[c]

after checking out this thread:
http://www.sijun.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=004890

and remembering his old tutorial w/ sylvia saint, it didn't take much to put two and two together and realize that it was traced.
http://canime.ciab.cc/temp/wuttababe.jpg shows the photograph vs painting. (i desaturated the painting to help the comparison)

the only differences lies in the hair and the collar bone. collar bone is probably different because he had to redo the hair and therefore the area around the collar obone.

but what i'm wondering is, what should i feel about it? is it perfectly legitimate art as well? should i not feel a little bit peeved? am i overeacting?

[jcFIG]

I know this artist through forums but I never thought about saying anything. I guess I'm baffled that someone would go to all that trouble of directly copying a photo by painting over it in photoshop with layers and then calling it his own work. If the purpose was of it was for an exercise and used to learn then I understand but otherwise it's pretty sad. To each his own I suppose.

[worthless_meat_sack]

It is TOTALLY legitimate. Tracing does not change the value, to me, anyways.

It is what it is. A master who traces creates a masterwork, if that is the goal. Many artists and illustrators have done this. Their work generally does not attempt to duplicate the effect of a photo, as an experienced artist can do so much more.

The simple fact of tracing does not in itself alter whether or not the work is well done.

Look at the posters done for Star Wars, the re-releases and the phantom whatever. They are drawings with a little airbrush and prismacolor. They are traces with a lucigraph. Are they nice? Yesss, they are really nice. If I were to give the same photo to a hack, would it compare? Not in the least.

The artists who have used mechanical aids in drawing go back to the Renaissance, where a mechanical contrivance set the whole thing into motion in the first place. Sargent, Mucha, Leyendecker, Rockwell, all used them. Some of the real SupEr DrawErs.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

There is a reason why drawing, esp. life drawing, is at the base of so many seemingly unrelated disciplines. When you draw, you have to think, you have to perceive and internalize and put out again what you have decided. You are digesting reality. This process, done over and over hopefully for thousands of hours, develops a sensitivity that is hard to describe. It goes beyond just a �personal style,� more like you become a good designer, one who imposes their own kind of order. Sculpting from life does the same thing. You are internalizing the structure of nature.

This is why life drawing is in the foundation of most art related fields. It is not because moldy old men like those ancient oil paintings of fat women. And don�t think that life drawing has to be just of naked people. Clothed is fine, and draw everything else as well.

Why are photos not as good? You end up just copying shapes, and that is not a good way to start. If you have a lot of experience in life drawing, you can work successfully from photos. Like one bowlful of ice cream will not give you a heart attack, but enough of it really will. Photos are great tools, as long as they are not abused. The abuse of photographs is PAINFULLY obvious. Is it really even needed to point it out?

But I have seen too many illustrators get sucked into the lucigraph, never to return. I had a teacher at AC that said in his long experience, he saw the ability to draw was directly related to alumni�s income and general success as an illustrator/artist. I am afraid computers are accelerating the process of drawing becoming lost.

Usually what happens is the student draws a lot from life (cause they have a gun to their head) in school, and then time pressures begin, and the luci is a fast way out. Then the skills start to go a little bit, and the luci becomes more and more of a crutch. It spirals from there.

Another way to look at it. Look at a Rockwell head. If it came later in his life, it was probably traced. It took decades for him to reach that level of refinement. It takes a few weeks of practice to duplicate a photo so that few could tell the difference. Both pieces are traced. It is what I said before- tracing does not affect whether of not something is good or not. It is far beyond that.

Um, and if you say you liked the traced photo more than the Rockwell head, what I just wrote does not apply to you.

[StrangeFate]

There's sadly to much of that kind of work around the net but usually you can smell it miles away against the wind.

It's sure a great thing for practice but it would be better and less confusing of course if people post the photo source too or simply say that it's a rip off from a photography. Otherwise it seems like they're trying to BS the others and puts the efforts of any honest painters in a bad light.
That pin-up thread is a great example of that.

It's a shame that they get away with that stuff HERE.

I wonder anyways what happened to this forum, i used to have a relatively higher member# and now it's hard to spot anyone under 1k and it's slowly turning into just another average art forum.


The mods should clean up this place again or i'll start plastering a huge 'BINDER' stamp on all those threads.


**edit: now wait a sec you worthless_meat_sack. We've had that before, people tracing drawings from comics and posting them here. They were stomped into the ground for that and tracing a photo is the same mess.
Like said, great practice, but if you're going to post something like that make it clear what it is, or it looks like you're trying to get away with it as ligitime painting.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: StrangeFate ]

[Socar MYLES]

Hm. Well, most people would be very surprised to find out just how many of the 'greats' use tracing in some or all of their work. Where's the art in that? Well, as in all artistic endeavours, it's not the process that's going to make it appealing, but the product. We all know what a bad Poser model looks like, or a bad trace: obvious and cheesy. But there is some stunning, brilliant 3D art out there, so well-rendered that you can't even tell what program it was done in. And there's some very nicely traced work out there, too--work which doesn't even remotely resemble the photograph it was born from, but does use it as a foundation for building form, colour, et cetera.

Tracing a photograph precisely, so that it looks identical to the original, seems little more than a mechanical exercise to me. I did it myself when I was first learning to use oil paints, with the aid of an overhead projector aiming a photo onto my canvas. I never displayed any of those attempts as art--more because I'm a dreadful photographer, though, than because I traced them. Personally, I find interesting composition the most important element of an image, even more than correct anatomy or lighting. I'm even guilty of drawing things in impossible positions from time to time, just to fit into the perfect design I had planned. So I can't say I find most amateur phototraces interesting, since they are based on boring photographs, with static composition, banal lighting, et cetera. But if someone goes out there with a camera, takes rolls of film, and comes up with that perfect reference photo, and then proceeds to trace it, I'm not going to knock it, either.

I haven't used any direct tracing in my own practice since the first year of art school, when every student had to do it, but I do use one cheap and dirty little trick from time to time. Because of my usual subject matter, people like to commission me to paint their pets. Just plain old vanilla portraits of Fido or Rover against a burnt umber background. You know the type. Well, if Fido or Rover has complicated markings, I always stick a sheet of tracing paper over at least two of the reference photos, and mark in the boundaries of those markings, then put a letter in to indicate what colour goes where. Then I hang those up on the sides of my monitor or beside my canvas when I draw the actual pose, so that I can get the black patch exactly as far from the tip of the nose as it should be, et cetera, without getting confused by looking at the actual colours on the photograph.

The bad thing about copying from photos--wait a sec, didn't that worthless meat sack already point this out? Rats. Yeah. Photos 'flatten out' light and form, so if you copy from a photo directly all the time, your pictures will usually look flat too.

Well, anyway. What I'm really trying to say with all these words is that there are good reasons for tracing, and bad reasons. A 'bad' reason would be someone who's just trying to skip the steps between picking up a pen and learning what to do with it. A 'good' reason--well, every artist has to work out for himself what he's going to do and how he's going to achieve it. If tracing, photomanip, or any of the more 'frowned upon' practices fit in there, then he's got to also figure out how he's going to make that legitimate--how he's going to make it his own.

[rdgraffix]

Tracing can be fine as part of a personal technique. As an artist, you should never limit yourself to what others tell you you should or shouldn't do - within ethical reason. It is up to you to decide what is important for you. Are you happy to use various crutches like tracing photography, 3D models, etc in order to improve the final quality of your work and decrease the time it would take, or do you feel it is important to make a stand as a purist and create your work 100% from scratch, or even find it works better for you that way? Each to their own.

My main issue comes with not only copyright, but moral issues of ownership. If you directly trace anothers photograph in your media of choice then what you are creating is craft, not art, and is not fully your own. Even worse, if you trace the work of another artist and claim it as your own then you are blatantly ripping off the work of another, which is completely unacceptable.

Then there is the case of when the photography itself is a part of the artistic process. A while ago, to fill in some spare time, I created a series of portraits by setting up and taking photos, and directly working from them to produce stylised B&W illustrations.

Now, I don't see the tracing of the photography as lessening by any means, but rather an avenue by which I could take the existing photography to another level. Sure it doesn't display skill in proportion and construction, but no artwork should be asked to cover all areas. It also shows no grasp of 3D computer software or colour balance for instance, but the lack of these disciplines doesn't lessen the work - it is merely one of the qualities of the style and technique used.

So, in my eyes, it depends on the situation. Tracing can be a valuable technique to add to your toolkit of possibilities but, like any other tool, it can be abused.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: rdgraffix ]

[Malachi Maloney]

I'm the artist who painted the piece in question. I can tell you that piece is not traced and if you can't belive that fine. I know what I'm capable of and I know I paint my own paintings by hand. Get over and stop being so jealous of my work, it's really getting old. How many people are going to accuse me of this before it stops? Not only that but I use my own models now. So what can you say about that? I create my art from the ground up, I have no need to trace a thing. You might, but I don't.
So good bye.
Have a nice day.....whatever.......Just leave me and my work alone.

MDM

[EDIT: Oh, and go look at my spider piece in the monsters thread in the Finished works section. Try and tell me that's a trace. Fig~ Damn, I would have never thought you'd say some ish like that about me. That's sad and so are you.]

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Malachi Maloney ]

[Malachi Maloney]

Here's a copy of an e-mail message that I just sent to the poster of this thread. I'm hoping he'll understand and I'm hoping the rest of you will too.

"Recently you accused me of tracing my paintings. Please take a closer look around my galleries, I'm sure you'll change your mind. I have over 18 years of painting experience under my belt and while I'm far from the best painter alive........I don't need a crutch like tracing to help me with my art work. You know, every time you see a photo-realistic piece it doesn't mean someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I work very hard to make my paintings look as real as I can. That's why they look the way they do. You see it's a mix of things for me...On the one hand I'm flattered that it looks so real that you'd accuse me of tracing. But, on the other hand I'm very offended because I work so hard on my paintings and now people like you are trying to take my well deserved credit away from me. That painting you accused me of tracing took me over 50 hours to paint. Do you think it would take 50 hours to trace a photo? I think not. Please take another look and try not to be so biased.
Take it easy,
Malachi"

MDM

[c]

some great insight offered here. spooge i read your post like three times and i still have trouble understanding what you were trying to say .

i think i agree with most of what has been said though. when time is short and deadlines are looming i guess it can be a handy tool. but i think when you trace out of convenience, the actual piece of artwork may still be alright, but your level of 'involvement' with your art is diminished. and isn't that what we all want to avoid? detachment from our work?


"Get over and stop being so jealous of my work, it's really getting old."

cybertoker, er, malachi, i'm sorry but there's no way in heck i will believe you painted that freehand. and it's not because i'm 'jealous' or whatever, i just don't believe you. all the proof is in the photo and your trace. pop that shit in photoshop and play with the transparency. you dont have to align anything because everything aligns up automatically! same aspect ratio and everything. the only differences lie in the hair, and the misplaced collar bone. oh and maybe the left part of the top eyelid. that's funny, you can match every bump and curve of the edge of her bra, but you can't place the collarbone correctly? gee... maybe you should have allocated a bit more time from your 50 hours to re-check the photo and the collarbone placement after ya changed the hair.

"Not only that but I use my own models now. So what can you say about that?"

if your going to work from life, more power to ya, i look forward to it. if you are going to photograph them and trace them again (this time without googles image search to thwart your plans) then well, oh well.

"I have no need to trace a thing. You might, but I don't."

right...

"You know, every time you see a photo-realistic piece it doesn't mean someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes"

what makes you think it's photorealistic? the oversaturated colors? the flat and lifeless presentation?

"Just leave me and my work alone."

i will, i won't pursue this again.

i dont know what you're trying to pull here but it's not cool, you don't need to do it. its not fair to the others on this forum vying for attention and input, but more importantly, its not fair to yourself and your own path in art.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: c ]

[Socar MYLES]

I don't want to step into a hornet's nest, but I do have an opinion on this "Is it traced" argument...which seems to happen again and again.

I have never seen Mr. Maloney work, so I can neither vouch for him nor discredit him. However, I'm willing to take what he says at face value, for one simple reason--if he IS tracing and lying about it, the only person he's cheating is himself. Every piece of praise will be hollow, and every criticism will mean nothing, because it won't help him improve. And if he is just copying...well. Not to be cruel or harsh, but from an artist-involvement/originality standpoint, I don't really see any difference between a more or less exact copy and a trace. It accomplishes the same purpose--reproduces an existing image pretty much detail for detail. Nonetheless, if his work IS just a copy, and he takes pride in his skill, he'd probably be quite annoyed by a suggestion to the contrary. What I'm really trying to say here is...why go there? If Mr. Maloney's work is boring, it's just as boring however it was achieved. If it's cool, brilliant, and excellent, same deal.

Arguing over it isn't going to change a thing--it's just going to make the whole atmosphere here more toxic.

I don't want to play devil's advocate. I just happen to know what it's like having your own personal hate club, just hating on you 24-7, and it's not fun.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Socar MYLES ]

[Blitz]

You know...
Iv never seen anyone in this forum actualy painting their pic. Except for my friends I know in real life when we sit in our class and paint.

So I just dont jump to conclusions and acuse people.
If its their way...its their way. I dont go around JUDGING.

Just post and crit the work you like on here. If you have a problem with somones work. Just leave it be. Its their thing..their painting...and we wernt there to TRULY see if they did it or not.

I wont take anything away from anyone unless im 100% positive and I was there with them and saw it.

Untill then Ill stay polite and keep any harsh Flaming oppinions to myself.
Lord knows this forum has seen to much of that kind of stuff.

Keep it real.
Blitz

[Poprocksz]

I agree with ya Blitz but some people are pretty blatent about it.

I've seen alot of it around lately on other forums as well.

[Malachi Maloney]

I'll let ya'll in on a little secret. You want to know how I get the features so exact c? It's all mathematics....I measure the distances between all the key features (I.E. Between the eyes, nose to mouth, ear to ear and so on.) Then I set up a sort of connect the dots on my sketch and go from there. Honestly I don't trace a thing. My tutorial's legit.

You said your piece, I said mine...Enough said.

MDM

[Socar MYLES]

Works for me.

It's a bit sad, I think, that anyone should really need to bother justifying themselves, though.

[jcFIG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachi Maloney:
...Fig~ Damn, I would have never thought you'd say some ish like that about me. That's sad and so are you.]

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Malachi Maloney ]

---

Look Toker, chill out. I never pointed finger at you saying you suck or anything of that sort. I'm sorry I said what I said and it was wrong of me to do so. Anyways I apologize. I guess I was dissappointed because that photo you worked from isn't your own. I think though now that you shoot all your own pictures your work is more valid because you are doing the photography and setting up the shot and it does take artistic talent to do that. I personally think your line drawings from your own imagination are way better by leaps and bounds. I will post one so people see what I'm talking about. Anyways I'm sorry and I really apologize man. I messed up.
Later.
One of Malachi Maloney's drawings

[MythandLore]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socar MYLES:
Works for me.

It's a bit sad, I think, that anyone should really need to bother justifying themselves, though.

---

Sad because he had to justify himself in the first palace?
Or sad becuase he did justify himself?
I can see why he tried to justify himself, he clearly felt attacked.
I don't see any problem with him defending himself after being hurt by remarks in a post about his work.

BTW this is a neat board.

[Socar MYLES]

No. Not sad that he DID justify himself. Sad that people have nothing better to do with their time than wonder who's tracing, who's copying, and who's the real deal. The only time I could see this sort of thing even remotely being an issue would be if two people were applying for a job, and one was 'cheating' in some way in order to gain the edge--real foul play, in other words.

Sad, as I said...that anyone should HAVE to justify themselves.

[Malachi Maloney]

That means a lot to me Fig. Thank you.

MDM

[MythandLore]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socar MYLES:
No. Not sad that he DID justify himself. Sad that people have nothing better to do with their time than wonder who's tracing, who's copying, and who's the real deal. The only time I could see this sort of thing even remotely being an issue would be if two people were applying for a job, and one was 'cheating' in some way in order to gain the edge--real foul play, in other words.

Sad, as I said...that anyone should HAVE to justify themselves.

---

Yeah that is sad, it's better to spend your time on something construtive then destructive, when people do stuff like that it really can hurt other peoples feelings, that's never a good thing.
And really unless you are watching a person do something, it's very hard to be 100% right about how somebody else does their art.

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: MythandLore ]

[chip_artz]

"yeah"
-chip

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: chip_artz ]

[StrangeFate]

'what pisses me off is when the "so-called artist" tries to pass it off as freehand when it's clear to see it is not.'

I think that was the point of the thread, if you say 'hey, i traced this and that for this image' noone would start a thread like this.
Don't think noone has really a problem with tracing 'otherwise'.

There's a huge difference between using a photo of a model as body and/or lighting reference and making a warhammer marine out of it usually with some modified arm positions to hold some gadget or whatever it takes, and tracing a photo and making a 1:1 image of it.
Whoever does that is fooling himself.

Personally, i'd be pretty annoyed if i couldn't paint what i want as i want and was bound to the creativeness of photos, and then mostly from someone else's photos. Or if i even couldn't totally change the lighting or modify the position to add additional gadgets in a similar quality.
That would be to limiting for me.

Well, everyone his own yes. If it feels creative for tracers and rocks their boat, fine, i prefer to use a color Xerox machine for 1:1 copies.

This forum has really seen better days and by the replies here i guess most of the old school artist are gone, pffh.

[Jezebel]

Just restating the obvious...

You know...
Iv never seen anyone in this forum actualy painting their pic. Except for my friends I know in real life when we sit in our class and paint.
So I just dont jump to conclusions and acuse people.
If its their way...its their way. I dont go around JUDGING.

Just post and crit the work you like on here. If you have a problem with somones work. Just leave it be. Its their thing..their painting...and we wernt there to TRULY see if they did it or not.

I wont take anything away from anyone unless im 100% positive and I was there with them and saw it.

Untill then Ill stay polite and keep any harsh Flaming oppinions to myself.
Lord knows this forum has seen to much of that kind of stuff.

Keep it real.
Blitz

[StrangeFate]

Just pointing out the obvious...

'Iv never seen anyone in this forum actualy painting their pic'

Then you haven't been here earlier, as the forum wasn't filled with photomanics.
this used to be a good place, bah.

[Jezebel]

No matter what date you registered to this community, it doesn't mean you've stood over everyone's shoulder and witnessed them paint every image.

Personally I think the polite thing to do is to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you don't like it, don't reply. I mean honestly you guys... what difference does it make? Do you REALLY care? If anything you just keep drawing more attention to the threads you don't like.

And totally aside from Cyber (cause I don't want him to think I'm accusing as well *smile*)... So what if somebody traces? It's really not much of anyone's business but their own. Sure they are "cheating themselves" and all that baloney.. but what difference does it make to all the people here who keep pointing fingers? Probably none. Just look at the thread and move on if that's what you believe. It's really not fair to make accusations unless your 100% sure.

[balistic]

Thoughts on tracing:

Me, I have never traced. Literally. Never. Not when I was a little kid out of comic books, and not now with the computer.

I've been tempted, but as others have said, I felt as though I would've been cheating myself.

I don't think less of people who obviously trace other people's photos, but I guess you could say that I don't understand that ethic. Its alien to me. I don't even like using photos for anatomical reference . . . it just seems like something that its my duty to /know/.

[shinji69]

Well...personally I don't like tracing, and never tried it.

BTW...I don't know what's wrong with whoever did that Sylvia Saint pic....

Why in the heck did he choose Sylvia Saint?!

@_@

[Malachi Maloney]

Because the photo had cool lighting.