from you because neither Photoshop, nor Copic, can do the thinking and the practicing for you.
Plus, practice. I have a decade of practice in Photoshop where I can draw an anatomically correct dog no problem. I can also give you the same dog in pencils or ballpen, but would it fair to expect I do the same with a spray can on a letter-sized paper? I don't do spray cans.
After all, this was never about having to master all traditional techniques that inspire digital works. It was more about having to understand color, light, anatomy, keeping your hand under control for decent strokes, basic things like that. Things that apply to many techniques.
You should see a doctor if stuff like that is happening.
Something I continually have to work on myself:
July 1st, 2012 #22Plus, practice. I have a decade of practice in Photoshop where I can draw an anatomically correct dog no problem. I can also give you the same dog in pencils or ballpen, but would it fair to expect I do the same with a spray can on a letter-sized paper? I don't do spray cans.
I mean yeah there is a certain timeframe of getting used to the tool you are using, but it's all about the knowledge of the artist. The techniques I use in photoshop are similar to those I use with acrylic paint. Yes, there are a lot of shortcuts in photoshop and I can always use a hue slider or a cut out a section and drop it back a bit which is certainly a lot easier in PS than on canvas, but the same KNOWLEDGE applies.
On canvas, I would simply identify that something needed to be darker and paint accordingly and in photoshop I would be able to utilize the shortcut to just snip it out and use bright/contrast.
But at the end of the day it's my experience as an artist that knows WHEN to make something darker or brighter.
So while I see your point, I still have to agree with Dpaint in the sense that the artist's experience to accomplish his final goal will be attained by ANY tool when he or she uses that tool enough. Once you pick up the basic gist of the tool, the experienced artist will thrive.
July 1st, 2012 #23So while I see your point, I still have to agree with Dpaint in the sense that the artist's experience to accomplish his final goal will be attained by ANY tool when he or she uses that tool enough. Once you pick up the basic gist of the tool, the experienced artist will thrive.
Yes, if one cares enough to learn how to use that spray paint and has the money to buy can after can and taperoll after taperoll, one will succeed, but why should one care at all if one's happy with the digital skill one has, and has acquired with equally or similarly hard work?
No artist has ever been slammed or belittled for not having mastered ALL tools and techniques, right? There are things like correct anatomy, a steady hand, or lighting that are universal and apply to all tools and techniques, and I think they are what I'm talking about when I complain about people saying digital artists don't need skill or knowledge.
An artist should only be measured by the standards of his technique/medium, not media that are worlds apart. Everyone has their speciality, none is inferior to another, only the extent to which one has mastered one's own specialty. And that can be hard in any tool, even Photoshop, for the individual obstacles each tool provides. I don't think a skilled oil painter could out-do me on their first attempt at digital art. And just because I could create oily-looking paintings on PC, doesn't mean I'll master actual oils more easily.
Or maybe we're talking past one-another.
July 1st, 2012 #24
This myth that these tools are all the same is BS. Skilled people who work from life and learn to paint and draw traditionally can pick up any tool and use it faster than people who rely on digital technology. How hard you work on something doesn't prove the veracity of the work it usually shows an inability not ability.
Mark Fredickson the great airbrush artist gave a talk in the early 90's for a group of illustrators in S.F. and said the same thing; "if you can't paint the same without an airbrush then the tool has all of the skill not the artist."
July 1st, 2012 #25
July 1st, 2012 #26
Sorry, but Photoshop is NOT "worlds apart" from oil painting or most other traditional media, and anyone who has reasonable experience in both knows this. The same basic principles apply to drawing and painting digitally or traditionally. If you can draw or paint well in one, you can draw and paint well in another.
Anything tool-specific is usually either a time-saving convenience, or extra frills.
There can be rare cases where someone is SO freaked out by the tools they won't even try to learn them... I did know a concept artist who worked strictly traditional and when we sat her in front of a computer she freaked out about learning to use a mouse. But less flighty people have no problem whatever transitioning between traditional and digital, as long as they have solid drawing and painting skills.