[Lunatique]

Let's hear everybody's 2 cents on this:

It wasn't that long ago when digital art was mostly photo-manipulation(and a lot of it was done very well). But in a short period of time, the trend has switched to the good ol' drawing/painting freehand. It even seems that digital artists have now started to look down on photo-manipulation style.

Now, what do you think caused this sudden change in attitude?

My own 2 cents would be this(and this could be completely off base, but this is my thoughts so far): Computers initially didn't attract many people who are traditional artists. Most people using it for art didn't really have the skill to paint the traditional way. Also, back then, computers weren't fast enough to handle freehand style painting and sketching(each stroke with a complex brush would take too long to compute, and the lag time was painful). Now, the computers are faster, and many professional artists began to see the benefits of doing artwork digitally, lots of very skilled painters starts to produce traditional looking artwork with software. Once the digital art community sees how spontaneous and lush digital paintings are compared to manipulated photos, the mentality begins to shift.

Ok, who's next to offer some insight to this new trend?

------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[burn0ut]

I dont know if its really ... new.. i started digital art almost a few months after i had a computer... what was it about... 5 years ago or more. Ive been doing it ever sence, Some years not so much as others ... wtf am i saying.. lemme see if i could find my first computer art eheh

[Freddio]

we have realised how easy photomasnips are and how hard painting is so therefore we have lost respect for plugin jockeys

[RoadMaster]

I always used to call them filter babies, but I use Paint Shop Pro, so they are "filters" as opposed to "plugins"

------------------
The Elves, EVIL sinister elves...

[Lunatique]

Actually guys, I was referring to the kind of photo stuff that Dave Mckean and my friend Jason Felix does.

If you are not familiar with that style, here are examples:
http://www.jasonfelix.com/Ndg01.htm#

I guess the best way to describe that style is lots of photo montages in tons of layers, fading into each other...etc etc.

------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[This message has been edited by Lunatique (edited January 28, 2001).]

[RoadMaster]

that's what we were replying to as well, this stuff is pretty much composition, and creative use of filters, blend modes, and levels. You can see in some of those pics things such as swirling eyes, which is either done using a twirl filter, or done using the smudge tool. The site you have presented actually have some good stuff in it though as well... I like the sea babies

------------------
The Elves, EVIL sinister elves...

[Lunatique]

Ahhh. I see.

Well, here's an interesting thing though. Dave Mckean, if you know his early work, is an EXCELLENT painter in the traditional sense. But ever since he discovered digital, he has completely abandoned traditional work. Everything he does now is in that photo-manip style.

During an interview, he clearly stated that now he's doing things in photoshop, he finds it pointless and futile to paint anymore. He gave an example about how when he used to paint, he'd try to achieve certain textures(for example, cloth), but now, he could just scan in an actual cloth texture.

I have to say, I found that point of view quite disturbing. I just can't figure out why such an accomplished painter would think that.

I guess in his eyes, since he could virtually paint anything anyways, the end result is the most important, and how you go about achieving it is irrelevent. Especially when his workload is so heavy, any convenient way to get across his idea is the best.

I dunno. I really prefer to see brush strokes. But that's just me.

------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[faustgfx]

my 2 cents is that the lunatique's first post in this thread and his guess why it is as it is is total bullshit.

i haven't seen any change in it in the last 4+ years, except for photomanip and nu design turning into a hardcore mainstream fad.



------------------
sky high with a heartache of stone you never see me 'cos i'm always alone/ministry
the law of lead now reigns!@#!/earth crisis

[email protected]
icq#35983387
http://faustgfx.0wns.org

[Lunatique]

Well, I DID say my observations could be completely off base, so the "bullshit" remark is really unnecessary.

I do see your point, however. The advertising market is flooded with that photo-manip/Nu design suff. Sure, it looks good, but it's EVERYWHERE.

In fact, this might be one of the very few digital art communities in existence that's very serious about traditional looking style. And for that, I'm very grateful to have found this place. As you can see from my work, I'm definitely firmly on this side of the fence.



------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[Collosimo]

People simply got bored of Photo-Manip.

There is only so far you can go with PS Techniques. Sure you can improve your design skills but ppl get bored doing just that.

With the existence of Sijun.com, Gameart.com, 3dpallete.com, 3dluvr.org etc. These sites have pushed the field faster into the future. A kind of explosion..

Lets face it... Deep down like a child, everyone likes to create! The flexibility of Painting or drawing as opposed to Photo-Manip is the drawcard here. You can simply do a lot more and a lot more imaginative creations!

------------------
/COLLOSIMO

[Frost]

I started pixeling on Commodore64 back in ~1985, then on Tandy, Amstrad, then real PC in MCGA... photoshop was just the next step... I just had to adapt from doing per-pixel editing to a more brushstroke driven painting program... which turns out being the best as it taught me to think more globally about colors, values, etc...

[RobT]

I started digitally about a year and a half ago after working in acrylics and prismacolors for as long as I can remember. Some reasons I went digital are:

A love of computer games and a love for art.

B. Traditional art materials are expensive and are messy. With a proggy like Photoshop or Painter you never have to buy paints again.

C. The ability to go back and change things.

D. Never had a computer before 1999 (except for the c-64 in 1988) and using my it for games and internet only got boring after awhile.


------------------
RobT

www.gameart.com/mindstorm
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

[Lunatique]

There's definitely advantages to working on the computer for art, but the one thing I can't get over is the fact you never get to see your painting all at once in its default resolution. We all know that in order to get a decent resolution painting done, you'd have to create a file that's way bigger than your monitor(even if you have a 21" monster. Oh wait...that sounded kinda dirty. . ..nevermind). See, that pisses me off because there's all this scrolling you have to do to work on different parts of your painting. Shrinking it down just, you don't see the details, and to display it, you'd have to resize it for the web also.

I guess that's the trade off of having undos and layers. Now, if they started selling GIANT monitors at a reasonable price. . ..



------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[spooge demon]

I think any new genre has to be followed and you have to see how "deep" it is. Someone must keep it alive and continue moving it forward. I guess the photmanip has not been moving forward as much as some would like. Drawing and painting is a very deep ocean, it is endless what can be dreamt and done when you start from a blank canvas.

I have always looked at digital as a new tool to use. The distinction between traditional and digital has some, but not a lot of meaning. As I have explored digital and gained more control of it, the distinction lessens. But I agree, a big beautiful oil painting is something that you just cannot experience with digital.

I first bought a computer to scan in color roughs and play with them to try many possibilities before commiting to a larger painting. You can still use it this way. I will probably always use it this way, at the very least. Traditional work is still my preference, for myself. But for commercial work, digital is the only way to go.

[Lunatique]

Spooge!

Hey man, nice to see you!

I emailed you with a question, but I'm not sure if you got it.

I wanted to ask you: how do you have your studio set up so that you can see both your monitor and whatever reference you might need. I sometimes find myself with the need to look at reference material with bright light so I can see the details, but a strong light like that will make it hard for me to work comfortable on the monitor since any distracting light will screw up the details shown on the screen. What do you do when that happens? Someone suggested a spot light for the reference material, but it'll be really tricky to place it in a way so it doesnt' affect the monitor, but will still light the reference material and be close enough to the monitor for you to work off of it.

I know this is off subject, but since you are here, I just had to ask.

BTW, I think the guys are right. You SHOULD put out a book. If Syd Mead can do it, why can't you?

BTW, that's exactly the same reason I started using the computer more--to do my color studies for a painting. But now seeing what else I can do with it, I'm starting to explore more. Here's a link to some stuff I posted recently: http://www.sijun.com/dhabih/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000493.html

------------------
www.ezsf.net/enchanted

[This message has been edited by Lunatique (edited January 28, 2001).]