View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kathy100 Rookie

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="unfocused (James Garcia)"] [quote]just show me a CGed picture that looks like a photograph of something real (a person or place). But it's gotta look more real than this http://www.fanart-central.net/pic-151759.html There's gotta be one out there.
[/quote]
[/quote]
If you want to see super photo-realistic CGs, there are a LOT online. (hanging out in an anime art community might be partly why you've been getting the impression CGing comes out "cartoony" perhaps? Mostly cartoon art and cartoon coloring here ^_^!) One example for realism would be to take a look at Linda Bergkvist. She digitally colors (CGs) all her art.
Her DA gallery
http://enayla.deviantart.com/gallery/
Or...one super photo realistic picture she's done.
http://www.deviantart.com/view/13879925/
My absolute favorite art from Linda would be
http://www.deviantart.com/view/2062198/
realism, yet stylised *_*.
Personally...I'm not as impressed when art looks EXACTLY like photographs. Since then...you might as well take a photo O_o. But anyways, just my personal opinion ^_^. It certainly takes a lot of skill to do photorealism~. And that Marilyn Monroe picture is beautiful. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Diathene Very bored

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="unfocused (James Garcia)"]
Yes, I have tried it, with Photoshop. Does this mean I can [i]berate[/i] all I want? I have no grudge, Physcowolf started all this, why pound on me? Wanna see the best CGist I've ever seen? http://www.organicmetal.co.uk/pages/index2.htm Here's a quick link directly to one of his picks http://www.organicmetal.co.uk/showart.php?..._12_17_18_48_07 He is one of my favorite artists, so believe me, I have no grudge, I like CG, just not my own. And as a counter to ya'lls theories of being able to CG with talent or practice, how do you explain this: I know how to draw better than someone without talent, been doing it for 17 years (don't let that fool you, I'm not an old man) but I can't learn to CG fairly. Tell me if you think I have any ounce of talent http://fanart-central.net/pic-138350.html If I do, then why can't I CG to save my life? Why?
Anyway, my whole thing is that CG is too cartoonish. I like stuff that looks real. You can all (even you, CyberkittyKG) shut me up right now, just show me a CGed picture that looks like a photograph of something real (a person or place). But it's gotta look more real than this http://www.fanart-central.net/pic-151759.html There's gotta be one out there.
And yes, Strata, it [i]is[/i] a coincidence.[/quote]
No offense, but that guy's art is a prime example of the dime-a-dozen airbrushed anime art I mentioned previously. Sure, he has some skill but there's nothing there that distinguishes his work from any other airbrushed linework. I reckon you could probably do it yourself, if you looked at the tutorials over at polykarbon.com and practised a little. I thinkyour whole misconception over the meduim is simply down to lack of experience, and therefore understanding.
CG is only cartoonish if the artist makes it that way. I think you should go look at some CG art that isn't anime, Enayla has already been posted, but take a look at Socar Miles, Kyena, Henning Ludvigsen, and of course Anry.
Anyway, here's a piece of CG work in progress that I've been colouring tonight, it's hardly up to the standards of the above, or even photorealistic but it sure as hell isn't cartoony.
[img]http://www.runecaster.net/wip/monk_wip.jpg[/img]
edited for bad links :/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kathy100 ()
[quote]Personally...I'm not as impressed when art looks EXACTLY like photographs. Since then...you might as well take a photo[/quote]
But the amount of talent it takes to do a photo-like drawing is amazing. Isn't that what all you guys keep talking about? And it's too much easier to take a photo than to actually sit down and take your time on something. Plus, your "you might as well" attitude can go either way: You might as well take a photogragh instead of CG. Or even better, you might as well pick up a paint brush and show me what you're really made of. Linda Bergkvist is an excellent artist, her pictures are beautiful. I wasn't fooled into thinking they were real photo's though.
Diathene (Naomi)
[quote]I reckon you could probably do it yourself[/quote]
See? Even [i]you[/i] agree with me about how easy CG is to learn
BTW, the picture you posted up here is nice.
All these artists, Socar Miles (creative, like Steven Gammel with a computer, lol), Kyena (nice, but I've seem better oil paintings), Henning Ludvigsen (the 'underwater' pic is so cool), Anry (not really what I had in mind, but that "Golden Sting" of his is trippy), and Linda Bergkvist (amazing, is that first one Liv Tyler?) are all so great, the latter would be my favorite by far. And thanks for showing me where the better CGing is. Though I've still seen more life-like charcol stuff. And that Marilyn pick is still better than all those others I've seen from your links.
And even with them, hand-done airbrush is the same or even better. There is this movie, it's called "Bound By Honor: Blood in, blood out", One of the lead roles is an artist. He airbrushes. This is back before internet came out, sometime in the 70's. He wins a contest with an airbrush he did that looks like a photo, and when I say that, I mean you can't tell the difference, you will never know the peice was airbrushed if noone told you it was airbrushed.
I took three years of computer animation in school. All the references we used were great. It's still a form of CG. And it's so easy to make things life-like that all you have to do is texture something with a scan of a real photo. Would that count as a point made as too how easy CG is?
I prefer a stroke of the pencil rather than a mouse. One more thing: your 'undo' button is also easier to use than my eraser! _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and HeavenlyKunoichi, those links were beautiful, the first one especially, that backgound is the closest thing I've seen to real. It's just beautiful. Didn't have time to go through the artists' entire portfolio, like I did with Linda Bergkvist, Socar Miles and those others, but I will when I come back from work. I also like your CG too, keep at it, you're so much better at it than me <_< _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kathy100 Rookie

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="unfocused (James Garcia)"][quote]But the amount of talent it takes to do a photo-like drawing is amazing.
.....
And it's too much easier to take a photo than to actually sit down and take your time on something. Plus, your "you might as well" attitude can go either way: You might as well take a photogragh instead of CG. Or even better, you might as well pick up a paint brush and show me what you're really made of. [/quote]
[/quote]
Ah, I totally agree that it takes a lot of skill to re-create a photograph~! And yeah, it's of course a whole lot easier to create a realistic photo than to create a realistic art ^_^.
The reasoning behind what I said in not being as impressed with super photo-realism, though, had more to do with my taste in art and feelings on the purpose of art than with skill level.
I personally think it's a waste of time to recreate photos exactly (other than for practice and learning, of course) in any media. If you can't tell the difference from the photo...what have you created but a xerox of the original photograph? I guess that's still art, ANYTHING can be called art if you look at it the right way. But it's not going to impress me as much. But...ummm...anyways...that's probably a hot topic and I think I'll drop it now ^^;;;.
Ugh, you'll probably take that as an attack on your art or something x_x; I'm sorry, it's just my personal opinion...you can of course draw and enjoy whatever kind of art you like~! It's all for fun anyways ^^;;
Yeah, when it comes down to it, it probably IS easier basicly to use CG than it is to use watercolors or such. The undo button is a godsend~. The layers are a whole lot faster than using masking fluid, etc. But then again, watercolors are easier to use than a stick in the mud ^_^. Is an artist who draws using sticks in mud superior to a watercolorist?
Well, I guess "superior" is all personal opinion. I don't think so...but really it depends I guess. *sigh* |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DaBear Site Helper

Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 782 Location: Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]Is an artist who draws using sticks in mud superior to a watercolorist?[/quote]
I like your last statement about superiorarty. no one type is better, its all opinion. if someone is going to "master" an art for, it will take time and alot of failures. Ive seen all to many "artists" here using MSPaint. it takes no time learn to scribble with it. try imitading india inking with it. all my comic works are inked with it, and it took time to learn how to. or should I say how NOT to use it, and the inkings are more tedious then india ink...but as you metioned the "undo" button does help. I noticed I dont use it often, but it does help.
Miki Lee half inked for a new conglomerate of all four Angels:
_________________ 'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]it's of course a whole lot easier to create a realistic photo than to create a realistic art[/quote]
Well, lets not knock photography just yet. I took Media Tech in school aswell (hey, I was young, and trying to find myself, the "real James"). It does take a good eye to get a perfect photo. Of course, it was an easy class and I passed it with flying colors, but then everyone else in the class did too. But it's not all aim and shoot. Developing film is pretty cool. And it helps to have a bunch of hot chicks in the class too. I still have a photo of mine I developed, it's really cool and has a beautiful idea behind it.
[quote]The reasoning behind what I said in not being as impressed with super photo-realism, though, had more to do with my taste in art and feelings on the purpose of art than with skill level.[/quote]
Of course. Everyone has an opinion, and this is the place to state yours.
Ours are just different opinions. Good portraits inspire the hell out of me. Good photo's inspire me too, that's why I draw mostly portraits. I covet that, take it as a gift or a curse, but it's part of myself. I was 8 years old when I first drew something. I even remember what it was I drew. I'm 24 know. That's a third of my life that I've been drawing. So please understand when I do [quote]take that as an attack on your art[/quote] But I understand that you may love CG as much as I love traditional media, so I don't take it personally because [quote]It's all for fun anyways[/quote] _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Diathene Very bored

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="unfocused (James Garcia)"]
See? Even [i]you[/i] agree with me about how easy CG is to learn
[/quote]
I'm getting a bit lost in this discussion anyway...you say it's easy, but you can't do it.
I say you can do it, it's just not easy. You have the skill, you just need learn to apply it to a new medium.
[quote]I took three years of computer animation in school. All the references we used were great. It's still a form of CG. And it's so easy to make things life-like that all you have to do is texture something with a scan of a real photo. Would that count as a point made as too how easy CG is?[/quote]
Sure, if you're willing to accept that the DaDaists proved how easy sculpture is :)
[quote]I prefer a stroke of the pencil rather than a mouse.[/quote]
Try a tablet, you might like it :)
[quote] One more thing: your 'undo' button is also easier to use than my eraser![/quote]
This is just me, but I actually rarely use the undo button, I approach a digital painting the same way I do with oils or acrylics - if it doesn't look right, paint over it until it does. And that, girls and boys, is why I suck at watercolours ;p
[quote]And that Marilyn pick is still better than all those others I've seen from your links.[/quote]
I don't think either of us can budge on this, seeing as it's a matter of opinion. Yes, the Marilyn pic has great technical merits, but I didn't mistake it for a photograph either. Nor do I think it takes as much skill to duplicate a reference image exactly, than it does to elaborate upon one, especially in a fantastical manner like Bergkvist does, for example.
So far as photorealism goes, it always has that uncanny valley feeling to me, when it's people or animals. Brrr.
Anyway, give me nice tactile brushstrokes anyday, even if they are digital
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stratadrake Elder Than Dirt

Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 13721 Location: Moo
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]It's still a form of CG. And it's so easy to make things life-like that all you have to do is texture something with a scan of a real photo. Would that count as a point made as too how easy CG is?[/quote]
Stop the car, let's not mix 2D with 3D CG art. If you're doing 3D art, sure you can just overlay photo textures on the surface and it can look cool. BUT, because it involves the whole 3rd dimension thing, somebody has to make sure that the model upon which you lay the texture on is itself structured realistically AND they have to make sure that the texture's aligned and scaled in the proper directions. Somebody has to set the material properties of that texture (specular/diffuse reflections, color, lighting). Somebody has to place the lights and the camera to get the best angle for rendering.
_________________ Strata here: [url=http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/242293]Nanowrimo[/url] - [url=www.fanart-central.net/user-Stratadrake.php]FAC[/url] - [url=http://stratadrake.deviantart.com]dA[/url] - [url=www.furaffinity.net/user/Stratadrake/]FA[/url]
[size=9]Disclaimer: Posts may contain URLs. Click [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife]at your own risk.[/url][/size] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote] let's not mix 2D with 3D CG art[/quote]
You can still texture 2D with anything you want. That's what I did when I first started using a photo editing program (which was a real cheap one). And sure, you gotta do all that other stuff when modeling 3D, there's alot you gotta do. But all that is a given. To do anything in 3D you need to set the lighting and camera other than that which is default. You don't need a realistic model, just make a sphere and call it an orange! Aligning texture isn't as necessary as you may think with an orange. The specular/diffuse reflections are all just numbers.
[quote]you say it's easy, but you can't do it[/quote]
Exactly what I mean. Talent isn't a factor in this case, it doesn't make you good with a computer program. It's practice that does. I don't sit at my computer all afternoon trying to CG something, that's why I don't do it like the pro's.
[quote]This is just me, but I actually rarely use the undo button, I approach a digital painting the same way I do with oils or acrylics - if it doesn't look right, paint over it until it does[/quote]
You're making my case for me. Try [i]drawing[/i] over a sketch to fix a mistake. Not easy at all. _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Diathene Very bored

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="unfocused (James Garcia)"] [quote] let's not mix 2D with 3D CG art[/quote]
You can still texture 2D with anything you want. That's what I did when I first started using a photo editing program (which was a real cheap one). And sure, you gotta do all that other stuff when modeling 3D, there's alot you gotta do. But all that is a given. To do anything in 3D you need to set the lighting and camera other than that which is default. You don't need a realistic model, just make a sphere and call it an orange! Aligning texture isn't as necessary as you may think with an orange. The specular/diffuse reflections are all just numbers.
[quote]you say it's easy, but you can't do it[/quote]
Exactly what I mean. Talent isn't a factor in this case, it doesn't make you good with a computer program. It's practice that does. I don't sit at my computer all afternoon trying to CG something, that's why I don't do it like the pro's.
[quote]This is just me, but I actually rarely use the undo button, I approach a digital painting the same way I do with oils or acrylics - if it doesn't look right, paint over it until it does[/quote]
You're making my case for me. Try [i]drawing[/i] over a sketch to fix a mistake. Not easy at all. [/quote]
Okay, I give up.
Digital art is easy peasy, I'm a talentless cretin, and actually it's my cat that paints all my drawings |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kathy100 Rookie

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Diathene (Naomi)"]Okay, I give up.
Digital art is easy peasy, I'm a talentless cretin, and actually it's my cat that paints all my drawings [/quote]
Hahahahaha! I know how you feel ^_^;;. It's annoying having to argue this over and over...pretty much every art forum has this "CG vs. traditional" subject come up at least once a month =_="
Ok, my final thoughts. From what I can see, everyone's confused on the "easy" verses "art skill and talent" thing.
Some mediums are more suited to some styles of art than others. It's easier to do smooth, highly realistic portraits with airbrush than with watercolor. It's easier to use pencils to produce smooth gray tonal gradients than pens. CG is flexible and easier to use to draw many, many different things.
Does this mean people who use CG are not as talented or as good at art as people who use traditional media? Of course not. Choosing the right tool for the job is half the solution to a problem. It's easier to use a hammer to pound nails than a screwdriver. Do we say people who use screwdrivers to pound nails and build a chair are more talented than people who use hammers? No, we call them stupid. Then we look at the final product to decide how skilled they are at building.
Art works the same way. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stratadrake Elder Than Dirt

Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 13721 Location: Moo
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right... well, mostly. Some media is inherently more complicated than others, it requires a little more background and training in the physicals of [i]using[/i] the medium.
Color theory, details, and shading, the things you learn from experience, can be applied more or less equally acros all media. But it's how to operate that media that can separate an "easy" medium from a "hard" one.
Pencil as a medium is as "easy" as you can get, you just scrape the stick across the paper and it leaves a mark.
Colored pencil, crayons, are a step "harder" because you have multiple colors instead of just one.
Paint is a step "harder" than colored pencil because it's a wet medium, and you have to pay more attention to which colors you pick and what not.
And CG is a bit "harder" than that because you have to learn how to operate whatever graphics program you're using, especially with the more powerful apps which have hundreds of features and capabilities.
I could list other mediums too, like how plaster/stone carving is "harder" than modelling with clay, because mistakes are harder to fix....
As media go, "easy" = simple and "hard" = complex; by which I refer merely to the size and slope of the particular medium's learning curve. _________________ Strata here: [url=http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/242293]Nanowrimo[/url] - [url=www.fanart-central.net/user-Stratadrake.php]FAC[/url] - [url=http://stratadrake.deviantart.com]dA[/url] - [url=www.furaffinity.net/user/Stratadrake/]FA[/url]
[size=9]Disclaimer: Posts may contain URLs. Click [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife]at your own risk.[/url][/size] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just when we were all about to agree to disagree, Strata up there had to bring us back to square one. So, here we go again...
I'd qoute you, but it's actually your entire last post that I'm referring to. Your right to a degree, but your wrong all around. It's the talent and skill level we're all talking about. Sure you can scrape your pencils all you want. You'll have no talent, but alteast your that much more skilled and have that much more practice. If it were all that easy, then everybody would be drawing like Jim Lee . Instead, there are many, many more sites on the interweb that feature CG art than pencil art. EVERYBODY'S doin' it these days.
Geez, this topic is more complicated than Strata's love for dragons.
But that's still a good point (gotta give Strata his props, I think he hates me and see's me as his mortal enemy, but I'm sure you all do too, but Strata more than anyone else) _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DaBear Site Helper

Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 782 Location: Jersey
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]actually it's my cat that paints all my drawings [/quote]
hmmm, if thats the case, then I need to get a more tallented feline. :huh: Ive said it before and Ill say it again, your art is superb. I guess thats why your the only cg artist Ive ever asked for an opinion on my work, when I decieded to try your type of genre...example of your help. I know I kept the teeth large. its a first attempt. tallent of your calipure takes time to achive.
_________________ 'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stratadrake Elder Than Dirt

Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 13721 Location: Moo
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]Geez, this topic is more complicated than Strata's love for dragons.[/quote]
:lol: That's priceless....
Maybe I was on a different wavelength with that last post, but yeah, some media are easier to 'learn' than others. Some are more intuitive.
When it comes to CG art, I'm more at home in MS Paint than in something the caliber of Photoshop or GIMP. Why, you ask?
I attribute it to the sheer power and complexity of those tools. Very inundating (even intimidating) to someone who's only major dabbles in CG are scanning, pixel art, and redlining.... _________________ Strata here: [url=http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/242293]Nanowrimo[/url] - [url=www.fanart-central.net/user-Stratadrake.php]FAC[/url] - [url=http://stratadrake.deviantart.com]dA[/url] - [url=www.furaffinity.net/user/Stratadrake/]FA[/url]
[size=9]Disclaimer: Posts may contain URLs. Click [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife]at your own risk.[/url][/size] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
unfocused Moderator

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 6983 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, guess what! I just won my first ebay auction! It was a proxy bid of $350 USD, and I barely won by $15! LOL. That's crazy. I had the bid put up with just hours remaining in the auction and it was at $260, it shot up $75. The first auction I've ever bidded in! (Sorry, not currently involved in any other forum thread, so I gotta post it here, not really sure where else to say this. Just too damn excited!)
Oh, and to keep things relavent, yeah, MSPaint is about as complex as I can go with computerized art. Actually, I use my photo programs to color some of my comic artwork, but nothing too fancy. Here's one CG I did a while back. It's about as good as it gets from me.
_________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
CyberkittyKG Member

Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 46
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, so many people have posted since I was here last...blech, I don't have the time to read all this, but you can bet when I do I'll jump back into the debate! Heh heh...
'Cause I'm always ready to defend one of my favorite mediums... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Raymei Oldbie

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2115 Location: California
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to favoritise hand-done stuff rather than CG works (but I'm not saying CG doesn't have its effects o.o man, some people can just WORK IT on photoshop!)
But that doesn't limit you to pencils. I personally use markers (alcoholic base, puh-lease) I try using stuff like pastels and whatnot, but I'm not as experienced with those so they tend to look like mush.
I used to color on Paintshop Pro (thought it made my pictures look more like they were from an anime) but overall I like the feel hand-drawn/colored stuff seems to hold
(which is also why I use actual screen tones rather than CGed ones) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AgentBach Newb

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree. Something about the CG art just looks lifeless. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|