back to my original stance being it doesnt matter… If a drawing was done in pencil is it nessesary to say well i used a sharp pencil here and the side of the lead here…oh i used my finger here and the eraser here here and here… just figure if some one says photoshop… painter maya or what ever then thay used any possible tool available in that program… dont hold it against the artist cause he/she does not share every bit of detail as to how they acheived an effect
Reveal Technnique
Verboten
#22
Can we end this please, this is taken completely different path. bunch of overexadurated interpretations of my questiono, I dont need anyones detailed description.
thank you for your input.
The End , Fin, Zip, Zippy longstocking, would you like to suckle on my zipple? www.shhhh,.com,org
JMcWilliams
#23
You just took everything I said completely out of context and are telling me off for something I did not even say. My post was not calling anyone unskilled (actually read my post, intead of offering me your zipples 
). He is a prime example of someone clearly stating how he made the image. Which simply confirms what I was talking about. :shrug: I also never claimed that you personally said anything about Linda.
There was no attack on you or on any method or aid. As I said, it was just an opinion.
But at no point was I suggesting that those methods are evil. Using a photo and pretending you painted it would of course be the devils work. 
I apologise if I offended you however. Which was not my intent. I certainly don’t want to get into a flame over it, it’s just a forum after all :wavey: Life goes on. And I probably did hijack your well intentioned thread a little which I am sorry for.
Truce? :deal:
nebezial: yes, I agree.
system
#25
Mactador,
I think it was a good idea to start this thread and I also wish that some people would share their techniques a little more openly.
You only have to surf a bit in the gallery to convince yourself that some people use photo heavily - sometimes other members even find the photos used on the net and post them in the thread - the threadstarter just acted as if he did that all by himself … it happens - I’d say - at least once a week. It is often discovered in portrait paintings.
One thing that always - perhaps because I’m a photographer - gives the pieces away is that the poster didn’t bother to retouch unwanted elements in the background - EVEN a photographer would do that nowadays ! 20 % of a table lamp on the border … which artist would do that ?? Why not incorporate the lamp entirely or at least half of it ? The feet are cut off at the border … somebody more skillfull would at least have added some more canvas and have reinvented the missing parts of the feet !
Many more or less newbies use photos and it’s very obvious, because some parts of the image looks almost photorealistic and others are really badly painted - how come someone is so good at painting a face and all the rest just looks like crap ? James, if you surf around in the gallery a little, you must have noticed ! What bothers me the most about it is that there are always some people there to say : “incredible work - it looks so real !” Yes of course it does, because half of it is more or less the photo as it was from the beginning ! And James again, I have seen some people here - mostly newbies or people who are not that good at painting - saying that they didn’t use any photo when it was OBVIOUS that they did. You have to ask yourself sometimes : how could they get the proportions so right and then render SO badly ?
In some fields use of photo seems more accepted than in other as far as I understand : 3D textures and matte painting for example. I think that a lot of people use photo to some degree in their paintings. If a newbie or somebody with no real talent isn’t able to cover it up, more skillfull people would be able.
Unfortunately some people are very dishonest about their procedures, although I do agree with Kraal that why should an artist give all his secrets away if he doesn’t really want to ? It’s his right. Right now I’m thinking of someone who posts these days here : he always have very photorealistic faces in his images, but the rest just doesn’t follow … to me it’s obvious that his faces simply are photos with very little repainting.
Personally, I’m not at all against using photos and I do myself use overlay of textures in my images because I’m too lazy to paint it all by hand. Of course it still needs some tweaking and stuff - it would be foolish to think that you can just find a photo and cut and paste and that’s it !
Why spend a week painting some textures if you can obtain the effect you want in an hour or two ? I mean, we ARE working with digital media. I always try to see if I can’t find a quick and easy way to obtain what I want to. It’s not always possible and I have to go the hard way in some areas of my images. I am not a professional graphics artist - I have another profession and kids, so I don’t really have the time to learn everything “the hard way” - perhaps when I get retired in 15 years time 
I also like to play a lot around with different filters - mostly free ones found on the net - unfortunately I often find them more interesting than the ones I paid for … I often do this in the start to get some sort of atmosphere and then I work on from there. My first initial sketches and color blocking mostly look like something a four year old kid would be able to do :sad:
But little by little I get it in the right direction. I’m definately not at all as good at drawing as someone like James for example - perhaps I should use pencil and paper more. Sometimes I try to find a reference photo that looks somewhat like my painting and put it on a layer above my painting to check if the anatomy isn’t completely off.
Most of the filters do though disappear little by little as my image advances - they were only there to help me get it going and inspire me.
I use the “real” photographer tools a lot in my images. Selective color correction, hue and saturation, etc. All the color correction stuff. I even use dodge and burn, but sparcely. I do a lot of corrections with feathered selections - 20 - 30 even 50 or more to get an invisible border where the corrections were applied. Many people would perhaps just repaint those areas, but I think it’s so much easier just to apply a correction in PS. I don’t use layers very much by the way - I find that working directly on the canvas gives a more harmonious feel to the painting, so every time I’m quite satisfied - I flatten and save as version N° 46 …
OK, that was some of my small and humble “secrets”. I hope some other people will follow and thanks again for starting this thread Mactador:thumbsup:
JMcWilliams
#26
Hi Photographer
You are completely right of course, but those who are using dishonest tactics such as using photographs and claiming it to be painted are never going to come here and admit it. However, I looked up one image originally mentioned in the thread there is not really any doubt in my mind that it could be painted by hand.
As you say, the blatant photo-rips are usually weeded out, but I admit that some do slip through the net. I cannot be bothered trying to point them out though because it would result in a flame of one persons word against another. However these obvious photo rips have even occasionally attained front page plugging! Some elements of one were so poorly painted that the comparison to the ‘photo’ elements where obvious.
In any case, Ive just received some very bad news and dont feel like going into this further at the moment.
Good post though :D]
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.