Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: To Trace Or Not To Trace. Whether Tis More Practical To. . .

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    874
    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.

    The last time I kept an open mind,
    my brain fell out and the dog grabbed it.
    Now it's full of dirt, toothmarks, and dog slobber.
    No more open minds or dogs for me.www.gms9810.com/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    189
    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!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    614
    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".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,170
    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.

    William Bouguereau - Young Shepherdess

    Name:  tracing.jpg
Views: 92
Size:  72.5 KB

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    874
    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.

    The last time I kept an open mind,
    my brain fell out and the dog grabbed it.
    Now it's full of dirt, toothmarks, and dog slobber.
    No more open minds or dogs for me.www.gms9810.com/

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,170
    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.

    Name:  buck.jpg
Views: 89
Size:  25.9 KB

    I found a discussion on something similar http://forums.artrage.com/showthread...3-Smudge-overs but I'm not sure if they were putting fresh paint over the photo or doing what I described above.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    614
    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

    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.
    Last edited by hildee; 09-06-2014 at 11:48 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,170
    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.

    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.

    Name:  ex.jpg
Views: 83
Size:  24.5 KB

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    23,953
    Art is like Pornography in that both are equally hard to define. That elusive line is forever changing.
    "Not a bit is wasted and the best is yet to come. . ." -- remembered from a dream

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    23,953
    Quote Originally Posted by kenmo View Post
    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/201...reference.html

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

    http://thebakersanimationcartoons.bl...s-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.
    "Not a bit is wasted and the best is yet to come. . ." -- remembered from a dream

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •