Design by computer
gray
Mac or PC or Fingers? A different thread brought up that this NG doesn't
deal much with graphic design. I agree.
It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
feature in software.
Just who is the designer these days? The designer or the people who wrote
the software that determines what your design looks like? When I use a
pencil or a brush (non-digital, non-electric things that you may have
never seen that are similar to designs that are hundreds or thousands of
years old), the style is mostly me. I don't have to worry about what
color my monitor is as compared to what may print. My design has little
inaccuracies that give it humanity and style. My brush and paint are
still compatible with one another even after twenty years. I don't worry
about brush v.7.2 having to work with paint v.4.0 and then having to
upgrade to paper v.9. Oddly enough, it never crashes either. (kinda'
inexpensive too)
I don't think designers should be allowed anywhere near a computer until
they can perform design work on their own. Really, does anyone out there
realize that better work can almost always be done faster without a
computer?
I really urge you to try using something other than a computer once in a
while. Maybe you could actually do something good for once. There's
definately a higher percentage of crap out there now than there was in the
past.
You call yourself designers? So try doing some designing. Toss that
computer in the trash!
WebStylers
You're right!
Many people have the latest Photoshop and learn how to apply a few
special effects and then call themselves designers when it's obvious to
me that they are not. Learn how to design - THEN go and buy Photoshop!
There are alot of ill-designed pages on the web - but the type effects
are great! Stop with the 3-D type and fuzzy shadows and learn design
first you guys!
Wayne
Patrik Fagard
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:25:40 -0700, gr...@artcenter.edu (gray) wrote:
>It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
>ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
>fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
>advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
>that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
>gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
>feature in software.
Graphics Design today has become nothing more then a recepy of
photoshop filters. Nobody even bothers to read the menu anymore, they
just pick the font of the day.
Its pretty much fast food all the way...
Greetings,
Patrik
jon...@alphacom.net
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:25:40 -0700, gr...@artcenter.edu (gray) wrote:
>Mac or PC or Fingers? A different thread brought up that this NG doesn't
>deal much with graphic design. I agree.
>
>It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
>ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
>fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
>advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
>that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
>gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
>feature in software.
I agree. Nothing replace a good grid and efficent "conceptual"
oreiented design work.
>Just who is the designer these days? The designer or the people who wrote
>the software that determines what your design looks like? When I use a
>pencil or a brush (non-digital, non-electric things that you may have
>never seen that are similar to designs that are hundreds or thousands of
>years old), the style is mostly me. I don't have to worry about what
>color my monitor is as compared to what may print. My design has little
>inaccuracies that give it humanity and style. My brush and paint are
>still compatible with one another even after twenty years. I don't worry
>about brush v.7.2 having to work with paint v.4.0 and then having to
>upgrade to paper v.9. Oddly enough, it never crashes either. (kinda'
>inexpensive too).
It's all said, it's all here. However, sometimes you have a great idea
and you need, alas, a computer to do it (3D animation).
>I don't think designers should be allowed anywhere near a computer until
>they can perform design work on their own. Really, does anyone out there
>realize that better work can almost always be done faster without a
>computer?
Sketchs -for sure. Sometimes you need rendering though. Or sometimes
if you work on the 'net......
>I really urge you to try using something other than a computer once in a
>while. Maybe you could actually do something good for once. There's
>definately a higher percentage of crap out there now than there was in the
>past.
Indeed. However, can we dismiss that, for example, Nevill Broddy as
done great stuff with typography and computer. There will be a
reactionist "mouvement" towards computers: we will see, in the next
decade perhaps, more instinctive things à la Paul Rand come back, I'm
not sure, but it's a possibility.
>
>You call yourself designers? So try doing some designing. Toss that
>computer in the trash!
On a similar note: it seems that anyone that can use the software such
as Quark Xpress or Photoshop call themselves 'designers' (i am
exagerating here), but still, this has some thruth. Look at the
problems industrial designers are facing: some engineers are now
calling themselves 'designers'.
On the aesthetic level, some people are placed were they should not
be.
I am very frustrated that sometimes computer technician end up beeing
web masters when they don't have a clue of what is visual
communication. This is not a rare situation, at least not here in
Quebec, Canada. We have a lack of web designers, and it is not every
graphic designer that knows HTML basics. Consequently, computer
science guy (that, incidently, know how to operate Photoshop etc.) are
taking positions were they are asking to make aesthetics choices!
I could go on on this thread........
JonSon
jon...@alphacom.net
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 21:29:23 GMT, p...@dma.be (Patrik Fagard) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:25:40 -0700, gr...@artcenter.edu (gray) wrote:
>
>>It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
>>ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
>>fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
>>advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
>>that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
>>gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
>>feature in software.
>
>Graphics Design today has become nothing more then a recepy of
>photoshop filters. Nobody even bothers to read the menu anymore, they
>just pick the font of the day.
>
> Its pretty much fast food all the way...
>
Yes, well, the first thing they told us when we entered Graphic Design
at the University is that design is a never ending war towards lots
things, people, companies, etc.
JonSon
Gadget
I agree with most of what you are saying...
But using a mouse as your brush and computer as your palett is another skill
that takes almost as long to learn as using a real brush or pencil : I can
draw an (almost) perfect circle freehand with a pencil, but it is very hard
to do freehand with a mouse (If you use a tool in the program, you can
equate that with using a compass with the pencil). {I don't have a stylus -
i'm not sure there wrth the expense}
The only two usefull tools that a computer has over manual design work are
the "undo" button and the "save as" button. These allow almost infinite
designs to be tried, compared, tweaked and discarded. Everything else within
it can be done 'manualy' (with patience, time and skill).
It is trying to use these tools to create the correct image - the knowlege
of an old printing press operator will be the same as the knowlege of a
computer reprographics geek : the knowlege of a "pen & paper" designer and
good "bit & byte" designer will be the same : the only diference being in
the buttons they push to get the results.
The main problem is that there are very powerful tools out there that anyone
can use. Years ago no-one would consider entering the field of graphic
design unless they had some talent or experience, now it's more a case of
"why not give this a try". Giving someone a hammer and chisel doesn't make
them sculptor, guying them a computer with tools to design doesn't make them
designers.
I believe (hope) that once everyone has tried it they will leave the field
to those who can actually use the tools provided to the greatest effect.
Skill, flare and talent are what makes a good designer, whether they use
pencil & paper or not.
{I don't half waffle, do I ? <g>}
Gadget
gadge...@hotmail.com
Adam Palmer
I agree *almost* entirely....
A computer is a tool, that's all it is and all it can can be.
But people who have never touched a paint brush and never even attempted
sketching or whatever get hold of a copy of Photoshop and assume that
because they understand technically how to *use* the program, they are
suddenly qualified to produce artwork, design, etc.
This is patently bollocks. No-one would get away with saying "I can hold a
pencil; therefore I'm an artist".
The web is full of crap design, as is all media at the moment, but I have to
argue that at least in the UK there has recently been a surge of very
talented artists and designers utilising computers as a means to a creative
end - because they allow such freedom of expression and vision over
traditional media.
America, on the other hand, is another matter (as far as I can tell).
Everything we see of this country's media (television in particular) is
quite frankly shite, although I admit we can't see everything...
Adam Palmer
Adam Palmer
gray
In article <692qc1$bah$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>, "Adam Palmer"
<carr....@virgin.net> wrote:
True, there's very little of any value anywhere anymore.
As far as an illustration or design goes, I feel a computer has its place,
but is still sorely lacking as the all-purpose solution it is often touted
as being. True, I've spent years drawing and painting; but I've also been
using computers for graphics for about as many years. I still find that
it's easier to get good results (and faster) when using 'real' media.
Software has so many limitations that it's ridiculous.
I'm really curious to know what sort of software allows freedom of
expression and vision over traditional media. So far, I haven't seen much
that is created on a computer that couldn't be done quicker and better
with traditional media.
Aside from all that, the idea of endless revisions is apalling. Why not
just do it right the first time?
Yes, a computer can be a good tool, but I don't think it should be the
only one you use. A screwdriver is good at putting in and taking out
screws, and can be pressed into mediocre service for many other things-but
a compliment of the proper tools will always deliver better results
faster. The same goes for computers-they are good at some things, and
poor for many others. Why not use the other (proper) tools?
Patrick Lajeunesse
gray <gr...@artcenter.edu> wrote:
> As far as an illustration or design goes, I feel a computer has its place,
> but is still sorely lacking as the all-purpose solution it is often touted
> as being. True, I've spent years drawing and painting; but I've also been
> using computers for graphics for about as many years. I still find that
> it's easier to get good results (and faster) when using 'real' media.
> Software has so many limitations that it's ridiculous.
I find that I'm a little confused by this thread. Are you talking about
illustration or design? The terms are really not interchangeable,
although there are certainly some who are skilled at both. And who is
touting computers as an all-purpose solution for people involved in
graphic arts? Is anyone trying to convince illustrators that their work
would be better if it were done with Fractal's Painter instead of oils
or acrylics? (Well, anyone other than Fractal, I guess). Illustrators
who used to use traditional media and changed to digital do it because
it works for them - do you think a succesful illustrator would change to
digital-only techniques if they made less money and their work was more
difficult?
> I'm really curious to know what sort of software allows freedom of
> expression and vision over traditional media. So far, I haven't seen much
> that is created on a computer that couldn't be done quicker and better
> with traditional media.
Look at any colour magazine published today. Even if the cover
illustration was done using traditional media, all of the text has
certainly been laid out with a computer. Would you rather that they
paste it up manually and then send it to a printer to make the
separations? Have you done this and found it quicker and better?
I guess you'd be surprised to learn that many successful designers,
including those who were working before the "DTP revolution," can't draw
well.
> Aside from all that, the idea of endless revisions is apalling. Why not
> just do it right the first time?
Okay, now I see that you're not talking about design at all. I guess you
aren't working commercially either, or you'd have been faced with client
revisions. If you're creating art for your own purposes, then maybe you
can say that you always do it right the first time, but in the
commercial world the person paying the bill has some say too.
> Yes, a computer can be a good tool, but I don't think it should be the
> only one you use. A screwdriver is good at putting in and taking out
> screws, and can be pressed into mediocre service for many other things-but
> a compliment of the proper tools will always deliver better results
> faster. The same goes for computers-they are good at some things, and
> poor for many others. Why not use the other (proper) tools?
I agree. It's usually easier to rough out a design with pencil and
paper. If your work is cartoons, then keep working with pen and ink. If
you're an illustrator, then use whatever earns you your commission. If
you're an art director, you could use words to describe what you want a
new advertisement to look like - but don't blame the person creating the
finished product for using a computer.
As to your argument that design today is nothing but a collection of
filters, I guess it depends on what you're looking at. The Web is often
ridiculously bad, but it's better than it was. A year or so ago, it
seemed like every personal site was made to look like a video game, and
commercial sites were made by print designers who had no idea what it
was like to download a page full of 100k images. Today, I think that the
general level of design on the web is better - though the two extremes
do still exist.
On television, you can see million-dollar ads playing next to the one
for Wacky Larry's Stereo Shop - guess which one is more likely to use
zooming 3-D text? The same is true for, say... newspaper ads. And
magazines. And those flyers they keep stuffing in my mailbox. To be
honest, I think the style is often appropriate: If a flyer from my local
electronics warehouse looked like a product catalogue from Sony, I'd
expect it to be expensive. When it's full of huge, red, 3-D text
screaming at me, then I feel that it's probably no-frills and cheap.
Let's not forget that the purpose of design is to communicate
effectively - that was pounded into our heads on the very first day. I
assume it's the same at your school if you're studying design.
I think I disagree with your observations - layout, photo-editing, most
information graphics, and some kinds of illustration are infinitely
easier and faster with computers. They are also capable of doing things
that would be virtually impossible to do without them. And yes, there's
a lot of bad design out there, and it's probably because it's easier to
do now that computers are common. However, I don't think this detracts
at all from the good design.
I'm probably not really arguing with you though, as I suspect you're
really only against relying on computers for fine art. In any case, I
look forward to your response.
--
Patrick Lajeunesse
Gadget
I agree with what you are saying, however...
The illustration medium can take many forms, depending on the final
objective required; pastel sketches, airbrushed images, photographs,
montages, etc. are all different forms that have different impacts and uses.
Computer art is just another form of illustration, no worse than any other.
In fact it can be better in many ways - not in the forming of the image, but
in whatever is done to the image after it is complete. (Most illustrations
have to be scanned in to be used in publications anyway.)
The computer packages are trying to make the differentiation between the
mediums of 'computer' and 'manual' narrower and narrower, including
"natural" brushes and effects into the package so that designers can
experiment with different effects on the same image to alter the final
impact of the piece. In this case, the computer is providing a necessary
tool : Do you have time to draw five variations of the one image ?
The computer is also impacting on the photographic medium now, and I can see
it almost eliminating the manual 'Kodak' film and developing industry when
they get the resolution good enough.
Gadget
gadge...@hotmail.com
Jay Daugherty
All,
> It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
> ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
> fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
> advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
> that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
> gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
> feature in software.
I agree with you here. . . I have taken only one design class in my life,
majored in speech communications, and have been earning a living as a graphic
artist for two years now. . . I can't say that I have any design talent,
though. . I feel I have missed out on the fundamentals of design work, and
especially how to stimulate my imagination enough not to rely on filters,
etc. Though I can produce great looking images, they are usually ideas taken
from somewhere else. . .
I can copy image ideas with the best of them, but I'm tired of hashing up old
work. Where would you suggest people like me go?? Do I need to spend all my
money going back to school? Are there seminars out there anyone would
recommend??
You dish out the criticism quite well, but there are those of us who don't
need you to tell us what we already know. . . we need guidance in order to
make a change. . .
jay
--
Jay Daugherty
Senior Graphic Designer
OpenSite Technologies, Inc.
Daniel B. Holeman
I may be intruding on a conversation but it is a group message and it caught my attention. I understand what you are talking about and I may have some valuable thoughts on the subject. I missed out on the earlier part. What are you after?
Daniel Holeman
Visions Unlimited
--
Daniel B. Holeman
VISIONS UNLIMITED
Fair Oaks, California
http://www.jps.net/visions/heart4.htm
John Pangia
Adam Palmer wrote:
[snip]
> America, on the other hand, is another matter (as far as I can tell).
> Everything we see of this country's media (television in particular) is
> quite frankly shite, although I admit we can't see everything...
Oh wow, that's really bad, because we probably only send you the good
stuff....
John
--
Altered Images
http://www.jersey.net/~usns
narayan nayar
In article <695gvg$g09$1...@biffo.sol.co.uk>, "Gadget"
<Gadge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> The computer is also impacting on the photographic medium now, and I can see
> it almost eliminating the manual 'Kodak' film and developing industry when
> they get the resolution good enough.
i'd be quite careful when you make a statement like this. i've found that
though, for example, electric pianos and samplers sound quite good, they
haven't in any way "eliminated" the real piano. in fact, they have
re-pronounced the real acoustic piano as an art, and relegated the music
created on synths and samplers to what is (in most cases) a commodity
created for mass-consumption.
i am a photographer. i am a pianist. i am a computer artist, programmer,
and electronic musician. i can tell you that while i am happy that
electronic advancements have made artwork accessible to more people, i
think that it the works created by or on electronic equipment are merely
different than those created on conventional equipment, not a replacement.
if the medium is the message, different mediums are therefore different
messages.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
narayan
nar...@thoughtport.com
remove ".spam" from reply-to address if you wish to email me
Patrik Fagard
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:49:05 -0500, Jay Daugherty <j...@opensite.com>
wrote:
>All,
>
>> It is my opinion that the current state of design is about as bad as it's
>> ever been. Everything looks computer-created, and I'm sick of it. Canned
>> fonts, everyone using the same filters and formats. Whenever I look at an
>> advertisement or other published graphic image, it's blatantly evident
>> that the people creating this stuff are just pumping out what the software
>> gives them simply. Creativity isn't how you use the newest filter or
>> feature in software.
>
>I agree with you here. . . I have taken only one design class in my life,
>majored in speech communications, and have been earning a living as a graphic
>artist for two years now. . . I can't say that I have any design talent,
>though. . I feel I have missed out on the fundamentals of design work, and
>especially how to stimulate my imagination enough not to rely on filters,
>etc. Though I can produce great looking images, they are usually ideas taken
>from somewhere else. . .
>
>I can copy image ideas with the best of them, but I'm tired of hashing up old
>work. Where would you suggest people like me go?? Do I need to spend all my
>money going back to school? Are there seminars out there anyone would
>recommend??
>
>You dish out the criticism quite well, but there are those of us who don't
>need you to tell us what we already know. . . we need guidance in order to
>make a change. . .
Although you can argua about the importance of being able to draw
well. it does give you more freedom. The first advantage is that you
are less limited by implementing any ideas your imagination may come
up with.
Secondly, making quick sketches helps in comunication your ideas with
others. Especially with clients that aren't able to visualise your
ideas as well as say another designer would.
This would normally consist the laws of perspective, simplification of
complex objects to geometric objects, the human figure, knowledge of
your materials (their limits and possibilities) etc...
Practice makes perfect.
Then you also have the design fundamentals. This is probably the
hardest to learn since most people start out doing the opposite of
everything they should do when trying to create good desing. It
usually means changing the way we think and look at things in a major
way.
For example, one mistake many beginner make is thinking that more is
better and start creating a chaos. If there is one thing that i've had
hammered into me then it is "Simplicity is the essence of all beauty".
Esthetics aside, this is also very important when you are trying to
communicate to others through your design. Keep your message simple.
This usually takes time and you learn from your mistakes. Afcourse,
you have to know that you are making mistakes and why or you won't get
very far.
Design and the art world as a whole is an interesting world. To be
good, you have to know all the fundamentals and laws and ways of doing
things. To be better, you have to know when and how to brake all those
fundamentals and laws and ways of doing things.
I read somewhere the following that points this out very well: "If you
ran a marathon from finish to start, you would be disqualified. In the
art world, if you did the same thing, you would probably be rewarded
first prize."
Following lessons is certainly not a bad idea if you are motivated
enough. (If your teachers are any good, the beginning of any such
course should be very difficult on you but it will bare its fruits
later on in your course and in the real world)
I don't know if there are any evening schools you could attend. If
there are any in your area, it might be worth looking into. This way
you can still do business while folowing lessons.
Another alternative is to follow dayschool although its probably
pretty expensive in most countries (atleast $6000 a year I thought).
Hier in Belgium, a large part is subsidised by the government. (About
$350 a year per person and $85 if you are entitled to a gouvernment
scholarship).
You will be the one who has to ask himself the question: "How much am
I willing to sacrafice to become a better designer?" and "What are my
goals in life as a designer?"
Greetings,
Patrik
gray
As a sort of general response/explanation:
I've been employed as an art director (now creative director) for about
fifteen years. The firm I'm working at right now does graphic and
industrial design: We design products, packaging, logos, literature,
advertising, etc..
There are currently about 20 designers working here. There is also a lot
of computer equipment: Several Macs, Several Silicon Graphics, a Quantel
thing (printbox/paintbox/etc.), and a Cray. There is a drum scanner and
all sorts of other peripheral electronic devices. There is also a litho
camera and a fair amount of studio space dedicated to non-electronic
media.
As much computer stuff as there is around here, the majority of our design
work is done 'by hand', and digitized as necessary. Body text is usually
generated in a computer, while product names, logos, and 'headlines' are
usually painted or inked by hand (on paper). Product prototypes are
usually made of foam or clay (rarely with any sort of computer
interaction). Hard as it may be to believe, we often do manual paste-up
and shoot seperations on film (it generally delivers a better 'look').
Also, it is pretty rare that anything we do needs to be changed. We do
rough sketches for concept approval, produce some simple comps for
further approval, and then go to final art. Client revisions are usually
minimal.
I think the concept that resolution and bit-depth equate to quality (and
that digital cameras will one day replace film) can be misleading. Film
usually looks better than digital. Not because of how much information it
holds, but because of the way it can distort reality. As an example: If
everything in a photograph is in focus, it's usually harder to concentrate
on the main subject.
Computers are good at doing the same thing over and over again. As for
magazines, I think that computers are an important tool. I think
computers have improved magazine production, while generally making them
look more mediocre. I've had my fill of font blends and type--on-art that
you can't read. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you
should.
If "fine art" is done with a computer, so be it. My opinion of art has
little to do with what the medium is. If you can produce worthwhile 'art'
with a computer, that's fine, I have no problem with that. I think
artists should explore new possibilities. Just because something is
painted with oils, doesn't mean it's any good-same goes for computers or
anything else. I can't say I'm fond of much of the computer-generated art
that I've seen though. A lot of art (and graphic design) is just lacking
in talent and/or craft.
I see the ability for endless revision in a computer as a problem. It
makes for poorer design skills. I don't need to experiment to figure out
what works, I usually know. Everyone I work with gets things right very
early on. If you need to see all of the possibilities, you really need
more experience. No, I don't have time to draw five variations of an
image, and I don't have to either. If you're depending on seeing how
something looks in numerous versions to get a good final, you should be in
a subordinate position until you can get it right in the beginning-'cause
you're not a designer yet.
Don't get me wrong, computers have a very definate place in the design
profession. I use computers fairly often. It's hard not to. But I only
use it when it is the best tool to use to get the best end result for the
project. I use, and strongly urge others to use other media as well. We
regularly use a guy who retouches and strips photos using an airbrush and
a razor blade. He's really good, and he's usually faster than
Photoshop-but sometimes Photoshop is the better solution. A software
airbrush looks like it came out of a computer, a real airbrush has all
sorts of inconsistencies that give the final art 'life'. Mathematical
perfection isn't natural. If you're designing something in a computer,
doesn't it take a fair amount of effort to 'work around' the software's
limitations? Most software is a less capable imitation of something that
already exists in the non-computer reality. The real thing is a 'real
thing', the computer simulation is just a manipulation of numbers, and it
looks like it too.
The ability to fix things in the computer is great, but the ability to
have no problems to fix is even better. My first design job included
paste-up and sweeping up. I saw how other people did things, and it gave
me time to accumulate some practical knowlege and refine skills. Now
people get out of art school thinking that they have the skills to go
right to work on design-usually because they can operate some design
software. I disagree. If you want to do good design, look at everything
and pay attention to what makes what good or bad. Establish some
standards and stick to them, and get a professional attitude. Having a
variety of experiences and skills may just improve your life.
Gadget
narayan nayar wrote in message ...
<->
>i'd be quite careful when you make a statement like this.
I was : you replied ;)
>i've found that
>though, for example, electric pianos and samplers sound quite good, they
>haven't in any way "eliminated" the real piano. in fact, they have
>re-pronounced the real acoustic piano as an art, and relegated the music
>created on synths and samplers to what is (in most cases) a commodity
>created for mass-consumption.
Correct however I would be curious as to the No. of 'Real' pianos sold
against the number of electric pianos and keyboards - but this is not quite
the point I was trying to make...
It is the *taking* of a photograph that equates to skill and talent (in my
book), not the actual camera it's self - whether you use a cannon, minolta
or praktika (spelt wrong I think) you can still take the same photos using a
digital camera, and the benefits are greater.
>i am a photographer. i am a pianist. i am a computer artist, programmer,
>and electronic musician. i can tell you that while i am happy that
>electronic advancements have made artwork accessible to more people, i
>think that it the works created by or on electronic equipment are merely
>different than those created on conventional equipment, not a replacement.
>
>if the medium is the message, different mediums are therefore different
>messages.
I agree with all said, but again my point is slightly off target: The medium
used to *create* artwork may be different, however to display and (...
searching for the right word... manipulation? editing? ... 'graphic design'
work... whatever) the origional artwork the computer/digital medium is
almost essential.
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>narayan
>nar...@thoughtport.com
Gadget
gadge...@hotmail.com
narayan nayar
In article <69d1on$lq2$5...@biffo.sol.co.uk>, "Gadget"
<Gadge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Correct however I would be curious as to the No. of 'Real' pianos sold
> against the number of electric pianos and keyboards - but this is not quite
> the point I was trying to make...
this is weak. if you wish to follow this line of thought, consider the
average salary of a professional piano player and weigh that against the
average salary of a professional keyboard player. i think you'll find that
people are willing to pay more for someone who can tickle the ivories
rather than one who can tickle the plastics.
> It is the *taking* of a photograph that equates to skill and talent (in my
> book), not the actual camera it's self - whether you use a cannon, minolta
> or praktika (spelt wrong I think) you can still take the same photos using a
> digital camera, and the benefits are greater.
the first part of this i would agree with wholeheartedly: ultimately, it
is not about the equipment, it is about the creative process, and therefore
the artist. however, i have yet to see how the benefits of digital
photography, as they exist now or later are inherently "greater".
i have a friend who is a painter. she is also a really fantastically
talented computer artist. she can sell paintings for $8000 and above. she
cannot, however, sell similarly-styled work done on a computer for anything
close to that (let's just say that it's not...advertising kind of stuff).
in general, digital artwork is more of a mass-produced and therefore
socially devalued commodity than conventional artwork.
maybe i'm just talking out of my ass. but if you're going to be talking
about the commodification of creativity, then i think this discussion is an
important one. ultimately, sure, i agree, there are (predominantly
time-saving) benefits to owning a digital camera. skipping the scanning
process is every serious designer's dream. i've just become tired of
people using words like "benefit" and "progress" without thought. look at
the proliferation of what most would call bad art on the www. though i
wholeheartedly support the software tools that make it possible for anyone
to create art, i (and this is a subjective opinion, so don't flame me for
it) question how they have "benefitted" art in general. clearly words with
such positive connotations are not sufficient.
<SOAPBOX MODE = "off">
-narayan
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
narayan
nar...@spamport.com
replace "spam" with "thought" (interesting proposition, eh?) from reply-to
Gadget
gray wrote in message ...
<->
>As much computer stuff as there is around here, the majority of our design
>work is done 'by hand', and digitized as necessary.
But it could be argued that these were the mediums that those people trained
with - knowing how to apply an ink fill to a penned outline without it being
blotchy, uneven or changing the outline requires skill and experience. To
those with that, it would be quicker to do this rather than digitise, flood
fill, and print. I agree that manual work 'by hand' can deliver a better (by
this I mean more "natural") finish than digital, however using the computer
manually with skill and experience can produce the same results within the
same over all time scale.
>Also, it is pretty rare that anything we do needs to be changed. We do
>rough sketches for concept approval, produce some simple comps for
>further approval, and then go to final art. Client revisions are usually
>minimal.
It is the 'rough sketches' to which I am referring when praising the "undo"
facility - While some sketch ideas literally (with sketchbook & pencil)
others 'sketch' on computer, throwing together ideas and colours to give a
quick sketch.
>I think the concept that resolution and bit-depth equate to quality (and
>that digital cameras will one day replace film) can be misleading. Film
>usually looks better than digital. Not because of how much information it
>holds, but because of the way it can distort reality. As an example: If
>everything in a photograph is in focus, it's usually harder to concentrate
>on the main subject.
yes, but that doesn't have much to do with the "Film" it's self - it's the
lenses and skill of the photographer in using focal lengths and view points
that distort the image. That same image could (if the technology was up to
it) be recorded digitally equally well as on film.
<-magazines bit>
I agree that magazine and print productions have benefited vastly from
computers, and also that over-use tends to dull the impact.
<- artists bit>
Artists are exploring *all* mediums for new ways and uses, it's just that
since the digital medium is so wide, it has so much more exposure: when was
the last time you (physically) visited an art gallery ? When was the last
time you viewed a web gallery ? {there is as much crap in other mediums as
electronic, believe me! (please excuse the expletive)}
>I see the ability for endless revision in a computer as a problem.
<->
I see it's _misuse_ as a problem - it doesn't matter what medium you are in,
if you need endless revisions then you're not a designer.
>Don't get me wrong, computers have a very definite place in the design
>profession. I use computers fairly often. It's hard not to. But I only
>use it when it is the best tool to use to get the best end result for the
>project.
I agree fully, It is just that it is becoming more often that the end result
is digital, regardless of what medium was used to get to that stage.
<->
>Mathematical perfection isn't natural. If you're designing something in a
computer,
>doesn't it take a fair amount of effort to 'work around' the software's
>limitations?
<->
It can take effort to work around things, but most of what you are doing
while "working around" is reducing the mathematical perfection and inputting
the human imperfections that make it look real - kind of the opposite of
manual: a straight line drawn by hand is trying to be perfect, but has human
imperfections, a straight line drawn by computer has to have imperfections
added before it looks 'real'. {then why not just draw it by hand ? - a
computer is more accurate, easier to manipulate and easier to get
continuity.}
<-practical knowledge and design skills>
I'm not suggesting for a moment that a computer can replace these; knowledge
and skill are the underlying foundations of any designer (talent helps too,
but without the first two you're fighting an uphill battle)
Gadget
gadge...@hotmail.com
Gadget
<-real vs. 'manufactured'>
OK I know it's a weak argument, and people will always prefer 'real' artwork
(or music) to digitally produced, but I think that it is more for the three
dimensional 'feel' of real art - and the fact that even to copy such
original pieces takes talent and skill (instead of a colour photocopier or
'copy' command) However that does not mean that the digital original is any
less "good" than the tactile original.
<-benefits of digital film>
The main benefits of this is cost; at a photo shoot you may take in excess
of 10 rolls of film, once used; gone, from these negative sheets have to be
developed and the selected photos blown up. All of this could be cut out
with the digital medium, and with a PC standing by you could decide
immediately if you needed more, if something worked as well as expected,
etc. without needing to wait for it to develop. The discs can then be
re-used again and again, originals downloaded into PC.
<-painter friend>
but you can't hang a floppy disk on the wall. (well I suppose you could, but
then some people would call that art ! :)
>in general, digital artwork is more of a mass-produced and therefore
>socially devalued commodity than conventional artwork.
I don't know if I agree with you here; "digital artwork" needs a bit of
defining - If you mean using the advanced packages to throw filters and
effects into art then yes I agree with mass-produced. If you mean original
artwork that has been sweated over with a mouse-cramped hand then no. I
think that it's the availability of the (poor) artwork that makes it a
"devalued commodity"; supply and demand.
>maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. but if you're going to be talking
>about the commodification of creativity,
I wasn't but do go on ...
> then I think this discussion is an
>important one. <-progress& benefits>. look at
>the proliferation of what most would call bad art on the www. though I
>wholeheartedly support the software tools that make it possible for anyone
>to create art, I question how they have "benefitted" art in general.
>clearly words with such positive connotations are not sufficient.
Good question ...
Art is about expression - of ideas, emotions and feelings. In this case
visual portrayal of such. Any pleb and peasant can express these. How does
any piece of artwork "benefit art in general": What does the "Mona Lisa"
give to the art world that "Picture of mommy" (by Sammy aged 5) does not ?
Anyone ...?
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>narayan
>nar...@spamport.com
>replace "spam" with "thought" (interesting proposition, eh?) from reply-to
>address if you wish to email me
gray
re: digital vs film
I have to disagree with the idea that a photographic look doesn't have
much to do with the film. Film induces all sorts of changes to the
recorded image. Depth of field on film is less than with digital or
video. This makes backgrounds go out of focus sooner (this is because the
medium recording the image is less than 1/1,000 th of an inch thick-as
compared to a CCD or CRT which is recording image through several
thousandths of an inch). Aside from that, film has a softer look than
electronic. Colors shift, and image edges are slightly softened. Digital
has a harsher look, with more color contrast and sharper image edges.
It's sort of like the difference between photo-realistic and impressionist
paintings. Film photography has a certain style to it. Digital
photography could get to a million dpi and 100 bits per pixel (more info
than film holds), and it still wouldn't produce an image like film-it
would still look digital (not to mention that film is compact and has
generally better archival qualities than digital stuff).
As to film cost vs digital, you have to shoot a lot of film to make up for
the cost of a digital camera. Until digital pricing comes way down, the
only place I see it as being cost effective is for high-volume
applications (news+catalogs). Digital camera backs in the catalog world
pay for themselves pretty fast-not just in film costs, but in production
time too. Some subjects look good when shot digitally, but most look
better when done on film-and, many things look better as line drawings or
some other variety illustration.
We shoot most of our seperations with a litho camera. Good photographic
seperations still look a little better than computer seperations. When
the project is appropriate, we do scan and output Stochastic seperations.
Stochastic 'screening' is one of the best things I've seen come out of
computers for printing.
In thinking about it, computer technology seems to be trying to get closer
to 'perfection' and reality all the time. I live in 'reality'. When I
look at something that has been reproduced (printed or on a movie screen,
art-whatever), I generally don't want to have a reality experience. I
appreciate the stylization and romantic non-reality. I don't want to see
every pore in an actor or model's face, I don't want to see everything in
focus, I don't want to see every line in a drawing be mechanically
perfect. Too much information can be as bad as not enough. I appreciate
some variety. Sometimes it's nice to have rainy-cold days and sometimes
it's nice to have sunny-warm days. Computers tend to make every day
clear and warm. Want rain? Well, it's still clear and warm, you just
have to stand on the roof with the hose on to simulate it.
Computer-generated definately has a 'look' to it. Sometimes it's good,
often it's not. I'm tired of it. If your only tool is a computer, you're
lacking depth and skill-and it usually shows. Sure, you should be
profecient with a computer in design-you don't really have a choice if
you're going to be a professional. But you should use other devices as
well. The more and varied your experience, the better off you are.
About fine art from a computer: Rarity has value. A painting can be
owned by one person and valuable because that's the only one. Something
that was computer-generated could be reproduced infinately. There's less
value in something that anyone can have. Even lithos and serigraphs are
naturally limited in number-so at least have a lower-possible ownership.
Naturally, there is no reason for compter art to be worth as much
(regardless of what it looks like)
Gadget
>re: digital Vs film
Depth of field can be changed with lens effects, as can focus. Colour
shifts, contrast and softening can all be done with ease from software. It's
much easier to get a good final effect from blurring a sharp image than
sharpening a blurred one.
>It's sort of like the difference between photo-realistic and impressionist
>paintings.
I like both, but which were you referring to as which ? :) We're back to
differing styles being used for differing effects.
<- future & looking digital>
True, the results from that sort of thing might be 'super-realistic', but
the software now can insert humanistic flaws to make it more 'real'; I'm
sure that when the technology reaches that level the software will be able
to compensate to match.
>(not to mention that film is compact and has
>generally better archival qualities than digital stuff).
The same number of photos as a roll of film on a card {inside the camera}
that is half the thickness and a third the size of a credit card (twice that
on 'low quality'). And that's today's technology. Film deteriorates with
age, data can be there for ever (barring natural disasters & Microsoft)
>As to film cost vs digital, you have to shoot a lot of film to make up for
>the cost of a digital camera.
But you keep having to buy film and developer and paper... The camera can
use the same disk again and again.
>Until digital pricing comes way down,...<->
I was talking about future technologies, but £350.00(sterling) for a camera
bundle is not bad at all. {that does 640x480 96dpi and the camera is the
same as any point&shoot, you just plug it in (jack into a com port) and
download the photos}
<separations>
Technology is catching up - can you not see a day when all the separations
will be computerised ?
<computer to perfection>
I think that the technology is almost perfect now, the developments are not
trying to get it more perfect, but more 'human'. Developers realise that
there is such a thing as 'too perfect' and no-one wants to buy it (apart
from architects of course ;).
<computers your only tool>
I think that *bad* computer generated images have "that look" to them that
everyone is getting sick of. The *good* stuff you look at and don't think "I
wonder what package they used to do that", you just look at it and think
"Cool !".
I agree fully that a broad base of tools and mediums (this doesn't mean more
buttons) can only improve and expand subsequent work. Especially if you can
be shown and watched over by someone who knows their shit.
<fine art from a computer>
Yup. But look at the prints industry - unlimited Van Goch and Rubins for all
!
jon...@alphacom.net
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:31:51 -0000, "Gadget" <Gadge...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>re: digital Vs film
>
>
>>As to film cost vs digital, you have to shoot a lot of film to make up for
>>the cost of a digital camera.
>But you keep having to buy film and developer and paper... The camera can
>use the same disk again and again.
Yes, but I think the original poster was talking more about films than
just a one shot photo. There are a lot of shots in a motion picture!
JonSon
gray
>Depth of field can be changed with lens effects, as can focus. Colour
>shifts, contrast and softening can all be done with ease from software. It's
>much easier to get a good final effect from blurring a sharp image than
>sharpening a blurred one.
That's all true, but it still looks different when done in a computer than
when it is originated that way-and an f./2 in digital will give you about
the same depth of field as you get with f./11 on film (and I haven't seen
any lenses that will open to five stops more than f./2 (that would be
f./.35, I believe) to give digital a similar depth of field to film).
>> (photo-realistic and impressionist paintings.)
Impressionist as film, photo-realistic as digital.
> We're back to differing styles being used for differing effects.
Exactly. Film photography being good for some things, digital for
others-so why try to emulate a film look digitally?
>The same number of photos as a roll of film on a card {inside the camera}
>that is half the thickness and a third the size of a credit card (twice that
>on 'low quality'). And that's today's technology. Film deteriorates with
>age, data can be there for ever (barring natural disasters & Microsoft)
That compactness with today's technology is fine for 'snapshots', but only
gives you about 1/50th the resolution you need for reproduction
(magazines, etc.). And, under archival conditions, film is good for
about 50 years, whereas magnetic media (like in a hard drive) is only good
for about 15 years. Even CD's are only good for about 20 years before
they start degrading. All that doesn't take into account for
hardware/software compatibility in the future. For most things computer,
five years seems to be average for obsolesence-which doesn't make for
archival. Not that archival matters much anyway. In 20,000 years,
archeologists will probably be finding 40,000 year old cave paintings and
pyramids and anceint Mayan cities. There isn't much being created right
now (in any media) that can be expected to last more than one or two
hundred years.
>>As to film cost vs digital (and 'break-even volume')
>Yes, but I think the original poster was talking more about films than
>just a one shot photo. There are a lot of shots in a motion picture!
Actually I was talking about single shots. This being a graphic design
newsgroup, I go on the assumption that photography for reproduction is
being discussed. With that in mind, I was comparing the cost of
professional (Leaf, Dicomed, etc.) digital cameras that tend to cost 10 to
50 times more than their film-based counterparts-which is a lot of film
(and processing). Digital HDTV is available for motion-picture use, and
compares well with film cost-wise (motion picture equipment is very
expensive). There just aren't many theatres with HDTV projectors-but I'm
sure you'll be seeing that in the not too distant future. HDTV (as with
almost everthing 'electronic') has a harsh look to it-two hours of film is
a lot easier on your eyes and brain than two hours of vibrant video.
Digital is rarely as good as the analog technology it replaces. But
computers have their place. Photography was challenged when it was
invented-now it has its place. Phonographs were challenged as well.
Everything new needs to find its place. I'm sure that when movable type
was first put into use, a bunch of Scribes were unhappy about that too
(probably ended up tending rice paddys instead). Some things, technology
makes better. Some things, not. If you really think about it, we'd all
probably be better off without any technology beyond a spear and a hut.
Technology is mostly allowing us to extinct ourselves a little faster.
But that is a bit off the topic, isn't it?
jon...@alphacom.net
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:41:37 -0700, gr...@artcenter.edu (gray) wrote:
>for about 15 years. Even CD's are only good for about 20 years before
>they start degrading. All that doesn't take into account for
>hardware/software compatibility in the future. For most things computer,
>five years seems to be average for obsolesence-which doesn't make for
>archival. Not that archival matters much anyway. In 20,000 years,
>archeologists will probably be finding 40,000 year old cave paintings and
>pyramids and anceint Mayan cities. There isn't much being created right
>now (in any media) that can be expected to last more than one or two
>hundred years.
I am not sure about CD's... but can't they give a "lifetime of
listening enjoyment" (for music)?
We would need proof on this. But it is an interesting thread.
>Actually I was talking about single shots. This being a graphic design
>newsgroup, I go on the assumption that photography for reproduction is
>being discussed. With that in mind, I was comparing the cost of
>professional (Leaf, Dicomed, etc.) digital cameras that tend to cost 10 to
>50 times more than their film-based counterparts-which is a lot of film
>(and processing). Digital HDTV is available for motion-picture use, and
>compares well with film cost-wise (motion picture equipment is very
>expensive). There just aren't many theatres with HDTV projectors-but I'm
>sure you'll be seeing that in the not too distant future. HDTV (as with
>almost everthing 'electronic') has a harsh look to it-two hours of film is
>a lot easier on your eyes and brain than two hours of vibrant video.
Is HDTV only digital? I am not an expert but I know of a show called
Babylon 5 shot in HDTV (then reformatted for the tv screen) and they
said they were storing film back at the Warners Brothers....
Any clues?
JonSon
Gadget
gray wrote in message ...
>(and I haven't seen
>any lenses that will open to five stops more than f./2 (that would be
>f./.35, I believe) to give digital a similar depth of field to film).
True, but I wasn't talking about today's technology.... I would also
challenge digital to take high speed photography today.
>> We're back to differing styles being used for differing effects.
>
>Exactly. Film photography being good for some things, digital for
>others-so why try to emulate a film look digitally?
Well why have a 'Filters' menu on programs if not to emulate a different
look ?
I agree that if you are going to frame and hang photographs, then digital
cannot (just now) even touch the results. However if you are using the
results in digitally produced finals, then digital photo's cut out a lot of
time.
<<Lifespan of media>>
Which format do you wish to keep the original media in ? and for how long ?
If you wish to keep a particular piece of digital artwork, you copy it to
the new disk and scrap the old : another 20 year stay of execution with no
deterioration.
>There isn't much being created right now (in any media) that can be
>expected to last more than one or two hundred years.
Sad but true.
<single shot film $$$>
>digital cameras that tend to cost 10 to
>50 times more than their film-based counterparts
... Just now. Look at the quality and price of PC's ten years ago; in ten
years the cost and quality will make the choice between the two just be
personal preference. And look at the cost of a *good* ('analogue') camera
just now - I could buy a basic PC for the price !
<digital films & TV>
>Some things, technology
>makes better. Some things, not. If you really think about it, we'd all
>probably be better off without any technology beyond a spear and a hut.
>Technology is mostly allowing us to extinct ourselves a little faster.
>But that is a bit off the topic, isn't it?
But when 90% of postings here are "hire me, hire me" or "look at my site;
aren't I clever" a bit of diversity is welcomed. :)
Gadget
gadge...@hotmail.com
{P.S. I'm a graphic designer looking for clients; my web site is .... <g>}
gray
> I am not sure about CD's... but can't they give a "lifetime of
> listening enjoyment" (for music)?
CD Lifespan is primarily limited by the plastic used in making the CD.
After several years, the plastic starts warping and 'fogging', as well as
delaminating from the aluminium that holds the information.
Imperfections, water vapor, etc. also eventually corrode the aluminum part
of the disk. Gold disks slow the process down some, but it still occurs.
Therefore, a few decades of life is all you can reasonably expect from a
CD.
> Is HDTV only digital? I am not an expert but I know of a show called
> Babylon 5 shot in HDTV (then reformatted for the tv screen) and they
> said they were storing film back at the Warners Brothers....
>
> Any clues?
No, digital HDTV is a fairly recent development. Most HDTV out there
right now is still analog. As to Babylon 5, I don't really know if they
are originating on film or video, but it isn't unusual that production is
'HDTV ready' now. That really just means that the original framing takes
care of TV and HDTV cropping at the same time. Film is usually used on
'high-end' TV shows and transferred to video-in whatever format might be
desired (TV, HDTV, PAL, NTSC, SECAM, etc.). Film is still the most
versatile media to begin with to get lots of choice in distribution, as
well as maintaining a high quality level.
As a little aside, I think there are eight different digital videotape
formats in use right now, and thirteen different analog videotape formats,
as well as a few different disk formats-and more are coming soon. (like
there weren't enough already)
jon...@alphacom.net
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:35:43 -0700, gr...@artcenter.edu (gray) wrote:
>> I am not sure about CD's... but can't they give a "lifetime of
>> listening enjoyment" (for music)?
>
>CD Lifespan is primarily limited by the plastic used in making the CD.
>After several years, the plastic starts warping and 'fogging', as well as
>delaminating from the aluminium that holds the information.
>Imperfections, water vapor, etc. also eventually corrode the aluminum part
>of the disk. Gold disks slow the process down some, but it still occurs.
>Therefore, a few decades of life is all you can reasonably expect from a
>CD.
Ok. A few decades isn't bad. But, is the CD the best recording media
in terms of non-degradation of the information?
>> Is HDTV only digital? I am not an expert but I know of a show called
>> Babylon 5 shot in HDTV (then reformatted for the tv screen) and they
>> said they were storing film back at the Warners Brothers....
>>
>> Any clues?
>
>No, digital HDTV is a fairly recent development. Most HDTV out there
>right now is still analog. As to Babylon 5, I don't really know if they
>are originating on film or video, but it isn't unusual that production is
>'HDTV ready' now. That really just means that the original framing takes
>care of TV and HDTV cropping at the same time. Film is usually used on
>'high-end' TV shows and transferred to video-in whatever format might be
>desired (TV, HDTV, PAL, NTSC, SECAM, etc.). Film is still the most
>versatile media to begin with to get lots of choice in distribution, as
>well as maintaining a high quality level.
Another question that comes to my mind: what is the screen ratio of
all those supports? For example, I'm I right in assuming that HDTV as
a ratio of 4:9 in terms of the vertical width compare the horizontal
one?
What is panavision (another type of film?)
Etc.
I'll probably learn that in my photo courses in design, but whats the
arm in asking, eh?!!
JonSon