[AliasMoze]

Lots of people ask for pics of the stages of a painting. Here's one by a guy named David McCormack. It shows the progress of a painting done in gouache.
A gouache painting is very applicable to digital painting, I think, because neither of the two are blended and rely mostly on shapes of color to build the image. I believe Spooge has said this before too.

Anyway, thought some people might enjoy this.

[url] http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/david.mccormack/gallery1.htm [/url]

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited May 08, 2000).]

[PaK-RaT]

that was cool, thx alot i found it useful

[Funfetus]

Why would you say that digital painting is not blended? I blend quite a bit in my digital painting.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[Fallen]

me too.

------------------
Transcend.

www.giveintosin.com

[AliasMoze]

Yeah, I see allot of blending and people are always talking about the smudge tool. Personally, I don't understand why someone would need the smudge tool, except on rare occasions.

I've seen plenty of photorealistic paintings done in non-blending media like watercolor or gouache. How can this be? Don't ask me, but I think it's because reality truly doesn't have allot of blending in it.

I've been doing allot of little studies lately and have been quite surprised. I've never noticed how there aren't any gradients.

Fallen, I like your drawings...allot.

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited May 09, 2000).]

[sfr]

AliasMoze, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that reality doesn't have alot of blending in it... I mean, blending is just one way of painting, but you'd be ready to rule it out completely because it's not "realistic"?

That doesn't feel quite right. After all, every image that attempts to portray reality is only an approximation; there can be no such thing as "true realism". Even photos, which many consider realistic, have their limitations: for one thing, the camera sees quite differently than the eye, and secondly the end result is always produced on little silver dots on the film, which means that there's a limit to its resolution.

In my eyes all evidence suggests that there can't be one "correct" way of achieving realistic effects, in painting or otherwise. Think of the impressionists: They abandoned the smooth and finely detailed academic painting style that had been dominant for centuries in favour of essentially blotches of pure colors. Their contemporaries thought that this would go nowhere, that impressionist paintings looked unfinished and therefore non-realistic. But in fact the impressionists were able to explore light and vision in ways their predecessors never did, and thus create images that were in a sense more "realistic" than before.

I think the same applies to all painting in a sense, whether it even aims to be realistic or not: It doesn't matter how you're doing it, only where you're trying to go. Everyone should be allowed to blend their surfaces or to paint bold color blocks or to glue pieces of porcelain together and pour acrylic paint on it, as long as you have some sense of where you're trying to be

Saffron / Sunflower

[AliasMoze]

Saffron,
How on Earth did you infer all that information from my statements? I'm not taking a position either way.

However, I don't understand why allot of digital painters have a tendency to want to blend, as they would with oil.

As for ME (notice I refer only to myself), I won't be using the smudge tool to blend anything. I'm really trying to learn to nail the right colors and values, and I don't want to develope bad habits.

[sfr]

AliasMoze, I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying - I thought you literally meant no one should blend. I surely didn't mean to offend you (I just forgot to include the "please don't kill me for saying what I think" disclaimer which is customary on this forum ), no hard feelings I hope...

Saffron / Sunflower

[AliasMoze]

Not at all, Saffron. Sorry for snapping at you. I'm just a learner, so take what I say now about painting in that context. Maybe in six months and a few hundred paintings from now...

[spooge demon]

The traditional way for people to be taught how to paint was to think in planes and shapes. Gouache is good for this. From a description of the methods employed in the atelier that instructed Sargent:

"No brushing of the edge of the hair into the face was permitted, no conventional bounding of the eyes and features with lines that might deceive the student by their expression into the belief that false structure was truthful."

The illustrators of this century loved gouache and handled it in this way. Some even liked gouache over oil for finished work.

If I can put it well, it is the 99.99 %universal tendency of a beginning painter to blend too much, because it hides lack of structural knowledge and knowledge of value on that structure. (Example, the side of the nose is here and bounds the top plane here, the cast shadow form the nose is sharper than the form shadow...) Just smudge it together in one big inoffensive mass. It is not a good way to start.

This is a very academic approach, but if you find yourself needing those skills at some point, you ignore it at your own peril.

Also I have found that blenders (my experience with blenders is mostly from airbrush artists) are fooled into think they are far more advanced than they really are because their work has a 'finish" to it. They then stop learning as quickly. It's too bad.

The worst thing an artist can do is believe they know more than they do. Pure death. I include myself in this absolutely. There was another thread about basics where i said the same thing. There is so much about my work that nauseates me, and I am glad it does. Learning is more fun than just doing.

[Fred Flick Stone]

Well said. I always emphasize to my students that you never end learning about art once you go beyond art school. You have merely graduated from grade school in the grand scheme of things. The real world is going to teach you things art school, and instructional books never taught you. Each new job tackled is like going to art school all over again. New problems to solve, new passages to take to get new results. You took the job, you have to finish the job, you have to learn what to do to get a pleasing result for the client of this job. You are learning. Your technique is only the half of it. To think otherwise is foolish. I have seen many arrogant artists fall from their pedastal they built for themselves because they thought they were the shit, and could not successfully finish the job, for lack of certain knowledge, which leads to lack of confidence, and failure. Sounds so jedi, but it is true.
Where did you Spooge Demon, get your notes on sargent, and his school of thinking? This is stuff I have not come across before, and I search like a mad demon for anything on him, Anders Zorn, and Juoaquim Sorrolla(sp.) When did you school in art? You have a great deal of information not really taught in the art schools these days. This might be putting an age to you, something you may not want to reveal, but I am very interested? Thanks for your time...

[AliasMoze]

Spooge/Fred,
I agree with what you're saying about blending. I acknowledge that there is a use somewhere for this technique; I am just trying to avoid it, in favor of learning how to paint structure. The learning method I'm most familiar with is the one Spooge describes where you think in terms of shapes and planes.

Spooge wrote: "The worst thing an artist can do is believe they know more than they do." I couldn't agree more. The hardest thing about learning to paint realistically [for me] is forgetting all the wrong things I know or think I know. I've dabbled with coloring, like anyone who's drawn for a long time, and now I'm paying the penalty.

The Sargent notes Spooge has on his site are awesome. It's like getting tips from god (hearing from Sargent). Man, that guy would be intimidating.

[Muzman]

Mixing isn't restricted to the smudge tool in PS. The painbrush and the airbrush are very powerful tools for adjusting tone and value (or whatever it's called). Put them on low opacity and go nuts. I use it a lot, mainly because my first choices are usually the wrong ones for what i want.
The point about gauche not mixing, I thought anyway, was that it forces you to get the colours and shapes right early. It's lack of "on the canvas" flexibility is good practice.
That's the point people are making isn't it?
just checking

[Fred Flick Stone]

Actually, their is more flexibility in gouache than any other medium besides oil. Non digital based that is. The beauty of Gouache is that it can be reworked, ten years after the original was painted. I love gouache as it retains a certain vibrancy right out of the tube, acrylics have to be built up in a series of layers to get the same vibrancy.
But, yes, gouache is extremely demanding, and it forces you to learn how to mix your palette to get the right color, or close to it the first time. I posted a gouache peice on Lotors rant page Basics still rule. It was part of my mileage in getting better. Just for fun, not for any other reason. Took about three hours. I posted the image online much larger than I thought it would post. My bad. But, I start with all planes, then go in and blend down certain planes with a number two water color brush with its bristles fanned. This doesn't disrupt the entire surface. It's like using the smudge tool in photoshop. The beauty of the edges in gouache over oils is that they are crisp and instant, you really have to work hard to maintain good edges in oils, and again, in acrylics, it is this tedious build up process that ends up losing all the spontineity that an image should have to be appealling. blah blah blah...

[Funfetus]

Blending is fine when it's done right. Not blending is fine when it's done right.

What I find strange, though, is that AliasMoze stated that "digital art isn't blended". Not "digital art shouldn't be blended" or "I don't like it when digital art is blended", but simply that it is NOT BLENDED. That's like saying "Ice cream is not eaten with hot fudge". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[Mozeman]

I think Aliasmoze meant that GOOD digital painting is not blended for the most part.

Since it seems to be a rule of thumb with few (but some) exceptions, I guess it could be stated as true, at least from what I've seen.



------------------
Mozeman
************************
[email protected]
************************

[This message has been edited by Mozeman (edited May 09, 2000).]

[AliasMoze]

Yeah, I'm talking in general terms. In the Sargent notes on Spooge's site, JSS talks about why smudging things around is slothful (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)

I've heard this many times, but it's nice to have it said by a great master like Sargent. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. But if we limit statements to only universal truths, then we can't say anything at all.

So, please don't take what I say about painting to heart (as if); I'm still a learner and will probably be for life.

[Funfetus]

What about the masters like Rembrandt, or DaVinci? They blended an awful lot. Like Craig said, beginners often blend their colors to cover up their lack of understanding of form, but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it when done by someone who knows what they're doing.

It's been a while since I read the Sargent article, but as I recall, Sargent didn't say that about blending in general -- he said it about a particularly sloppy method of blending. I COULD be wrong about this. But looking through my collection of Sargent pics, it looks like he's got quite a bit of nice blends in his paintings. That, or TINY TINY brushtrokes, but I doubt it.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

----------------

P.S. Can you tell I'm not going to let this go? :P



[This message has been edited by Funfetus (edited May 10, 2000).]

[AliasMoze]

Funfetus, I'm going to have to end this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

What I say about digital painting is a repeat of what several masters have told me. Disregard it if you want. When it comes to drawing, I've heard many people claim that life drawing is unimportant, though ANY master will say it is vital. Oh well.

I see blending as a non-basic. It isn't important. It's like learning a sport. You don't go around slam dunking in practice; you first get a mastery of the basics. That's why basketball coaches frown on hot-dogging and make these pros (the best players on Earth) work on fundamentals.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen many master digital painters. Mullens is the closest thing. I look around, I see allot of smudging. As I go along, my feeling is "why polish a turd?" If I don't paint my edge correctly, all the blending on Earth won't fix it; it'll, at best, cover it up.

Anyway, I don't think either of us can argue this as if WE'RE masters, so...

[Funfetus]

Well, this topic isn't locked yet, soooooooo....

I agree completely that life-drawing is essential. I've said that quite a few times on this board. I believe strongly in learning the fundamentals, no matter what medium you're working in. Of course, I also agree that if the underlying drawing and value structure isn't correct, blending isn't going to help.

To be honest, I don't blend my stuff much lately. I'm going for a looser, more textured look now. But isn't it really just a stylistic decision anyway?

Oh yeah, one more thing. Photoshop's smudge tool is NASTY. I'm a fan of Painter's "Sable Chisel Tip Water" and "Just Add Water" brushes.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com




[This message has been edited by Funfetus (edited May 10, 2000).]

[AliasMoze]

Funfetus,
I don't have a website. The only stuff on here you can see is under "sketches." Like the title says, these are sketches. I'm doing a ton of them. They aren't fabulous, but take 'em for what it's worth.

I also posted part of a background a while back I was working on, but it really sucks.

I'm working on an animated series that you'll be able to see in about two weeks or so. I'm doing background paintings. Since that's almost all I paint, I tend to paint more Disney-esque things. I'm think about creating a site showing my training, for myself and friends. I've come a long way just in the last few weeks. I'm basically just unsatisfied with being able to turn out a good image. I need to buckle down and do it right. The hardest thing for me is breaking bad habits.

Anyway, I'll post sketches as I go along and presentable stuff as I do it.

[Muzman]

not do drag this out unnecessarily but...

quote:

---

Anyway, I don't think either of us can argue this as if WE'RE masters, so...

---

Nothing personal, but that bugs me a touch. The point is about effect, not what's right or wrong. Isn't it?
I've marveled at Mullins plenty (someone who, I'm sure, would never refer to himself as a master). I will listen to him because I want to do what he does.
but I've seen some folk who couldn't draw a curve or know what end it the right one on a pencil come up with marvellous, totally out of left field creations from nothing. Where the ingenuity of it smacks a person about their "overly concerned with formalism and technique" head.
I wanna know how they did that too; the why and the how of it.
I'm not doubting what's necessary to become a post impressionist photo realist, not at all. But there's a lot more in the world as well; some of it is helped by the traditions, some of it not so much.
The point is there's no need for a heirarchy. There are many ways to a successfully realised vision.

[Nex]

Just a small note about nature:

Nature has a lot of blendings ..due to the nature of light (particle diffusion).

But I agree that blending is a tool that should be learned last, not first when learning to draw.

[AliasMoze]

Muzman,
What I meant by that quote is that it's ridiculous for me or him to argue so much about blending.

Quote:
"I've seen some folk who couldn't draw a curve or know what end it the right one on a pencil come up with marvellous, totally out of left field creations from nothing."

If this is what you aspire to, then fine. But, if you want to get good, the only way is to learn to draw well and paint correctly.

I'll draw an anology to drawing. There is one primary way to get become good at drawing: drawing from life. People argue up and down that life drawing is not important, that the same effect can be gotten from magazines, etc. This is all crap. If you want to be in the pro leagues, drawing from life is absolutely neccessary.

Likewise, painting form has nothing to do with blending and smudging. And it is often about "right or wrong." It's a nice idea that all art is good, all movies have something good, blah, blah. But there is a difference between good and bad art, and any serious artist should try to distinguish between all the grades of them. You can have all the good ideas in the world, but if you can't execute them, then what's the point?

Sure, a person who can't draw may occasionally turn out a painting that looks halfway decent. Who care? What I'm talking about is practicality. To be consistent, you have to master the fundamentals, and blending is not one of them ,which brings me back full circle to my main point.

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited May 10, 2000).]

[Mozeman]

Edited. Sorry.

[This message has been edited by Mozeman (edited May 10, 2000).]

[Mozeman]

I disagree. If you're inferring that art is art and all opinions are created equal, that's a topic for another forum. Yes, you can create art in a variety of ways. That's fine art.

But we're not talking about fine art. We're talking about the use of painting and drawing for practical purposes. In that sense, style is irrelevant and fundamental skills take priority.

When I was at Disney, the skills of the artist were measured entirely by fundamentals, because an animator had to have absolute flexibility in style and form and complete control of the line. Hell, even the BG painters were damn good figure drawers. The painters know that a painting of a crappy drawing is still going to be crappy. Like Aliasmoze said, why polish a turd?

We also learned that when someone better than us gave us pointers, we didn't argue with it. More often than not, we argue because we are deluding ourselves into thinking that we can learn "our way" and get just as good as the masters. We knew better. Every great animator got good by learning a certain way.

In my terms, it would be like arguing that drawing from photographs is just as good as drawing from life. I'm not saying that you should never do it, just that you shouldn't do it as a RULE. You're not going to learn anything that way, and you'd have to already be fairly proficient at drawing to get anything useful out of it. And some might come in and say, "that's a ridiculous rule; I do it all the time." And you look at their work and it's mediocre. Their refusal to learn properly is quite evident.

I think the same could be said about the techniques discussed here.

But that's just my humble opining.

[This message has been edited by Mozeman (edited May 10, 2000).]

[nori]

I've been reading about how some of you strugle to unlearn the wrong things you've learned in painting. I very new to painting and I don't even know the basics. Does anyone know a book or URL on the basics that wont teach me bad habbits?

[AliasMoze]

Thanks, Fred. Welma!

[A.Buttle]

So, does someone want to tell me where Spooge's site is? I would prefer an e-mail if you could...

------------------
And remember, gravity is not your friend!

Joe Dillingham
[email protected]

[AliasMoze]

http://www.goodbrush.com