Do Matte Painters Actually Paint?, or do they use Photos?

#1

I’ve mostly only seen matte paintings that say they use photos, as well as a tutorial or 2 using photos? does that mean that matt painters don’t actually draw their stuff? That kind of doesn’t fit the word Matte “Painting” I want to get into matte painting, but not if photos are being used.

#2

remember the name matte painting is the traditional romantic way to call it, but matte painting in the actual time is a mixture of multiple techniques, like 3D, 2D painting, photo manipulation, model kits.
what is important is the final result no matter what it takes to achieve one image , it all depends on the technique you come up, photos are so important and all professional matte painters use them , so unless you can paint so photorealistic and perfect images without noticing the strokes then don’t use it, photos are a quick , custom and can help you avoid the use of 3D or creating a maquette, painting the complete frame will take you way longer to complete an image, so reconsider this
all these techniques combined will help you create better camera projections as well ,
painting is still nedeed of course but for details,cloning or elements that can be easily painted ,I suggest you take a look at the matte painting gnomon dvd’s , chris stoski, dusso and dylan cole, they all used photos and 2d painting, and they will show you there why it is cool and fast ,
good luck in your matte painting goals

#3

James got it spot on. If your interested in just painting you could always become a backgrounds artist for cartoons etc. Matte Painting is not about the image you create. Its about creating a backdrop to help the story and directors vision in film, games, commercials and TV.

#4

Oh I see. That’s because they don’t have to be photoreal. They are allowed to be styleized

#5

It is a name out of legacy from when they used to create matte paintings of backgrounds on giant pieces of glass.

#6

Yea, while painting is still used a lot to rough out shots and to blend elements, a lot of matte painting is photo manipulation now. Its just faster to get a photo texture on there than paint every tree on that distant hill or whatever it may be.
The artistic know-how is still very important to matte painters because otherwise you will not be able to pick the right photos, and do things like perspective matching, colour correction and creating a good composition, which is why a lot of people here and at mattepainting.org do lots of sketches and concept paintings to keep them sharp.

Nick

#7

Sometimes when using photos you are left with gaps that need filling in or detail that needs to be put in. If cloning/patching/copying does not work you have to be able to paint it.

In todays commercial world you have to be economical with your time. You have to use the quickest way to get the job done. Which is why photos are used. A lot of us do speed painting in front of a director and you have to be able to paint to do that. The art department spend more time on research and preparation involving a lot of painting. Theu do not have the time to paint everything for a matte. I spend more time going through stock images just to find the right image.

Some of us carry cameras with us and do our own photos from things they see on there travels.

I have seen cut out photos stuck onto a sheet of glass that have been painted over for the old style glass mattes.

I spent twenty minutes looking at the Millenium Falcon matte from empire strikes back. It was on a sheet of glass 8 x 11 inches. Every brush stroke was done quite roughly but the use of colour, brush stroke direction helped sell the image as a real. In no way was it photorealistic. These skills still apply today its knowing when to stop putting the detail in that matters.

Multimedia is still important in matte painting as it was 90 years ago. As a previous poster and fantastic artist said you still have to know how to compose, use light and tone.

If you didnt have that photo well that is when your painting skills come out.

I think matte painters who use different sources are probably more talented than a photorealistic oil/acrylic painter.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Rich

Prolific poster, Professional Photographer, Poor painter :arteest:

#8

If a matte painter is not skilled in the art of painting, all the photos in the world wont be able to save him.

#9

if the photo fails fire up the 3d app.

you don’t have to be a painter to be a matte painter.

this is a big field and there is room for plenty of different skillsets.

the end result is all that matters (and there are as many ways to get there as there are artists).

cheers, simon w.

#10

Maybe you don’t need to be a painter, but you definitely need a good understanding of painting- colour, light and composition theory etc. Especially if yo’re doing concepts as well

#11

all of that, though, is general art theory that applies no matter what field you may be practicing.

matte painting is quite specific, it is the creation of a photorealistic environment used in film or television.

at its simplest matte painting should be a totally mechanical process (much more akin to graphic design than painting). you are simply functioning as a camera, photographing what the director could not achieve himself on set, either because of budget, safety or whatever.

however because you are working within a storytelling environment this is where your artistic ability is called upon (because the director will have a specific story telling intention or plot point that your shot is trying to convey). it is here, and only here, that you are allowed to adjust or bend the shots natural characteristics as a way of enhancing the storyline.

cheers, simon w.

#12

Corrected.
Just as a reminder that matte paints dont allways need to (or can) be photorealistic.
It is definitly a big + for a matte painter thats able to paint.

#13

a matte painting is always photorealistic, people that produce backgrounds that are non-photorealistic are not creating matte paintings (and these people would generally come under the label of background artists).

i’m sorry but people are failing to see how absolutely specific the role of a matte painter is and just how narrow the job definition.

if this was not the case then by now we would all be calling ourselves environment artists or digital artists or what not. what we do has a history that started when cinema began and this history is something that every matte painter is proud to be part of.

matte painting is not concept art, background art, digital painting or in any way illustrative.

cheers, simon w.

#14

ScotchTapeWorm3D,

Although it might sound easy, being as it is just “photo-manipulation”, it never is. 90% of the time, the photos that you take or the images that your using as reference is not good enough and needs tweaking and slight overpaints. Not only that you have to match the perspective, color, mood, shadows and hue, and the film grain with real world image blurriness. (never sharpen an image)…

Not only do you need a talent for painting (to see the image and create a beautiful composition), nowadays you must also know 3D and its basic modelling, lighting. Camera works are also needed. You also need to composite your images in a compositing program, ever just as a simple straight comp.

Now a lot of people here might disagree with me BUT, if you really want to make it in the industry these are your key skills… (not unless you’re as kick-ass as DUSSO, STOSKI, JASSO, DYLAN COLE etc etc…)

But above all, your eye for what looks realistic must be exemptional… or else you’ll end up with a Photo Manipulated image only and NOT a mattepaint.

To an extent, where I’m working right now, I learned the vastness and intricacy of mattepainting where they take it to levels I never even dreamed possible… (car chase mattepainting anyone?)

So in the end of the day, we say yeah, its part photomanipulation, part painting, but still 90% raw talent.

Cheers mate, hope this will reignite the fire in you to become a mattepainter again… :smiley:

#15

Every animation company in the world seems to disagree with you. Please go tell Disney, Dreamworks, Bluesky, Pixar and every other 3d animation company that they should stop advertising for “Matte Painters”.

Environmental artists tend to be pure 3d(though usually that title is mainly used in games) and Matte painters are more 2d (though they make use 3d to create the 2d elements).

http://www.cgexplorer.com/2008/09/08/digital-matte-painter-paul-duncan-on-kung-fu-panda/
http://mattepainting.org/vb/showthread.php?t=3905

#16

or maybe they realize that if they need people who are interested in both 2d, 2.5d and 3d work then a skilled matte painter fits the bill?

according to your logic anyone who has ever made a background environment is a matte painter so suddenly we can relabel all the old geezers painting up scary woods and creepy castles in all the old disney films.

just because i have produced most of my work in 3d it doesn’t suddenly makes me an environments artist.

in the same way i don’t call myself a compositor even though i produce the comps for all my shots and i don’t consider myself a concept artist even though i make rough versions of my matte paintings.

if i did work on a game or animated feature then i certainly wouldn’t be touting my MATTE paintings then i would be showing people my digital environments work.

cheers, simon w.

#17

This could be an interesting new topic discussion,
but for now, all (3d) animation projects ive been involved inn, a matte, photorealistic or not, have been labled a matte.

#18

if people would like i can always trawl through the many posts here in this very forum where people have been told that their work looks too much like a digital painting or illustration to be considered a matte painting.

you can’t have this both ways. you cannot say that a matte painting can be non-photorealistic and then EVER criticize someone for doing something that looks illustrative.

if i were to do a fantasy castle and post it here would that be a matte painting?

but if it were to appear in a film like shrek? would simply appearing in the film and being produced by a matte painter make it a matte painting?

no.

and the reason is because it is not photorealistic.

cheers, simon w.

#19

Art of the invisible,

well said Simon

#20

I have to agree with Simon Wicker.

Mattepaints should be realsitic. May it be a scifi or an invisible matte, it still should be realistic.

On the arguement regarding Pixar and all the other Animations studio hiring Mattepainters, that is probably due to the nature of work. Most mattepainters are skiled in doing things realistically, and although stylized as it may be, the animations we love still go for a realistic feel - approach. It is then safe to say that mattepainters can deal with these productions problems easilly than any environment artist who maybe only skillfull in either 2D or 3D, whereas a matrepainter can be both these guys interchangeably and can output more work in less time with the same quality. Hence “Hiring Mattepainters”. On a side note, mattepainters have a knack at problem solving and doing “cheats” to easily achieve the requirements

On a technical note, if its not realistic enough, then its not mattepainting, its an amazing CG Background, It’s not demeaning, its just the way it is.

This arguement could go on and on, but in the end of the day, its what you do that matters, its either you love it or not.

Cheers!