[vebjorn]

it`s nice to get these opinions. I increased the contrast on the acrylic abit..it was too dull, but my screen is so damn sharp at home, I don`t see it until I get to work.

Keep it coming.

-Veb

[neebhore]

I say the acrylic one, i also think it would look better if it were darker, like the top one...

[ May 24, 2001: Message edited by: neebhore ]

[Staff Sarge]

The digital one has much better (dramatic)lighting and colour than the acrylic IMHO. But then again, cyan is not my personal favourite colours... I like green.

[Concealed]

the top one looks better to me.

[jakeB]

the top one is a LOT better

the bottom one could work, but it just has something missing that the top one has. The blacks are not as black, and the flesh doesn't look fleshy.

[Ragnarok]

I would choose the digital one. The colors are more powerful.

[Twice]

digital......

[burn0ut]

the acrylic is real nice, but alittle to ashley woodish hehe, i just saw a spawn comic from her.. mmm delish
i like the digital because it hides the work you didnt do on his legs

[SpiralEye]

I'm with burnout and others..the digital is much better imho

[Blitz]

THE BIG GREEN ONE
but add a little green monkey.
Sorry had to say that

Im a big fan of your stuff...
I SAY THE GREEN DIGI ONE UP TOP

[Waldo]

I'd be pissed, too. Tough call. I'm leaning towards the digital as well, but once you throw copy/text/cover info on it, if it's too contrasty (is that a word?) you may start to lose the character. Maybe try them both and then decide?

Nice work by the way.

[Enayla]

I say the digital one. Not so much because of the colour, as because of the details... or more precisely: the army.

They look so much neater in the digital version - they're smaller there, and thus makes the guy look more ominous. I really love the colours in both pieces, but I somehow think that the darker, digital version, suits the mood of the actual subject better.

[Edan]

i like the digital one..

[stevethomas]

Go digital. It has a more dramatic look to it.

[nova]

yea, digital for sure. It looks prettier

[ May 24, 2001: Message edited by: Nova ]

[vebjorn]

Spike. digital and acrylic version..
Now the digital version will be used as a cover for conan here in norway, but just for fun I wanted to make a acrylic version just to have a solid version of this aswell. And the editor got kinda pissed because she has adamn hard problem deciding which one to use.
Although we still kinda overall like the digital version (top) better than the acrylic version (below) I`d like to get the opinion here.

So which one should I use?

-Veb

[fuddo]

I like the bottom.

[Briareos]

I would use the acrylic one if you are going to add a logo or text of any sort to it. The top one is really nice, but really contrasty and overpowering, and will prob take away from any title going on it. Also the background color of the acrylic one doesn't say "Conan" to me.... maybe mute it a bit or something... I don't know... but something.

[agent44]

go digital.
the acrylic looks a little washed out. I really like how deep the green is in the top, and the detail is a bit nicer too.

[Axl]

I'd go with the top pic.
Although I like the sketchy look to the acrylic piece I think it lacks the atmosphere that the digital piece has.

[Kaiju]

I like the digital version too. Looks more moody to me. I agree with agent that the acrylic looks a little washed out. the acrylic is nice, but the digital just looks richer.

[Kendall Lamar]

One of my first posts on Sijun, but here are some things I noticed, FWIW.

The digital piece is very nice... nice contrast overall, plus the massing army and (particularly) the broadsword look more thought-out and intense in this version.

However, when you convert this file to CMYK in order to go to press, it might get really muddy and lose some the qualities that make it stand out onscreen. You might have to do lots of work on this image in prepress before it has the intensity and drama that comes from a luminous, calibrated computer monitor. (That's why I'm glad I stumbled on this forum-- digital art needs to be shown in its proper environment... printing just doesn't do it justice... fine art galleries and museums had better be gearing up to show digital media so folks can view it in all its glory...)

The acrylic version has its good points as well... on this piece I like the brushmarks in the BG and the line quality on the legs... I'm assuming the color on my monitor's not as spot-on as yours. This one may prove to be a better cover, depending on the designer's layout of copy, masthead, etc. You could push the Black values on press to get a little more richness, especially in the armor.

Hope that helps. Tough decision!

[vebjorn]

Well, there`s really no point ot change to cymk, or do any great hassle. Printing digital stuff is the only thing the printhouse that takes care of Conan in Norway does right. They`ll get it to look 99% correct, although they might screw up the acrylic one.
One note though..the acrylics original color is almost the same green as the digital, but my scanner kinda made it the way it looks now, and I liked that color, so I stuck with the bluegreen.

-Veb

[Gavin Greaves]

DIGITAL. No question. The digital one reminds me of Frazetta's work, and because of that is spraks Conan more to me than the acrylic version.

-Gav

btw- both are excellent

[ReSistanZ]

The top... because it's green, supa green.

[Shadowman]

They are both cool. I can tell that you work digitaly more often because the digital one has a more confident over all look.
The artist in me says that the acrilic is more inpresive because it is a much harder medium to work with.

On a note off subject Veb about 5 years ago I went to the Alexander gallery in New York USA and saw the Frezetta exibit. He was selling the "Death Dealer" Illustration for $500,000 dollars. I don't think that one sold but he was selling doodles for &10,000 and others did sell and for a lot of money. If the "Death Dealer" would have been done digitaly I don't think it would have been worth that kind of money.

I think my point is that when you are old your painting could be worth a lot of money if you get famous but working digitaly saves you a lot of painstaking time.

[SPike.CoM]

The digital one by far. I think the acrylic one is a bit too desaturated compared to the other one.

[Dean Welsh]

Well the digital version is one of my favorite pieces to be posted in the forum. So I'm going to have to go with the digital. ESPECIALLY if the printhouse can pump out these colors acurately. That's such a wonderful set of Greens.

Maybe see if you can't match up your greens for a more acurate opinion of which people like? or put them both in Greyscale to see which they like while unbiased by the pretty colors?

Both are gorgeous.
-Dean

[schabe]

the digital. imho the cyan color of the second pic dont fits that good to the theme.

[vebjorn]

thanks folks;-)Seems like there is no doubt. It`s easier to make stuff better loking digitally in my opinion, because you can tweak your ass of until everything looks like you want it to. If you fuck up color or even worse..anatomy, we`re talking a serious repaint job with real paint..(no copy paste scale move fixes) although I have fixed acrylic work digitally before sending of the publisher. Oil paints ment taking the canvas back after showing, repaint, and wait a few days for paint to dry. Go to the publisher again, set up tha painting in the office and get 1-5 art directors/editors fire away..".err..that little finger looks a bit off"..etc.

Good thing..oils look great varnished and framed..and are worth something to collectors. I`ve already sold many originals, and I am to part with a few more to a collector soon.

-Veb