[Darkliege]

here's a little something that I cooked up quickly in 2 hours (don't laugh! thats fast for me still )

If you can't tell its Steve Buscemi. I know the right eye looks weird, but its Buscemi, he just doesn't look "right" a lot of the times

so bring on the C&Cs




[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Darkliege ]

[CyberArtist]

I could instantly tell it was Steve Buscemi. If anything it's a prettier version of Mr. I-Die-In-Every-Movie-I-Am-In.

Is this a paint over, because it certainly has the look of being one. If it's not, that was a compliment.

[mish235]

Great Painting, it makes me think of a Waking Life character. I really like the loose, almost impressionist look that you were going for, and you suceeded in capuring his likeness very well.
He didn't die in resevoir(sp?) dogs, if i recall correctly.

[Darkliege]

no. Its not a paint over. so thanks for the comp Thats one of the things I want to work on, to make the paintings actually feel like original paintings.

I had the same problem with my art portfolio in a contest. The judge didn't know anything about computer graphics so she just assumed all my pieces were photo manipulations.
damn that bitch. Her lack of knowledge costed me a few thousand dollars.

Bah... anyways back on topic


[EDIT] heh, just realized you are the same CyberA from the UT community. I've notested quite a few of us frequent here[/EDIT]

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Darkliege ]

[melted petal]

I am a huge fan of Stece. The pictures nice and yeah it does have the look of a paintover but hey, thats what you get for being accurate. Good job. And yeah that eye does look a little odd. It extends down to far and doesnt seem to curve right. Almost like he has a lazy eye but I dont recall him having one. For some reason I especially like the collar.

Now get in there and clean it up and finish it out.

[NullTygre]

it's Mr. Pink =)

[LoTekK]

heya DL, that's definitely a cool pic of steve... love that guy... i'm assuming that's a ref from reservoir dogs? (@mish235, you're right, that's like one of the few films he didn't die in... )
i think the eye seems to look funny coz it almost looks like it isn't finished, like the white from the eye sorta bled into his skintone...

[Awetopsy]

he didnt die in armageddon either.

Its a great likeness too BTW

[snarf]

That's awesome. Could we possibly see the reference?

[Darkliege]

yes. I think I have it right here....



maybe I will go and fix up the eye, but not right now. I need to do two more paintings in the next two days or I fail my AP art class

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Darkliege ]

[snarf]

Aight.. now bro, I know you said it wasn't a paintover, but I just had to check it out.



I'm *NOT* accusing you of lying, but I just find this difficult to believe and I'd like to confront you on it in a mature way. Now to me, it seems like this is in fact an overpaint. It almost lines up perfectly.

Do you perhaps have some progress shots or something? I guess you really don't have to prove yourself to me, and if in fact you didn't simply paint on top of that photo, you're really good.

[roundeye]

man, i could watch that all day!

[Darkliege]

If you didn't think I was doing a paint over, you wouldn't have said anything...

I reference my work really well. when I'm in doubt of the placement I use a the grid this allows a very close approximation for where lines go. I don't know if you consider that cheating, I don't as it is legitimately used in large murals and such.

Unfortunately, I don't have the history for this picture because I usually don't have to prove anything to anyone, but I used the same basic technique on this piece as I did for a self portrait (mind you the portrait isn't expressionistic but blended values, it also wasn't from a picture but a mirror) http://www.sijun.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002697

Though now I realize that when I put up my work I should expect someone to question my work, it is only natural, I'll keep the history of all my work from now on

[Jezebel]

(nevermind)

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jezebel ]

[TylerHunter]

Nice, pic, great movie,

Oh and he did die, you hear the cops yell and gun shots go off after he runs outside.

Tyler

[Joachim]

Well, it's as close as you get to paintover in my opinion. But, it's not the proportions that give you away, but the obvious fact that you picked your colors from the picture. So, if you've done that before too, when you entered that contest... I'm sorry to say that agree with the judge. it can be helpful at some times for study, but if you base all your work on doing this type of stuff, then I wouldn't even call you an artist. just my 2 cents.

[snarf]

Well, like I said, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and I guess you now know mine (and Joachim's).

If you're being paid for stuff like this, that is when I'd have to strongly object. However, if you're only doing things this way to learn and practice, than that sits cool with me. I don't know you, so I'm certainly not going to pass judgement. I just thought it was rather coincidental. To each their own... I suppose.

[Darkliege]

You sir, must be God, as you know all. I am found out :/ What a fake and fraud I am. *sigh*

I should just leave it be because obvious I cannot convince you otherwise that it is in fact not a paint over. (where I did take a few samples of colors and then extrapolated the amount of colors to make the tones in between the reference colors)

btw the judge was the portfolio judge, I won 3 awards out of the 4 computer art pieces I submitted from a panel of 3 different cg teachers.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Darkliege ]

[balistic]

The reason this image catches a lot of suspicion is because it is inconsistent . . . you've got colors that exactly match your source, and a composition that exactly matches your souce, but brushwork that is, well, terrible.

The color planes are devoid of direction, they don't help to define shapes, and are just kind of mushy in general. There's none of the layering, underpainting, or scratch resists that make, say, a Mullins photo study come to life. Instead what you've got looks decidedly "paint-by-numbers".

I make no accusations of cheating or tracing, but the undeniable fact is that what you've got is a poor copy of an image captured by someone else, instead of an artistic interpretation of a subject.

Work on your brush strokes . . . use them to tell us which way a surface faces, how quickly in turns, or what its made of. Also, try working with transparent glazes instead of always using full opacity brushes.

That's my critique.

[snarf]

Ya know.. I did my best to NOT say anything inflamatory about your work, but obviously you're a little eleven-year old who isn't capable of having mature conversation. I suggest you change your diaper before playing with the adults again, son.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: snarf ]

[Novacaptain]

nice pic

lol Eleven year-olds don't wear diapers

I wish that someday I'd be accused of "cheating". It'd be such a great compliment (unless I really was "cheating", which would not be the case - so it'd always be a compliment).

I think you should leave the opacity of the brush lower - so it doesn't look so patchy. The mixed use of hard and soft brushes looks a little bizzare too.

note: I don't get it why many artists get so outraged when they suspect people of "cheating". Who is being "cheated" if not the "cheater" himself?

I'm not accusing you, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just trying to make sense out of the senseless waste of bandwidth that threads about "people that paint unfairly" have, and will cause for many years to come.

[Loki]

whee!

but yes, Joachim is GOD in that case, haha

Yeah, this image is not kosher - the lineup and the color as you guys mentioned - if the guy would've just used the reference in a 'look at' way, the way of abstraction would've produced different features - what threw me off are the airbrush blotches on the post in the background - they seem 'decorative' and out of place.

Also funny how angry people get when they're being accused, instead of saying - "Yeah, you guys kinda got me ... how do I do the real thing" - especially with Joachim being around who can be very helpful ... oh well.

Oh and, younger sijunites, we have seen many images like the through the existence of this forum.

I hereby declare this artwork a pure, well done 'Threndoy'



[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Loki ]

[Acryl]

loki & joachim

well though i think it�s obvious that this image is a paintover , let�s not forget that a lot of people from the demoscene emerged from doing "copy" pictures and now they earn their money by doing original pictures .. i wouldn�t damn this guy .. just tell him that he should keep this pictures for himself not post this stuff on boards like this .

he can learn from this .. there is more than one way to learn how to play guitar =)

[SWANY]

bla!

[Loki]

Acryl - the number of images I painted with reference versus my own are 50:1 on the amiga.

Second: I did not paintover, IF we were working with reference - because when I was doing that shit, there we no flatbed scanners or internet in range.

So, gimme a break ... bye

[MoleculeMan]

You know what people, its just a picture
Its quite possible that he used grids and he just eye droppered the colors, but so what, if he wants to spend 2 hours doing that, then by all means! There's no reason to throw slights at each other.

(and roundeye's right, watching that paint over thing is fun. I started looking back at the original wondering when itw as gonna change till i realized i was stupid hehe)

jake

[snarf]

I tried to be nice to the guy, but he flipped out. Obviously, he doesn't respond well to that type of thing.

I think he is going through Pre-menstrual Stress. Poor guy.

[12345]

yea yea, shut the fuck up Mongoose!!!!!

[snarf]

were you talking to me Mr. Lonely, or were you calling Darkliege a mongoose?

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: snarf ]

[Frosted Flame]

lol.. amazing.