Are "Digital Skills" Necessary for Today's Illustrator?
Prisoner at War
Hi, Folks:
Just wondering how truly necessary it is for today's illustrators to
have "digital skills," in terms of needing to know how to use various
software packages like, I dunno, Photoshop, Illustrator, et cetera.
I ask because as someone with professional-level free-hand
illustration skills (I don't make my living as one but definitely
could if I wanted to "hustle" and network in order to get gigs) it
seems that simply drawing something myself and scanning it in is so
much easier than having to learn how to use various applications.
Even once having learned them (i.e., having developed some level of
competency) using a computer seems such a round-about way of doing
something that often is more natural with pencil and paper.
I'm not talking about CAD applications, mind you, in doing technical
drawings, nor animation for which I can see time-saving benefits, but
general illustrations, even general graphic design jobs...I love
computer technology and was fascinated by the Commodore Amiga back in
the late '80s when they helped put desktop publishing in the popular
lexicon, but in working on my own upcoming website I seem to find that
simple drawing something and scanning it in is so much easier than
wrangling with polygons and shading and so forth...and I think that
even if I were a master digital artist for most illustrations it is
just so much quicker, with a lot more control, to take pencil/ink/
paint to paper....
(Of course, I'm only talking about web images here, which usually
needn't be especially high-res and so forth....)
I guess I'm trying to determine if people with actual drawing skills
(namely, of the photo-realistic kind) really need a lot of these
drawing programs...again, I don't, because I don't actually make my
living as an illustrator, but in illustrating my own upcoming website
the question does occur to me, just how much digital skills would be
necessary....
Prisoner at War
wrote:
>
>
> for better or for worse, it's important if your goal is to move beyond a
> very low level.
>
> The better your designs work in a digital world, the better off you are.
> You can easily create designs that can't be printed; digital skills will
> help prevent that.
Hmmm! How so? Any examples? Easily create designs that can't be
printed?? Wow, I've never even heard of the concept, "designs that
can't be printed"....
> But it's not just "digital skills". If you REALLY want to succeed and
> be marketable, you'll understand the entire production process for
> whatever field you're illustrating. I can speak for the printing world;
> if you spend time in all facets of a print facility, doing the actual
> work in those areas, you'll find out quickly how to be a great
> illustrator within the context of the printing world. I know one
> woman--classically trained as an illustrator, but spent large amounts of
> time in a print shop doing all parts of the process--and her stuff just
> absolutely flies through now. You can blindly take what she submits and
> know that it will work all the way through with little to no alteration.
>
> That's unusual, and is highly regarded, respected, and desired. It also
> cuts costs tremendously.
>
> Similar gains are found in the film world, television world, etc. Yes,
> the production processes are all digital, they've come to where they are
> in their own way, and the more you know about the entire chain of
> events, the better off you are.
Sure, it's always good to just know "A-to-Z"...but it almost appears
to be *absolutely necessary* now. Which sounds weird since it seems
that things are getting more and more "specialized" instead...like how
video games used to be designed and programmed by the same one person
back in the '70s and '80s, and now it's several people involved in the
art department alone....
Are illustrators trained to use graphics software these days? I'm
just puzzled 'cause it seems like such a learning curve for something
which is so much more quickly and easily done -- with more "soul," if
I may say so -- by hand!
So for sounding like such a n00b, but of course, I am one! My point
of reference is the '80s (ahem), and the only thing I can think of
using software for is ray-tracing, for an "antiseptic" sort of
photorealism....
Onideus Mad Hatter
<prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hmmm! How so? Any examples? Easily create designs that can't be
>printed?? Wow, I've never even heard of the concept, "designs that
>can't be printed"....
I think it'd be more accurate to say designs that can't be reproduced
exactly as the original. On the flip side though you can scan a
non-digital design which would then make it digital and you could then
do various forms of color correction and what not at that level...of
course, again, it wouldn't be even remotely as flexible or precise had
you simply started digital.
>Sure, it's always good to just know "A-to-Z"...but it almost appears
>to be *absolutely necessary* now. Which sounds weird since it seems
>that things are getting more and more "specialized" instead...like how
>video games used to be designed and programmed by the same one person
>back in the '70s and '80s, and now it's several people involved in the
>art department alone....
Not necessarily, in fact rendering engines and cookie cutter graphic
forms are quickly starting to turn things back to the way they were.
Just look at my character sprite generator for a good example:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/RMXP_CSG/
>Are illustrators trained to use graphics software these days? I'm
>just puzzled 'cause it seems like such a learning curve for something
>which is so much more quickly and easily done -- with more "soul," if
>I may say so -- by hand!
There are software titles that cater SPECIFICALLY to illustration,
like Adobe Illustrator. The advantages are nothing short of
incredible. For one, your drawings are done via vectors, which means
your line illustration will become infinitely resizable. Two, every
single line you make can be redrawn, moved, and manipulated in just
about every manner you can conceive of. To that extent you can
actually easily create multiple versions of a drawing, one with say a
different face, one with say a different outfit. Further, in paint
programs like Adobe Photoshop you can paint on digital layers, so
often what artists will do is draw the model form and then paint the
skin tones on one layer, the shadows on another layer, the clothing on
another layer, the lighting on yet another. The advantage obviously
is that you can go back to any point in the pieces creation and alter
some specific element without having to recreate the whole thing from
scratch. Modern paint programs also include hundreds of different
brush styles that can digitally simulate any sort of real world medium
whether it be chalk, colored pencil, paint, water color, you name it.
There is a downside to all of this though...the learning curve is
steep...REALLY steep. Pretty much unless it's something you want,
that you want so badly that you're going to pour every ounce of your
will into experimenting, playing, practicing, researching and
testing...yeah, yer not ever gonna get very good at it...at least not
to the point where you could recreate digitally what you can already
do "by hand".
The digital world has incredible advantages, but it's not as simple as
just doing what you do by hand with a graphic tablet and pen. You
have to understand file formats and encoding schemes, you have to
understand how layers work, layer blending, masking/selection
techniques, color composition (it's reverse digitally), filter
effects, color correction techniques, the list goes on and on.
If you're willing to invest the time though, the rewards are simply
unbelievable...so long as you can see them, and I guarantee that in
your current mindset there are many you can't, many you haven't ever
even considered. It's one of those things that once you learn it and
use it, you'll wonder how you ever did without it.
Prisoner at War
productions.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think it'd be more accurate to say designs that can't be reproduced
> exactly as the original. On the flip side though you can scan a
> non-digital design which would then make it digital and you could then
> do various forms of color correction and what not at that level...of
> course, again, it wouldn't be even remotely as flexible or precise had
> you simply started digital.
Oh, *that*...yeah, okay, sure! Well, I have to look very closely to
see the difference between a 24-bit and a 32-bit color palette,
anyway, depending on the artwork involved.... ;-)
> Not necessarily, in fact rendering engines and cookie cutter graphic
> forms are quickly starting to turn things back to the way they were.
Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Yeah, it'd be great for technology to advance such that we wind up
back with how things were, with one illustrator doing all the work
(you see this with animated shorts on the web, where technology's
allowed the possibility of one-person animation studios).
> Just look at my character sprite generator for a good example:http://www.backwater-productions.net/RMXP_CSG/
LOL!! That's real cute! Though, I can't say I saw a difference
between a B-cup and C-cup female, the way you'd rendered them!
> There are software titles that cater SPECIFICALLY to illustration,
> like Adobe Illustrator. The advantages are nothing short of
> incredible. For one, your drawings are done via vectors, which means
> your line illustration will become infinitely resizable.
Yeah, but so is a good scan with high-end equipment, no? Again, if I
need a picture of something, I would just pick up a pencil or pen and
draw on paper and scan that in and then maybe touch-up where needed
(and most likely it wouldn't be needed) with software. With a Wacom
Cintiq 20WSX (I'm so tempted to get one today even though I have
absolutely no need for it!) it's even simpler.
My question really boils down to this: why tell the computer how to
draw something when we ourselves can already draw??
> Two, every
> single line you make can be redrawn, moved, and manipulated in just
> about every manner you can conceive of.
Yeah, but I can do that on paper, too! And as someone who's really
good at drawing and even painting with watercolors, I pretty much get
it right the first or second time around anyway: no need for infinite
manipulations or corrections!
Don't get me wrong; I love technological gadgets and gee-gaws; I'm
just wondering if there's something really incredible, in itself, that
can be done by a computer that we simply cannot...I don't mean that a
computer simply does something faster or somehow easier -- though that
would be quite formidable in itself, depending on the project -- but
from what I can tell, a computer's just not necessary for general
illustration work (except insofar as everything's computerized these
days...).
> To that extent you can
> actually easily create multiple versions of a drawing, one with say a
> different face, one with say a different outfit.
Again, speed aside, that was perfectly do-able before computers, too.
Perhaps computers are only needed for instances where speed is an
issue?
> Further, in paint
> programs like Adobe Photoshop you can paint on digital layers, so
> often what artists will do is draw the model form and then paint the
> skin tones on one layer, the shadows on another layer, the clothing on
> another layer, the lighting on yet another. The advantage obviously
> is that you can go back to any point in the pieces creation and alter
> some specific element without having to recreate the whole thing from
> scratch. Modern paint programs also include hundreds of different
> brush styles that can digitally simulate any sort of real world medium
> whether it be chalk, colored pencil, paint, water color, you name it.
Yes, yes, I've seen them, and they're really fascinating, don't get me
wrong...I'm hard-pressed to see any advantage beyond "mere" speed
(though, as Lenin said, quantity can become a quality all its own
after a certain critical-mass level!)....
> There is a downside to all of this though...the learning curve is
> steep...REALLY steep. Pretty much unless it's something you want,
> that you want so badly that you're going to pour every ounce of your
> will into experimenting, playing, practicing, researching and
> testing...yeah, yer not ever gonna get very good at it...at least not
> to the point where you could recreate digitally what you can already
> do "by hand".
Yes, that's just why I wonder about it all...learning to use the
software is, frankly, much harder and less interesting than learning
how to do something by hand -- I dislike painting with oils, but even
that's more interesting than learning how to work a program such that
may create the same picture, only digitally, to look like an oil
painting!
> The digital world has incredible advantages, but it's not as simple as
> just doing what you do by hand with a graphic tablet and pen. You
> have to understand file formats and encoding schemes, you have to
> understand how layers work, layer blending, masking/selection
> techniques, color composition (it's reverse digitally), filter
> effects, color correction techniques, the list goes on and on.
I understand general concepts (l mean, "layers," that's just cel
animation), but it's the time involved learning the software
packages...good grief! Right now, I just don't see a need for it
myself, and wonder what anyone actually uses them for....
> If you're willing to invest the time though, the rewards are simply
> unbelievable...so long as you can see them, and I guarantee that in
> your current mindset there are many you can't, many you haven't ever
> even considered. It's one of those things that once you learn it and
> use it, you'll wonder how you ever did without it.
Oh, I'll learn it, of course, because I love fooling around with
technology (I'm even learning programming with JavaScript and Python
right now, and my upcoming website really don't need them at
all)...but I had to wonder. I mean, consider music, and how
electronics have made possible sounds which were literally unheard-of
before...has computers done the same thing for the visual arts?
Sights that simply would have been impossible otherwise...not just a
faster way of working, but that something that simply could not have
been otherwise seen -- literally...like how a machine gun is just a
faster rifle, in a sense, whereas an atomic bomb is a whole other
beast altogether....
Mani Deli
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/ag-ao.html
and decide for yourself.
NotMe
"Mani Deli" <not...@inter.com> wrote in message
news:fsj144132rb4j16sb...@4ax.com...
| Take a look at some of the samples at
|
| http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/ag-ao.html
|
| and decide for yourself.
And your point ...
Rasmus Andersen
artistry. Mainly by drawing and painting in Corel Painter and Photoshop
using wacom tablets. I just recently reverted back to traditional
drawing/painting for several different reasons which I will not go into now.
But it wouldn't hurt you to know something about the subject, but you can
easily leave the digital fiddling to others (if you have someone to do it)
and focus on your drawing and painting.
Regards,
Raz
http://www.artofraz.com
D. 23/05/08 15.49 skrev "Prisoner at War" <prisone...@yahoo.com> flg. i
artiklen 6fc20236-0a9a-4c98...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: