[eyewoo]

Sumaleth..

quote

Quote:

In a way it's disappointing that it's a trace, but it's also a relief.

Yup! That's definitely a trace... There is no such thing as "insane accuracy" painted at that pace.

Disappointing only if the artist is trying to fool you... but I doubt that to be the case. Whoever did it certainly understands form, color and shape.

[mythwarden]

edited-"blah" Early morning post that needed to be extinguished after points had been cleared. ;-)


-myth

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: mythwarden ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

You may work that way... you may get it looking good... you may even get it looking believable... even that quality 'better than real' that Frazetta and Brom can do...

but you can't get it looking exactly like a photo, not without using a photo. A photo has a special quality of consistency, yet of surprises that only make sense after you see the whole photo, it's very hard to describe but you can't start in one corner and move across finishing everything as you go, and expect the first bit to be perfectly scientifically consistent with the last bit. It's just not humanly possible, from pure imagination. I think you misunderstand my meaning of photo-real here. Brom's work is not photo-real, not in my definition anyway. (IMO it's better than photo-real, but that's not what the argument was about.)

[Lunatique]

I've only seen one dude who REALLY does paint like that animation: Morgan Weistling.

Check out his demos(http://www.morganweistling.com). Even though he paints like that, he condemns himself for doing it, for he knows it's a bad habit.

This is him commenting on that technique during a demonstration:

"Is it a good idea to work this way? Not for everyone. In fact, it is a risky way to work in many areas. For one, it could be really easy to lose sight of the whole, overall design of the picture. I see many advantages to working the "whole" painting at once so there is harmony in all areas.

This way of working is also bad for getting a nice, overall harmony of color. It's hard to paint a head with the right color when none of the other areas that will affect the head are painted.

In fact, this is a terrible way to paint.

I am now disgusted with this technique.

I don't know why I am even showing this to you. Use this as an example for what NOT to do."

It's funny how he's painting this kickass painting, and scolding himself for it at the same time.

So, take it from a dude who paints that way, kicks major ass at it, and still says it's a bad way to work.

Heh. I would LOVE to have his disgusting bad habits.

[good bye]

I have to agree with Steven. In fact, art schools discourage that sort of "draw one eye" precious sort of drawing. Mainly because it's not a very accurate way to draw lifelike images. Even the non-photo reference methods presented in the classic Dynamic Figure Drawing by Burne Hogarth don't work like that.

Why? It doesn't work for realistic, anatomically correct drawings and paintings.

[jr]

this method is difficult to handel because you're looking at the portrait in seperate parts. i find it easier to map out the picture and work on it at the same time instead of finishing one area first and then the next, it opens yourself to alot of distortions.

btw, i think alot of people on this thread should read the entire thread before replying.

[odin_n]

oh i love the animation....i was really shocked when i see this animation and it just comforts me to hear things from you guys saying its a bad habit....lol well i did try to paint like the animation, it was nice and pretty face cause you just take a stroke and move on...... i still like it due to the fact that i dun wanna admit its done without tracing or any fancy shit.....

just summarising what you guys said and what i feel...hmm.... correct me if im wrong....i love each and everyone of you people's comment..its very interesting......

to the person who did this painting

1) he really show off his skills no matter its traced or whatever.

2) he really did make the painting photo-realistic

3) he teached some things and technic on the painting like blending stuffs .etc

4} he showed something to the public that most of us would disagree [on personal opinion] to use the style

5} he made us discuss about this technic and even reconsider whether it helps or enhance our painting skills

well i think if someone can work on this basis and really feel comfortable working like this....lets just say its his own style and is pretty much nice..... to follow or not to is up to the individual

one thing about painting....the only person that inspires me currently and is working the industry and is the so called "cream of the crop" is Craig Mullins [did i spell wrong?] his a good artist that paints photo realistic works. you guys might already know or might wanna check him out

=]

[mythwarden]

Steven,

My post was written in the early morning when I had just woken up. So it was a bit more defensive then it should have been. Your comments are welcome and well warranted, my friend.

My point was that you could paint photo-realistically without reference.

I think what your getting at is that it's damn near impossible to finish one part of the picture and work your way out from there without reference.

In the case of this image, I disagree only because there isn't anything dynamic going on in it that would be difficult to pull off photo-realistically without reference. Therefore it wouldn't be hard to believe that it could be done this way. (Don’t get me wrong, it is still very good.)

In most cases I would agree with you.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. ;-)


-myth

[Steven Stahlberg]

s'cool, I'm cool, we're just having a discussion here.

I still think no one could paint Zhang Ziyi in this pose, from a written or spoken description of the pose and dress and lighting, without any references or commiting a very similar image to memory, and get it to look like a *photograph*. If anybody here would like to try painting her in the same pose but from the back, with the light coming from below, and perhaps wearing a cotton shirt instead, it might be a fun experiment. Try it without reference first, then get a girl to pose in such an image and take a photo, then do another painting, compare. You'll see what I mean.
Photo-real doesn't necessarily mean 'more beautiful' though, just more 'physically correct'. In fact reality can be downright ugly and wrong sometimes, and need some serious retouching.

[Vampritic]

Hello, i am posting here as defense for my friend Xod. I know him and his art, he did not trace that picture. Xod may have used a reference picture, but he did not trace it./ if you don't belive me then look at this http://cesspool.myip.org/oekaki/xodisgod.png that was not traced. Xod did use a reference picture though. Don't go around saying someone did something or not without asking him. Thats all I have to say about this.

[turnip]

well wrong place to critique but the hair is inconsistent with the referenced part of the oekaki.

well if he didn't trace zhang ziyi he must have some unique skill of reproducing images.

[Dr. Bang]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vampritic:
Hello, i am posting here as defense for my friend Xod. I know him and his art, he did not trace that picture. Xod may have used a reference picture, but he did not trace it./ if you don't belive me then look at this http://cesspool.myip.org/oekaki/xodisgod.png that was not traced. Xod did use a reference picture though. Don't go around saying someone did something or not without asking him. Thats all I have to say about this.

---

[jr]

the doctor does make a good point...... eh, we're not children, alot of the people here are professionals who do this stuff for a living. but i think most of us can tell if it's traced or not.

[dizzypope]

It doesn't make sense but
this is his site, so I'm told.

http://go.to/xodiak

[Pat]

Kuren, I think you missed my point.

Oekaki is a real word which has been adapted by the Japanese to cover online type "guestbook" drawings. The many java drawing applications --and there are dozens of them, including freepaint, paintbbs, paintchat, etc-- are not called oekaki. Oekaki refers to practice of drawing, posting and sharing of images online, not the program. That one of the java applications may be called "oekaki" is kind of like having a paint program titled "Paint".

It might seem like a small distinction, but it's one that irks me --because it leads to some annoying misunderstandings. Take for instance the word "manga". In Japan, the word manga literally translates to "irresponsible pictures". It is used, and refers, to comics. All comics. In American, we've co-opted the term incorrectly, so manga refers to comics of only a Japanese origin. So for an American to say "I don't like Manga," means one thing to him, and another thing entirely to a Japanese person.

The same can be said of many Japanese words relating to manga. Otaku is another such term worn with pride by American fans, which in Japan has a terribly insulting connotation. But with typical American arrogance we adopt words from other cultures without understanding fully what it is we're doing or saying. Small wonder they consider us overbearing and ignorant.

-Pat

[Dr. Bang]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dizzypope:
It doesn't make sense but
this is his site, so I'm told.

http://go.to/xodiak

---

oh lord, i hate the internet

[Lunatique]

Heh. This reminded me of this one incident when I was in high school.

I was a huge anime/manga fanatic, and was completely immersed in Japanese culture(TV, film, fashion, music, history..etc).

One day, my oldest brother was talking about cars and Japanese products, I told him that all the American pronunciations of what they THINK is Japanese is waaay off(simple words like: Honda, kamikaze, shogun, sayonara, arigato...etc). He then glared at me and said impatiently, "Who the fuck cares? You and your Jap animation shit."

I think that sums up the typical American attitude regarding foreign cultures.

[turnip]

yah oekaki is the name used more often by north american fanartists whereas japanese sites just calls them paintbbs. By any other name the code is similar and lack of better term ppl just call it oekaki board.

Dr. Bang, dats worse than ur kitty gifs x_X

hey maybe this guy can copy REALLY ...unhumanly well? lol...

Wo..WOAH..dizzydope please put a bad nudity warning beside that link if u would ever be so kind!!! I'm not really up for bad furry hentai at this hour and I think others wouldn't mind a warning


[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: turnip ]

[Strawberrysauce]

then he must have damm good eyes.

i want his eyes...

[eyewoo]

I've also made a comparison... a bit slower than Sumleth's...



There are definitely some inconsistancies, but they could definitely result from a fast rendering. I'm still 99% sure a tracing technique of some sort was used. If the actual artist came on board and said there was no tracing... then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him...

...but, even though its a good rendering, it's not really excellent... Look at the folds in the material... they are a bit klutzy... not really graceful... which also tends to make me think the actual artistic talent is not all there. I'm particularly sensitive to that issue, because it is one I struggle with constantly... trying to bring some digital grace to the digital strokes in my work...

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: eyewoo ]

[Malachi Maloney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edible snowman:
since this is apparently his site, i'm a little confused.

---

I fully agree that something's not right here. I mean, look at the illustrations on his site, they're not even close to the talent/skill level of that portrait piece.
I'm not a little confused, I'm extremely confused.

M

[gArGOyLe^]

Its kind of cool the way he blends the stuff in.

Do any of you people have recorded your work like that? I'd LOVE to see some more stuff created from scratch recorded..

[Basse_Ex]

Hi, I'm new here... sorry for meddling like this, but I just want to mention that people use photoreferrence. And people trace.

Frazetta uses\used some photoreference. Although not as much as others. But he uses it.
I'm not sure about this, but I really think that Adam Hughes traces. I've seen some pictures by him that are classic give-aways of a trace job.
In fact, in comics these days, there is really alot of tracing, by alot of artists. This is simply because the demand for "high-quality realistic art" has gotten to a point where it is as good as impossible to deliver it on time, without heavy use of tracing and photoreferrence.
Tracing of backgrounds has been a tradition in comics for many years, and although scolded upon by some, it has undeniably made it possible for some artist to focus on dynamic characters and action without having to neglect the backgrounds, as many others do.
Heck, even John Buscema traced Jack Kirbys hi-tech backgrounds because he loathed drawing straight lines(Although this was not phototracing).
Also in the field of other commercial arts, there has long been tradition of tracing and using photoreferrences, starting from the very introduction of the camera. Also here it is frowned upon by some, but it does get the job done.
Even in "high-arts" tracing and photoreferrence has been used. Although often it's use has been the point of the artwork, to some degree, like Andy Warhols prints, or even George Segals plaster-sculptures(Which are made simply by bandaging the models and filling the frame with plaster, and yet has rightfully earned Mr.Segal the status of one of the greatest sculptors of last century).

Most people here seem to want to be some kind of commercial artist, and then photographies are just a tool, and can be used in a variety of ways with great effect.
If an artist isn't skillfull enough, using photos will become a way of covering up that, something that people see through very quickly.
Tracing can very easily become life-less. Things look frozen. So it must be used with care.
Photoreferrence is basically just a subtitute for life-drawing, and can save you a lot of time traveling to the chinese wall just because a client wants a drawing of it.
Getting the best result, on time, is what counts, not how you make it(But on the other hand, if you don't know the classic procedures, you'll probably get alot of trouble very quickly).

So, what about this animation?
Well, if it's tracing, then it's certainly not as impressive.
Anyhow, it's not a good way of doing a drawing, tracing or not.

And... someone mentioned it was done in 8 hours.

8 HOURS?!?!?

If it is tracing, then the artist must have been a lame turtle on a overdose of sleeping pills...

..and if it isn't tracing(Just using a referrence) then.... well.... a little bit slow.... but still very good kitsch.

(Sorry for the very long first post).

[Steven Stahlberg]

Yes, I agree with all your points, I've been a commercial artist for a long time too and I've been referencing and tracing as much as anyone - in my commercial work. I've also recently heard a theory that many of the old masters used a method of tracing by using a primitive variation on the camera obscura. I do think that tracing is a bit of a crutch, and maybe a bit more widespread than even I thought at first...

What I don't like is this 'hidden' kind of tracing, when everybody thinks it's done freehand, and we are amazed because of it. Reference or no, the skill level required to draw something while merely looking at it, as opposed to tracing it, is completely different. So when the method is misunderstood, the skill level is also completely misunderstood. And sometimes the artist will let people think it's freehand because it suits his or her ego (understandable, we all have those, I got a huge one myself). Which to me is a kind of misrepresentation, false advertising if you will.

Take oekaki for instance - it's supposed to be freehand right? Well maybe not to you guys, but that's what I always thought, and I've been hugely impressed with a lot of the work I've seen. (Or am I just naive? Was it always understood that everybody traced?)
But consider, how easy it is to prepare a few nice clean beautiful sketches at exactly the right size to slip under the wacom cover, before you go online in an oekaki bbs. And who will ever know - unless you tell them?

By the way, about Frank, he never traced, which you can clearly see in his work. Adam I don't know, can't say, I agree some of his work has this clean realistic feel you get when a skilled person traces a photo, but then I read on his website that some of those incredible drawings were done live at conventions, using ideas that were obviously 'spur-of-the-moment' (a bit silly, a bit weird ), so how could that have been traced?

So to recap, I'm fine with photo-reference, or any kind of reference, whether you tell people about it or not -
but when it comes to an image that is 100% traced, when it's not a commercial work, but displayed to peers for comments and appreciation, I really do think you ought to tell.

[Sumaleth]

Frazetta only uses photoreference for a) when he's doing portraits, or b) when he needs to nail someone's likeness. Otherwise the images come straight out of his head (according to all his books anyway).

But to your point; yes, using photorefs, and even tracing, for commercial illustration is accepted practice because it's the end results you're after, not how you got there.

When you cross that blurry line to "fine art" or "showing off skills" then the generally accepted rules start to change a bit. In the pictures I do for fun I usually use photorefs, but I would never trace an image. But that's me.

It's usually not a good idea to trace something and then imply that you hand painted - you won't be popular as some Sijun members have come to find.

As for the small differences in this particular trace, they are easily explained by seeing how he works. He tends to lay in with large brushes - which mean you would need to offset the trace - and then refines with smaller brushes (but even the small brushes are large enough that an offset would be needed for the trace).

And remember that once a line is traced you can't actually see if it's accurate, because the result is on the screen and the photo is still under the plastic.

To me this image is way too close to be proportioned by eye, but I don't really have too much of a problem with it. He probably should have indicated the methods used when he posted it, but I guess he wanted to show off a bit and that might have lessened the effect.

Row.

[Lunatique]

Adam Hughes doesn't trace. I used to chat with him and watch him draw at conventions. He doesn't need to trace--he can draw like a friggin' demon. He is one of the masters of drawing natural looking poses, and his figure drawing is top notch. I've followed his career since Maze Agency, so that means I've watched him grow as an artist over the last 15 years or so.

[Basse_Ex]

Yes, I know Frazetta doesn't trace. But I've seen an article and interview or two where he discusses his use of referrence photos.... which is really minimal....(But he still uses them). I'm a long time Frazetta fan, and I think I've got my research down on this on.

About Adam Hughes... no doubt he is a great artist... but alot of great artists, especially in comics, do actually trace. Even though they may get the same result from drawing, they still sometimes do it to save time.
While I don't believe his main figures to be traced, I think I've noticed somethings in the backgrounds and background characters.
I for instance remember a panel from a Gen13 crossover or something he did, where he drew Jim Lee into the background, and it looked awfully lot like a photo I had seen.
This was many years ago, and I didn't bother to cross-examine the pictures, so I don't know.
He's a great artist anyhow, and if it's true what you say, Lunatique, and there's no tracing whatsoever in his work, then Kudos to Adam Hughes.

About the animation, I can't see how this is "hidden tracing". First of all, examining the animation reveals both some evidence that it ISN'T traced, like the blotting in of the head and the fact that he used 8 hours, and there's some evidence that it is traced, like the sureness of the shape of the hands and positioning of the eyes.
But I've seen people who are able to do that on real paper, so it should be possible to do it on the screen.
And, hidden tracing would mean that the artist has taken steps to cover over that it's traced, or deliberatly set out to claim it was free-hand, which I don't see that he has done. I might have missed something though.

Have I missed something?

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote:

---

About the animation, I can't see how this is "hidden tracing". First of all, examining the animation reveals both some evidence that it ISN'T traced, like the blotting in of the head and the fact that he used 8 hours, and there's some evidence that it is traced, like the sureness of the shape of the hands and positioning of the eyes.

---

First of all, I've never in my whole life seen anything so obviously traced as that animation, I said so even before somebody found that reference image he used.
(It's a well done tracing no doubt, but I think most people here on Sijun could do something similar.)
Blocking in - how is blocking in an area proof that you are not tracing? As I said before, he can still see the original on his tablet.
I don't know that it took 8 hours, it's not really important anyway, this IS 100% pure tracing, please guys let's not argue about that anymore.

quote:

---

And, hidden tracing would mean that the artist has taken steps to cover over that it's traced, or deliberatly set out to claim it was free-hand,

---

If the artist doesn't tell anyone, and everybody assumes it's freehand, because we're all basically nice guys and don't want to believe that someone would try to mislead us... then that's hiding the truth. Not full disclosure. Leaving part of the truth out.

My disclaimer is, I don't know whether this is the case in this case, this guy may have told someone it was tracing and the info got lost, if so then it's all good.

By the way I was agreeing with you about Frank, he's my life-long idol too, I went to his museum and met him, a really cool guy.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[Xod]

Hello. >:)

A friend of mine told me about this topic, hehe.

Sorry for not drawing with any sort of good technique or anything but I never had any lessons on how to draw or ever been in an art school. I am sorry that I am a bad example to young artists, I never had any intention to be any sort of example since I am not an artist myself. I apologize for dissappointing or fooling a few people. I am sorry for being a disgusting pervert and making people hating the internet because of me. (yes, rotten.com is my favorite website) I apologize for not being aware of any art ethics or deontology and therefore not knowing what I am allowed to draw, in which way I am allowed to draw it and what I should reveal about the way I draw. I am sorry that by not telling people in every detail the way in which I draw a picture I give the impression that I show off. I apologize for using a way when drawing an image that would be considered wrong or cheating by some people. I am trully sorry for all these by heart.

For those who are curious to find out how I drew the picture I will give you detailed explainations. I didn't hire a model to pose for me and draw her with paint on a canvas. I would never be able to do this. I didn't even take a picture and put it on the desk and tried to copy it. I just downloaded a jpeg image I got from the internet using the image search tool of google.com. To make things even easier for me, I tried to draw the picture at the exact same resolution and dimensions as the digital image. (that is why the drawing is so inaccurate at the edges, because I wasnt looking at the full version of it) I had both windows open on the screen at the same time at a close distance so I would figure all details easier. I really liked the way someone made an alternating animation of the picture I drew and the original photo. At some occasions I would even do this myself to make sure I didn't do any mistake or a line went the wrong way. I also made many undos while drawing but unfortunately those aren't recorded by the program. I didn't put any photo under the plastic of the graphic tablet because I have a 17 inch monitor at a 1280x960 resolution and my tablet is a small graphyre wacom and the photo would therefore have to be at the size of a postage-stamp.
I have browsed through the websites of some people who post here and I have to say that I am impressed by everyone's artwork. Of course I don't consider any critisism as offending or anything, in the contrary I love when other people tell me my mistakes or things that I have done wrong.

One more thing. If you search on the internet for a few drawing boards you will see that the drawings on even the best of them are anything but professional with only a few exceptions. As for myself, I don't even draw anywhere else than drawing boards, neither on paper nor in more sophisticated computer drawing programs. I am too lazy for that. So I find bizarre all the massive critique made on a drawing made by someone who is neither a commercial artist nor even a student of art, but only an unknown person who draws on a simple drawing board. I think it's like a professional architect watching a sand castle made by a little kid and criticizing it in public with his colleagues and saying that it's made wrong, that people will never be able to live inside it etc. I am sure that such a discussion would be interesting and cause no harm, but I am unsure any real architect would actually ever make it.

Ciao. >;)

XOD

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Xod ]

[The Magic Pen]

The end of your statement XOD hit home...you guys went to far with this ..