PDA

View Full Version : The "Ryan Church Factor"


Pinoy McGee
10-31-2004, 12:24 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Today/2004/10/23/681741.html

"Corel couldn't update its painting and illustration software without the input and approval of would-be customers like Church, ...'

Lunatique
10-31-2004, 03:47 AM
It really bothers me when people say things like "..easily turn a photo into a portrait painting." In fact, it really pisses me off, because it cheapens the skill/talent/hard work of real artists who paint portraits one brush stroke at a time. It enhances the public's perception that "computers do all the work, and if you do creative stuff on the computer, you're not to be respected."

kraal
10-31-2004, 07:32 AM
i have to agree on that one. I tell people I illustrate and the say what medium ... I say I do it on the computer and they are no as excited. Then I also show people my work and the as what filter did I run on the photos... I say there is no photos I painted it by hand... they they say what medium.... i say on the computer.... then they say did you scan it? ... i say no I painted it by hand.... then they say what medium?........

I ran into the same stuff when I was airbrushing alot of people claimed the airbrush did all the work........

oh well maybe they need some real digital art classes inschools......

matsuru
10-31-2004, 05:40 PM
hahaha...this is hilarious. yup kraal, i get these responses too. in my country, i find out that business/ marketting people here still cant really accept wat a computer can do, in painting of course. they always have this perception that CG will look like CG, boring, no life, dull...etc. and most of them prefer hand-painted traditional media.

well, they will be proven wrong. as we all digital artist are doing our best to produce the most astonishing work. some even better than traditional medium. and in shorter time too.

some people wont pay as much $$$ for a CG over here. another misperception that computer can do anything easily, just by the click of few buttons. ><

awrieger
11-01-2004, 04:43 AM
Oddly enough, these same people would value a writer's skill, craft and work on a script, article or even novel written on a computer as being on an equal par with tradional media (ie a typewriter). Do they believe when writing a novel, the computer does all the work?

If anything, they would most likely regard a writer who hasn't yet switched to a computer and insists on using a typewriter as just an old fashioned hack and behind the times.

CIM
11-01-2004, 07:54 AM
Why would you ppl. bother worrying about what ignorant ppl. think? :rolleyes:

sic6six
11-01-2004, 08:20 AM
i agree with you guys 100%
i'd at least like to see the step by step progress on how they achieved their computer generated painting or at least the layered file. it takes along time for a real artist to constuct their work. not just a few clicks of the mouse and your done.

crossbones
11-02-2004, 05:03 PM
I agree with you guys. I just tell them the techniques I used and what tools I used. So if its painter, I say I used a palette knife and oil pastels with watercolors.

Lunatique
11-03-2004, 02:33 AM
Why would you ppl. bother worrying about what ignorant ppl. think? :rolleyes:
Because not all of us have only CG geek friends. Many of us have friends that know nothing about CG, and we meet people that know nothing about CG. And most of all, we have clients that know nothing about CG--and when clients don't realize the amount of work you put into the project, they don't pay as well.

noelt
11-10-2004, 06:50 AM
I'm new to computers not even a year yet, i've struggled for 30 years in paper and pencil land and digital is very easy to look good with (i'm not saying it's easy by no means i have a lot to learn) but the problem i see is that the software is helping with things that takes decades to learn, aerial perspective or just basic perspective is not easy to master in my opinion, 3ds max, Maya etc. does perspective for you lighting too, just copy the results. Art is valueable because it is not easy to do, not everyone has the eye, art to the lay-guy is money.... can i see it touch it smell it and know that this guy painted it and see how he painted it...... and sell it...... at a profit. The average guy is gonna want the digital work reproduced in front of his eyes(not literally) .... somehow, he can't make as much money with a print. Most art buyers will want something real to buy and most digital artist will not be able to recreate THE QUALITY in non-digital land so your art buyer will become suspicious of the process (scam he thinks). They need to smell the paint and see the oil and stuff they can understand, i don't agree with this way of thinking but i think it's just that human beings know human art and when they see the amazing digital work they ARE amazed but they are amazed according to art history, what has gone on before computers, and they will say "make me one of these" and you know what they want and it's not a print. This is the human factor of art i think, see, fell, touch, smell, kind of thing. Give a writer a pencil and paper he can make you wonder, cry, scared whatever the human thing is from his computer work....on the spot, and you can see the pencil and erase it just like your own pencil lines. Basically the problem is: QUALITY inconsistancies between digital and non-digital art ,by the same artist, with non-digital being not as good. Lay-people also need to know what good digital art is and what bad digital art is.

Sorry to Write i book over here.

Nolita
11-13-2004, 07:28 AM
It's the age old plight of the illustrator is all. I'm female, do you suppose that makes me an aspiring illustratrix? I'm sorry, my train got a little sidetracked there(as usual).

Anyhow, I think it has to do with being one who illustrates(Preferrably for a living but how many of us do it for free, and mainly ourselves because it's a compulsion and we just can't help it?). Empathizing as best I can with my friends who are up and coming, as well as successful illustrators, I see it in the sense that speed and results are more important than materials used. I have friends who freelance, and when a client wants their concept "brought to life" last week, they definitely don't head to the oil paints(though Stephanie Law will head to her watercolours:, and she'll continue to do so, since not even Painter can truly simulate watercolor, or heck any real paint, but I still love it 'cause it's still the closest you can get for the computer), They use the computer and their graphics application of choice. If you think about it, digital is not easier than old school. You still have to learn it, it's just that you have some experience with "traditional" media, I only added the quotes for folks who's feathers get ruffled without them, digital is far too new to be traditional.

kraal was talking about airbrushes not getting respect. I'm sure when acrylic was new, if you painted with acrylics you weren't a "real" painter in certain snobs' opinions. Many a gorgeous plate, engraving, lithograph, and yes, even oil painting has been poo-pooed and spat on by the elitists of the era in which they were created. Now those same spat upon works are considerred to be amazing works of art, and hang in galleries and museums.

While that long rambling rant of sorts veered off topic somewhat, I feel it does relate to this subject. See, I think all illustrators are artists, while not all artists are truly illustrators. The old story of the starving artist is alive and well, thriving in people's minds and in forums and chatrooms all over the net. If you haven't cut off one of your ears, some folks just don't think you're an artist(intentionally extreme example to illustratehttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif the absurdity of it all). They think you should suffer, and go hungry, then die of consumption or some other treatable/curable disease, all in the name of art.

So I draw or paint something digitally, and I show the print of it to a friend, aquaintance, or relative, and they like it a lot. They're really impressed, I can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices, their gut reaction is they like what they see. Then I tell them it's digital(I keep spreading the word, even if nobody wants to hear ithttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif) and depending on the person, their smile fades, they suddenly look dissapointed and say oh:( These aren't necessarily prospective clients. However it still stings. Mechanically I put in the same ammount of time as if I had used real paint or ink, the only real difference is I didn't have to wait for paint to dry, and in the case of oils, cure. My skill level is the same as when I use a traditional medium(I'm still trying to improve in my skills in every medium I like, so no, I'm not saying I'm perfect or anything). Either way I have to use my ability to draw and make paint go where I want it to go(not where it wants to go, a constant battle really).

What I don't understand is clients not wanting digital(I mean of course it's not going to be worth what a really good heirloom quality oil painting will cost, just as most of the time you don't pay the same for acrylics as oils, or pastels as oils). I mean the value of digital for published pictures is really amazing. In some ways it's worth more than a traditional media picture. I totally stand by the right of the individual to rent/whore themself out in any way they see fit(so long as nobody gets hurt). So think about it, if you're an advertiser, or publisher, and you want pictures for a project, digital really is better than oil or even watercolor.

See the artist has the never easy task of taking what you the client can see clear as day in their mind's eye, and then making it so everyone can see it. They want revision after revision, untill the image is as close to perfect as possible. What better way to show them exactly what you've done than with digital? Translating real world pictures to digital is iffy as can be. Scanners for all the hoopla don't really do that terrific of a job:( in every case, maybe professional scanners do, but not the ones for home users and hobbyists. Digital camera? Well that's a whole nother can of worms so to speak, it's tricky as heck to get it to look good. So if you scan or photograph the pic, you'll just end up having to photoshop it half to death just to get it to look close to the original. With pure digital, what you see is what you gethttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif. If you set up the file so that it will be printed and at a high resolution, that's the case exactly.

I have printed pictures(and this was back when I was a filter junkie! Oooh look at the magic filters! *drool*) on pre-primed canvas sheets. They come in pads like sketchpads. They looked darned good too(at least to the untrained eye). So here's the real test. Paint a really amazing picture(someone with skills far surpassing my own of course) using Painter. At this point your brushwork should be visible and then print it on a sheet of pre-primed canvas. Wait for the ink to dry, the higher the resolution the longer it takes to dry of course. Then seal the ink to the canvas using a waterproof fixative such as the kind Krylon makes. A couple of light even coats oughta do ithttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Let each coat gas out, as though you were painting a computer case. Then use some acrylic medium(gel as it holds the brushmarks but dries clearhttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif) Heck I bet you could use a crafter's product like Mod Podge even for that step, and put the brush marks on, it would be really fast toohttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif. Then wait a day, and even put the painting in a frame, nothing fancy, whatever you can find, don't pay more than a dollar for the frame, okay five bucks max for the frame. Show this to the nay-sayers, and see if they can tell it's not "painted". I'll bet that at least one person in a hundred can, since there's no accounting for "hawk-eyes" but the vast majority probably can't.

Although I'd bet oh, let's say a couple of hours of manual labor, html gruntwork for example, that the project described above would fool most if not all the people you showed the end result to. I don't expect anyone to actually go and do it. My point is, if they want something real that they can touch and smell, taste even, though I don't personally recommend touching or licking any painting, if only for the sake of the painting, they'll have something concrete, tangible even. It's only fraud if you claim it's something it's not. The cool thing is, it would be a digital/traditional hybrid.

not so fun things you can do with this post:
*count the number of times I used the word illustrator
*proof-read for run on sentences and poor grammar
a simultaniously useful but also wasteful thing you can do:
*print it out and use it to line a bird cage, or pick up your new puppy's "presents"
oh but there is a potentially fun thing you can do toohttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif :
*try and make the project work, then hold out as long as you can, after your friends and family have been sufficiently, staring in wide eyed wonder at your mastery of traditional media, tell them it's digital...heehee would be fun for me anywayhttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Now that's a book noelthttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif. Practically a novella(yeah right, I wish). I write these long rambling posts all the time. I just type the way I speak, and I'm constantly clarifying in rl so why not vr? My point is, don't apologize. If it's a really long post, either folks won't read it(who has the time to read my posts? I mean really?), or they'll skim it, trust me they'll get the gist of what you have to say. If anyone gets all mean and snarky, forget about 'em. As long as what you say regardless of length is your honest opinion, at the time you composed your post(keep evolvinghttp://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif), that's the best you can do right? Better to be yourself, than try to be someone you think others want you to be(I'm still learning that).

noelt
11-13-2004, 02:50 PM
Kraal was talking about why people tend to think that the tool (airbrush was his example of past way of the same kind thinking) has something to do with the higher quality of the end result...."why would someone think like that?" was my impression of his post. Why do people think like that.......... what would lead them to think like that. I don't think publishers (people who are interested in just printing) think about digital art the same as someone who is interested in some kind of investement.Your decision to use the, i'll call it,.... Mod Podge technigue rather than accepting the PLEASURE of actually painting the thing is spottable by joe public is what i'm saying. The trickery aspect that kind of festers, i know,.....what trickery?....the creation and the creative process is all that matters you say, but not to joe public art buyer...the human factor makes your art more than just the idea/ creation, they don't know how we (artist) do it, but they know that people draw with pencil and paper no fuss no muss, they think that's how all artists create and should create. Some Joe Public will see that Mod Podge technique as, "why didn't he/she just paint it ????" . How many other artist do you think have already DONE this type of thing (Mod Podge) as a shortcut and what do you think the word of mouth is going to be once the BUYER notices, and why would a painter have to do something other than just.....painting the thing. I will never compose on anything other than digital....ever, i just love Painter to death, i'm gonna buy photoshop cs soon too, but i have to realize how people think, and so, to make money, you have to kind of be ready for anything. I don't agree with Joe Art Public but.....whayagonnado :shrug:

P.S. I do understand that your example of the using of the Mod Podge technique was just as a timesaver example (quick painterly results without much time wasting).

TheRedMunkey
11-14-2004, 07:33 AM
Nolita. I just read your long A$$ post and i thought it was hella funny and really cute too ^.^ Just thought i'd let you know that someone appreciates your long a$$ posts ^.^

noelt
11-15-2004, 01:50 PM
Nolita, i was just reading your post again and i wanted to say thanks, i didn't notice on first reading, i was in the mood to argue so i was looking for things to argue about i guess, thanks for a great post. :thumbsup:

MasonDoran
11-16-2004, 11:54 AM
be honest guys...if you have an original painting on your wall....and a digital copy of it ...which is going to look better?

there is something irreplacable about a canvas covered in paint...

crossbones
11-16-2004, 05:09 PM
DOn;t know if any of you care, but like Ryan, a great deal of us are designers we could care less for the artsy fartsy world or about original work. We are there not to create pretty pictures but convey the design of whatever the subject is.


I'll admit since my professional training at Art Center I've become less attached to original work as I know g-d willing I will create more original work.

blotov
11-16-2004, 06:46 PM
It really bothers me when people say things like "..easily turn a photo into a portrait painting." In fact, it really pisses me off, because it cheapens the skill/talent/hard work of real artists who paint portraits one brush stroke at a time. It enhances the public's perception that "computers do all the work, and if you do creative stuff on the computer, you're not to be respected."why so pissed of? i found you a little bit childish and anyway isn't what you do to turn a photo into an illustration? c'mon chill out, maybe you wouldnt be so worried if you knew how to traditionally paint something hun?

Lunatique
11-17-2004, 03:49 AM
why so pissed of? i found you a little bit childish and anyway isn't what you do to turn a photo into an illustration? c'mon chill out, maybe you wouldnt be so worried if you knew how to traditionally paint something hun?
I've been painting traditionally since I was a child (oils, watercolor, acrylics..etc), and I only really began painting digitally around 2001. And if you've been to my website, you'd know that I have plenty of artworks that used no reference whatsoever.

JTD
11-17-2004, 06:06 PM
Hold on my friend, Rob can paint like nobody’s business.



He’s angry that people are continually assuming that no hard work goes into digital art. He stated it succinctly—‘It really pisses me off because...’



Not only is it his opinion but I share that opinion as well.



But you come on this forum and instead of offering your opinion on the subject, you personally attack Rob by, and I paraphrase here:



1) finding him childish

2) suggesting that he does not how to paint traditionally.



First of all, you offer no reason why you find him childish. Is it his language? His opinion? Are these the things that make him childish to you? Instead of asking why he’s so upset you asked ‘why so pissed [off], so it’s clearly not his language with which you disagree.



But you don’t stop there; you assassinate his character by suggesting that he doesn’t know how to do the very thing that he actually does. The very definition of ignorance is lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.



Rob’s response to you was anything but childish but let me suggest to you that this is bad form on your part. We are all in this together. We’re here to support each other. We represent varying opinions on this board but we all love art. We don’t need to agree with each other but we need to respect each other. Share your thoughts on the subject. We’d love to hear your experience.



Now don’t you feel bad?:sad:



Do the right thing my friend.:thumbsup:

blotov
11-17-2004, 06:59 PM
i knew somebody would come and talk , hey man your not even an artist and you speak like a cynical.
lunatic there's no traditional work on your website, what a pitty, sorry im done for this bye,
and you jtd get a grip man and start minding your own biss.

Lunatique
11-18-2004, 01:09 AM
i knew somebody would come and talk , hey man your not even an artist and you speak like a cynical.
lunatic there's no traditional work on your website, what a pitty, sorry im done for this bye,
and you jtd get a grip man and start minding your own biss.
1) Your attitude and behavior is dangerously close to the type that gets banned from cgtalk. Being rude for no apparent reason is not tolerated in most forums. Attacking a moderator is also not a good idea. Consider this a serious warning.

2) There are tons of traditional art on my website. When you click on the Paintings/Drawings section of my site, there's an arrow on top that says "1988~2001." If you actually looked at where the arrow is pointing, you'd see that there's a whole row of menu that contains Portraits/Figures, Cover Paintings, Concepts/Sketches, Comics, and Misc. Most of those sections are all traditonal media (watercolor, oils, acrylics, pastel, charcoal, graphite, pen&ink, markers..etc), except the Concepts/Sketches section, which contains a little bit of digital stuff.

Jinbrown
11-18-2004, 01:20 AM
Luna,

I think Mr. blotov was responding to JTD's message, not yours.

What does it matter anyway? JTD was perfectly justified, and reasonable in his response to what I agree (wholeheartedly) was Mr. blotov's rudeness and ignorance.

Your work needs no defending, Luna. It's terrific, traditional and digital.

Immaturity and ignorance, unfortunally, often express themselves in rudeness. No loss if Mr. blotov (sounds like a perfect nickname) leaves the building for good.

Too bad, his loss.

On with Painter talk, please.

chrismoose
11-18-2004, 11:18 AM
here here jinny!!!

you're right, rob doesnt need to justify his work - he's left a web link to do that for him. and because of that i'm a fan. let people judge other people on their work and in relation to this blotov dude it appears he/she cant walk the walk (yet) so dont bother talking the talk!!!
- not that i can yet, but thats by the by. - a little something to cover myself with!!

BACK TO PAINTER CHAT..........

On topic, a little: i personaly had the chance during a career change to choose between traditional art; painting or drawing 'it' then scanning it in if required for the client, or just work digitally. after seeing some of the digital works out there i chose digital. Now, does that mean that i should expect to charge a lower fee or get a lower amount from the client just because they know its a digital piece?

thats open to discussion, i let you know my opinions when i finally sell a digital piece:) .

Now OFF topic: because i'm sure cetain special people would read this. I've been to pixelalley links page and jeremy suttons links page and have found some colour sets (and obviously the ones in p8). i found one listing watercolors with their names but it is a bit incomplete - a lack (or scarcety) of umbers, siennas, ochres, when compared to its green selection. i was wondering if anybody has come across a more complete "traditional" painters color set with all the colors you would get from a winsor and newton color chart (oils or other) for example:thumbsup:
or from eg the cotman range info leaflet inside their painting set.

maybe someone has scanned in a color chart and completed a color set with correct names.
I always seem to get all the inbetween shades of a certain color when creating a color set. and i dont want that, just the main colors often acossiated with real paint colors.

regards,
c.

Tommy Lee
11-26-2004, 05:34 AM
It really bothers me when people say things like "..easily turn a photo into a portrait painting." In fact, it really pisses me off, because it cheapens the skill/talent/hard work of real artists who paint portraits one brush stroke at a time. It enhances the public's perception that "computers do all the work, and if you do creative stuff on the computer, you're not to be respected."
Damn, I am pissed too. I know I can do nearly everything I do on the computer traditionally too. The Computer makes my life just easier and gives me the chance to finish my pieces of with certain effects in a much faster way... No Color everywhere, not washing brushes, no eraserdust everywhere and so on.
If you do an oilpainting on the computer the only time you win is the time you wait to dry for the paint befor you can add a new layer. The creative process is the same.

My 2 cents

kraal
11-26-2004, 08:21 AM
i used to get upset with these coments but i dont any more. why? because my clients just want quality work they dont care how it is done the just need it yesterday. The people that say it takes no work ect dont count or matter. when they see my work and ask how i did it i simply answer i drew it. occasionally i have a client ask what filter did i use and i say none and they look at me and then say 'oh i thought you just ran a filter over a photo.' and i respond well if that is all you needed you wouldnt of hired me to draw it now would you. I just have decided it is not worth the energy explaining a process of creating art to someone that doesnt understand the process. example 'how does a television work?" the answer i need 'I turn it on and watch' nothing more nothing less.

side note to lunatique--- you are respected for the quality of your work. trust me on that.

Tommy Lee
11-26-2004, 02:34 PM
why so pissed of? i found you a little bit childish and anyway isn't what you do to turn a photo into an illustration? c'mon chill out, maybe you wouldnt be so worried if you knew how to traditionally paint something hun?What the F**k!:banghead:
Have you any idea about who u are talking about...
You better find another place for stupid comments like that. Do a little research about a person first!

Sorry for the F**k-part mods, but... u know:D

Cheers

Tom

blotov
11-26-2004, 05:46 PM
Most of those sections are all traditonal media (watercolor, oils, acrylics, pastel, charcoal, graphite, pen&ink, markers..etc), except the Concepts/Sketches section, which contains a little bit of digital stuff.
i saw them and i would say : no thanks, not of my taste.

Lunatique
11-26-2004, 06:11 PM
blotov - Could you be so kind and show us some of YOUR artwork please?

Tommy Lee
11-26-2004, 06:21 PM
Here are other fine remarks from this idiot,... time to ban him!

http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1752441&postcount=89 (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1752441&postcount=89)
and here:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691420&postcount=41 (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691420&postcount=41)
and here:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691913&postcount=25

Ben Sones
11-26-2004, 09:45 PM
why so pissed of? i found you a little bit childish and anyway isn't what you do to turn a photo into an illustration? c'mon chill out, maybe you wouldnt be so worried if you knew how to traditionally paint something hun? Dude, that was uncalled for. And also just plain wrong--Rob is a superlative painter, with reference or without. Check out some of his work in D'Artiste.

Besides which, I think he makes a good point. The public--and even many artists--already have a somewhat skeptical view of digital art, and I think some of the features in programs like Painter (such as autoclone) don't help. There's a big difference between working from reference (photo or life) and turning a photo into an illustration by plugging it into a filter. And when people who don't know much about digital art hear about features like that, it just reinforces the misconception that art software is just a crutch for people that lack traditional skills.

Of course, anyone who has spent any time looking at digital artwork (or working with the tools) knows that's just not true. Certainly, there are a lot of people who try to use software in that manner, but as with any other media, it always shows. Just take a look at any of the roughly 10,000,000 crappy Poser pics floating around the web (and that's not meant as a denigration to people who use Poser--I've seen some good art done with Poser, but I've also seen a lot of bad art by people who seem to think that Poser is a good replacement for practice and training. It isn't).

In any event, I'd just as soon Painter dropped some of the "transform photos into illustrations" features and focused more on the program's strengths (good, dynamic brushes). Leave the photo manipulation to Photoshop.

Art2
11-26-2004, 10:44 PM
Hot damn, I didn't know firefox was for gays... ah well, like it anyway :p

pencil, brush, canvas, paper, screen... all tools man.
Your ranting blotov, just (stupid) words...

What you gonna say next... Painter is for girls?

Lunatique
11-27-2004, 04:20 AM
Here are other fine remarks from this idiot,... time to ban him!

http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1752441&postcount=89 (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1752441&postcount=89)
and here:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691420&postcount=41 (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691420&postcount=41)
and here:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1691913&postcount=25
I've alterted the admins and other mods about him. He's days here are numbered, unless he shapes up.

Ok, let's keep this thread back on topic. Try not to post replies to this guy anymore.

Tommy Lee
11-27-2004, 05:17 AM
I've alterted the admins and other mods about him. He's days here are numbered, unless he shapes up.

Ok, let's keep this thread back on topic. Try not to post replies to this guy anymore.
Aye,aye Sir.:thumbsup:

Cheers

Jinbrown
11-27-2004, 06:06 AM
Folks,

Removing some of the features in Painter you've mention that you feel encourage the impression that a computer does all the work is not a productive idea. When used well, these features can be great tools for expert painters as well as hobbyists.

It's how these features are used that makes all the difference. The example, Auto Clone, may, if one is not aware, appear to be a keystroke solution for hobbyists to create an "instant painting". It can be that, and it can be used for much more.

Creating Paper textures is one good example. When Auto Clone is used with other Painter features, or used multiple times on the same Canvas, some very interesting and unique Paper textures can be developed, then used in paintings. The results can also be saved as Patterns to be used either for texture or for painting into small areas of a larger painting to give special effects to certain areas of that painting. It's a mistake to think that such features as Auto Clone are incapable of being used for sophisticated work. That's just not true.

More important, removing any of those features will not cure the main problem being discussed in this thread. Around the Internet, for years, I've been reading threads on the same subject. Art galleries often will not accept digital art... at all... no matter how talented and skilled the artist, and no matter if that artist painted each and every brushstroke by hand without the use of photos, even for reference. Digital art is just out!

Some clients don't appreciate (get it) the fact that digital art can be as challenging and time consuming as traditional art, and those people are unlikely to get it for quite a while if they're still unenlighted at this point.

However, many clients prefer the work be done digitally as it makes the workflow smoother and they want digital files anyway in the end. It helps that samples, intermediate work, and finished work can either be e-mailed or transferred to the client using FTP. Changes are quicker for the artist, therefore can be returned to the client more quickly, and the artist doesn't need to charge as much as if they were to recreate the piece from scratch each time the client changes his/her mind.

It's always been a challenge for artists to get paid fairly and it's up to the artist to persist until they've built a client base that does pay well. If they don't have the talent and skill, it'll be much harder to get to that point if they ever do, but many talented and skilled artists are making a very good living.

Expecting Painter to change in order to solve this problem is the wrong approach, IMHO.

In addition, it's good to realize that which I've pointed out to Lunatique in the past:

That is, all those hobbyists and casual painters, photographers who want to make a painting from their photo... also pay for Painter and help to support it. Without them, and there are a huge number, you probably would not have such a well developed Painter IX as you have now, and Painter might not even exist at this point. We who have used Painter through many versions, and many of us not professional artists at all, have worked very hard to keep Painter going, so hard it would be difficult to describe here. Though I worked as a professional illustrator for 28 years, I never used Painter professionally until I began teaching formal Painter classes a few years ago, and never in my career as an illustrator. I am one of the many who have worked hard since the beginning to keep Painter going and continue to do so now.

Do I not count since I don't work as a concept artist, matte painter, comic artist, etc.? If that's the case, what am I doing here answering Painter questions from these people, including our moderator Lunatique who invited me here and has acknowledged that I've given him some help now and then?

If I'm beneath all of you because I'm not a student of those art forms and/or do not work in those fields, it's pretty ridiculous I think. If I'm not beneath you, then neither should anyone else who uses Painter be beneath you.

Corel promotes Painter's features not only for you guys, but for a wide variety of artists and hoibbyists. Painter was not created only for you nor should it be supported and developed only for you. What the heck!!??

Again (and again), it won't help your cause to think your kind of artwork is more important than that of a hobbyist or photographer or any other kind of artist. It's only more important to you, your clients, and those who enjoy looking at it.

Everyone has the right to buy Painter and use it however they want.

If you want success, use it well. Painter provides you with tools to create just about any art you want to create. Though it does not provide capabilities that are precisely like traditional art tools and capabilities, it does provide a lot... and....

You don't have to use only digital art. You can do some or all of your work traditionally, or combine both digital and traditional work in the same piece.

Quit complaining about Painter and get on with your own talents and skills.. and promoting yourself to clients.. building a good client base that pays you fairly.

Painter is not responsible if you are not successful, any more than another artist is responsible if you are not successful.

P.S.

It's not nice to be a snob, and it does nothing for an artist's reputation as someone others will want to work with, recommend, and have as a friend.

It pays to have friends and it pays to have respect from others, for far more than talent and art skills alone.

Art2
11-27-2004, 12:40 PM
Well what can I say Jin... well put, nothing to add.

The way I see it... it's all in the artists mind, his creativity.
I think that if you give a guy like Luna some red pigment and put him in a cave, he'll be creating stunning art in no time. I wish some people would think the same... and not be restricted by the technical side of creating.
If Painter have some features you don't like, don't use them. And don't feel bad about using a good app because it has features that make live easier for the hobbyist (or for yourself).
And don't let nobody else make you feel bad about using that app.
It's your creativity that counts.

.. gotta go folks ;) cheers

Garma
11-27-2004, 01:14 PM
It's how these features are used that makes all the difference. The example, Auto Clone, may, if one is not aware, appear to be a keystroke solution for hobbyists to create an "instant painting". It can be that, and it can be used for much more.

you know, anytime I try to write long replies like that, my computer crashes. Murphy keeps an eye on me permanently. It´s great he doesn´t get you yet :)

anyway, the clone tool is great for fixing up errors. If you made a nice gradient which you screw up later it's pretty hard to make the error invisible (with all the colormixing and stuff). The clone tool "copies" the gradient from somewhere else, making your mistake almost invisible.

I think all those tools have some kind of use in this way.

Jinbrown
11-27-2004, 01:35 PM
Painter's Clone system (as I prefer to describe it because it has many facets and, for instance, interacts with Painter's Effects, brush variants, and the Make Mosaic command), is capable of far more than patching errors or even turning a photo into an oil or watercolor painting.

Yes, those features do have a purpose, many purposes, and it's up to you to discover them or learn about them from someone who already has... or not.

Too often, new and less experienced Painter users brush off features like Painter's Clone system assuming it's simply there to make it easy for an unskilled user to quickly accomplish a piece they can show off to their friends.

Wrong!

Painter's Clone system can be, and is, used to create. With imagination and the will to learn, an artist can do some pretty amazing things.

DogmaD
11-28-2004, 11:16 AM
I have just read through the entire discussion. Though i have skipped the blotov parts, hehe.

Well, as for my opinion:

First of all, the first problem that arrises is that as some are trying to reach a photorealistic quality in their digital work, you are bound to run into the problem of people thinking it is a photo and judging it as one. So when it is judged as a photo, the skills become less important and the message and composition start to play a more important role in my opinion. If you are drawing something like a troll, elf, or mechanical thingie, no matter how good it looks, or how skiled you are, people will not take it in as high regard as something with a real message behind it. Personally i think the whole digital scene still has tons of maturing to do in the matter of what content they present, a large portion of the work is sci-fi/fantasy, while a very small portion of the "real" world is into this stuff.

Second of all, some are blaiming the computer for providing a certain level of help to the user, and in doing so helping unskilled people create art? So where do you think you can draw the line where the tool used is for skilled or unskilled artist. We are all using tools to make our lives easier, it is not like we are programming the image in machine code or anything like that. Personally i think it is really hard to draw the line where the computer does most of the work and where artist does most of the work. This is one part that probably makes people judge digital art negatively when compared to traditional art.

I also disagree that digital art creation is just as hard as traditional art creation. I personally think that traditional art creation is a lot harder. I would love to see Lunatique for example try to recreate some of his latest digital art in a traditional medium and compare. This is not to judge or anything. But in my opinion working with traditional medium, like paint brings a lot of imperfections with it. Not so much in the skill with which you handle a brush, but in the limitations of different paints, making small mistakes, etc.

I am not trying to judge here or anything. I am a digital artist myself. But i often find that i have more respect for my own created traditional art than for my digital art. Because there isn't something like the infinite undo, the 32.000.000 different colour choices. The perfect brushes that never drip or lose a hair, or whatever. You know :)

Anyway, just giving my opinion. I know most of you will disagree with me and that is fine. ;)

Garma
11-28-2004, 12:29 PM
Painter's Clone system (as I prefer to describe it because it has many facets and, for instance, interacts with Painter's Effects, brush variants, and the Make Mosaic command), is capable of far more than patching errors or even turning a photo into an oil or watercolor painting.


of course :) I was just sharing my experience with the clone system, and how I found use for it.

noelt
11-28-2004, 01:07 PM
My advice is to look at your digital art works in terms of your traditional, can i reproduce this traditionally? how can i reproduce this traditionally? Also you (DogmaD) should go to lunatic's (ha ha) web site and look at the staging of his photos and.....his choices,also, the artwork for his short film ,these look traditional to me, these are not perfect works but it tell me that he probably (with much more difficulty) would be able to do the same level traditionally, this is my guess, it always comes down to the level the artist shoots for. I think a big part of this discussion ,which is unsaid, is that we are talking about digital art being fine art. Why should a gallery accept digital art? A publisher has no reason to reject digital art ,if he/she is smart, but a collector or a gallery, should they accept digital art? If yes, does the traditional artist benefit?

P.S. DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH MY PAINTER...THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE.

Ben Sones
11-28-2004, 01:44 PM
One reason a gallery might not accept digital art is that they are concerned about the uniqueness of the work. A painting is a one-of-a-kind object, a digital painting is, by necessity, a reproduction.

OTOH, I consider digital art to be like lithography or printmaking or photography in this regard. If you want to go the fine art route, there's no reason why you can produce limited runs, signed and numbered, of your work.

DogmaD
11-28-2004, 03:24 PM
My advice is to look at your digital art works in terms of your traditional, can i reproduce this traditionally? how can i reproduce this traditionally? Also you (DogmaD) should go to lunatic's (ha ha) web site and look at the staging of his photos and.....his choices,also, the artwork for his short film ,these look traditional to me, these are not perfect works but it tell me that he probably (with much more difficulty) would be able to do the same level traditionally, this is my guess, it always comes down to the level the artist shoots for. I think a big part of this discussion ,which is unsaid, is that we are talking about digital art being fine art. Why should a gallery accept digital art? A publisher has no reason to reject digital art ,if he/she is smart, but a collector or a gallery, should they accept digital art? If yes, does the traditional artist benefit?

P.S. DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH MY PAINTER...THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE.


I was not attacking or questioning lunatique's abilities or anything. Though it does look a bit like that in my post... I was just pointing out that digital art creation has certain clear benefits over traditional art creation, which in some cases also mask some skill and medium limitations of an artist and the real world. I think that these benefits lead to a different judgement of digital art compared to traditional art.

I was more or less interested in seeing if people are really capable of recreating their digital work as traditional work. But also recreating traditional work as digital work. Because i often find there is a lot of life in a traditional piece that is lost if you translate it to a digital medium. For example, a reprint you buy from the net of a work of Van Gogh does not look nearly as good as the real thing, you know. ;)

Now you also mention fine art. I totally agree that for a collector or gallery, digital art is probably not as interesting. Though i can imagine that in the near future galleries could exist with only big lcd screens in them, showing different artworks. Anyway, enough of my ranting. :)

MasonDoran
11-30-2004, 11:28 AM
i am surprised this thread is even getting so much attention....the validity of art speaks for itself....regardless of medium -digital or not-

doubtless people have there preferances....but why such long winded posts? It wont change the judgements of igorant and close minded people...let them stay that way. I am happy enough with paint brushes and wacom....

delunchen
12-12-2004, 01:02 AM
Pardon me for my poor english.
Im a traditional painter/student, and i do like to use digital(alot).
It doesnt reallymatter digital or not.
To me, both are just tools and nothing more than plain old tools. It is like, some tools can achieve this effect, if not, use another one. Another reason for me to use digital at home is because, i hate cleaning my brushes (oh yes im lazy), and i can experiment with some style or strokeing technique which doesnt cost me to buy more paint and canvas or stretch canvas. (art material are drn expensive for student like me).
I enjoyed both traditional and digital.

I do have receive comments like "oh digital..." from older generation artists. One of my lectuerer deliberately used digital for one of his exhibition and talk, with the intention to spread the message that what matters is the artist's skill and input and not the type of tool he use.

Maybe because work done on canvas is sort of like, "unique". You cannot duplicate a 100% exact copy. Even if you try to paint the exact one, the stroke and texture may never be the same. Thats what people look into i think. (because im very interetested in the strokes and texture of a painting).

As far as i know, we cant change the fact that some people doesnt respect digital. But i will try to explain to those who are skeptical towards digital and ask them to try some hands-on painting. Some of them are painter themselves and some of them starts to have a slightly different opinion towards digital.Although i cant change the whole world, at least 2 or 3 person is fine.

As for blotov's comments, just look at luna's works ( i mean both digital and traditional) and anyone will understand how little thinking blotov have done before typing. Luna can paint traditionally as far as i can see and probably start using traditional media before digital a long time ago.
Im not saying this because im a fan, anyone would have said the same thing.

sorry for my bad english

Kitiara
01-20-2005, 04:38 AM
I may be resurrecting an old topic, but I am new to the forums and found this thread particularly intriguing! I have always dabbled some in art and have had a few traditional (charcoal) pieces that I was quite proud of, but have not been passionate enough to consider it more than an occasional hobby.

A job fell into my lap that required my use of Photoshop, and for the past 4 years that I have worked with it I have been amazed at not only the abilities of cg programs, but the knowledge and talent it takes to produce quality work with them. So I have the ultimate respect for anyone with the talent to produce works of art, regardless of the medium used.

That said, I do not possess talent to that level. I am a musician at heart and there is where my talent lies; I simply don't have the ability to create what I have seen many of you here do. My current interest in Painter IX is purely for fun. I love to travel and photograph nature, and think it would be nice to be able to easily convert some of these photographs into illustrations resembling artwork, mainly just for my personal collection and to hang on my walls. I'd be more likely to compare these to one of the paint-by-numbers that my son does which I will also proudly display than to any of the actual art you guys produce. This feature of PIX is what has drawn me to purchase it, and along the way I hope to learn many of its much deeper capabilities.

I have really only given it one solid day of study - reading help files, reading forums and tutorials online, playing around with the program itself - but haven't seen any of the auto-clone effects that really give the look I have in mind. I will be patient with it, it took months to learn Photoshop so I don't expect to be proficient with this any time soon, but in the meantime I really appreciate the awesome site you have and the kindness and practical advice of the talented artists here! (Oh, and if anyone is just Super-Auto-Clone-Person, feel free to PM me or post a link to a tut that my search has overlooked!) :thumbsup:

Lunatique
01-20-2005, 10:25 AM
green_leaf - You're correct. I've only been painting digitally for about 3 years, while I've been painting traditionally for about 14 years.


Kitiara - My first and true love is composing music, so we have something in common. I've had better success as an artist though, so music remains more of a passion.

LittleFenris
01-20-2005, 07:38 PM
I have been painting traditionally for the past 11 years or so and have never done a digital painting. I intend to in the very near future (just bought an intuos3 tablet). I see a lot of good things about creating art digitally, and a couple "bad" things. I have resisted painting digitally for many years because I wouldn't have anything tangible to touch and see and hang on a wall. Not to mention printing something at a high enough quality to hang up was very expensive up until the last couple years. I found a place that prints on canvas at a reasonable price and decided to try out digital painting. That way I get the best of both worlds...something tangible and hangable (like a traditional painting would give) and the more effecient ways of working that digital art provides. Things such as undo, and adjustment tools like brightness and contrast, hue and saturation, etc... Not to mention the godsend we all call "layers"! With traditional art you have to be more careful not to screw something up because its almost impossible in some cases to fix the mistake w/o starting over (watercolor and ink are perfect examples). It's very nerve racking when you are being super careful with every brush stroke you make so you don't screw up hours and hours of work, trust me, I do it all the time. Plus as mentioned before, with digital art, especially painter, you can try out things like oil paints and not have to worry about turpentine, dirty brushes, paints all over everything, etc... You just fire up the PC (or MAC), start painting just as you would normally and not worry about the mess.

ps. If you check out my site, all the paintings on there are traditional, done using Acrylics (most of them), Watercolor, Ink, Prismacolor Markers and/or Colored Pencils.

CGTalk Moderation
01-20-2006, 08:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.