[eekabeep]

Just now, I recieved an email from CGNetworks about a digital fine art book selling for AUD$55.00 soft cover, AUD$69.00 hard cover, and AUD$149.00 for the limited edition. This book looks fantastic, though I spotted something that made me kind of disapointed in one of the artists. doh!



Immediately after seeing that, I dug up this picture to compare. And got even more disapointed.




This is weird. What do you think?

[eekabeep]

[Sukhoi]

Well technically photomanipulation is allowed in expos� since it deals with digital art of all sorts...
how ever this is clearly a shortcut made by a painter not having either the time or the skill to do it properly.

Whatever...It happens all the time. I'm not appaled or in any way surprised that a slightly dodgy image appears in expos�.

Every day life in the digital art arena.

Sukhoi

[DEVARSHY]

When you hink for the "high" standards that this book has been advertised all over the world, this does come as a disappointment.Esp knowing that there has been months of selection procedures ans an esteemed jury behind The selected artworks.

Reference is not a bad thing but only if you add a sinificant amount of your own skill or imagination to the referenced subject.In yhis case I think,It wasn't so.

I guess they should be more careful in the future.
_________________
:: Only Dead Fish follow the Stream !

[YVerloc]

This reminds me of an experience I had while walking in Tijuana years ago. I fell in love with this great black velvet painting I saw at a street stand. It showed a group of crying clowns watching Elvis play, with a bullfight going on in the background ... and then I realized that the bullfight was taken more or less directly from a two page spread in the May 1983 issue of Bullfighting Monthly. Boy, was I ever disappointed; because otherwise the picture was great!

Satire aside, if you like the picture, who cares how it's made? If you do not like the picture, again...who cares how it's made? And satire aside, I do not like the picture. So he ripped a cheezy glamor shot. Is that the only lazy shortcut he took?

YV

[Snakebyte]

Yea, Referencing is one thing but that..... well... it needs to be noted along with his name and software used. The artist may not be trying to hide it at all but some may go on the offence since it isn�t noted.
The only thing that kinda erks me about that particular image is that people may think that my painting (#2 Sorina Redfeather on that same page) is also a photo manipulation when its not.

Oh.. I thought she looked familiar
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com

[oDD]

if i understad corectly this book shows the art of digital world. and crappy traced pictures of chicks with few modifications (wig) are part of that world. But I'm disappointet that a traced pic from a magazine ! found his way to the book.

i hope most of the stuff is good quality, and by the names that contributed to the book i think it is.
_________________
portfolio | art blog

[francmidi]

I wouldn't take this lightly. I'm not sure - but this can cause copyright problems especially if this is such an obvious copy. And selling it as part of a book is a "use for commercial purpose".
_________________
*** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature to help me spread! ***

[saturnfive]

It's a shame that a book with such great artwork also has to contain such cheese.
_________________
Saturnfive Design

[cheney]

My biggest bitch about Expose is its system of few categories. This basicly says to me if my art is not about 3D buildings or painted characters then its not really art. I find this somewhat disturbing. Is this really all art should be limited to? I suppose I am allowed to complain since I bought a delayed limited edition even though my design oriented art was not choosen.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Probustion]

i can see where he found the inspiration for the decorative clothing. not very original or of outstanding quality, the image. i can even instantly recognize Angelina in there dammit. it's not the fact that it's copied from a photo or had inspiration from other artwork. but a digital art book like this is supposed to contain digital artwork of the highest standard. and i've seen several images that that don't meet this requirement.

this is a painting by Luis Royo, one of my favorite fantasy artists


_________________
talent is overrated.

[Ian Jones]

I have a couple of issues with this thread.

A: You really shouldn't be posting these images. I'm pretty sure that Ballistic publishing and the individual artists involved would have some qualms about this thread. Even if I do agree with the gist of the argument, I'm sure that this isn't really all that constructive for any of us.

B: Nothing is perfect. Why so much complaining? You are always going to get a few duds amongst the gems. Your always going to get differences of opinions, differences in art taste etc... You either buy the book or you don't. I bought it, I love it and I admire all of the fantastic works in the book.


Perhaps some of the ppl associated with Ballistic have a few things to say. Lunatique was a judge wasn't he?

[Citizen Cow]

I agree with Ian but with Probs submission ...

Just because this work was published in a book doesnt mean it cant be critiqued or brought into light on a forum.
I see no problem with copying a pose angle for angle ( even though it appears to be used as slightly more then a meer reference) but when you rip the accessories straight from someone elses sweat and just apply them to your half assed copy... thats taking it quite abit further.

I dismissed this thread based on that fact that the wings and all that were still halfway decent and shows some creativity and effort.
Now that is shot to hell as well.

Many artists and artists websites have been discussed in these forums. Many fraudulent submissions and works have also been brought to light. Expose shouldnt be treated any different.
If this artist ripped this piece, it should be discussed. EXPOSE really isnt at fault though for not noticing it. EXPOSE has been out for a few months, thousands have seen the images and this was just discovered. Im sure you can expect the small team behind expose to have intimate knowledge of every single photograph that MIGHT have been used as a reference or cross reference every single submission...

[antx]

Don�t want to put oil into the flames, but even the wings strongly remind me of something. Of that one in fact: http://images.google.de/images?q=Steel+For+Leonardo%27s+Dream&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google+Suche

edit: ups just saw the post from Probustion after I posted. Didn�t look at it before cos the pic doesn�t load.

[Citizen Cow]

[spline]

I thought that the guy had atleast come up with the wings but no, even the wings are stolen...

The only thing the dude has done himself is the hair, and it is very badly painted, it look like a cheap wig.

No, that guy is a sad person...

[YVerloc]

Let me get this straight - those of you who are concerned about how a rip off slipped through at Expose: are you telling me that if a) no photoref was used and b) Royo wasn't ripped off, then c) you'd think it was a great picture? Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but from this beholder's perspective the problem at Expose isn't the lack of a rip-off filter, it's the lack of the cheesy-ass cliche filter. Jeez, it's like complaining that the deep-fried rat you got in your bucket of chicken isn't well enough cooked. And what' more, there's only SIX herbs and spices in this batter, not the SEVEN that are clearly advertised!

BTW, isn't that a photo of Carre Otis underneath all that Royo sugar coating? Who said irony is dead?

YV

[iandredd]

Im not impressed by this at all. Its sad that such work is in a book with so many great artists like mullins and nivbed etc. From what I have seen expose looks like a great book but ripped or not i still dont think that that image should be in there especially considering some of the people who were left out. But them im sure the project was far from easy to put together so ill shut up. I dont know how the "artist" could feel comfortable submitting that picture.

[Probustion]

i feel everything that had to be said is said. just want to say to YVerloc: royo does use photo reference sometimes for his paintings i'm sure. but as we all know, it's good to use any sort of reference. and if you have looked inside one of his art books just once, or twice, you can clearly see the man knows what he's doing. he can probably paint things like that without reference if he wants to.
the fact that mr. st-hilaire made "just" a paintover of a photo makes all the difference. not because it's a paintover, but because he doesn't seem able to make such art without doing a paintover(point your browser to thread about tracing). his technique is not quite great. many people here (and i mean many!) can do better than that. And even though i'm very new at the whole art thing even i have done a paintover like that in the beginning(got my ass kicked for it here on sijun, and i deserved it). it's not a way to learn digital art. it takes no skill at all.
some people here are getting upset when others make a big deal about such things, but it's not like topics like this can't be discussed in a community. what do you want to see then? only happy and positive subjects? i don't think that this would make things better...
_________________
talent is overrated.

[Citizen Cow]

^ My Hero.

We have a word for this over at EATPOO its and

[Socar MYLES]

I'm pretty sure someone as high-profile as Royo would get permission before using photoreference. Photography, after all, is an art form in and of itself, and, in the case of a photo like the one used as reference here, the photographer would generally own the copyright. The other possibility is that another publishing company bought the copyright. Either way, when the photograph is immediately recognizable, you're treading on dangerous ground as far as copyright goes.

However, as long as Expose remembered to put in a clause about the artists assuming all responsibility for the originality of their contributions in the submission agreement, it's not their problem. If anyone gets into legal hot water over this, it'll be whoever painted the picture.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[eekabeep]

there's a difference between using a photo reference and tracing

[Light]

Hmm, I don't care if he copied or traced it. See the thread on tracing and also even though its more legal and ethical to trace your own photos it doesnt require any more skill.

It seems some artist are sad that he got in the book and they didnt.

Regarding 2 things. I'd say that the paintings are fair use in this context because they are of low quality and related to an educational discussion.

Regarding his copy of this model, if he didn't have permission (and nobody knows that he didn't) and if the image isn't in the public domain (and we don't know this either) then obviously this artist is treading on very thin ground legally even if he doesnt know it.

The painting itself is ok... nice and reflective.

[skinfusionz]

I wasn't going to reply to this, but the Royo worshippers crack me up.

http://www.sensual-arts.com/students/tracepages/trace09.htm

http://fnordfiles.rtfm.com.au/graphics/Art/Luis%20Royo/lr17-17.jpg

http://fnordfiles.rtfm.com.au/graphics/Art/Luis%20Royo/lr17-19.jpg

[Snakebyte]

I�m sure he got legal permission to use those pictures�. If not than oh well�. (Referring to the previous post)
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com

[Nerfherder]

[Probustion]

skinfusionz: you just don't understand it do you? these photo's are not even traced. why should he, they're freaking oil paintings. it's not like you can throw a layer on top and start painting on that. and to argue about royo's creative input in those images is out of the question. ok, maybe some of these images by royo are cheesy just like the one this discussion started about. but i know many that aren't. Whatever your intentions are, this doesn't make me like Royo's work less.
And ask yourself this: what difference does is make if these images were made from a photo as reference or from a live model?
_________________
talent is overrated.

[antx]

[Wren]

I have to say i agree with antx. I'm nowhere near as impressed with Royo as i used to be. I mean, I sometimes use photo references too, but they are either photos i took or i use only a single element such as pose or lighting (the exception being commissioned portraits where an individual asks me to work from a snapshot they took). For my own work, when i use photos, i come up with the image first and then hunt for reference to help me make it believable as opposed to seeing a pretty picture and thinking "hey, this is nice! how can i turn it into a fantasy image?" (which seems to be the case with Royo).
Somehow, i just wouldn't feel right as an artist if i merely copied someone else's photo verbatum like that whether i had permission to do so or not!

As for the "Expose" piece in question, mostly i am just saddened by the whole thing. I struggle so hard as an artist to create original images, make peanuts for pay doing it and get almost no recognition for my work, and here this guy gets thrown in the limelight for being a hack.

*sigh*
_________________

SASart Studios

[Light]

Hey this ups the count too:

Boris Vallejo
Julie Bell
Luis Royo
Sorayama Hajime

=== ALL seem to TRACE and COPY

Btw this includes many other artist too. Personally, I think its kinda bizarre that Royo would not use his own models assuming he didn't and I cant prove that.

Anyway, you'd have to read my posts in tracing for my views on this. But, anyway its not so surprsiing. I've said it many times I could get an non artist who wanted to work hard and he/she could turn out awesome works in no time if I use the techniques that the best use.

And this is such a suprise to so many people how the real art world works.

Then again, shouldn't art be a science in some ways? I mean and we all wonder how men came from painting stick figures to photorealistic scenes.

Anyway, the emperor is naked, and always has been. The best kid who can sketch with a pencil rarely becomes the best artist.

Everyone has built their egos on their "talent", and the scientist have surpassed them ages ago.

It's like okay, take Julie Bell. Her works are great yet she met Boris just as a hum-drum art student, and model. So, you see what using a professional working process can do for you. (maybe she was exceptionally talented and worked hard for many year)

Anyway, its like sure they can sketch good but they can't sketch like they paint, and thats why they trace photographs. And, even if they can NOW that doesn't mean they could before they traced so many.

There are very few artist who don't copy or trace. Brom is one of them yet he does look for some artistic references occasionaly or for certain things.

Anyway, I hope to be able to work like Brom one day but I have no illusion about the cost it is to achieving good works. And, I'll do whatever it takes to make art too in the end.

Maybe we should admire these people more for actually making art despite their inadequecies?

But yes I fully believe men/women can make great art from completely their imagination. I strongly disagree that it requires a camera or something like some guy wrote. It is very possible for people to do great works from their imagination but few are willing to do the work. And, I'm not sure how many advantages it has over using models really. I just like it because its non reactionary, and it opens up so many possibilities for the cheap artist. But human antomy doesnt change significantly from person to person.. so you know posing a model is quite effecient.