Paintovers as a usefool tool

#1

Ok I’m new here, and I’m sure I’m opening a can of worms by discussing this. I’m sure it’s probably been gone over before, but I really want to get some of your ideas on this. I’m not wanting to cause trouble, I just really don’t understand the animosity towards admitting that people use some images and paint over them to get the reference right.

I’m primarily a 2d artist, but I have experience with 3d, too. I know how hard it is to create 3d objects, texture them, get the lighting correct, etc. But when it comes down to it, you’re not drawing a person by hand, a 3d program is doing it for you, and people use images of people to map over the 3d people. They didn’t paint those images initially, but they did use them. That’s ok with me, it’s more than ok. 3d involves a hell of alot of work, and I appreciate how difficult it is, even with a computer generated person and a mapped over skin texture. Not everyone can do it, and do it well.

Now, to compare, in the 2d world, if you use an image as a reference, meaning you put it side by side in Photoshop and work from eyeballing it, that’s ok. But if you place it on a layer in Photoshop and trace over it, that’s not ok. I understand all the legal ramifications, I have a degree in graphic design and one of the things they taught us is all about copyright laws, but they also taught us that tracing is ok, it’s in what you do with it that matters. We all know you can take an image from a magazine, trace it, throw it up and call it an original. It’s not. But let’s say you take that image, trace it for a female outline, then color it yourself, then use another image for a part of the dress, etc, and when it’s done, you’ve made it your own. No part of it resembles the magazine photo. Or if I use a stock image that someone provides freely, I trace it, and turn it into something else, paint it all in Photoshop, how is that wrong? I know the old argument, you should learn anatomy on your own, not rely on a crutch, but people don’t tell that to those that do 3d, and they don’t tell that to those that do digital manipulations. And they sure don’t tell that to photographers. So why are 2d artists the only ones that have to hide their techniques?

I’m not saying I want to cheat. There’s a TON of work involved even in painting over something or using a part of it, and I don’t care what anyone says, NOT anyone can do it! It DOES take some skill. There are some very well known artists that paint some amazing art, and they deny using any references, but I don’t believe it. And some of the stuff they do, like lace on clothes, there’s NO WAY they just pulled it out of their heads, and there’s NO WAY they didn’t trace the reference, yet they’d rather be killed than admit it.

I have some images that I trace body outlines from stock, or parts of dresses. And then I have some other images that I’ve painted in Photoshop without any refs (fantasy landscapes, basically just playing around and seeing what pops us, impressionistic for the most part).

So I guess my question is, what is the big deal? Why are 2d artists the only ones submitted to this stigma and made to feel less of an artist, and why can’t the successful artists be %100 honest about how they do their images?

Again, I mean no disprespect to anyone here. I just really want to talk about this with people that are just as serious about digital art as I am.

#2

Ahhhh, yes, ye olde can of worms-- the CHEATING QUESTION.

This has been discussed many times throughout the forums, a search will bring up some very long and sometimes heated threads… and in none of them did we come up with any really definitive answers. I’ve been pondering this sort of thing again lately myself, after seeing several threads in the awards gallery getting assaulted by a bunch of hooligans screaming OMG YOU USED PHOTOS!!

You’re bringing up some good points and questions here.

You may not be rendering all the lighting and the form itself by brushstrokes, but modeling a 3D figure is every bit as demanding as creating a sculpture by hand. Also, texture artists absolutely do paint their work-- they may use bits of photographs in the process, but you can’t just take a photo and slap it into place, the process is painstaking and very detailed.

Oh, you can bet your bibby they absolutely DO. If anything, anatomy in 3D tremendously more difficult than it is in 2D. In a way you could even say it’s ‘cheating’ to use a few splashes of light and dark to trick the viewer into thinking they see a shape on 2D paper, when in 3D you have to know how the entire form works, where it fits, how it’s shaped from all angles at once including ones that aren’t actually seen.

And you’re right, not ANYONE can make something amazing by tracing. Even a paintover will look clumsily mashed together unless the artist understands WHAT they’re actually painting-- to emphasize a certain line, contour, muscle, or expression correctly, you must understand it. An amateur will fudge lines in the wrong places, emphasize things in subtly the wrong ways-- at first glance it might make people jump and say ‘wow that’s pretty realistic’ but as soon as they look closer, even an uneducated eye will detect clumsiness in the execution, something off about the form. Even an anatomically incorrect line that’s been drawn in an original and artistic way can be more pleasing, than a very nearly accurate line that was traced without confidence or feeling.

All sorts of techniques have been called ‘cheating’-- cameras, computers, and much older, simpler things. Truth is we only have so much time to do what we do, and we could stand to be spared some effort… for the most part, the one who loses when you ‘cheat’ is you, and the only way to judge that, is when you’re skipping over something you -can’t- acheive on your own merits yet… which is a different point for everyone. I saw Stahlberg say in one of his threads recently that the method doesn’t really matter, as long as you get the result you want-- and it still takes an artist’s eye and skill to know what that result is, and acheive it by any method.

The more tangible, clear problem is copyright. I believe a subject has to be at least 15% different from the original to count as a ‘derivative work’, in which case the original must be credited, and the derivative can’t be used commercially without permission. Beyond that, it’s all a gray area-- you could say that using reference (whether by tracing or not) is okay as long as the result is markedly different or better yet, totally unrecognizable… but what happens if a painting coincidentally HAPPENS to resemble a copyrighted image very closely? There’s no way to comprehensively prove or measure this stuff.

Gooooood question. Right now the whole issue is clouded over with a lot of speculation and grouchiness-- Stahlberg is an example of an artist who is up-front and blunt about his use of photo-reference, which is refreshing and incredibly valuable to the rest of us. (see his Abduction thread, case in point) To attack him for this is absurd, obviously… but that sort of mentality is flying around, and many confused people (most of us) have some odd preconceived notions about what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

The way I see it, in the end the artist still has to sleep at night, and has themselves to live with-- they’ll always know deep down whether their work was a product of their talent and skill, or a cop-out. And the rest of us should point out our suspicions or concerns politely for the good of an artist’s development-- unless it’s our own work being stolen, making a big argument out of it is not helpful or really any of our business.

#3

Gnarlycranium, your response is applause-worthy. Totally hit the nail on the head. :smiley:

Ultimately, there’s no “right” or “wrong” in art as long as you’re not taking credit for someone else’s hard work. There’s a certain degree of the so-called cheating in any work, and the amount that’s appopriate is a personal choice based on how much time is available and on whether the point of a given project is to produce or to learn.

#4

I want to thank you both for the kind replies, they are extremely well-thought and expressed. Honestly, I expected to get flamed for posting this, and even considered deleting it several times. When I got no comments to it, I thought for sure I had annoyed some people. So thank you for replying and for being respectful and honest about it. You made some excellent points, and I am definately going to look up the info on Stahlberg. He is SO SO talented.

It’s great to have an honest, kind discussion about this! :slight_smile:

#5

Thanks, Datameister! Glad you guys are finding my thoughts useful.

Becca, don’t be afraid to ask perfectly reasonable questions. Honest, kind discussions are supposed to be the norm around here.

There have been criminal situations where people were outright stealing artwork and passing it off as their own, but even then it’s better to deal with it privately, alerting a moderator for help if need be, rather than clutter up the forums with pointless-- and dangerous-- lynch mobbing. Too many people wander along and get the wrong impression, spreading nastiness on issues that are none of their business, potentially damaging the reputations of perfectly innocent people-- to say nothing of the damage to the atmosphere of the forums, as the anger seems to be downright contagious. If criminal theft isn’t worth getting ugly over, then paranoid nitpicking over reference or tiny hints of textures is nothing short of stupid.

This site is much larger than it used to be (when I joined there were maybe 8,000 members), and as the populace grows, there’s inevitably a greater number of jerks and idiots in the mix, which has made things more daunting and less warm and fuzzy. If you notice any flaming going on, please report it, and don’t be discouraged!

The LAST thing we want, is decent people seeing too much arguing, and getting scared off from posting.

#6

GnarlyCranium just posted to another thread in the <CGGeneral Discussions> forum on this subject that I began some time ago with a post similar to yours. HoHo. We even use a similar phrase “can of worms”. Maybe you’d like to visit that thread to read the responses. There are several pages of them with some pertinant viewpoints.
Ted

here’s the link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=2&t=446184&page=1&pp=15

#7

You’re wrong here…I just don’t know of any other way to put it. It’s kind of like saying if a painter uses a brush, the brush did the work and not him or her. If someone is using Poser content and claiming they modeled it from scratch than I can see, but

3D modeling/sculpting from scratch is not equivalent to tracing PERIOD.

I think the main issue people have comes down to how a person presents their work. If someone is aware of the fact that they can charge more and garner more respect for a painting than a photo-manipluation and they decide to present the photo-manip. image as a painting for that reason it’s a problem.

I, for one, have always thought there was a possibility that Linda Berquvist’s “Paintings” were essentially photo-manips or photo-manips of 3D renders which would be fine, but they are always presented as paintings that use little to no reference and now I’m seeing copyrighted images on the net that the “Paintings” were manipulated from. I’m not sure what to believe, but the side by side images I’ve seen are convincing.

#8

Maybe what we’re beginning to see is a growing awareness among photographers that their work is being hi-jacked with no compensation or recognition from the hi-jacker! If they spend some time looking at the work being done by “painters” they may find their photographs popping up here and there in so-called “paintings”.

btw: that quote you mentioned at the top of your comments wasn’t by me but another person.

Ted

#9

There are two main reasons why people do paintovers.

  1. The cg artist does not have the skill, at the time, to produce photo-realistic effects without the aid of photo-reference used as an underpainting.
  2. The cg illustrator is under a tight deadline and or a restrictive budget.

In general it is much easier and effective to build a photoreal illustration using photos and 3d elements directly. I don’t use photos at all unless I’m trying my hand at matte painting but do use 3d elements extensively. I’m a science illustrator 99% of the time and would be bogged down to a halt if I did not use 3d app renderings.
–All is fair in illustration. Fine art–is another story.

As a side note on photos: You have to consider the work involved by the photographer, whose work you are using directly in your “art”. Photographer’s have to plan a shot, find a “real” model, hire a “real” model, find and travel to a location (if out of their rented studios), set up lighting and props and take loads of shots to get that one photo you like. It’s a lot of work, it’s time consuming and isn’t cheap. Now the story is totally different if you shoot your own reference photos with your own models, props etc., etc., etc.

#10 
    i couldn't agree more, i always take my own photos when i need them, and it isn't easy or cheap to do.
    
    on the paintovers ect- i think anything is fair , using photos, paintovers, 3d models- it's all fair under one condition, you DO NOT TRY TO TAKE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO YOURSELF.  in other words if you paint over a photograph you don't go around blabbing that you 'drew' it from scratch. it dosn't matter how good the end result is- if you make out you are more skilled than you actually are or try to decieve me you will loose my respect. on the other hand if someone does a photo paintover ect and the compostion, coloring ect are good and they are honest about the method i will respect their work and praise it for what it is.  some ppl underestamate how hard it is to balance a painting or color it correctly, for this reason i can see why some ppl hate paintovers.  this is a real skill and takes time and effort to perfect just like drawing. What i hate is ppl who 'dont do their own work'  - they don't bother to concerntrate on composion and balance (their only real input) instead they try to take credit for the perfect anatomy or realistic textures the photo provides. this is not a skill and does not deserve respect.

much respect to ppl like aivlis who post exactly how the image is created. heres a link to one of her images on this fourm, which she did a great job on. you may also notice that because she is honest with her methods no one is abusing her or accusing her of ‘hacking’. we are all familiar with the contraversy that surrounded enalya lately. i refuse to comment on this subject enuff has been said already. http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=137&t=484319

     in 3d programs you can paste reference photos behind the mesh and 'trace' over it (i don't model myself but i've  seen my brother do it) and due to the physical limtations (non-additive in some cases) of sculpture i think it's fair to say while 3d modeling is hard ( i know i can't do it) sculpture is much harder and I'm not knocking 3d work in any way.
  
  
    so the moral of the story is be honest or do the work yourself, just my 2 cents.
#11

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.