[razzak]

i just had a thought, and id like to share it witrh everyone. everyone here doing digital art must at some point have come across an idiot that says doing work digitalkly is easier, because you got layers, undo and all those glorious filters. well i think its just as hard as natural media, because the level and quality of work expected from us is much higher than from natural media artists, im not saying they r bad or anything, just that there is more pressure on digital artists, with quality and deadlines and stuff. at least thats the way i feel.

ps. actually i changed my mind, painting digitally is harder than painting in natural media. since we use the mouse or tablet, the physical position of the pen or the mouse is different from where the actual picture is going, ( you dont stick your tablet on the monitor and draw do you?) that just gives that slight more difficulty. also the angle at which the tablet is sitting can change the way the picture looks. what you people think?

[gArGOyLe^]

yep.. lots of people have told me that what I do is nothing special cuz bleah.. its a computer ur working on.. and then when I ask them to make something.. they use the watercolor filter on a photograph and send it to me.

Kinda related.. some people say that playing electric guitars is easier than acoustic.. cuz its electric :/

Many People are dumb no offence to any dumb people reading this.

[jome]

Yeah, but doing 120 km/h (74mph) with a car is so much easier than doing 120km/h with a bike. Also note that hitting a tree at 120km/h is so much more dangerous.
I still think doing natural media is harder, and I'm much more proud of a good analog work, than I am of a digital piece. I like to say digital media are more flexible.

[ftgjcf]

some things are more difficult on computer, but some again are more easy...
but i agree that using mouse or even wacom is a big disadvantage. I also think you get some stuff for free with traditional art. while I have to fight to turn every pixel to work, trad. paint sometimes impress me with its 'nature'.
but.. dont call people stupid for thinking computer-art is like double-clicking the mouse. after movies like Hackers and Matrix who can blame them :-)

[eyewoo]

Personally, I think mastering natural media is quite a bit more difficult than working at the same level digitally... ...and, I'd like to add, that is why I work digitally... it's easier... It also opens up more creative opportunities and is much less of a drag to maintain than a full studio filled with all kinds of traditional media... Do you know what a tube of Cadmium Red oil paint costs today?

At any rate... there really are stupid people out there that think the rate of difficulty has something important to do with the final product... yeah, right, we're all such Olympians...

I love it when I tell someone that my work is created on a computer and they say, "wow, so your work is computer generated...!!!" ... uh-huh!

[BlackPool]

I think harder/easier are the wrong choices of words. Slower/faster seems better since when you get right down to it that's all a computer realy seams to help with (I am only talking about painting here, photo retouching and changing is another story). I also think digital art is cheaper to make in the long run since you take a constant hit in the wallet with traditional materials.

However, I think where the finished product is concerned traditional wins it hands down. Real brush strokes and raised paint and the way it glistens with the room light is a beauty I just pray somday printers may be able to even glimpse.

[Briareos]

Which is more difficult is not important.
Just because running to your destination is harder then teleporting there doesn't make it better. Also the same principles of art apply no matter what medium you use.

[Gort]

I personally find the computer more forgiving, but there are always challenges with composition, color ranges, etc. Sure - the computer almost entirely eliminates the error factor, but that's what I find appealing; I can take more chances and experiment more, but it certainly doesn't mean it's easier.

Most of the folks I've encountered that make disparaging comments about computer art just don't have enough exposure - they're just not knowledgable about the technology.

[Christian +]

I've also had these same remarks, from people who aren�t involved in art very much or at least who don�t have any drawing or painting skills. I don�t feel offended by these people cause they don�t know what they are talking about.
Personally I believe that digital art is easier and faster compared to traditional art and this doesn�t mean that traditional is better because it�s harder! Everything evolves into something more practical.
Imagine how hard it was for men to light fire millions of years ago. Today it�s such a simple task.
When we draw faster, it means we draw more and we are more and more productive and creative. All this has a positive aspect. Digital painting allows me to hit Ctrl Z and try my stroke another time for a better result; the same mistake in traditional painting could be unrecoverable.
One very important thing though, is that digital will never, or at least, still doesn�t replace traditional art because of the limited number of colors (16KK) your VGA card gives you.
Not to forget the beveling of the paint on a canvas that changes the colors of the painting every time the light changes.
I guess we should respect both traditional and digital, and try to do our best with whatever we choose to use instead of worrying about which is better or faster.

[Lunatique]

I think that some people can do better traditional work than digital, and vice versa.

It all depends on the person's style. Someone with a great flair for wonderful, expressive lines and brushstrokes might feel limited on a computer. Richard Schmid would HATE painting on the computer.

But, for people that work in styles that are less fleeting, digital might actually enhance their work.

Here's something I've observed:

I've seen artists that paint mediocre stuff traditionally, then starts to kick ass after turning digital, but I don't think I've seen mediocre digital artists kicking ass in tradtional work.

But a truely awesome artist will kick that ass no matter what he/she paints with.

[jeshannon]

I have never actually used traditional Media before so I cant say which one is easier or hard ect, what I can say is that I find drawing Digitally very hard indeed, not only do you have to think about composistion colour etc but in most cases you have to master what are very difficult programs to use. My personal view is that, what ever medium is used the finished product still depends on the time and patience and skill the artist has had to put in. Jeshannon

[Socar MYLES]

I find digital art very, very frustrating. I just started doing it...hm...a bit over a year ago now. Before that, I liked to draw in ink and paint in oils. Photoshop frustrates the hell out of me, because it takes forever and a day to get any texture at all out of it. (Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong.) I also don't like that damn round brush, but I don't like the custom brushes that much either. I find that digital painting makes sketching easier (ctrl-Z, ctrl-Z, ctrl-Z, no eraser required), but rendering much more difficult.

Then again, it took me almost ten years to learn to paint with oils. I won't know which is easier till I've spent a comparable length of time with Photoshop.

[Socar MYLES]

Eh...I missed out my biggest Photoshop problem, too--drawing long lines without breaks in them. If I zoom out on the picture, I can't see what I'm doing; if I zoom IN on it, I get this tiny little postage-stamp area of the picture to work on, and I have to click those infernal scrollbars to move around the canvas.

Most of my work's for print, so I'm always getting asked to paint things at 10 X 12 X 600dpi, and so forth, and I have a hell of a time with the longer brushstrokes.

And that is the one thing that will probably mean I'll always be more comfortable with oil on canvas. Speaking of oil on canvas...anyone know where to get good pre-stretched canvases (not those Fredrick's ones), in the north of Sweden? I had a fellow who did all that for me in Vancouver, but I can't very well use him any more now.

[eyewoo]

Socar,

Every medium has it's characteristics... it's advantages and its limitations... You just can't do those long strokes digitally... it's not part of "the program". So you have to really understand how the digital medium works... long strokes is not one of the ways it works...

That's one of the reason's why I like Photoshop over Painter... PShop totally regards the digital medium while Painter tries to simulate an earlier traditional medium. PShops cool...!

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[Strawberrysauce]

Socar: use the space bar and click on the screen to move instead of the scroll bars.

much more fun

[eyewoo]

Christian wrote, "One very important thing though, is that digital will never, or at least, still doesn�t replace traditional art because of the limited number of colors (16KK) your VGA card gives you." On the other hand there is a certain quality of backlighting that is not possible to achieve in traditional artwork unless you're working in stained glass...

Something else to bear in mind, which is really relevant to my artwork - many digital painters paint with the purpose of printing their work, not displaying it on a computer screen. That is certainly the focus for most of my work... Using archival inks, it is true that not all color is available, but that may change in the years to come, and the digital work will still be their, burned on a CDROM, ready to be printed again with new life...

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[glody]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamhead:
Socar: use the space bar and click on the screen to move instead of the scroll bars.

much more fun

---

hehe i was gonna tell Socar that...but i guess i was beat to the punch

[FroZen]

i personally think that trad art is easier. Whenever i see someone's dig artwork i'm always like "wow, how'd u do that? i wish i could do the same."
i mean trad work is hard too, but i guess unless u're prof painter/dig artist, none of them is really *easy* well obviously cos then everyone would be doing them.
Trad art is more expensive to produce, plus it's messier but i still think it's a tad easier
dig art is just a big pain in the ass
so frustraating, everything i make, turn out looking like ... poo
anyways that's my 2 cents

[ceenda]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fleabrain:
Do you know what a tube of Cadmium Red oil paint costs today?

---

On an odd note, Windsor & Newton are doing a "Buy 3 tubes of Oil Paint and get 3 tubes free" offer. Obviously, you have to pay for the more expensive 3, but a good opportunity to buy them anyway.

[Malachi Maloney]

I use Photoshop instead of a real airbrush because paint is too damn expensive and it's easier to make corrections to my paintings in PS.

I'm not going to try to say one medium's harder than the other, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

I just hate cleaning up paint. =/
Not to mention that some colors of acrylic paint coast up to $50+ per tube. Then you have all kinds of board to buy and you have to constantly clean your airbrush, etc.....
Traditional methods are just a big pain in the ass.


Anyway.....

Just my 2 cents.

Malachi

[Frog]

OMG, it's over ten years years since I last used a real airbrush, what a mess!!! I always used to bend the super fine needle by not being careful when cleaning it and putting it back (at �5 a pop!). Paint everywhere, the noise of the compressor chugging away in the corner, having to cut masks out with a scalpel, urgh never again. Photoshop is a lot less mess. And a lot easier to control.

People make similar comments about music and sampling, in my view it's not easier it's just different. Try mastering 3d, and tell me that's easy - sure doing a chrome ball on a tiled floor is but try modelling a character. Besides technique is nowhere near as important as creativity anyway IMO, so if something's "easier" then you can spend more time and energy being creative rather than worrying about technique.

[ShadowDragon]

I've run into many of these biases before, even when applying to colleges and such. About a year ago i applied to a fairly major name art school, and about a week after turning in my portfolio i got a rather nasty phone cal, all but accusing me of using other people's works etc, they toned down when i offerd to email them or snail mail them all my scetches, but it's amazing the lack of trust that digital art seems to generate.
I tend to like digital media, mostly because I'm a poor college student who can bairly afford enough supplies to do the required work, never mind fun stuff, but also because I truly like it (and i work with a mouse...).
The only thing i tend to prefer about trad. media is the ability to vary brush strokes mid stroke, and to get some of the more interesting effects using dripped or splattered paint.

[ShadowDragon]

I've run into many of these biases before, even when applying to colleges and such. About a year ago i applied to a fairly major name art school, and about a week after turning in my portfolio i got a rather nasty phone cal, all but accusing me of using other people's works etc, they toned down when i offerd to email them or snail mail them all my scetches, but it's amazing the lack of trust that digital art seems to generate.
I tend to like digital media, mostly because I'm a poor college student who can bairly afford enough supplies to do the required work, never mind fun stuff, but also because I truly like it (and i work with a mouse...).
The only thing i tend to prefer about trad. media is the ability to vary brush strokes mid stroke, and to get some of the more interesting effects using dripped or splattered paint.

[pixelPimp]

hey everyone

yes, I can certainly appreciate the difficulties you come accross when trying to push digital art as a serious art medium. We've just set up an online gallery of digital art and are offering most of the high quality submissions for sale in a print format.
Sales have been lousy, but not so much because of the site design or lack of participation in the first 3 months of setting it up. It's because most art lovers still don't accept digital art as a legitimate platform. I find that even some of the participating artists have developed 'inferiority complex' .. heh, it ain't easy being green.

However, I feel that we are in the 'courting' mode with the traditional art culture and pretty soon digital art pieces will be featured along with the classic paintings, thats my dream anyhow

[razzak]

wow, some cool stuff there. i dunno i still think trad is easier, for me anyway. just alone because progs like photoshop have such a steep learning curve. i mean when i first got the prog, i didnt know that i could call up the layers menu, so i kept pasting and i couldnt move the stuff before, but that was my post painting era. he he. ps. i need to get a new tablet. i need another 130 pounds,

ps. anyone got a spare 130 pounds to give to me? i also take credit cards! (and youll never see them again!) he he

[seethemd]

i saw on tv this morning one of the guys who worked on the effects for lord of the rings, and he's being interviwed by uh... by that dude on the today show (australia) and the dude on the today show asks him with a smirk : "are you worried that if you do the work too good, if the technology gets too advanced, that you'll put yourself out of a job?"

and the dude from lord of the rings is a little taken aback, says that they put an "artist" infront of a computer for 16hrs a day, that the "artist" does the work. that computer hardware is no different than a paintbrush.

and the dude from the today show asks with an even WIDER smirk : "yes, but with the way technology is advancing, will the computers NEED someone sitting infront of them? in say the next couple years?"

[TheArtist]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seethemd:
i saw on tv this morning one of the guys who worked on the effects for lord of the rings, and he's being interviwed by uh... by that dude on the today show (australia) and the dude on the today show asks him with a smirk : "are you worried that if you do the work too good, if the technology gets too advanced, that you'll put yourself out of a job?"

and the dude from lord of the rings is a little taken aback, says that they put an "artist" infront of a computer for 16hrs a day, that the "artist" does the work. that computer hardware is no different than a paintbrush.

and the dude from the today show asks with an even WIDER smirk : "yes, but with the way technology is advancing, will the computers NEED someone sitting infront of them? in say the next couple years?"

---

Amazing how some people are ignorant.
I'm both a 2D and 3D artist and from what i know of people, that alot of them think there's a "Make Art" button on the computer somewhere.(preferably on the keyboard somewhere or in some application)
Also alot of traditional artists are soo stubborn.(but i do love those guys, they're the best)
But they just can't accept art being made with a computer.
They're offended by it, intimidated.
But hey, they're ok, i can understand they're point of view, they're artists so we understand eachother when it comes to art.(whether it's CG or traditional)
But some people's ignorance can be really and i mean really nervebreaking.
It's like when you worked more than a week on a masterpiece(matte painting or so).
And then some fake ass no good untalented little dick comes by.(read bussiness people)
They really think that i'm working 16 hours + overtime some days by pressing a button that says:"Make kickass matte painting" or "make incredibly complex 3D animation".
For people not familiar to Computer Graphics Art it's hard to believe that a human is actually behind all the magic.
All they know and ever heared was:That movie was made by the computer.
Even when you're trying to explain...they'll keep standing their ground that the computer does the magic.
And that's exactly what they want to see.
Magic.....
CG(3D and 2D)is something they don't understand of how it was made.
They know only it was computer generated.
With other sorts of art like cartoons, they still understand a bit that it was originally drawn keyframe by keyframe(with lots of inbetweening)
But CG, they don't even go there, they think of the matrix and endless long complex computer codes.....
Which is totally the opposite of how it actually works.
But that magic, that incomprehensable thing about CG....it's like they want to believe in that and nothing else.
They don't understand and they don't want to, because that would make the magic go away....

[PixHortHiT]

Well, all I feel I can add to this discussion is this: All 'new' forms of art will take a severe beating before it is accepted by whoever needs to accept it, take the work of Picasso for intance, in the beginning he was ridicued, as is ours, and the fact that people dont 'get it', isnt a really big thing when they rarely do 'get anything'.

[razzak]

yeah, i guess where the peeps that take the beating after all, but im quite happy to do that because i got friends that appreciate how it works, and that if its a sketch or comp generated kickass piece of art its only as good as the persoin using the pc. thanks everyone for your replies.

[BooMSticK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fleabrain:
I love it when I tell someone that my work is created on a computer and they say, "wow, so your work is computer generated...!!!" ... uh-huh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fleabrain:
That's one of the reason's why I like Photoshop over Painter... PShop totally regards the digital medium while Painter tries to simulate an earlier traditional medium. PShops cool...!

---

Flea - so, you like to fool people into thinking that your paintings are traditional media? But still you love the digital look of Photoshop? heh.. Somehow I don't think it adds up... Would you care to elaborate on this?
,boom