PDA

View Full Version : To Trace Or Not To Trace. Whether Tis More Practical To. . .



D Akey
09-02-2014, 02:20 PM
There are those, like myself, who appreciated the art done for those trifling girly pin-ups like Elvgren and Vargas and that lot. And it's always a treat to see into the working methods of really great technicians. So here's a video somebody put together showing side by side shots of the photo reference and the final pic. You can see where they got the models as close as they could and then did some things to lift it out of the realm of the mundane and place it squarely in the realm of idealized, fanciful celebrations of female allure in all kinds of settings -- like creating the best vacation scene ever. . . They used photos, yes they did. And they projected or traced, and also improved on the photos to bring it up to their levels of artistry.

Have some fun. I sure did when I stumbled over this YouTube video. :):):):):):cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJAu_br7YM

stevemawmv
09-02-2014, 02:38 PM
Hi D Akey....These are something else....Huh! And I was silly enough to think he was just sitting in his studio alone and dreamin' up these models and scenes...
Great stuff friend....
Thanks and take care!
I came across this link a couple of days ago when searching for Loomis stuff, It's a little easier to study...
Gil Elvgren's Pinups:http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/04/gil-elvgrens-pin-up-girls-and-their.html

D Akey
09-02-2014, 03:28 PM
Hi D Akey....These are something else....Huh! And I was silly enough to think he was just sitting in his studio alone and dreamin' up these models and scenes...
Great stuff friend....
Thanks and take care!
I came across this link a couple of days ago when searching for Loomis stuff, It's a little easier to study...
Gil Elvgren's Pinups:http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/04/gil-elvgrens-pin-up-girls-and-their.html

No, I'm sure you didn't think that. But a funny remark. :p

I can't quite describe how much these finds are like little treasure hunts. I actually get giddy when I find something that was a blank spot and a question I had dangling for decades that never got answered to my satisfaction. It's a wonder and a joy to see the planning that went into these pictures since very little of this was available to see when I was practicing. Few and far between were the books on this subject when it could have done me a lot of good. Maybe there's someone else at the early stages of their artistic path who can really roll with knowing about all this fringy stuff early on in their journey.

Anyway, I can see you are really loving it because your work shows it. I'm not at all surprised that you found that particular website since it's rather up your alley. Any time you want to post these finds, please do. I for one am always interested in art related stuff.

Good one Steve!

Gms9810
09-03-2014, 04:23 AM
Giddiness is not allowed! To have the proper standing artists have to be somber and moody. It helps to cut off body parts to insure one's somberness. Talking funny and having a funky mustache will add to the grandeur. But giddy? No, can't have that. In this case though, an afternoon with those girls, a bottle of wine, and a pizza would bring on giddiness.

There is a girl that works in my doctor's office, she's also on my friend list, absolutely the prettiest girl I've ever seen. Her eyes are hypnotic, I'd really like to paint them but I' not good enough yet. We have plane to go to Bermuda together, my wife said it's ok if I can come up with the money. Between the two of us we have 8 dollars so far. I'm old enough to be her dad but it's a nice plan. Nothing improper, mind you, I'd just like to have a week to look into those eyes. I figure while we sit in the shade with drink with little umbrellas in them my wife can make sand castles.

Regarding tracing, I know it's commonly done but I just can't stop feeling like it's cheating. I used to do it every time for my first few drawings but now I try to do it as little as possible. I'll use a tracing image to put marks where eyes, ears, and important features then try not to use it again. This brings up an interesting question, for me at least. I'm curious to know where people start when drawing faces. I, for instance, start by blocking in the colors of the face then I do the eyes next. The eyes being in place and done properly give the drawing some life.

EOR (End Of Rant)

D Akey
09-03-2014, 05:09 AM
Giddiness is not allowed! To have the proper standing artists have to be somber and moody. It helps to cut off body parts to insure one's somberness. Talking funny and having a funky mustache will add to the grandeur. But giddy? No, can't have that. In this case though, an afternoon with those girls, a bottle of wine, and a pizza would bring on giddiness.

There is a girl that works in my doctor's office, she's also on my friend list, absolutely the prettiest girl I've ever seen. Her eyes are hypnotic, I'd really like to paint them but I' not good enough yet. We have plane to go to Bermuda together, my wife said it's ok if I can come up with the money. Between the two of us we have 8 dollars so far. I'm old enough to be her dad but it's a nice plan. Nothing improper, mind you, I'd just like to have a week to look into those eyes. I figure while we sit in the shade with drink with little umbrellas in them my wife can make sand castles.

Regarding tracing, I know it's commonly done but I just can't stop feeling like it's cheating. I used to do it every time for my first few drawings but now I try to do it as little as possible. I'll use a tracing image to put marks where eyes, ears, and important features then try not to use it again. This brings up an interesting question, for me at least. I'm curious to know where people start when drawing faces. I, for instance, start by blocking in the colors of the face then I do the eyes next. The eyes being in place and done properly give the drawing some life.

EOR (End Of Rant)

If your wife allows it, is tracing this young lady cheating?

There are all approaches for all manner of styles and whatever works for the artist is legitimate if it serves the purpose. I mean, if man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings -- am I right?

I'm just pointing out that those who say to never trace, not ever, not for anybody are giving people constraints with no context. There are people who are speaking as if they're strong-arming people away from a legit tool, for those who want to use it. For those who don't want to trace, that's more than cool as well. They both teach different things and have different times when it's most appropriate for the needs of the artist.

Not tracing is great. No argument from me there. But so is tracing.

As to where to begin -- lay in for structure is good. Then it's what you want to do. Eyes is a logical first step for me as well when doing a head but it's more about where the eyes are looking and how the head is angled as a result of that looking. I rarely do a straight on mug shot, though I did plenty of them when I was in school because that angle simplifies the structural deviations. (If you're doing a whole body, the head and spine is the main thing around which everything else works. And you get that right, then the rest has more of a chance to fall into place convincingly.) But when doing pictures, it's quite often a matter of movement or expressions, tilts and turns that speak.

But I think where one gets to is where the whole process is outside considerations like which feature to do first, because ideally one holds the whole image in their head and it's a matter of putting in all the bits where they belong. The eyes are a good place to begin though. What I mean by that is drawing figures and heads is formulaic at the beginning of a picture and thus one is considering larger issues like the pose in a generic way, seeing the big picture first (as you mention in your lay in step).

And that step would then move into deviations off that formula, like something about the model, or the drawing from imagination that stands apart in a big way, like a woman's hair style or if they are interacting with something like eating an ice cream cone. Then you would start breaking it down and focusing on the features -- the stuff that makes them distinct. So large to small is the most common way to approach it. But then flying fast and loose without structure or starting from a point and working out also has value in that it helps one break out of the formula and become more inventive when one is looking for a unique style. Do it differently and you have a different outcome. Aside from that, formulas are most professional for those who have to get in and out of a drawing in short order. Fine artists can do anything they want if they don't have to conform to realism.

But structure first allows for making changes and not getting too lost, and the model can hold together in a safer way.

The most important part of the drawing process for me is the lay in because that angle is going to tell me how everything else is to be placed. So if I have my lay in at a slightly different angle than the model, I always err on the side of the lay in and not try to superimpose the model's angle onto my drawing's angle. I only use the model as reference for fleshing out my drawing. But I usually try to get the model right. But when I vary it, I haven't lost my drawing. You can kind of see how the guys in these pin-up shots worked and modified the models' poses to suit. And there's one where the girl is seated with big wide open eyes, you can see how the artist stylized them, showing more lid and exaggerating the lashes and all that. That's a formula thing that he knew looked better than natural shots do. So he probably did eyes that way a lot and just applied that sensibility to that model.

The other thing in working the big picture first is so that when you do get to putting in the detail, you know how much or how little will work in context with the rest of the figure or head. Anyway, those are some thoughts.

copespeak
09-03-2014, 10:21 AM
What fun Mr Akey! And wonderful to see how they set up the original poses, and then did lift them out of realm of the mundane. Once upon a time, great classical artists ... Michelangelo and Da Vinci and the like, could afford to pay models, usually prostitutes and the like, who had to freeze into uncomfortable positions for hours.

We pay our life models $30 per hour upwards, and they can only stay in the same position for 20 - 30 minutes.

I started off drawing everything, and could easily, then for more involved stuff, I began to grid. Now that's tedious! Now, I do whatever floats my boat and achieves my end. It feels great to rough a painting in freehand, but it also feels good to have some starting points if you're are a realist. It's also easier if free-handing a landscape or still life that doesn't need a likeness.

Years ago, I remember free-handing a steam train approaching, with all the machinery details required, for a very BIG painting. So I had perspective, and another photo reference of the carriages put in behind. That painting won an award, and I still have it, and sometimes think, "How did I do all that?"

In my small world of teaching (sometimes), I often hear angst ridden people worrying about tracing or copying. Hell's bells, there's enough art of all kinds in the world for us not to get precious and purist and lecture others on how they create their pictures! Just get on and do it, and enjoy, I tell them!

Anyways ... that's my opinion.

Gms9810
09-03-2014, 12:08 PM
I've reached a medium, as little tracing as possible. As far as 'whatever works' I'm still thinking on that. Some uncool people could just import an image to a layer, then just add a few brush strokes and claim they painted it. I think anyone who does that should be stripped nekkid, coated with white gesso, forced to roll in a pile of every color paint there is, have a 5 gallon bucket of glitter poured over his or her head then dumped in some busy city park. They could technically call it art but it would be fake. I guess for the most part I see your point(s) and agree. It just seems to me that there is a lot of uncool things people can do and call it art. Although, now that I proofread this I think a nekkid multicolored person with shiny stuff all over the might indeed BE art.

MJSparks
09-03-2014, 01:13 PM
Do what feels right.

Our artistic forefathers were know to trace, and even hire other artists to do portions of the work on their masterpieces that they were no so good with.

Gms9810
09-03-2014, 02:10 PM
Hmmmmm, I'll give you 5 bucks if you finish this 4 foot by 8 foot hyper realistic painting of Elvis for me. IF, you can paint on black velvet. Yeah, I know, it's a once in a lifetime chance. Take your time thinking it over. If the velvet is a problem I can go as high as $5.50.

justjean
09-03-2014, 05:08 PM
Which ever way just have fun :D

RedSaucers
09-03-2014, 09:30 PM
An interesting and highly amusing discussion.

From my perspective coming from traditional, when first dabbling in digital art (using ArtRage) I just produced a portrait as I normally would. I tended to sketch the face in charcoal loosely, firstly a line for the eyes, to achieve the right angle, then a line for the nose, for proportion and then angle. The outline of the face would generally come next, and then the difficult bit, which I still struggle with to this day (or have to pay extra attention to) which is the positioning of the mouth!.

If the mouth is just slightly out, the jawline can look off, which sometimes can lead to redrawing the jaw, then the nose is the wrong size, then the eyes are out of proportion. It can lead to portrait madness.

My technique has changed somewhat since using ArtRage in that I now jump straight to the oil brush to colour fill the main shapes of the face and then thumbnail by zooming out to check that the proportions are correct. Then the fun can begin!. I seem to be having less issues these days of getting the proportions correct using this technique which is so important when getting a portrait to look lifelike.

I have experimented quite a bit using tracing, and for a couple of portraits have traced the block filling first part of the painting and generally this has worked pretty well and has given me a fast starting point. I find myself uncomfortable in using this as it does feel a little like cheating, but I am adding the rest of the detail myself. However the painting is just for me, it is my hobby and I find it fun to add the detail and see the painting come together.

This may however lead to another question, that of originality and style. If at the end of a portrait I get to a point where I am just noodling, I decide the picture is finished, there are always parts that I notice I could produce more accurately, but if the portrait is identifiable then I am generally happy. So my style would be the filter that my eyes and brain had applied to the painting which would include tiny imperfections, which I feel maybe lost if tracing was employed more extensively throughout the process.

Bertrude
09-03-2014, 10:15 PM
Yep, an interesting discussion and a subject of which I'm not quite sure how I feel about.

Personally, I'd class tracing as a sort of cop out and I think I'd be upset with myself if I resorted to an out and out tracing in my pictures. I can understand it from a commercial point of view. I've recently been reading 'Fantasy Art Techniques' by Boris Vallejo who quite openly admits to tracing projected images as a means to get the painting done quicker and therefore improve his income by being able to do more work. I don't suppose you can begrudge anyone for that.

After all the old Master were known to use optical tools to aid them:
David Hockney's Secret Knowledge - Part One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynrnfBnhWSo)

The thing is, he learnt how to draw before that. He already had the knowledge and skill to draw well if required. The problem I think have with tracing is that I doubt it will help a budding artist improve at core drawing skills at the same rate as slowly learning how to measure, observe and reassess your work. The result will look good more immediately but it becomes a crutch, something harder to overcome without the core skills.

Personally, I think using grids is probably a better place to start as it helps you break areas down but still gets you used to looking at angles, shapes, blocks of tone etc without having to resort to tracing.

That said, each has their own approach and one must find their own way. Who am I to judge.

When I see something like this, I can't help but feel a little uneasy though:
Corel Painter Intro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUsooIrlFE)

RedSaucers
09-04-2014, 12:00 AM
Yes, I am very uneasy about this video too.

D Akey
09-04-2014, 02:41 AM
That stuff is in the world I'm afraid and has been since they've been making plug-ins and filters and programs had layers. And when an artistic look is so easy to come by, then it comes down to 2 things -- making it interesting for ourselves and/or making the end product interesting or useful.

That video is a really strong argument for getting selective, I must admit. But it is also something of a challenge to rise above. It raises the bar for those interested in being an artist. Unless one is working for someone else, it really does have to be fun and I guess we make that part based on what interests us.

As to markets for artists, an area photographers can't touch in a competitive way is the freedom artists have at visualizing things that do not exist but they can bring it into an image for all to see. This is really useful in movie making and product design and visualization, graphic novels and all that stuff that would be otherwise cost prohibitive to set up to photograph or it couldn't possibly exist in the world. Art can create a platform for communication that is less tied to things already in existence. Because we labor over every inch of a painting and we can own the whole image, art can delve deeper inside the artist to bring a personal voice to something. And art carries traditional connotations that photography doesn't, no matter how much it's pulled into the art side of things through 'post production' effects. Let us not forget the other big dog on the block -- there's the world of 3D models that sort of bridge the two areas - but it's dependent on a whole lot of mechanical work ahead of time.

They're all tools and as such it's about the person using the tools to make it art based on their own criteria.

kenmo
09-04-2014, 03:58 AM
There are those, like myself, who appreciated the art done for those trifling girly pin-ups like Elvgren and Vargas and that lot. And it's always a treat to see into the working methods of really great technicians. So here's a video somebody put together showing side by side shots of the photo reference and the final pic. You can see where they got the models as close as they could and then did some things to lift it out of the realm of the mundane and place it squarely in the realm of idealized, fanciful celebrations of female allure in all kinds of settings -- like creating the best vacation scene ever. . . They used photos, yes they did. And they projected or traced, and also improved on the photos to bring it up to their levels of artistry.

Have some fun. I sure did when I stumbled over this YouTube video. :):):):):):cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJAu_br7YM

Great find....many thanks for sharing....

kenmo
09-04-2014, 04:19 AM
That stuff is in the world I'm afraid and has been since they've been making plug-ins and filters and programs had layers. And when an artistic look is so easy to come by, then it comes down to 2 things -- making it interesting for ourselves and/or making the end product interesting or useful.

That video is a really strong argument for getting selective, I must admit. But it is also something of a challenge to rise above. It raises the bar for those interested in being an artist. Unless one is working for someone else, it really does have to be fun and I guess we make that part based on what interests us.

As to markets for artists, an area photographers can't touch in a competitive way is the freedom artists have at visualizing things that do not exist but they can bring it into an image for all to see. This is really useful in movie making and product design and visualization, graphic novels and all that stuff that would be otherwise cost prohibitive to set up to photograph or it couldn't possibly exist in the world. Art can create a platform for communication that is less tied to things already in existence. Because we labor over every inch of a painting and we can own the whole image, art can delve deeper inside the artist to bring a personal voice to something. And art carries traditional connotations that photography doesn't, no matter how much it's pulled into the art side of things through 'post production' effects. Let us not forget the other big dog on the block -- there's the world of 3D models that sort of bridge the two areas - but it's dependent on a whole lot of mechanical work ahead of time.

They're all tools and as such it's about the person using the tools to make it art based on their own criteria.

Interesting. Matte painter Dylan Cole uses freehand drawing, photographs and 3D models to create some of his matte paintings....

For those of you not familiar with Dylan Cole.... http://www.dylancolestudio.com/

James Gurney posted about Elvgren's use of photo references on his blog...
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.ca/2012/12/elvgrens-pin-up-reference.html

This article claims Norman Rockwell and Maxfield Parrish did the same....

http://thebakersanimationcartoons.blogspot.ca/2011/04/norman-rockwell-is-cheater.html

Gms9810
09-04-2014, 03:29 PM
... Boris Vallejo who quite openly admits to tracing projected images as a means to get the painting done quicker ...

Even VerMeer used projections. To be honest, I couldn't afford a real projector so I bought an old overhead projector (this is where people shudder at the memory) for $5 and bought some transparency sheets on Ebay. I traced the outline of my dog

82800
Then I projected that onto a canvas and traced the outline. I had some guilty feelings at first then I decided that since I'm not an expert it would be ok. When I read that other real artists did it I didn't feel so villainous.

Catmandolin
09-04-2014, 04:51 PM
I had an interesting conversation with a group of artists (professional) and it was their opinion that if you could not draw, then you could not trace. The idea being that if you don't have the idea to begin with that no amount of aid is going to hide that fact.

I have, for years, seen the argument bounce back and forth over at wetcanvas and artpapa along with the old chestnut "digital is not REAL art". Well on the latter if you scan it and upload it, you have created digital art so get over that one.

Tracing is more complex---i have seen some people just brazenly copy something by tracing but for me, where's the fun it that--also, i will draw an object over and over to get it right (i have three volumes of sketchbooks that are nothing but top hats done during my infatuation with the French impressionism period)---I will trace a drawing of mine to transfer it to a canvas and if I can't get a thumb (hands truly suck for me) right, I might trace an outline to put me on the right track.

But in the end, if you trace something and don't attempt to make it your own, you might as well just head over to the church and rub a tombstone. A tracing can be the first step in a really cool journey.

hildee
09-04-2014, 08:26 PM
and then the difficult bit, which I still struggle with to this day (or have to pay extra attention to) which is the positioning of the mouth!.



True for me too. I'm doing a self-portrait (trad acrylics) - the eyes and nose are really good, but that mouth? *rolleyes* lol..

D Akey
09-05-2014, 04:04 AM
I had an interesting conversation with a group of artists (professional) and it was their opinion that if you could not draw, then you could not trace. The idea being that if you don't have the idea to begin with that no amount of aid is going to hide that fact.

I have, for years, seen the argument bounce back and forth over at wetcanvas and artpapa along with the old chestnut "digital is not REAL art". Well on the latter if you scan it and upload it, you have created digital art so get over that one.

Tracing is more complex---i have seen some people just brazenly copy something by tracing but for me, where's the fun it that--also, i will draw an object over and over to get it right (i have three volumes of sketchbooks that are nothing but top hats done during my infatuation with the French impressionism period)---I will trace a drawing of mine to transfer it to a canvas and if I can't get a thumb (hands truly suck for me) right, I might trace an outline to put me on the right track.

But in the end, if you trace something and don't attempt to make it your own, you might as well just head over to the church and rub a tombstone. A tracing can be the first step in a really cool journey.

I'm mostly referring to the point about the professional artists talking about tracing that you mentioned. This is a most interesting topic and your points are very good.

There are lots of ways to trace from exact literal to it being a starting point and far looser or distorted depending on the end the artist is after. You can pivot their joints and move things about for composition, you can composite lots of elements, you can use it as something to later work over as a starting point, or they can use tracing in the manner a photo retoucher might, where they start far later in the process over a photo and enhance or manipulate an image that's closer to a finish.

I pretty much agree that if one can't draw or doesn't know structure they can only safely be literal when tracing the drawing down, and if they're really new at art, they may not know which end of the pencil to hold, but that green state doesn't last forever.

But tracing has its place. It's only one little step in the evolution of a picture.

I've used it most of my career when realism was what the end product was. I wasn't a fine artist. While I could draw well (even taught drawing classes for a while) tracing was faster and I wasn't out to prove I could draw. I knew where I was going and just went straight there using my familiar working methods. I was selling a service giving the client what they wanted in the most efficient way I could manage. I did and do experiment from time to time, but not so much when I'm doing a job.

In my free times, all bets are off because when I'm doing something new I'm not necessarily an expert until I get mileage in that direction. And that process of doing something new reflects back on people who don't yet know how to draw doing tracing. I personally am of the opinion that people who trace a lot learn how things should look and over time acquire those skills.

I also believe that if you get a tracing that it's merely step one. And one can also be learning anatomy and how to create volume and work with color and texture through the painting stages. And there's a universe of things to learn and play with after the drawing is in place. If someone is in the painting stage over a poor tracing, they will find it out in the paint phase when the eyes are cockeyed or whatever. So there's a sort of drawing going to happen along the way even after the original tracing is no longer visible.

So hanging in there will grow skill because one's art will naturally evolve into its own form, and doing things in a non-logical way could be frustrating to the max or it could help the artist come up with a unique style. We have to assume that most (not all) people who are motivated enough to keep at doing art will also be in the world looking through the eyes of an artist (which happens far earlier than becoming expert) and will learn by observing both things around them and looking at other people's work with an eye to assimilate tricks and techniques.

So not knowing how to draw is only a temporary condition if people stick with it. So I'm thinking what the professional artists are talking about when they say you have to know how to draw to be able to trace is true if the criteria is managing a professional look right then and there. But I also suspect that they would have to agree that people grow any time they have a pencil in hand and are motivated. Taking classes and knowing the tried and true methods (learning to draw etc) does help to shorten the learning curve though.

Gms9810
09-05-2014, 05:50 AM
Well this has become rather lively. It seems that we're all of the opinion that
A - Tracing is not a cardinal sin and is ok.
B - Digital is indeed a genuine media
C - Some so called professionals are Baboons with delusions of grandeur who are in fact mentally challenged narcissistic Planarians.

I feel better now.
As far as wet on wet, if Bob Ross says it's cool then it's cool. Nuff sed.

Catmandolin
09-05-2014, 07:18 AM
I hope that baboon comment was not directed at me--LOL :-)

Wet on Wet always sounded to me me like a really sloppy kiss but the technique has been around for ages--nothing wrong with it except that I am exceptional at making an equally exceptional messes of that technique. When it comes to watercolor, I prefer drybrush--just my personal druthers.

Maxfield Parrish did his own photography--many of his women were, in fact, based on photos of himself and he did trace--sort of--using a mimeograph machine and a projector. Big Deal--I'm still and always will be a loyal fan.

Someone mentioned tracing a photo of a dog--honestly, if you are doing work for a client and its their dog, then trace away but in my experience dog owners make for lousy submitters of reference photos partly due their love of their snookums and partly due the the aerial like photos they get as a a result of standing up and shooting down. Whoever took the pic on this forum knew what they were doing--it's an excellent portrait.

But regarding using photos--a rule of thumb--once you have traced or even just hand copied from a photo--always make sure you check and correct your perspectives especially when doing buildings---you will love yourself for it even if you are not a narcissist HAHAHA!

hildee
09-05-2014, 03:37 PM
I said this in another post months ago, but I happen to be the last one who commented in that thread - no one had the temerity to take it further with me lol....and I quote myself:


Tracing in AR is a lot different from other programs. It's not cloning. It takes a lot of work but it's so satisfying. It picks up the colours but not easily. I do a rough first then go in for the details, can take hours. So to me it's not cheating because it's all in the handling of the brush as to where the colour goes/stays, the program is not doing it for me like cloning does, and that's not easy. I like a challenge and I'm glad AR has a different way of going about "tracing".

Enug
09-06-2014, 06:21 PM
Made earlier this year - I used AR tracing function - using colours from the image. Sticker Spray - 09 Oil pastel brush from the Starter Pack.

It was a fun exercise but I would never claim it as art - not my version anyway.:rolleyes:

William Bouguereau - Young Shepherdess

82843

Gms9810
09-06-2014, 07:29 PM
I couldn't claim it as mine either, which would be a temptation considering how good it is. I use colors from the images too. I've tried to use my photos as much as possible. Sometimes it's not practical if for instance I wanted to draw a tiger. My wife said no more pets, period.

Enug
09-06-2014, 09:20 PM
What are your thoughts on 'smudge' painting - pushing around the paint on a photograph with smudge brush in the case of Painter/PSP or knife in AR - to give the effect of a painting from a photograph.

My view is that it's OK if it's your own photo and that you mention how the effect was achieved when showing the 'painted' result. Once again I don't consider it art and it shouldn't be posing as original.

I did this in PSP.

82848

I found a discussion on something similar http://forums.artrage.com/showthread.php?26723-Smudge-overs but I'm not sure if they were putting fresh paint over the photo or doing what I described above.

hildee
09-07-2014, 12:40 AM
Tracing with sticker spray you can see the photo poking through. But if you trace like I have in for example AR 1.1, with the oil brush, it's very painstaking and most pieces back then took me nearly 10 hours.

eg: Rocky (http://members.artrage.com/gallery_images/16912)

IMO it's nothing like the cloning that can be done in Photoshop or PSP. My youtube vids have me working and it goes from very thick messy paint picking up colour to the final details. I call it genuine art because it's not tracing as such but picking up colours. Otherwise you'd be forever using the colour sampler. And back in AR1.1 I had a devil of a job seeing the pic underneath because you couldn't put it at full opacity. Quite a challenge.

Smudging is more photomanipulation. JMO though. I really like the style.

It's a contentious subject which I feel pretty strongly about. I still believe AR's "trace" is a misnomer because it's not a computer algorithm doing it automatically, it's trial and error, not even close to tracing. Which makes it so satisfying.

Enug
09-07-2014, 01:40 AM
Hildee, I've also done it that way but I personally don't class it as art as I've used the tracing feature on AR - just copied a photo by picking up the underlying colours.

There is nothing wrong with it as long as you make it clear that you have used a photo and traced it - not just the outline but the paint as well. I saw one you posted on YouTube of a sunset done that way which BTW was very pretty and you made it clear you had traced it. It's fun to do but it's not painting in my opinion.

However I think it's good to explore the tools AR has provided - like the glitter tool for my fantasy backgrounds and the sticker spray for the example above. That's what makes it such great software for the hobbyist.:D

Here's one I painted that way and when I posted it to a forum I explained that it was done in AR using the tracing function.

82853

D Akey
09-07-2014, 03:26 AM
Art is like Pornography in that both are equally hard to define. That elusive line is forever changing.

D Akey
09-07-2014, 06:13 AM
Interesting. Matte painter Dylan Cole uses freehand drawing, photographs and 3D models to create some of his matte paintings....

For those of you not familiar with Dylan Cole.... http://www.dylancolestudio.com/

James Gurney posted about Elvgren's use of photo references on his blog...
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.ca/2012/12/elvgrens-pin-up-reference.html

This article claims Norman Rockwell and Maxfield Parrish did the same....

http://thebakersanimationcartoons.blogspot.ca/2011/04/norman-rockwell-is-cheater.html

Great links, Kenmo!!!!

I only now just had time to check them out.

You have to admire the juevos of somebody who has their website claiming they're the greatest cartoonist of all time. Geepers! Inflation ain't just a game for economists any more, hahaha. Now I have to look for his stuff, since I haven't followed comics. I'm sure he's quite good though. This is the problem with artists who sit around "wristing out" their work. The mind is often unoccupied because it's pretty much by rote for anyone who has been doing it for a long time. When one is wrapped up in the comic book world of SUPER HEROES! the adolescent fixation on power and victory in conflict just sort of seeps into their world view, with themselves, the creator, standing all be-muscled and scarred in a loin cloth victorious with a bloody axe on the heap of carnage and skulls and shit, hahaha. Ain't it great? And they get paid for it too! That's show biz.

I love those matte paintings. And it's a prime example of using everything you have available to create something beyond any one of the elements involved. When I was rubbing elbows with matte painters after the digital world came into being, they freely composited photography with painting. Heck, that's what matte painting was always about -- sandwiching actual film footage with models and paintings, so the question about 'cheating' was relatively naive. . . you wanted it to be seamless and since photography and film were essentially the same they were easy to match. And when photography couldn't pull off the illusion, then painters did what they could. Were people to do everything by hand it would show as a fake. I've seen matte paintings that screamed of work done by the lowest bidder. And if you are a producer, or a matte artist, looking at budget and have options, you go with what works for as little money as you can manage. Photography is way cheaper and often is a better solution. It only makes sense.

The only people who scream 'FRAUD!' are the ones who are competing against those people who can deliver the goods cheaper and possibly better. Those people have been watching their piece of the pie get smaller and smaller. So they need to come up with ways to help people see why the way they do it is more 'artful', hoping that the paying customers will see the value in what they do.

And, in other ways they're right to make the distinction because there are good arguments against using all the tools as well because the tools can hide the humanity and human excellence in their category of art. Each style highlights different things. And one of the issues is that the lines get really blurred because often times the end product often looks similar.

If you look at Parrish or Rockwell, their techniques are merely vehicles for their personal vision. And that's what Artistry is about. Technique is fun and dazzling and can be appealing when combined with a vision. But good technicians may not have anything to say or show. Rockwell was truly beyond reproach. And people who criticize him for using photography have their personal axes to grind because their world is shrinking. Can't blame them. But can also disagree.

hildee
09-10-2014, 05:27 PM
Been off sick a few days but back to respond.


Hildee, I've also done it that way but I personally don't class it as art as I've used the tracing feature on AR - just copied a photo by picking up the underlying colours.

June, I like to class my work as art, the time and love that goes into it. It's not "just copying a photo" (painting without trace could be considered copying too). Whether automatic or manual colour picking, we still want those colours although the latter seems to create less guilt for some. Either way, colours don't end up in the painting precisely where they were in the original anyway. IMO, automatic colour trace (which is darn hard & I need a ref up) and manual colour picking (it might make you feel accomplished but it is also laborious) doesn't make the difference between a painting and a non-painting. Plus we need to get away from this old idea of cloning (Painter, Photoshop) and tracing (ArtRage) - two entirely different concepts.


There is nothing wrong with it as long as you make it clear that you have used a photo and traced it - not just the outline but the paint as well.
I saw one you posted on YouTube of a sunset done that way which BTW was very pretty and you made it clear you had traced it. It's fun to do but it's not painting in my opinion.

Ouch :o... I used brushes and painted. And I don't feel I have to "make it clear" how I do a painting, although I usually do. Unlike in other forums, many here don't and it's not a rule. Artists use every trick in the book to get the result they want and the result is the main thing, especially if selling. Also, the apps you can get nowadays like Perspective It, and En Plein Air with which you can take a photo out in the field to help with tones etc and paint from that - this taking the guesswork out of painting leaves a lot of these arguments being discussed dead in the water.


That's what makes it such great software for the hobbyist.

Professionals use ArtRage and include the tools mentioned. My art mags are full of pro ArtRage users that sell their art world-wide. My conclusion is we are all painters painting paintings, pros or amateurs, tracers or not.

~ Hillie.
............

Great topic D Akey. Art (here I mean painting) changes all the time. I've been wanting to buy a projector (I paint traditionally as well) but they're expensive, although the price has gone down over the years.



Well this has become rather lively. It seems that we're all of the opinion that
A - Tracing is not a cardinal sin and is ok.
B - Digital is indeed a genuine media
C - Some so called professionals are Baboons with delusions of grandeur who are in fact mentally challenged narcissistic Planarians.

I feel better now.


:D:D:D

Enug
09-10-2014, 08:48 PM
Hildee, I apologise if it seemed my post was personal - it wasn't meant to be - Sorry! Viva la Différrence). :)

hildee
09-10-2014, 10:43 PM
Thanks June. We don't see eye to eye on this one, but here's to art! :)