'Dem newfangled art techniques
Gwydion
Since several industry people post here regularly (and even more
lurk), I thought I'd toss this question out. It's old, and probably
has been rehashed more times than I could imagine, but here goes...
The past few years seem to be the advent of increasingly improving
computer technology and more and more use of computer-aided coloring
and seperations and lettering. Some people seem to use computers just
for cheap effects (many Image, the X-titles, Viz' lettering, the last
Warrior Nun Areala mini). Others manage to get absolutely GORGEOUS
artwork out of it (the first WNA mini, Shotgun Mary, SIRHJ)... add
that on to rumors circulating that a company (Olyoptics?) has been
working on a method to *ink* penciled pages as well as color them, I
have to wonder...
(wait for it)
Is the age of the traditional "Writer/Penciller/Inker/Letterer" team
in danger of going the way of the manual typewriter? Anyone have any
opinions on this, or is there some obscure FAQ I've missed somewhere?
Gwydion
Come Visit Harry's Homepage-O-Rama:
http://don.skidmore.edu/~domalley
Dr. Cat
Gwydion (doma...@skidmore.edu) wrote:
: Is the age of the traditional "Writer/Penciller/Inker/Letterer" team
: in danger of going the way of the manual typewriter? Anyone have any
: opinions on this, or is there some obscure FAQ I've missed somewhere?
For writing and drawing, the computer is, in a sense, just like the
invention of a new type of paint or a new type of pen. It is "one more
tool to choose from" along with all the old ones that were around before.
The job of letterer might be made so much easier you'll see more artists
doing their own lettering instead of having a seperate person do it.
The other jobs, writer, penciller and inker, depend primarily on artistic
talent, not on technology. Whether they're done by one individual, or
two or three, that depends on how much talent, time and energy the
creator(s) in question have. I would note that we've seen creators do
two or all three of those jobs long before computer game along, though
they're in the minority. Some of them did their own lettering too. If
the computers make some of the chores a little faster and easier, we'll
probably see more of the people that had the talent but not the time and
energy try going it alone. People will still collaborate on comics, though.
Even the people who *could* do it all alone may often focus on one part
of the process so they can work on more than one comic at the same time.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions **
********************************************** Watch this space!
Furcadia - coming soon to your computer! **
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: As this thread is crossposted to a furry newsgroup and two
comics newsgroups, I would just like to take this moment to tell all
comic book fans that it is NOT true that all furry fans collect plumbing
supplies. That's just a false rumor the gaming fans spread about us.)
ASHKE
> that on to rumors circulating that a company (Olyoptics?) has been
> working on a method to *ink* penciled pages as well as color them, I
> have to wonder...
Happen to have soon Fractal Design works 'Dabbler' or some of
their higher end programs? Fantastic visual and coloring effects at the
click of a mouse... Now, as for printing it off correctly; erch. 4k for
a printer is *not* fun :(
Ashke
Artistically inept.
Robin Riggs
In article <328fda86...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
doma...@skidmore.edu (Gwydion) wrote:
>Is the age of the traditional "Writer/Penciller/Inker/Letterer" team
>in danger of going the way of the manual typewriter? Anyone have any
>opinions on this, or is there some obscure FAQ I've missed somewhere?
Things are definately changing but as long as most comics are shipping an
a [supposedly] monthly schedule there's still going to be a division of
labour. Everything _can_ be done on computer but not everything actually
benefits from it.
I don't know if a writer is actually speeded much by a word processor as
actually typing a script is a very small part of his job, most of it is
done in his head.
A letterer can benefit from a computer, if the script is e-mailed then
actually transfering the copy to the page is just cut and paste but all the
design involved is still down to the person.
Pencilling is far easier on paper. I've produced work entirely generated
on computer, it's possible but it's so much easier by hand so why bother?
I've yet to find any satisfactory way to ink on computer with any degree
of control [but then you would expect an inker to be a bit fussy about that
wouldn't you? :)]. Even if there is a program lurking out there that I
haven't come accross which can simulate inking I doubt very much if it will
be anywhere near as speedy as a simple brush. Fractal Design's Expression
looks promising for producing interesting linework but It's still much
easier with a brush. It's much more likely that inking will simply
disappear. Some people are already scanning pencils and colouring them.
Colouring seems to be the thing where computers are making the most
impact on comics. The thing is that colouring on computer is quite slow.
It's sad but true that colouring is often a hurried job at the end of the
creative line. Although some wonderful things can be done on computer there
often isn't time even when the job is being handled by a studio.
I make my living doing comics by hand and my hobby is doing art on
computer so I can see both sides. I could pencil, ink, letter and colour a
comic on computer but the truth is I can do most of it better and more
quickly on paper. I think that some things are certainly going to change.
Lettering and colouring are now mostly done on computer but they are also
mostly done by studios rather than individuals. The trend I see is that
rather than empowering individuals to take control of the entire creative
process themselves the computerization of the industry is actually
generating a much more studio based system with creators overseeing
assistants.
Is this a good thing? After all Will Eisner needed only a pencil, pen,
brush, paper, ink and his talent to produce "A Contract With God". Does the
technology really help or is it distracting some people from the elements
in comics which really matter like a good story, well told?
Just a thought ;)
Robin Riggs
Whose inking can be seen over Alan Davis' pencils on the X-Man Annual on
sale this week. It's coloured by rac's resident colourist Tom Vincent. [A
totally shameless plug but I particularly enjoyed working on this one :)]
Carl Henderson
>add that on to rumors circulating that a company (Olyoptics?) has been
>working on a method to *ink* penciled pages as well as color them, I
>have to wonder...
It's already here. ESPers is "computer-inked." And after some initial
roughness, it looks real good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson "Just what part of 'No Law' don't
carl.he...@airmail.net you understand..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Jomphe
Dr. Cat wrote:
> For writing and drawing, the computer is, in a sense, just like the
> invention of a new type of paint or a new type of pen. It is "one more
> tool to choose from" along with all the old ones that were around before.
> The job of letterer might be made so much easier you'll see more artists
> doing their own lettering instead of having a seperate person do it.
This is basically what happenned to the graphic design industry, with
the new tools
now available to the designers, they eventually started doing their own
typography,
Image setup and so on... However, Like Dr Cat pointed out, there will
allways be those
that specialise in specific areas for reasons of talent and or
preference. So The
inkers/letterers/etc... will probably still be around for quite a while.
However,
their methods of operating will no doubt adapt to include the new
technologie as
it comes along.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Gwydion (doma...@skidmore.edu) quoth:
: that on to rumors circulating that a company (Olyoptics?) has been
: working on a method to *ink* penciled pages as well as color them, I
: have to wonder...
Technically, my understanding is that it's almost trivial to "ink"
pencilled pages once you get them scanned. It's simply a matter of
converting an 8-bit greyscale bitmap into a 2-bit black and white bitmap.
Via thresh-holds or various sorts of dithering, even low end graphics
software will do this automatically. That will produce results that may
be crude, but the process is easily accomplished with existing software;
the results can be touched up by hand as needed, depending on how the
original pencils were shaded themselves.
--
________Let's_keep_copyright_and_trademark_lawyering_off_the_Net__________
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus gust...@iglou.com
+ Credesne te faustus esse, sceleste? +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Robin Riggs
In article <E14Is...@iglou.com>,
gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>Technically, my understanding is that it's almost trivial to "ink"
>pencilled pages once you get them scanned. It's simply a matter of
>converting an 8-bit greyscale bitmap into a 2-bit black and white bitmap.
>Via thresh-holds or various sorts of dithering, even low end graphics
>software will do this automatically. That will produce results that may
>be crude, but the process is easily accomplished with existing software;
>the results can be touched up by hand as needed, depending on how the
>original pencils were shaded themselves.
You don't even have to do that! You can scan directly to bitmap.This is
one of the reasons that I said in my post that I think traditional inking
is one of the jobs that will disappear. Dale Keown has already published
some Pitt pages which were scanned from the pencils and then coloured. He
obviously pencils very tight and clean and the results looked good to me. A
lot of pencillers don't work that tight though and so the results would be
much more unpredictable. It just depends how clean you like your linework.
Robin Riggs
Who seems to be talking his way out of a job with this one :)
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Robin Riggs (ka...@dial.pipex.com) quoth:
: gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
: >Technically, my understanding is that it's almost trivial to "ink"
: >pencilled pages once you get them scanned. It's simply a matter of
: >converting an 8-bit greyscale bitmap into a 2-bit black and white bitmap.
: You don't even have to do that! You can scan directly to bitmap.This is
: one of the reasons that I said in my post that I think traditional inking
: is one of the jobs that will disappear. Dale Keown has already published
: some Pitt pages which were scanned from the pencils and then coloured. He
: obviously pencils very tight and clean and the results looked good to me. A
: lot of pencillers don't work that tight though and so the results would be
: much more unpredictable. It just depends how clean you like your linework.
Indeed you can; and as you observe, a lot depends on the style of the
pencils in question. Computers are also excellent for applying the dot
shading that used to be done by hand via applique's.
It was suggested originally, though, that someone had come up with a
computer programme that inked pencils, and suggested that this represented
a Great Breakthrough; and it seemed to me that this was instead something
I had done fairly often myself.
--
________Let's_keep_copyright_and_trademark_lawyering_off_the_Net__________
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus gust...@iglou.com
+ Maxima calamitas nasci; parere, pessimum crimen. +
Christopher V. Berdoz
doma...@skidmore.edu (Gwydion) writes:
>Since several industry people post here regularly (and even more
>lurk), I thought I'd toss this question out. It's old, and probably
>has been rehashed more times than I could imagine, but here goes...
>Is the age of the traditional "Writer/Penciller/Inker/Letterer" team
>in danger of going the way of the manual typewriter? Anyone have any
>opinions on this, or is there some obscure FAQ I've missed somewhere?
I think that there are more artistically minded creators out
there that feel if a comic would be more aesthetically pleasing
to be done in a traditional way, it would be done so. Also, high
end computer equipment is expensive. 2D animation has not been
completely replaced by 3D computer animation, and photography has not
completely replaced painting. Two things people were afraid for
when they came out.
CB
Peter Torkelson
Robin Riggs wrote:
>
> In article <E14Is...@iglou.com>,
> gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>
> >Technically, my understanding is that it's almost trivial to "ink"
> >pencilled pages once you get them scanned. It's simply a matter of
> >converting an 8-bit greyscale bitmap into a 2-bit black and white bitmap.
> >software will do this automatically. That will produce results that may
> >be crude, but the process is easily accomplished with existing software;
> >the results can be touched up by hand as needed, depending on how the
> >original pencils were shaded themselves.
>
> one of the reasons that I said in my post that I think traditional inking
> is one of the jobs that will disappear. Dale Keown has already published
> some Pitt pages which were scanned from the pencils and then coloured. He
> obviously pencils very tight and clean and the results looked good to me. A
> lot of pencillers don't work that tight though and so the results would be
> much more unpredictable. It just depends how clean you like your linework.
>
> Who seems to be talking his way out of a job with this one :)
Um, don't think it's that simple. Sure, for a few very clean pencilers,
that
will be the case. But for everyone else? Realisticly? Inking is not just
tracing lines, you know, it's line weight and shading tricks and so on.
There
are a number of judgment calls to make just inking a peice.
Unless, of course, your going to color. Then you might be able to get
away
with it, sometimes, becuse the coloring process tends take care of the
same
sorts of things that inking needs to in a B&W.
I rather doubt inkers will go away, even if their tools end up being a
tablet
and computer, they will still be around. Muck like draftsmen, sure, you
can
put out more drawings in autocad, but the job is not going away.
Robin Riggs
In article <3293DC...@netscape.com>,
Peter Torkelson <pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
>Um, don't think it's that simple. Sure, for a few very clean pencilers,
>that
>will be the case. But for everyone else? Realisticly? Inking is not just
>tracing lines, you know, it's line weight and shading tricks and so on.
>There
>are a number of judgment calls to make just inking a peice.
I'm well aware that inking isn't just tracing :). I've been doing it
professionally for several years now, the past two as regular inker on the
Incredible Hulk for Marvel.
>
>Unless, of course, your going to color. Then you might be able to get
>away
>with it, sometimes, becuse the coloring process tends take care of the
>same
>sorts of things that inking needs to in a B&W.
That was my point. If people can get away with scanning and colouring
pencils they will do it. I'm certainly not saying it's desireable, but the
fact is that almost everything is computer coloured these days and as the
pages aren't always reproduced at a high enough resolution the quality of
the line is being perceived as less important.
>
>I rather doubt inkers will go away, even if their tools end up being a
>tablet
>and computer, they will still be around. Muck like draftsmen, sure, you
>can
>put out more drawings in autocad, but the job is not going away.
Again I agreee. The people will not go away, but they may well end up
having to apply their skills in very different ways.
Robin Riggs.
Amara
<re Computer 'Inking' >
Hmm.. people scan the pencils and darken them... ugh.. That would explain
why Alot of Comics nowadays have those really thin 'Inked' lines (or it
would explain some of them at least). I always thought they were just
inked with technical pens, some probably are still but yeah. :)
I ink with pens, personally, but I must admit that there's nothing I like
better than opening a copmic that's inked really well with a brush. To
all you good brush inkers out there...
TEACH ME!!!!! :)
Amy 'Eternal Penciller' Pronovost. :)
"We count 30 rebel ships, Lord Vader, but our men are so pissed they
couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost: Anthro/Star Wars artist, Star Wars Cool Girl,
Official rassm Cool person, Psychovixen.
ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au <*> http://rat.org/amara <*>
Paul Bennett
An even easier method, if your scanner supports it, is to scan in as a
two color bitmap. (And does THAT ever save disk space! :>)
Paul
Aron Wallaker
I'm glad someone brought up the art vs. photorgraphy point. I just had this
discussion recently, but there is an analogy to the use of computer for
comics artwork: Historically, most European art in the eras before the
advent of photography was done in a highly realistic fashion. One of the
goals of (many) artists at that time was to detail a scene as realistically as
possible. Around the time that photography arrived many artists began to
abandon absolute realism as a goal; yes Impressionism did begin before the
advent of photography but it was definitely spurred along as photography
emerged. If you look at art history from this point forward you see that
realism as a goal became less and less important (Impressionism->Cubism->
Abstract,etc.) where today most modern art is only understandable to people who
have a knowledge of art theory. This is partly because of the somewhat
inbred nature of the modern art community, but it's also because there is
little point trying to outdo a camera at something the camera will just
do better.
The analogy here for comics creation is that if someone can come up with
a simple scanning algorithm which turns reasonably solid pencils into what
looks like inked work, it will not spell the end of inking in comics. What
will likely happen is that those projects where the artist is not concerned
about (or in control of) manual vs. computer inking will likely be largely
computer inked. However those artists who want to create a style not easily
duplicated with the available computer inking tools will continue to work
with manual inking. People in this thread have talked about how to scan
work in certain ways to make it look more like it was inked, but the
techniques they mentioned would not (IMHO) facilitate a negative-space
work ala Sin City. Similarly some artists like to do their pencil work with
a very low level of detail and then add most of the detail when they go over
it with inks - this again couldn't be as easily automated through software.
Personally, as much as I've seen some nicely computer colored books (as well
as some terrible ones) I still like the look of books that are colored in
painted watercolor (Hey Milestone, are you out there ?) as opposed to digital
coloring. I don't think any piece of tech can eliminate inkers or colorists,
but it will shift the demand for when a project uses computer automation
and when they stay with purely manual techniques.
Later,
--
Aron Wallaker IBM Microelectronics Development Lab
wall...@vnet.ibm.com Toronto, Ontario
These are my opinions-IBM has its own
Jennifer Zervakis
Although I logically understand the point that computers can be a tool in
creating art, at the same time, to me, the quality of being "hand-made"
is an essential part of beauty of art. For instance Chris Ware's
Acme Novelty covers would not be so astounding if they were entirely
computer generated. This is seen in fine art as well, where the impact of
viewing a mass produced object is very different than viewing, even the
same object, lovingly constructed through some arcane detailed process.
Just the fact that someone took the time and effort to make it gives it
meaning. I once saw this artist's work which was fabric sculptures,
consisting of finely switched stuffed tubes and shapes sewn together into a
complicated form. I didn't know what the hell they meant, but simply because
the artist put so much work into them they were interesting, and I
would give them the benefit of the doubt over an art work that was slapped
together.
Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
Jenny Z.
am...@snowmeow.com
> Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
> the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
> the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
>
> Jenny Z.
I couldn't have said it better myself, but those are my views too. I've
had people balk at me because I like art that has slight imperfections.
Noone is perfect, no art is perfect. And there can be times when things
are too perfect, I call the too perfect art 'Processed Cheese art'. It's
processed, too consistent, bland and made for the masses. :)
Amy- Who could probably compare everything to a type of cheese given half
a chance.
"We count 30 rebel ships, Lord Vader, but our men are so pissed they
couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost: Anthro/Star Wars artist, Star Wars Cool Girl,
Official rassm Cool person, Psychovixen, Biologist.
am...@snowmeow.com <*> http://rat.org/amara <*>
Wolf
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Robin Riggs wrote:
> In article <E14Is...@iglou.com>,
> gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>
> >Technically, my understanding is that it's almost trivial to "ink"
> >pencilled pages once you get them scanned. It's simply a matter of
<techno jargon deleted>
> You don't even have to do that! You can scan directly to bitmap.This is
<snip>
> lot of pencillers don't work that tight though and so the results would be
> much more unpredictable. It just depends how clean you like your linework.
This whole argument reminds me of the acoustic drums vs.
electronic drums argument in pop music. That started how many years ago?
At least 10. And now both are used. As Robin said, the results would be
unpredictable from penciler to penciler. But the same penciller would get
similar results each time he tried scanning. And that could be a strength
-- ergo, "what effect can this technology produce that a traditional inker
can't"? And, of course, wouldn't a traditional inker be able to do things
the 'puter can't?
IMHO, computers just add to the palette an artist works with.
Wolf
____________________________________ _______________________________________
*
The University of Iowa is not * I get the feeling that once
responsible for the views of this * something appears in the paper, it
writer -- they haven't taught me * ceases to be true.
anything new. Blame my upbringing.* - T-Bone Burnett, "The Wild Truth"
____________________________________*_______________________________________
Sean Malloy
ASHKE <As...@cris.com> wrote:
>> that on to rumors circulating that a company (Olyoptics?) has been
>> working on a method to *ink* penciled pages as well as color them, I
>> have to wonder...
>their higher end programs? Fantastic visual and coloring effects at the
>click of a mouse... Now, as for printing it off correctly; erch. 4k for
>a printer is *not* fun :(
Actually, Dabbler and its two companion products, Painter and Sketcher
(the latter a greyscale-only program) work much better if you have a
pressure-sensitive input device, which is why you can usually find
Dabbler bundled with a Wacom or other tablet device.
Now if I can just find a product I saw in a store, couldn't afford at
the time, and can't remember where I saw it -- "COM5", a PC card that
turned a serial mouse into a bus mouse, freeing a COM port so I didn't
have to choose between having a modem or a stylus -- I could start
seeing just how terrible an artist I am (or finally be able to do some
of the things I've wanted to do for years, depending).
--
Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
Naval Medical Center | Society
San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
mal...@cris.com | "We may not make sense,
srma...@snd10.med.navy.mil | but we do like pizza"
Herman Miller
>I'm glad someone brought up the art vs. photorgraphy point. I just had this
>discussion recently, but there is an analogy to the use of computer for
>comics artwork: Historically, most European art in the eras before the
>advent of photography was done in a highly realistic fashion. One of the
>goals of (many) artists at that time was to detail a scene as realistically as
>possible. Around the time that photography arrived many artists began to
>abandon absolute realism as a goal; yes Impressionism did begin before the
>advent of photography but it was definitely spurred along as photography
>emerged. If you look at art history from this point forward you see that
>realism as a goal became less and less important (Impressionism->Cubism->
>Abstract,etc.) where today most modern art is only understandable to people who
>have a knowledge of art theory. This is partly because of the somewhat
>inbred nature of the modern art community, but it's also because there is
>little point trying to outdo a camera at something the camera will just
>do better.
Unless of course, your goal is to create photo-realistic images of subjects
that can't be photographed, like fairies or furries. Now we have technology
to combine the two techniques, starting with photographic source material and
making a different work of art from it. But it would be an interesting
experiment to try to create a photographic look from scratch. If I only had
the years of practice it would take for that degree of realism....
I wonder how long it will be until the state of rendering software reaches the
point where we can see images that look like photographs of real furries?
Jumanji's rendered animals come close.
alien/fairy/furry art-->> +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
DP Cannon
Peter Torkelson <pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
>Robin Riggs wrote:
>I rather doubt inkers will go away, even if their tools end up being a
>tablet
>and computer, they will still be around. Muck like draftsmen, sure, you
>can
>put out more drawings in autocad, but the job is not going away.
Not to mention the need for real skills. No fancy new tool is any good
for lack of skill or vision. Those who rely on this technology to shore
up lacking skills and talent are only thieves of the mind's eye of others.
D.P. Cannon
DP Cannon
Jennifer Zervakis <zerv...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
>the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
>the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
>
>Jenny Z.
And that they are. There is nothing more satisfying than having the
real thing at your fingertips, the very physical being of it. While
wonderful things are capable via technology, it is also ethereal in it's
nature, a volatile thing. Art is really a part of us. I consider art
through technology to be a dalliance, but the real commitment happens
between pen, paper, and the artist.
D.P. Cannon
David G. Bell
> Unless of course, your goal is to create photo-realistic images of subjects
> that can't be photographed, like fairies or furries. Now we have technology
> to combine the two techniques, starting with photographic source material and
> making a different work of art from it. But it would be an interesting
> experiment to try to create a photographic look from scratch. If I only had
> the years of practice it would take for that degree of realism....
>
> I wonder how long it will be until the state of rendering software reaches the
> point where we can see images that look like photographs of real furries?
> Jumanji's rendered animals come close.
Some of the tiggif series of images on the furry binaries newsgroups are
good enough that you have to look twice, but I think they still tend to
look too much like human skin with a pattern painted on.
There are some quite subtle patterns in the alignment of fur and hair on
real animals, almost as capable of distinguishing animals as
fingerprints are for humans, and thast sort of thing makes faking fur
even more difficult.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Dingo
Sean Malloy wrote:
[snip]
>
> Actually, Dabbler and its two companion products, Painter and Sketcher
> (the latter a greyscale-only program) work much better if you have a
> pressure-sensitive input device, which is why you can usually find
> Dabbler bundled with a Wacom or other tablet device.
>
> Now if I can just find a product I saw in a store, couldn't afford at
> the time, and can't remember where I saw it -- "COM5", a PC card that
> turned a serial mouse into a bus mouse, freeing a COM port so I didn't
> have to choose between having a modem or a stylus -- I could start
> seeing just how terrible an artist I am (or finally be able to do some
> of the things I've wanted to do for years, depending).
>
> --
> Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
> Naval Medical Center | Society
> San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
> mal...@cris.com | "We may not make sense,
> srma...@snd10.med.navy.mil | but we do like pizza"
I own and use a Wacom tablet that was bundled with Dabbler 2.
The solution I found was to get a PS/2 port mouse and use that on the
PS/2 port, then connect my tablet to the COM 1 port. Now I can use
whichever I want without unconnecting/reconnecting them!
--
- Dingo
__________________________________________________
Andrew "Dingo" Baker
<ba...@wpg.ramp.net>
__________________________________________________
"Even the smallest feline is a masterpiece."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Harvey White
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 02:29:00 GMT, mal...@cris.com (Sean Malloy) wrote:
>Now if I can just find a product I saw in a store, couldn't afford at
>the time, and can't remember where I saw it -- "COM5", a PC card that
>turned a serial mouse into a bus mouse, freeing a COM port so I didn't
>have to choose between having a modem or a stylus -- I could start
>seeing just how terrible an artist I am (or finally be able to do some
>of the things I've wanted to do for years, depending).
>
Well, if you have W95, there's a fix. I have 4 com ports, modem's on
#2, tablet's on #4, trackball #1, and nothing's on 3. The new driver
from www.wacom.com (iirc) for win95 can adjust to com 3 & 4, and can
be turned off. I still have to choose, but it isn't so difficult. I
just don't use the tablet and the modem at the same time. BTW: you
_must_ turn off the tablet driver for the modem to work, since in this
system, the IRQ's are fixed and shared.
Harvey
***
I just read minds,
I don't explain them
***
Ian Finnesey
David G. Bell (db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <578cfp$q...@nntp-3.io.com> hmi...@io.com "Herman Miller" writes:
: Some of the tiggif series of images on the furry binaries newsgroups are
: good enough that you have to look twice, but I think they still tend to
: look too much like human skin with a pattern painted on.
: There are some quite subtle patterns in the alignment of fur and hair on
: real animals, almost as capable of distinguishing animals as
: fingerprints are for humans, and thast sort of thing makes faking fur
: even more difficult.
A way to get a rather rough furry texture is to draw the fur (as lightly
and as finely as you can) with pencil, scan it (I can't remember
how...either as line art or greyscale...greyscale, I think), and then
color it. It doesn't look right at first, but once it's colored, the
pencil provides a lot of the shading neccesary to achieve a look of fur.
You might want to play around with the initial image that you get after
you scan and color it, as this method produces good results, but they're
a little cartoony (perhaps it's just the drawing I was using? Or the
shading I did with the watercolor tool?), and can look more like a plush
toy than a real animal, but I'm sure it has a lot more promise than I've
ever tried to squeeze out of it.
--
---
Let's play pretend. You just pretend this isn't happening.
Andrew Ryan Chang
Robin Riggs <ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> That was my point. If people can get away with scanning and colouring
>pencils they will do it. I'm certainly not saying it's desireable, but the
>fact is that almost everything is computer coloured these days and as the
>pages aren't always reproduced at a high enough resolution the quality of
>the line is being perceived as less important.
Didn't Michael Zulli make a conscious decision to use uninked
pencils for Sandman:The Wake? That was a gorgeously done set of issues.
--
If I ruled the world/
and everything in it/
Sky's the limit/
I'd push a Q-4-5 Infinit/ -Nas, "If I Ruled the World"
doctor damonto
supposing i use a computer font instead of hand lettering
my self written, penciled, and inked comic because i cannot
letter worth shit.
am i a "thief"?, is this a bad thing in any way if i am more
than sufficient in the other categories?
also,
>Jennifer Zervakis <zerv...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
>>the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
>>the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
>>
>>Jenny Z.
>
> And that they are. There is nothing more satisfying than having the
>real thing at your fingertips, the very physical being of it.
really? i find nothing more satsifying than looking at a product
i finished, now matter how i finished it.
While
>wonderful things are capable via technology, it is also ethereal in it's
>nature, a volatile thing. Art is really a part of us. I consider art
>through technology to be a dalliance, but the real commitment happens
>between pen, paper, and the artist.
bullshit. dave mckean's computer generated covers for black orchid are
among the best covers ever made, period. they ARE "art". and it's
not more 'ethereal" than any other comic.
i could say the same thing about some of the fractal designs i've seen.
--
Scariest quote of the month-- "Life is more important than choice [freedom]."
--William Kristol
Tom Attix
> >>I rather doubt inkers will go away, even if their tools end up being a
> >>tablet
> >>and computer, they will still be around. Muck like draftsmen, sure, you
> >>can
> >>put out more drawings in autocad, but the job is not going away.
> >
> >
> > Not to mention the need for real skills. No fancy new tool is any good
> >for lack of skill or vision. Those who rely on this technology to shore
> >up lacking skills and talent are only thieves of the mind's eye of others.
> >Jennifer Zervakis <zerv...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
> >>the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
> >>the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
> >>
> >>Jenny Z.
> >
> > And that they are. There is nothing more satisfying than having the
> >real thing at your fingertips, the very physical being of it.
> While
> >wonderful things are capable via technology, it is also ethereal in it's
> >nature, a volatile thing. Art is really a part of us. I consider art
> >through technology to be a dalliance, but the real commitment happens
> >between pen, paper, and the artist.
You know, if Leonardo daVinci were alive today he would probably hate the
way all artists use mass produced brushes, inks and paints. If the artist
doesn't care enough to create his own materials, how can he claim to
really love his art? If the artist doesn't really love his art, how can it
be of any value?
In response to this we might answer: Times change, methods and techniques
change with them. If the artist using the tools has real vision and
ability, the tools don't matter. The art will stand up by itself.
If the computer generated art you see looks bad, just call it bad art. The
method of creation is not the issue, just the end result. The final
quality.
As for the "hand made" issue, don't fool yourself. Unless you're looking
at the originals, everything you see (in print) has been optically,
chemically and mechanically processed (and thereby altered). The color is
ALWAYS different, the line widths will ALWAYS be different, the greycsale
levels will ALWAYS be shifted up or down. There is no such thing as
perfect reproduction, ever.
--
-Tom Attix
_______________________________________________
at...@apple.com
_______________________________________________
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing
through the leather straps". - Emo Phillips
Brett George
In article <attix-05129...@a17-221-20-161.apple.com>,
at...@apple.com (Tom Attix) wrote:
> You know, if Leonardo daVinci were alive today he would probably hate the
> way all artists use mass produced brushes, inks and paints. If the artist
> doesn't care enough to create his own materials, how can he claim to
> really love his art? If the artist doesn't really love his art, how can it
> be of any value?
This has been snipped and is out of context, but(heh!)...
I'd rather think daVinci was such a visionary that he would embrace the
new media. Why waste your precious time making brushes when there is a
specialist who can do it better?
--
Brett George
Banzai Productions
Graphic Design & Illustration
Ian Finnesey
doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
: >wonderful things are capable via technology, it is also ethereal in it's
: >nature, a volatile thing. Art is really a part of us. I consider art
: >through technology to be a dalliance, but the real commitment happens
: >between pen, paper, and the artist.
: bullshit. dave mckean's computer generated covers for black orchid are
: among the best covers ever made, period. they ARE "art". and it's
: not more 'ethereal" than any other comic.
Not that one can know for sure from this post, but I get the feeling that
DP is a person who doesn't have a lot of experience with computer art
himself. It can be every bit as time-consuming and just as demanding
effort-wise as hand-drawing/painting, because you've generally raised the
bar for yourself, quality-wise...ESPECIALLY if your machine is all decked
out (graphics tablet, 21" monitor, etc...). And if you're doing your
computer work using a mouse, you're doing truly admirable work, as people
who can use a mouse as well as they can use a pen are truly rare. (I
know...I used to be one...of course my pen skills weren't all that good
then <G>)
He shouldn't knock it until he's tried it. And it doesn't sound like
he's tried it.
(Of course, people using computers to churn out large amounts of crap are
shit. Look at the coloring in Extreme books, for example. I have little
to no respect.)
Lindgold
: >for lack of skill or vision. Those who rely on this technology to shore
: >up lacking skills and talent are only thieves of the mind's eye of others.
: supposing i use a computer font instead of hand lettering
: my self written, penciled, and inked comic because i cannot
: letter worth shit.
: am i a "thief"?, is this a bad thing in any way if i am more
: than sufficient in the other categories?
Of course not. What's worse, looking at artwork you _know_ you stuffed up
on, or looking at artwork that you might've 'cheated' on slightly, by
using a bit of modern technology on. One is only acknowledging one's
limitations.
Besides, typesetting has been around for absolute yonks. 8-{)
--
.....Cheers - Lindgold.
FFH2ad A++>+++ C** D H+ M P R+ T W Z++ Sm RLCT$ a+ caou++ d++ e+ f h i+ p+ sm#
Also known as gra...@iconz.co.nz and gr...@sfmc.sf.org.nz | ^Furcode 1.2
Artwork: http://rat.org/pub/furry/presgran/ SF: http://www.sfmc.sf.org.nz/
"Lister to Red Dwarf. We have in our midst a complete smegpot." - Dave Lister
David Tallan
Brett George (br...@on-ramp.ior.com) wrote:
: In article <attix-05129...@a17-221-20-161.apple.com>,
: at...@apple.com (Tom Attix) wrote:
There was. He was called an apprentice. :)
Apprentices were also good for grinding pigments, preparing canvases and
a host of other tedious tasks.
David Tallan
tal...@io.org
DP Cannon
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Ian Finnesey) wrote:
>doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
(Snip fanboy blurt)
>Not that one can know for sure from this post, but I get the feeling that
>DP is a person who doesn't have a lot of experience with computer art
>himself. It can be every bit as time-consuming and just as demanding
>effort-wise as hand-drawing/painting, because you've generally raised the
>bar for yourself, quality-wise...ESPECIALLY if your machine is all decked
>out (graphics tablet, 21" monitor, etc...). And if you're doing your
>computer work using a mouse, you're doing truly admirable work, as people
>who can use a mouse as well as they can use a pen are truly rare. (I
>know...I used to be one...of course my pen skills weren't all that good
>then <G>)
>
>He shouldn't knock it until he's tried it. And it doesn't sound like
>he's tried it.
>
Hm. Having a complete graphics workstation replete with pen and
pad, artprograms and flatbet scanner, I'd say you wrong, bubba. If
you go look at the Tau-Ceti archives for my name, you'd see.
As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
And last but not least, it's nice to have a real, physical piece of
art that is unique to itself. There can always be copies, but only
one original, something that blurs a good deal with an electronically
produced piece.
DP Cannon
(Who wonders how many "Edit Undo's" are in that oh-so fantastic Dave
McKean computer art.)
Reinder Dijkhuis
In article <58d9ek$8...@news1.io.org>, tal...@io.org (David Tallan) wrote:
>Brett George (br...@on-ramp.ior.com) wrote:
>: In article <attix-05129...@a17-221-20-161.apple.com>,
>: at...@apple.com (Tom Attix) wrote:
>: Why waste your precious time making brushes when there is a
>: specialist who can do it better?
>
>There was. He was called an apprentice. :)
>Apprentices were also good for grinding pigments, preparing canvases and
>a host of other tedious tasks.
Including, in many cases, actually producing the paintings:-) There is nothing
new under the sun.
Reinder
Sarah
> bullshit. dave mckean's computer generated covers for black orchid are
> among the best covers ever made, period. they ARE "art". and it's
> not more 'ethereal" than any other comic.
Have you seen Mr.Punch, or many of his other graphic novels? Until
someone comes to usurp his post, Dave McKean will remain Photoshop
God in my mind.
What makes him so classy is his ability to combine phenomenal
photographic and drafting skills with electronic tools. Whenever I've done
a piece of art that really impresses me, I think of him, and go do
something
better. :)
SCI
Gordon McVey
In article <58ehbk$o...@barad-dur.nas.com>, DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
> (Snip fanboy blurt)
>>He shouldn't knock it until he's tried it. And it doesn't sound like
>>he's tried it.
> Hm. Having a complete graphics workstation replete with pen and
>pad, artprograms and flatbet scanner, I'd say you wrong, bubba. If
>you go look at the Tau-Ceti archives for my name, you'd see.
Will have a look as soon as I clear this news backlog...
> As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
>graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
>traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
>when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
>This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
>have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
For creating the images I have published, I use nothing more than Dpaint IV
and my trusty mouse. That's it. DPaint has pretty minimal undo features. It
seams to me that having the ability to make corrections to an image
electronically makes the image in question less of a piece of art in your
eyes. This is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. I have seen examples of
computer art that range from the dire to the increadible (Eric Schwartz ans Al
Mackey spring to mind).
> And last but not least, it's nice to have a real, physical piece of
>art that is unique to itself. There can always be copies, but only
>one original, something that blurs a good deal with an electronically
>produced piece.
This I do agree on. An inked or penciled piece is unique. An electronic one
can be duplicated exactly.
> DP Cannon
> (Who wonders how many "Edit Undo's" are in that oh-so fantastic Dave
>McKean computer art.)
Does it really matter? Does each undo performed on a piece of computer
generated imagery reduce the quality of the finished item in the mind of the
viewer?
A computer is a tool. Just like an airbrush or a pencil. The choice of tool
should not be used as a judgement of the quality of the artist.
\|/
O O
.------------------oOO(_)OOo------------------.
| http://www.zen.co.uk/home/page/g.mcvey/ |
| http://rat.org/pub/furry/mcveygor/index.htm |
| g.m...@zen.co.uk RedFox on IRC |
`---------------------------------------------'
Doug Holverson
>Pens, pencil, paper and other
>traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
>when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
Fairly true, but there's a correction plug-in called "White Out".
> And last but not least, it's nice to have a real, physical piece of
>art that is unique to itself. There can always be copies, but only
>one original, something that blurs a good deal with an electronically
>produced piece.
>
Or in the bad ol' days, blurs with something like a hand cut keyline....
-DGH-
Jennifer Zervakis
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Brett George wrote:
> Date: Thu, 05 DEC 1996 23:57:32 -0800
> From: Brett George <br...@on-ramp.ior.com>
> Newgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc, rec.arts.comics.alternative
> Subject: Re: 'Dem newfangled art techniques
>
> In article <attix-05129...@a17-221-20-161.apple.com>,
> at...@apple.com (Tom Attix) wrote:
>
> > You know, if Leonardo daVinci were alive today he would probably hate the
> > way all artists use mass produced brushes, inks and paints. If the artist
> > doesn't care enough to create his own materials, how can he claim to
> > really love his art? If the artist doesn't really love his art, how can it
> > be of any value?
>
> This has been snipped and is out of context, but(heh!)...
> I'd rather think daVinci was such a visionary that he would embrace the
> new media. Why waste your precious time making brushes when there is a
> specialist who can do it better?
> Brett George
I can't really speak for daVinci, but he would probably say something about
being a renaissance man, that one is not educated unless one explores,
learns something about all domains. However, specially in this day and age,
that can have alot of drawbacks; even he wasn't too sucessful with some
of his explorations, such as fresco techniques for the Last
Supper, or all his designs for flying machines with flapping wings.
Jenny Z
Paul Bennett
Let me add another thought to consider on this subject... Again,
from personal observation, I have noticed a tendency to regard
computers as the wonderous solution to any problem. Too often
I have seen someone new think that putting a computer and software
on the desk will immediately make them...(whatever of your choice)
Unfortunately a computer is, at best, only another tool which is
useful to some degree in an application. What gets overlooked are
the basic skills. Having a computer on the desk won't give anyone
the basic skills needed. For graphic work, if the artist does not
have at least some grasp of things like composition, space use,
color(and/or shading), proportion and probably quite a few more.
For the written word, things like structure, word use, spelling,
punctuation, and quite a few more are necessary. More than that,
there is the skill to bringing the charactor to life for the
reader. That the computer can not do.
One may not develop any particular talent for, let's say "lettering"
or "inking" done on paper, yet may gain the basic knowledge there
that will permit them to use that computer on their desk with a far
greater degree of success then they achieve with pencil and paper.
This does not make someone "better" or "worse" at these tasks, it just
means they use a different tool that is more appropriate to them.
Paul
Bradly E. Peterson
g.m...@zen.co.uk (Gordon McVey) wrote:
>In article <58ehbk$o...@barad-dur.nas.com>, DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>> As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
>>graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
>>traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
>>when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
>>This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
>>have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
>For creating the images I have published, I use nothing more than Dpaint IV
>and my trusty mouse. That's it. DPaint has pretty minimal undo features. It
>seams to me that having the ability to make corrections to an image
>electronically makes the image in question less of a piece of art in your
>eyes. This is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. I have seen examples of
>computer art that range from the dire to the increadible (Eric Schwartz ans Al
>Mackey spring to mind).
Totally. Pencillers have an undo function as well... It's
called an ERASER! heh... Art is art and eggs is eggs and
whatsisname hasn't a clue.
He needs to check out "TAOLAND" by Jeff Amano. Jeff pencils the
figures then paints over them with an artpad. It's incredible
work and should be checked out! I forget the webpage URL, but
you should be able to find it by doing a search on TAOLAND or
SEVERE REALITY. (That's his publishing Company)
Oh yeah... It's a cool story too. Just check it out. No,
really.
Spread Love...
Play Nice...
Read Comics!!!
Bradly E. Peterson
(marv...@barefactsbbs.com)
Psychodrama Press
"I stared long and hard into the abyss...
...and saw myself staring back"
"Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
(Albert Einstein)
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
ben...@cise.ufl.edu (Paul Bennett) writes:
[...]
>For the written word, things like structure, word use, spelling,
>punctuation, and quite a few more are necessary.
Spelling however can somewhat be aided by a spelling checker, but the basic
skill of story telling can't be replaced by a computer.
Yet.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. /\ /\ /\
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ( X X )
I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky \/ \/ \/
Matt Harpold
doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
:
: also,
: >
: >>Secondly, maybe through this association, or maybe intrinsically, I feel
: >>the by products of hand-madeness are beautiful; the brush strokes,
: >>the wiggly lines, the imperfections and ghosts of past attempts.
: >>
: >>Jenny Z.
: >
: > And that they are. There is nothing more satisfying than having the
: >real thing at your fingertips, the very physical being of it.
: really? i find nothing more satsifying than looking at a product
: i finished, now matter how i finished it.
hear, hear. I work in oils and pastels, but I respect well-done computer
art. The "physical being" of the piece of art is simply on your screen as
opposed to on a piece of illo board. It's all molecules and electrons
anyway. It's all art.
:
: While
: >wonderful things are capable via technology, it is also ethereal in it's
: >nature, a volatile thing. Art is really a part of us. I consider art
: >through technology to be a dalliance, but the real commitment happens
: >between pen, paper, and the artist.
:
: bullshit. dave mckean's computer generated covers for black orchid are
: among the best covers ever made, period. they ARE "art". and it's
: not more 'ethereal" than any other comic.
:
I'd have to agree there too. I number McKean among my favorite
illustrators, as well as Holly Waburton (check out her album cover for
Paradise Lost's Draconian Times)...they both work on computers, and
they're huge influences on my illustration style. yet I work in pastels
and oils. The fact is that art as art, and trying to draw a line and say
that "this medium is art, and this isn't" is sheer folly. I have enough of
a problem trying to justify illustration as an art form without people
trying to tell me that only half of my primary infleunces are actually
artists, simply because they work with paint instead of light.
-Matt
"is it fiction, is it expression, is it passion or just a profession..."
-Fates Warning, "Monument"
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| / portfolio * commissions * role-playing games |
| Z O O . t o p i a < a realistic anthropomorphic art site |
| \ http:\\zipcon.net\mharpold\zootopia\zootop.htm |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Matt Harpold's fur code: FCF3z/FFO2r A++++$ C- D H+ M+ P+ R+++ T++ W Z+
Turbine_Divinity on FurryMUCK Sm- RLA a20 c++n d+ e+ f+ h+ i+wf p sm#
the downward damon
"Sarah" <s...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>> bullshit. dave mckean's computer generated covers for black orchid are
>> among the best covers ever made, period. they ARE "art". and it's
>> not more 'ethereal" than any other comic.
>
>someone comes to usurp his post, Dave McKean will remain Photoshop
>God in my mind.
>
>What makes him so classy is his ability to combine phenomenal
>photographic and drafting skills with electronic tools. Whenever I've done
the thing is he doesn't even need to use it--
he's a spectular photorealistic painter.
in fact, i wish he'd do more painting that graphic design [compare
the earlier sandman cover with the later ones]
--
Scariest quote of the month-- "Life is more important than choice [freedom]."
--William Kristol, speaking on This Week, about the government's role
in society.
the downward damon
DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Ian Finnesey) wrote:
>>doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
>
>
> (Snip fanboy blurt)
whatever.
>
> As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
>graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
>traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
>when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
>This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
>have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
if one is working under a deadline, then the same
applies to computer stuff.
> And last but not least, it's nice to have a real, physical piece of
>art that is unique to itself. There can always be copies, but only
>one original, something that blurs a good deal with an electronically
>produced piece.
ahh, so that's it. a purist. i happen to enjoy the image more than
it's context.
> DP Cannon
>
> (Who wonders how many "Edit Undo's" are in that oh-so fantastic Dave
>McKean computer art.)
[take your pick]
damon, who wonders why the hell anyone should care about that.
damon, who wonders how many ersaed lines there are in the spectacular
painted covers dave mckean has made.
Matt Harpold
DP Cannon (eye...@sos.net) wrote:
: you go look at the Tau-Ceti archives for my name, you'd see.
:
:
: As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
: traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
: when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
I don't know about you, but I tend to paint over my mistakes until I get
them right. Much like an "undo" key, eh?
: This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
: have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
My processes improve because I wish to increase the quality of my art.
This is aholistic thing, and not the simple motor skills invloved in
"avoiding mistakes" I don't care how many "mistakes" I make along the
path, it's the final piece that will show up in my illustration
portfolio. The mistakes are important, ebacsue they are a learning
process. Don't think that the masters and professionals never make
mistakes.! They do. It's called risk, and you have to take risks to become
a better artists. Risks mean failures and failures mean mistakes.
Whether it's computer art or oil painting, it all requires patience and
practice. Agonizing over an oil painting passage is just like fiddling for
five hours over a transparent collage in Photoshop. They're explorations
along the way to a finished work. And the "quality" you see in the
professional work is a mountain just as difficult to climb, whether you
are a computer artist or a painter.
:
: And last but not least, it's nice to have a real, physical piece of
: art that is unique to itself. There can always be copies, but only
: one original, something that blurs a good deal with an electronically
: produced piece.
That's a matter of preference. I like tactile art to, but there's
something nice about the lack of materialism in computer art. Noone can
say they "own" the art, and I think that's a good thing.
: DP Cannon
:
: (Who wonders how many "Edit Undo's" are in that oh-so fantastic Dave
: McKean computer art.)
Do you really think Leonardo, or Caravaggio, or Dali never painted over a
phrase? You seriously believe that they haven't used their own version of
an "undo key" (painting over something!) many times in their work?
-Matt (who has painted something a dozen times over to get it right)
DP Cannon
Doug Holverson <dhol...@probe.net> wrote:
>
>Fairly true, but there's a correction plug-in called "White Out".
Never used the stuff. I don't know why anyone would, as it looks
pretty unsightly on an original.
D.P. Cannon
Pascal Quentin Porcupine
In article <58lkti$8...@ran.zipcon.net>,
Matt Harpold <mhar...@sim.zipcon.net> wrote:
>DP Cannon (eye...@sos.net) wrote:
>: you go look at the Tau-Ceti archives for my name, you'd see.
>:
>:
>: As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
>: graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
>: traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
>: when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
>
>I don't know about you, but I tend to paint over my mistakes until I get
>them right. Much like an "undo" key, eh?
personally, i'm just learning how to draw/paint/etc, using Fractal Painter
4.0 and a Wacom ArtPad II, and i find that i almost never use Painter's
'undo' key, i either use the eraser or paint over it, just like the real
thing would be (even though i have no experience working with the real art
tools :)
btw, i hope to finish something decent enough to post soon. :)
>Do you really think Leonardo, or Caravaggio, or Dali never painted over a
>phrase? You seriously believe that they haven't used their own version of
>an "undo key" (painting over something!) many times in their work?
and of course, there's one of those trite 'feel-good' posters that i
remember from my orthodontist's office when i was younger saying something
like "if people didn't make mistakes, pencils wouldn't have erasers" or
something like that. :)
>-Matt (who has painted something a dozen times over to get it right)
-Pascal (who repeatedly paints a background, tries to paint some furry,
fubars the proportions, paints the background back over it, ad nauseum
until he hits Ctrl-F4 and tries something else entirely :)
yeah, ok, i should try a more traditional approach... do a rough sketch
with the pencil tool, and *then* ink over it (be it with oils or acrylics
or whatever paint Painter has which looks good :) but my rough sketches
*really* suck... heh... maybe i should just buy a copy of Dabbler (rather
than using the Painter 4.0 demo and a screen-capture program :) and take
all the 'how to draw' tutorials on the CD... i'm sure i'll get $50 from my
grandpa as a holiday gift as usual, so maybe i'll spend it on software as
usual. :)
(wow, am i actually considering getting something with a tutorial
specifically *for* the tutorial? god, i've never had to run a tutorial for
software before... then again, in this case it's not the software i'm
having trouble with, it's these damn paws not drawing what i want 'em to
:)
--
Pascal Q. Porcupine
pas...@acm.org
Brett George
It may be, but you seem to forget that in production and printing only
the end results matter. It doesn't matter in the least how you get your
image down as long as it prints clean.
Creating comics is a production process not an illustrative process.
(As in end results) You must work within the criteria set by the result
you are trying to achieve.
When I do an illustration I don't use "white-out", but if I'm working
on something for production, I'll do any damn thing necessary to get the
result I want.
If all you think about is selling the original comic artwork, you're
definitely in the wrong business.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Elbert
> As for "raising the bar" on quality just because one has a computer
> graphics station, I don't think so. Pens, pencil, paper and other
> traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo",
The have, ahem, ERASERS. hehe Seriously though, "fine art" IS often
penciled and undone before painted, like penciling a comic before inking
it (duh). Though whether or not art is "better" because it's harder or it
took more time to do... As an artist I can appreciate the painstaking
effort put into work, but hell, if it's crap it's crap. By the same
token, some of my favorite works probably didn't take long at all to do,
the first Ramones LP for example =).
Elbert
Elbert
In article <58k63r$7...@thunder.cise.ufl.edu>, ben...@cise.ufl.edu (Paul
Bennett) wrote:
> Let me add another thought to consider on this subject... Again,
> from personal observation, I have noticed a tendency to regard
> computers as the wonderous solution to any problem. Too often
> I have seen someone new think that putting a computer and software
> on the desk will immediately make them...(whatever of your choice)
>
> Unfortunately a computer is, at best, only another tool which is
> useful to some degree in an application. What gets overlooked are
> the basic skills. Having a computer on the desk won't give anyone
> the basic skills needed. For graphic work, if the artist does not
> have at least some grasp of things like composition, space use,
> color(and/or shading), proportion and probably quite a few more.
> For the written word, things like structure, word use, spelling,
> punctuation, and quite a few more are necessary. More than that,
> there is the skill to bringing the charactor to life for the
> reader. That the computer can not do.
>
> One may not develop any particular talent for, let's say "lettering"
> or "inking" done on paper, yet may gain the basic knowledge there
> that will permit them to use that computer on their desk with a far
> greater degree of success then they achieve with pencil and paper.
> This does not make someone "better" or "worse" at these tasks, it just
> means they use a different tool that is more appropriate to them.
>
> Paul
Here here! Crap in = crap out, no matter how expensive your "brushes" are.
Elbert
R.L. Carmine
Brett George wrote:
>
> In article <58p08q$g...@barad-dur.nas.com>, DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>
> > Doug Holverson <dhol...@probe.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Fairly true, but there's a correction plug-in called "White Out".
I like this...it works.
> > Never used the stuff. I don't know why anyone would, as it looks
> > pretty unsightly on an original.
>
> It may be, but you seem to forget that in production and printing only
> the end results matter. It doesn't matter in the least how you get your
> image down as long as it prints clean.
> Creating comics is a production process not an illustrative process.
> (As in end results) You must work within the criteria set by the result
> you are trying to achieve.
> When I do an illustration I don't use "white-out", but if I'm working
> on something for production, I'll do any damn thing necessary to get the
> result I want.
> If all you think about is selling the original comic artwork, you're
> definitely in the wrong business.
No one said he was in "the biz". This could just be a hobby. I, on the
other hand (who just does it all for shits and giggles), along with a
couple of my friends who are in the biz, suggest Pro White. But,
white-out works in a pinch, and you can actually use the cracking that
sometimes accompanies white-out for some nice effects, if done properly.
R.
Bradly E. Peterson
ben...@cise.ufl.edu (Paul Bennett) wrote:
>I have seen someone new think that putting a computer and software
>on the desk will immediately make them...(whatever of your choice)
>Unfortunately a computer is, at best, only another tool which is
>useful to some degree in an application. What gets overlooked are
>the basic skills. Having a computer on the desk won't give anyone
>the basic skills needed. For graphic work, if the artist does not
>have at least some grasp of things like composition, space use,
>color(and/or shading), proportion and probably quite a few more.
Absolutely! Here's a good example of how this can work. Let's
use Jeff Amano's "TAOLAND" to illustrate...
Go to this URL for the pencilled page:
http://www.taoland.com/p504.html
THEN go to this URL to see the finished computer painting:
http://www.taoland.com/w504.html
Like Paul said, technology is no substitute for basic artistic
skills.
arthdent1
DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>Doug Holverson <dhol...@probe.net> wrote:
>>
>>Fairly true, but there's a correction plug-in called "White Out".
> Never used the stuff. I don't know why anyone would, as it looks
>pretty unsightly on an original.
> D.P. Cannon
Tried to use "White out " on my computer art nut its hard to get off
the screen :-)
DP Cannon
br...@on-ramp.ior.com (Brett George) wrote:
> If all you think about is selling the original comic artwork, you're
>definitely in the wrong business.
I'm not into selling my original works, but on occasion somebody
actually does buy something. I do my art to satisfy my creative
side, but I like to hold a little pride in my work that it's
clean and relatively well-crafted. That's my big motivation, doing
the best I can. I will admit to being a purist and even to being
an overbearing perfectionist, but that's my personal values, and
I don't expect much understanding of it.
I agree with the needs of a production artist, but I'm not a production
artist,as I support myself with a non-art night job. That leaves me
gleefully free to be the complete art sonuvbitch that I am.
DP Cannon
David Sammons
<58hlku$a6o...@cms.salford.ac.uk>
Distribution:
Gordon McVey (g.m...@zen.co.uk) wrote:
: >traditional art tools don't come with the function "Edit Undo", so
: >when an artist makes a mistake with a traditional art media, it stays.
: >This forces the artist to do nasty, distasteful things like practice,
: >have patience, and use discipline to do better and avoid mistakes.
I wonder at this point which is more important to you: the ritual or the
outcome? Whats the Differance? I do both, I work on a computer with a
modestly decked out station, and I work in a studio, and there is an
edit/undo feature in natural media, it's called an eraser, or waiting a
bit and painting over a bad spot. And I've ruined more electronic works
than I ever have in the studio, sure you can undo somethings, but I've
never had a canvas crash during saving or forgotten to save a version
under another name to go back to. I can do OK with pen and paper, but
with a computer I adjust and perfect.
And it takes lots of practice to learn your software, and lots of
patience
disicipline to not give your machine flying lessons, and avoid mistakes
By this reasoning is photography less of an art because it involves a
machine? Photos too can be reproduced exactly as well, does that make
them less valuable?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Sammons | sam...@oswego.edu | Web: http://www.oswego.edu/~sammons
Office Ext. 2674 Office hours weds 1-4, fri 12:30-5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
matthew philip clark
dur.nas.com> <58js8p$e...@jake.probe.net> <58k63r$7...@thunder.cise.ufl.edu> <dformosa....@lancelot.st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Distribution:
Lines: 8
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} (dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au) wrote:
: ben...@cise.ufl.edu (Paul Bennett) writes:
: >For the written word, things like structure, word use, spelling,
: >punctuation, and quite a few more are necessary.
: Spelling however can somewhat be aided by a spelling checker, but the basic
: skill of story telling can't be replaced by a computer.
: Yet.
Seen the comic book Reality Check #3 yet? But even then, it'd
not perfect...
"OF COURSE! <smack> The computer's got WRITER'S BLOCK!"
-- Simon, Producer/Programer from RC #3
--
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Matthew Philip Clark | NiN / Magic / RPG / Furry / |
| aka Rabbit / Usagi | B5 / Anime / Computer Phreak! |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Sysop DiSaSteR ArEa BBS | Send Comments/Flames/etc to: |
| ANTiCAUG, BLiTZ, THS | shof...@mail.geocities.com |
| (512) xXx-XxXx | Usagi@FurryMuck |
|================================================================
Furry Code 1.2
FCFm3r/LRm3adm A+>++ C* D+ M+ T+++ Z+ Sm
RLCT a19 cdlmnw++++ d++ e+>++ f+ h** i+>+++ h*/** p+>+++ sm-- ;>
Brett George
> br...@on-ramp.ior.com (Brett George) wrote:
>
> > If all you think about is selling the original comic artwork, you're
> >definitely in the wrong business.
>
> I'm not into selling my original works, but on occasion somebody
> actually does buy something. I do my art to satisfy my creative
> side, but I like to hold a little pride in my work that it's
> clean and relatively well-crafted. That's my big motivation, doing
> the best I can. I will admit to being a purist and even to being
> an overbearing perfectionist, but that's my personal values, and
> I don't expect much understanding of it.
Oh I understand. I have pretty high self-imposed standards myself. I
just wanted
some clarification for those who don't understand the process. There is quite a
difference, as you will agree, between fine art and production work. Certain
things are acceptable in one area and not in the other.
> I agree with the needs of a production artist, but I'm not a production
> artist,as I support myself with a non-art night job. That leaves me
> gleefully free to be the complete art sonuvbitch that I am.
A gleeful SOB? Do you dance and make merry also? <G>
--
Brett George
Banzai Productions
Graphic Design & Illustration
Paul Raymond Bennett
While we are on the subject of computer art techniques. I use a computer
for some limited practical aspects. I have also been trying to migrate
to Slackware Linux as much as possible. Does anyone know of a good
commercial graphics package for computer art that will run under Linux on
a 486 platform? My writing is already done that way.
Paul
David G. Bell
In article <Pine.LNX.3.94.961216...@hops.lw.net>
I've recently seen references to Corel Draw being available for Unix,
and distributed by Caldera for Linux. I don't know whether that is only
the vector-based program, or whether it includes the bitmap editor, and
it is an oldish version -- Corel Draw 3.6 or thereabouts.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..