'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.
c.groark
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.961119044203.2352C-100000@cleo>,
Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I'm personally sick of people that use
>computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
>learn how do do things the hard way' although there is alot of good
>computer art (Ash Wood's covers.. drool). I think there will always be
>room for the purists. I mean, when acrylics were developed it was
>thought that people wouldn't have to use more traditional styles of
>paints like oil paints, but people still do.
>
There is another reason as well. If you attend non-furry cons, you will
find that many of them will not permit computer-generated art to be sold
as 'originals' but only as 'prints.'
These rulings go back ten years and more when prints (not identified as
such) were selling for large bucks at successive cons. Enough of the
artists complained loudly, eventually resulting in various limitations on
what kinds of prints could be sold. Computer art can be reproduced almost
as easily as photographic prints, so they got lumped together.
(Hope this wasn't too far off topic..)
Charlie
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..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Patrin
Amara wrote:
I'm personally sick of people that use
> computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
> learn how do do things the hard way'
Personally, I've had too many great pen-and-inks screwed up by coloring
oopses dome with pens or pencils or whatever. It's called 'the hard way'
cause, well, it's frickin' hard. For me, at least. Geez, I suck at
pen-and ink... which is why I'm gonna start practicing on photocopies.
<sniprendtearslice>
>. No, I'm not computer illiterate, I could
> colour on computers or learn other techniques... but at the moment I
> don't want to. I'm perfectly happy doing what I'm doing. I've had alot
> of people in the furry community tell me to computer colour my art
> because it would look 'better', but that isn't my skill when it comes to
> my style of colouring with a computer.
Well, yeah. Don't go with what others say is good. I mean, lots of the
furs here say computer coloration sucks, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna
toss all my Photoshop-tweaked pics into that little garbage can in the
lower right-hand corner of my screen. No fun.
Its colour selection and three
> clicks of a mouse and the occasional use of airbrush. Yawn. :)
Well, for some it's also type, lighting and shading effects, rendering
of clouds and lens flare, texture-simulation and all sortsa crap. Sure,
it makes stuff look different, but it's not gonna replace the good old
pen-and-ink for most. (Good thing, too, cause Amara makes it look
smoother than Michael Stipe's head.)
>
> And I'm finally rediscovering watercolours and I'm going to get some
> coloured ink (coloured inks are fun!)
And expensive. XoP> There's another advantage of computer graphics for
me- in my case, I get to use Photoshop _free_ in the labs. But then,
that's just me.
> I'll jump off the soapbox now. :)
>
> Amy
Careful, it's kinda slippery. (Someone forgot to take out the soap.)
;o)>
> "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."
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
For some reason I think whoever said that is gonna get the Dark Side of
The Force Darth Vader No-Contact Death Choke From Hell. (Is there even a
name for that?)
--
==========================================================
Nate Patrin- Voodoo_Child on FurryMUCK- Join me in the
worship of the almighty Jimi and the pursuit of vulpine
groovacity!
*Know your 4 B's- Beasties, Beck, Beatles and Bob (Marley)*
ARTARTART! http://rat.org/pub/furry/patrnate
"So make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead
the 1st!" Rage Against the Machine, "Down Rodeo"
***Member, Amara fan club!***
Furry Code 1.2 (Thanx, Captain!)
FCF3adm A++>++++ C-- D- H+ M++ P- R T++ W>+++ Z->+++ Sm#
RLA a19 cdmnw++ d++>+++ e+>++ f+ i+ p- sm#
===========================================================
Amara
Followups to rac.misc and a.f.f 'cause those are two groups I follow..
>
> 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
>
>
Gah! I sure as hell hope not. I'm personally sick of people that use
computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
learn how do do things the hard way' although there is alot of good
computer art (Ash Wood's covers.. drool). I think there will always be
room for the purists. I mean, when acrylics were developed it was
thought that people wouldn't have to use more traditional styles of
paints like oil paints, but people still do.
And to me there is nothing more fulfilling than holding my final work in
my hand, to feel the texture of the media on the paper, the smell of the
ink and/or pencils and paint. No, I'm not computer illiterate, I could
colour on computers or learn other techniques... but at the moment I
don't want to. I'm perfectly happy doing what I'm doing. I've had alot
of people in the furry community tell me to computer colour my art
because it would look 'better', but that isn't my skill when it comes to
my style of colouring with a computer. Its colour selection and three
clicks of a mouse and the occasional use of airbrush. Yawn. :)
And I'm finally rediscovering watercolours and I'm going to get some
coloured ink (coloured inks are fun!)
I'll jump off the soapbox now. :)
Amy
"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 <*>
Colin Wales
Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
(clip)
> No, I'm not computer illiterate, I could
>colour on computers or learn other techniques... but at the moment I
>don't want to. I'm perfectly happy doing what I'm doing. I've had alot
>of people in the furry community tell me to computer colour my art
>because it would look 'better', but that isn't my skill when it comes to
>my style of colouring with a computer. Its colour selection and three
>clicks of a mouse and the occasional use of airbrush. Yawn. :)
>And I'm finally rediscovering watercolours and I'm going to get some
>coloured ink (coloured inks are fun!)
>I'll jump off the soapbox now. :)
>Amy
>"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 <*>
In my case, I don't color my art with a computer for one reason: cost.
I have a 486 PC with 16MB RAM; from what I understand, the majority of
programs used for professional-level coloring would bog my little
computer down, and I really can't afford an upgrade.
I like having that physical piece of paper, too, but I'd trade it in
an instant for the CMYK color matching and UNDO features of computer
graphics programs. That being said, I think we're a long way off from
the death of the physical-artifact artist. Paper's still much cheaper
than a Mac.
(This is also why I laugh when I hear people say that "computers will
usher in a new 'global village' and bring the world into perfect
equality and harmony"-- yeah, sure, for anyone who can pony up a
couple grand for a computer {or use their parents' or their schools'
computers}. When I see that bum on the corner order a ration of
Thunderbird through the internet on his powerbook
{alt.drunks.marketplace, of course}, then I'll believe.)
J.M. Donaldson
In <56r434$6...@access4.digex.net> cgr...@access4.digex.net (c.groark)
writes:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.961119044203.2352C-100000@cleo>,
>Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
>>learn how do do things the hard way'
Yeah. Oh, no, hard work... feh... Besides, it takes less to learn to do
the skills manually than learn to use a computer which bogs you down
with memory limits, crashes, viruses, etc. etc..
-JMD
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.
Amara
> ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au says...
>
> >And I'm finally rediscovering watercolours and I'm going to get some
> >coloured ink (coloured inks are fun!)
>
> fade over time, I believe.
>
> Chris
Will do. :)
Amara
> >>I'm personally sick of people that use
> >>computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
>
> >>learn how do do things the hard way'
>
> Yeah. Oh, no, hard work... feh... Besides, it takes less to learn to do
> the skills manually than learn to use a computer which bogs you down
> with memory limits, crashes, viruses, etc. etc..
>
> -JMD
<grin> even people can run out of memory. ;)
And I've been using Photoshop to do some things, and I know how
disheartening it is to have it crash after an hour's work.. I now save
all the time.
Amy- Who can use computer programs as much as she dislikes them. :)
David L. Lerner
Dr. Cat wrote on 18 Nov 1996 07:55:16 GMT:
> Gwydion (doma...@skidmore.edu) wrote:
> : Is the age of the traditional "Writer/Penciller/Inker/Letterer"
> : 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 some
Peter David wrote in _But I Digress_ about a writer in 2004 who use all
computer generated art, and asked "Why do (comic book) writers need
artists?"
><snip>
> (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.)
<silly mode>
I want to object to your characterization of gaming fan as
rumor-mongers.
</silly mode>
David L. Lerner
JPC...@prodigy.com
"Pip-squeak? I will have you know that I never squeaked a pip in my
life"|d'Anyante|By Claw 'n' Rapier (Pirate
Cats)|http://www.entech.com/bcnr/
Don Sanders
In article <56r434$6...@access4.digex.net>, cgr...@access4.digex.net (c.groark) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.961119044203.2352C-100000@cleo>,
>Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>computers for the sole reason that 'it's easier and you don't have to
>>computer art (Ash Wood's covers.. drool). I think there will always be
>>room for the purists. I mean, when acrylics were developed it was
>>thought that people wouldn't have to use more traditional styles of
>>paints like oil paints, but people still do.
>>
***snipped to conserve bandwidth ***
(putting aside his vow of noninterference for a second)
There are those out there who can not afford to attend art schools, or latch
themselves onto a mentor to teach them the traditional methods of art. Heck,
I was lucky enough to have a computer, and even lucky enough to know how to
use it. You have a valid point about people taking the easy way out, but the
easy way out for some may be the only way out for others. Not to say there
there is an elite forming out there that think art with canvas and paint is
better than colored pixels and vector graphics, but why paint on a cave wall
when you got a lovely canvas to use.
I, at this time will apologies(sp?) to those who I may have offended by the
above statement, but I felt that it must be said.
thank you.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry |If yiffing is an act, then who is acting?
Chosin Tsan on FurryMuck |(quote from an unknown vulpine)
Valsen Tsan on Tapestries |
and once in a while, Bad_Karma on #Furry. |
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm |
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com |Sorry about the simple Signature file (just a newbie)
Chris Whalen
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.961119044203.2352C-100000@cleo>,
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
Sto...@muscanet.com (Colin Wales) writes:
>Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>(clip)
[...]
>(This is also why I laugh when I hear people say that "computers will
>usher in a new 'global village' and bring the world into perfect
>equality and harmony"-- yeah, sure, for anyone who can pony up a
>couple grand for a computer
I have a lap top wich I aquired for $60 wich I use to go on the internet.
If you are prepeared to make use of out of date technology you can get some
things that work perificly well but just are not as pritty. BTW what ever
happened to the organal microsoft works. Verson 1 was such a nice little
program.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I am agraphic. dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au
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 \/ \/ \/
Amara
> Personally, I've had too many great pen-and-inks screwed up by coloring
> oopses dome with pens or pencils or whatever. It's called 'the hard way'
> cause, well, it's frickin' hard. For me, at least. Geez, I suck at
> pen-and ink... which is why I'm gonna start practicing on photocopies.
Grins and hugs, "it's how I started, Nate... why do you think there are 4
or 5 versions of on drawing I have done? I do all but inking experiments
on photocopies.. Eventually I got the courage to be able to do things on
originals and I have a very low screw up rate now"
>
> Well, yeah. Don't go with what others say is good. I mean, lots of the
> furs here say computer coloration sucks, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna
> toss all my Photoshop-tweaked pics into that little garbage can in the
> lower right-hand corner of my screen. No fun.
I've had more experience with 'Computers are the only way to go'
personally. :) And the thing is.. you do have in advantage in that your
pieces are still in B&W and you can do more offline experimentation on them.
>
> Well, for some it's also type, lighting and shading effects, rendering
> of clouds and lens flare, texture-simulation and all sortsa crap. Sure,
> it makes stuff look different, but it's not gonna replace the good old
> pen-and-ink for most. (Good thing, too, cause Amara makes it look
> smoother than Michael Stipe's head.)
Grin.. thanks. :) I'm going to get a good sable brush when I'm not
moving around so much and try with that... And Its amazing how you can
do photorealistic clouds with paints too. :) As for lense flares, I
haven';t got enough memory to do that anyway :P
>
>
> And expensive. XoP> There's another advantage of computer graphics for
> me- in my case, I get to use Photoshop _free_ in the labs. But then,
> that's just me.
Aww. :) Its not that expensive.. and its well worth the cost. I'm going
to have soem cruddy computer in a month and no photoshop, so I'll be
rediscovering nature (grin)
Take care, Nate :)
Amy
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 ****
Paul Bennett
Grins: Oh My.
In all fairness, please bear in mind that I have been a computer hardware
tech for a lot of years(well over a decade) and for a sizable part of that
I have had a home computer of one type or another. Lets just say that after
spending 40+ hours working on a bodacious number of the little, ah,
irritants, I prefer to return to simpler times for recreation.
Not that I have anything against computers mind you, but consider the
following.
1.) If you are an artist who is doing serious work on your computer and
store the finished pieces there, I truly hope you are maintaining
some kind of backup of your work. I do... Saved my, ah... TAIL.
(My primary hard disk decided to visit lala land. Five 500MB
partitions, DOS, OS2, and Linux. Ever wanted to see a grown
fox cry real tears... :>) Drive comes back, out comes the tape
backups, lost files restored to the sound of the Hallaljulah Chorus.
2.) If you have not already found out, graphics can be quite memory
and disk intensive. An 8 x 10, 360 dpi image with 16M colors
WILL blow away some serious disk space quick. Yes, I know about
the compressed image formats but I have had file corruption problems
on occasion that even the backup would not recover from.
3.) As for memory, I am running 24MB right now and it is not enough. The
above image, my first really good one. has to load into a LARGE swap
file on one of my partitions (How large you ask? Well, it is a
300MB partition and that is the only file on it.) And slow!! Well,
I have time to make a mug of hot tea and drink it during even simple
operations.
Not, mind you, I am saying computers are a bad thing. If I were doing
a graphic novel/comic, I would probably make very heavy use of a computer
for image manipulation, particularly when you take into account the
existance of computer controlled print capabilities. And I have been
using mine as image cleanup for a final print.
It is a personal thing, I find it pleasing and satisfying to shove pencil
around on paper. I do my own inking at the moment and am going to take a
look at various pencils after the Christmas holidays (and their attached
financial devastation.
Paul
Vadim
>
> There are those out there who can not afford to attend art schools, or
latch
> themselves onto a mentor to teach them the traditional methods of art.
That, and it's also a matter of cost. With Photoshop I can
achieve a airbrushed quality to my work, without the expense of an
airbrush.
The artists still have to learn the very basics of form and
color, if the art is bad it's bad and no amount of computer trickery will
make it less so. I don't see it as an easy out, just another tool
M.Petrie
http://www.erols.com/sollaris/
Duggy
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Nathan Patrin wrote:
>Amara wrote:
>> "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."
>For some reason I think whoever said that is gonna get the Dark Side of
>The Force Darth Vader No-Contact Death Choke From Hell. (Is there even a
>name for that?)
Yes, but we don't like to say it out loud.
---
- Dug.
________________________________________________________________
|DISCLAIMER: Opinion are fictious | Paul "Duggy" Duggan. |
| fictious, and similarity between | <coe...@jcu.edu.au> |
|opinions appearing in this message|Official RASSM Cool Person |
| and any real opinion, living or | FIDONET Stooge (3)|
| dead is purely coincidental. | Dictator and Taste Arbiter. |
|_________________S_E_N_D___M_E____|___M_O_N_E_Y_________________|
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 :)
Jagafeh Ripclaw
Amara (ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au) wrote:
: > Personally, I've had too many great pen-and-inks screwed up by coloring
: > oopses dome with pens or pencils or whatever. It's called 'the hard way'
: > cause, well, it's frickin' hard. For me, at least. Geez, I suck at
: > pen-and ink... which is why I'm gonna start practicing on photocopies.
: Grins and hugs, "it's how I started, Nate... why do you think there are 4
: or 5 versions of on drawing I have done? I do all but inking experiments
: on photocopies.. Eventually I got the courage to be able to do things on
: originals and I have a very low screw up rate now"
But that takes all the fun out of scraping ink off the paper with a scalpel.
(Hmmmmmmmm...scalpel. :)
^---^ Jason (Jagafeh) Gaffney
=0_0= Stay Furry!
~\_/~ Publisher of South Fur Lands
Lindgold
Amara (ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au) wrote:
: I've had more experience with 'Computers are the only way to go'
: pieces are still in B&W and you can do more offline experimentation on them.
Me too. One thing I always do after completing a drawing, is take a nice
high resolution scan of it (300 or 400 dpi is high enuf'). Once a pic is
scanned, it'll be like the original forever. Unless you lose the file,
that is! (backup often, furries!)
: Grin.. thanks. :) I'm going to get a good sable brush when I'm not
: moving around so much and try with that... And Its amazing how you can
: do photorealistic clouds with paints too. :) As for lense flares, I
: haven';t got enough memory to do that anyway :P
I can spot a Photoshop lens flare a mile off, anyways. They need to add
some more variables to that module...
--
.....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
Paul Bennett
In article <56qvkk$1p...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, c...@prof.slh.wisc.edu (Chris Whalen) writes:
>
> Be sure to check into the permanency of coloured inks...some of those tend to
> fade over time, I believe.
>
> Chris
>
Thank you for reminding me of something I had forgotten. For those of you
who do computer graphics work on printers, and those of you interested in
doing the same. If you use an inkjet printer, be careful about the ink.
The ink in the printer I use appears to be water soluble. This, BTW
might be an issue for some experimentation. How best to preserve the output
of various inkjet and laser printers.
As to what happened to me? Lets just say that there was an inadvertant spill
and a nasty surprise.
Paul
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.
Andrew Ryan Chang
Paul Bennett <ben...@cise.ufl.edu> wrote:
>2.) If you have not already found out, graphics can be quite memory
> and disk intensive. An 8 x 10, 360 dpi image with 16M colors
>3.) As for memory, I am running 24MB right now and it is not enough. The
Well, yeah. I was under the impression that 200-300 MB of RAM [1]
(not swap, real silicon memory) was the standard for Photoshop users.
Well, the professional ones, anyways. And who do you *think* went and
bought those Jaz drives? Graphics artists, that's who. They buy the most
computationally powerful Macs, too. Or PCs. (certainly this is the
impression I have been left with from reading trade rags and Mac
magazines).
I am a big fan of watercolour for comics (Milestone and Defiant)
but I think Olyoptics is consistenly one of the best colouring houses
around. When the Superman line first went over to computer colouring, I
was heavily disappointed that all they attempted was a few gradients,
rather than the exceptional colouring on most of the Image books.
as in, if the typical image is X amount of megabytes, you need to have up
to 5 times that amount for undo and special effects etc. So people who
normally work with 50 meg images need 250 megs of ram.
While I'm bon the subject, could anyone tell me when they think
Live Picture will get up to Photoshop's usefulness? It seems like a
great concept.
--
Who's that peeking in my window?
POW! Nobody now.
-Goodie Mob, "Cell Therapy"
Dennis Lee Bieber
On 20 Nov 1996 16:42:48 GMT in alt.fan.furry,
Paul Bennett (ben...@cise.ufl.edu) declaimed:
> might be an issue for some experimentation. How best to preserve the output
> of various inkjet and laser printers.
>
Laser printers should be closer to melted plastic (vs the melted
wax of thermal-transfer printers).
Inkjet printers use dyes, and most dyes are UV fugitive (same
problems you'd find for "liquid watercolors" and Windsor&Newton drawing
inks). Effectively, anything that doesn't use pigmented particles is
quite UV fugitive.
I suspect dye-sublimation printers fall into the same category.
--
> ============================================================ <
> wulf...@netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> Finger for PGP key | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================ <
> Bestiaria Home Page: http://beastie.dm.net/ <
> Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/wu/wulfraed/wulfraed.htm <
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.
Robin Riggs
In article <570bn3$n...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
and...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
> While I'm bon the subject, could anyone tell me when they think
>Live Picture will get up to Photoshop's usefulness? It seems like a
>great concept.
It's a great concept and works wonderfully for compositing very large
photographic files, it can throw around images of 200 MB as if they were
only 20 MB. Unfortunately it's brushes are very crude compared with
Photoshop and the way it uses layers can be very awkward for people used to
Photoshop. Have a look at a demo of X-Res from Macromedia, version 3 is due
out about now. It's interface is now very similar to Photoshop, it has
brushes like Painter and it works with proxy images like Live Picture [not
in the same way though].
Robin Riggs.
Who has 136 MB of RAM and still has to sit and watch a wristwatch
spinning on his PowerMac.
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."
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
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Paul Bennett (ben...@cise.ufl.edu) quot:
: How best to preserve the output
: of various inkjet and laser printers.
Of course, the BEST answer is --- As digital data, on disk, and preferably
backed up several places.
But seriously, I keep any colour inkjet and laser printouts in no glare
plastic presentation sleeves. These fit neatly into the old fashioned
three-ring binders. I use the sort of binders that themselves fit into
boxes.
This should protect the printouts against UV degradation when they are not
actually being looked at. I suspect that the verdict of experience is
probably still out as to the long term chemical stability of the various
inks used on them.
Tom Attix
> But seriously, I keep any colour inkjet and laser printouts in no glare
> plastic presentation sleeves. These fit neatly into the old fashioned
> three-ring binders. I use the sort of binders that themselves fit into
> boxes.
>
> This should protect the printouts against UV degradation when they are not
> actually being looked at. I suspect that the verdict of experience is
> probably still out as to the long term chemical stability of the various
> inks used on them.
Not to mention the paper. Which, unless you're printing on acid free, 100%
cotton rag, will break down all by itself. But nothing lasts forever.
--
-Tom Attix
_______________________________________________
at...@apple.com
_______________________________________________
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing
through the leather straps". - Emo Phillips
Paul Bennett
In article <56rilt$9...@newsfeed.dreamscape.com>, dsan...@future.dreamscape.com (Don Sanders) writes:
>
> There are those out there who can not afford to attend art schools, or latch
> themselves onto a mentor to teach them the traditional methods of art. Heck,
> I was lucky enough to have a computer, and even lucky enough to know how to
> use it. You have a valid point about people taking the easy way out, but the
> easy way out for some may be the only way out for others. Not to say there
> there is an elite forming out there that think art with canvas and paint is
> better than colored pixels and vector graphics, but why paint on a cave wall
> when you got a lovely canvas to use.
>
> I, at this time will apologies(sp?) to those who I may have offended by the
> above statement, but I felt that it must be said.
>
> thank you.
> Don Sanders
Mr. Sanders
No need for apologies.
Please pardon this observation, and no offense is intended. As an example, my
last "art school" was the required high school art class. Nor do I have a
mentor, unless you consider reading comments about art while I am looking at
it. I have purchased and read a few of the "How to Art type books" over the
years, but that is the extent of it. I have been basically teaching myself.
Art school, or a mentor, is not necessarily needed. I grant you that it is
one very good way to learn the basics and polish skills and for someone
trying to seriously make a living from art may very well be highly desirable,
given the employment process and looking for "most qualified".
In all honesty I do have to admit that both my job and hobbies are the
type that require a high level of hand/eye coordination and small muscle
control. This would give me a bit of an edge in some ways.
Nor do I necessarily subscribe to the eliteism you have mentioned above.
Although it's existance would not surprise me, having seen it too often in
other areas. I regard a computer as nothing more or less than another tool,
to be used in an appropriate area. Again, for someone publishing a periodic
work with tight deadlines and high degree of repeatably, then a computer can,
no doubt, be a superb tool. Unfortunately I have observed too often that
people get too wrapped up in the technology. Again, my apologies, but I have
seen it far too often.
Paul Bennett
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
Lindgold
Colin Wales (Sto...@muscanet.com) wrote:
: In my case, I don't color my art with a computer for one reason: cost.
: I have a 486 PC with 16MB RAM; from what I understand, the majority of
: programs used for professional-level coloring would bog my little
: computer down, and I really can't afford an upgrade.
A 486DX2/66 with 16Mb handles Photoshop quite nicely, Colin. Granted,
it's not superfast, and the software does have to swap out a fair amount,
but it works fine. I've been running it like that for nearly 2 years.
If you can't afford the lastest version of Photoshop (3.0.5), you might
be able to score a bargain on one of the previous versions, say 2.5 . Not
as many bells & whistles, but good for the odd bit of computer art. You
could try your local user group to see if anybody would sell you an old
version they have sitting on a shelf somewhere.
Peter Torkelson
Tom Attix wrote:
>
> > But seriously, I keep any colour inkjet and laser printouts in no glare
> > plastic presentation sleeves. These fit neatly into the old fashioned
> > three-ring binders. I use the sort of binders that themselves fit into
> > boxes.
> >
> > This should protect the printouts against UV degradation when they are not
> > actually being looked at. I suspect that the verdict of experience is
> > probably still out as to the long term chemical stability of the various
> > inks used on them.
>
> Not to mention the paper. Which, unless you're printing on acid free, 100%
> cotton rag, will break down all by itself. But nothing lasts forever.
I got a CD bruner, at least the art I scan or do on the computer will
last
a little while. :) Probably longer than _I_ will, CDs are rather tough.
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 <*>
Dean Ridgway
In article <3295ED...@netscape.com>,
Peter Torkelson <pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
>I got a CD bruner, at least the art I scan or do on the computer will
>last
>a little while. :) Probably longer than _I_ will, CDs are rather tough.
Actually, those writable CD's are fairly suseptable to damage (much more so
then regular CD's anyway). Their shelf life isn't listed as being much more
than magno-opticals (about 20 years as I recall). That's still a pretty
long time though.
/\-/\ Dean Ridgway | Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
( - - ) InterNet rid...@peak.org | I took the one less traveled by,
=\_v_/= FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | And that has made all the difference.
CIS 73225,512 | "The Road Not Taken" - Robert Frost.
http://www.peak.org/~ridgwad/
PGP mail encouraged, finger for key: 28C577F3 2A5655AFD792B0FB 9BA31E6AB4683126
laff...@aol.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.
>
I agree. Maybe it's just a reaction to the computer age, but I rather like
the person-to-person feel of hand drawn stuff, with all it's flaws and
imperfections. In a sense, the artist has given some of their energy,
their spirt over to thier creation, and that comes through to the viewer.
(I know that sounds really new-age but bear with me.) The same process
works for music, or really any kind of creative endevor. I prefer to
build my own furniture, although I could easily buy much better, because I
like the feel of having "person-created" things around me. Try looking at
a modern day building, and then walking through an old church for example.
Some of those old cathedrals took 30 years to build, with the best
craftsman in the land working out their lives on the project. It's no
wonder you can feel their majesty, even if you yourself are not
particularly religious. I think that the
same priciple applies to smaller scale art. You get to sense the person
(or persons ) behind the work.
And yes, I do love computers too. I think that they will make wonderful
artistic tools. And I think the internet is the greatist invention since
the 1st Amendment.
'Nuff said.
-Tucker,
-who shouldn't be up
this late trying to
be profound.
---------------------------------------------------------
Impeach Clinton.
Lola Bunny for President!
David Tucker < Laff...@aol.com >
---------------------------------------------------------
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...
> 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 :(
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"
Sean Malloy
ben...@cise.ufl.edu (Paul Bennett) wrote:
>Not that I have anything against computers mind you, but consider the
>following.
>
>1.) If you are an artist who is doing serious work on your computer and
> store the finished pieces there, I truly hope you are maintaining
> some kind of backup of your work. I do... Saved my, ah... TAIL.
> (My primary hard disk decided to visit lala land. Five 500MB
> partitions, DOS, OS2, and Linux. Ever wanted to see a grown
> fox cry real tears... :>) Drive comes back, out comes the tape
> backups, lost files restored to the sound of the Hallaljulah Chorus.
I would be surprised if there was _any_ serious computer weenie who
hasn't been bitten at least once by this. Frequent backups help, but
watching ten hours of work disappear plus the time to recover to the
last backup version still hurts.
>2.) If you have not already found out, graphics can be quite memory
> and disk intensive. An 8 x 10, 360 dpi image with 16M colors
> WILL blow away some serious disk space quick. Yes, I know about
> the compressed image formats but I have had file corruption problems
> on occasion that even the backup would not recover from.
Yes, the Jaz drive, and if they ever get it commercialized properly
the magneto-optical drive, is the saviour of choice for _anyone_ who
has to deal with huge files. I've got a bet with myself as to how long
it takes someone to come out with a Jaz-compatible jukebox unit.
>3.) As for memory, I am running 24MB right now and it is not enough. The
> above image, my first really good one. has to load into a LARGE swap
> file on one of my partitions (How large you ask? Well, it is a
> 300MB partition and that is the only file on it.) And slow!! Well,
> I have time to make a mug of hot tea and drink it during even simple
> operations.
Buy More Memory, Buy More Disk Space. The eternal money sink of the
computer graphics artist.
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
jm...@ix.netcom.com(J.M. Donaldson) wrote:
>In <56r434$6...@access4.digex.net> cgr...@access4.digex.net (c.groark)
>
>Yeah. Oh, no, hard work... feh... Besides, it takes less to learn to do
>the skills manually than learn to use a computer which bogs you down
>with memory limits, crashes, viruses, etc. etc..
>
> -JMD
That's the computer stuff. It has nothing to do with art itself.
D.P. Cannon
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..
Dr. Cat
Dean Ridgway (rid...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: Actually, those writable CD's are fairly suseptable to damage (much more so
: than magno-opticals (about 20 years as I recall). That's still a pretty
: long time though.
Of course those numbers are "theoretical", which is a fancy scientific
term for "guess". 'cause of course, writable CDs haven't existed for 20
years yet so they can tell for sure!
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions **
********************************************** Watch this space!
Furcadia - coming soon to your computer! **
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: You don't have to be a scientist to be a furry fan. If
you're not, a white lab coat will be provided for you at the door.)
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
Don Sanders
In article <5799i0$f...@barad-dur.nas.com>, DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>jm...@ix.netcom.com(J.M. Donaldson) wrote:
>>In <56r434$6...@access4.digex.net> cgr...@access4.digex.net (c.groark)
>>
>>Yeah. Oh, no, hard work... feh... Besides, it takes less to learn to do
>>the skills manually than learn to use a computer which bogs you down
>>with memory limits, crashes, viruses, etc. etc..
>>
>> -JMD
>
***snipped to conserve bandwidth and such. ***
the following are quotes from other threads on this matter:
>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.
hmm, I am wondering why I have the need to say something on the subject,
I use a computer for art because: (1) it is a easy medium to work with, (2) I
lack the talent do fine art on the master artist's level, (3) I lack the
materials needed to produce fine art on the master artist's level. What are
thieves anyway but those who steal from others to better themselves, a rich
thief is one who takes in order to make themself richer, a poor thief is one
who takes to survive. I am not saying that only the poor or the weak in
talent use computers to produce art, I know of a few who are well known who
use computers and do it well, just that no matter what the medium is, art is
art.
>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.
>
a drawing on a sidewalk is art, a spraypainted scene on a subway car is art,
canvas, paper, even glass is art, why not computers, let the masses eat
fishsticks, until they become rich enough to eat roe.
this is my view on this subject, I humbly apologies for any part of this text
being taken the wrong way.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry |If yiffing is an act, then who is acting?
Chosin Tsan on FurryMuck |(quote from an unknown vulpine)
Valsen Tsan on Tapestries |
and once in a while, Bad_Karma on #Furry. |
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm |
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com |Sorry about the simple Signature file (just a newbie)
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.
Paul Raymond Bennett
I trimmed the headers as I do not read the other two news groups.
One point I would like to make. Consider that art per se is a
creative endeavor. As such, it can take many forms. Computers
have also made creation of some forms of "Art" possible. As an
example, look at fractals and fractal landscapes. While these
are a graphic expression of a mathmatical formula, still the
act of developing that formula was a creative endeavor.
I dare say Og the caveman had rather harsh words when Ugh showed
up with the first pigments to use in place of chipping pictures
in the rock.
Paul
IHCOYC XPICTOC
(rac.alternative in sequentiis abolitum est)
Jennifer Zervakis (zerv...@acpub.duke.edu) quoth:
: 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.
When it comes down to the bottom line, computer art -can- be just as "hand
made" as any art created with pencils and paints and colours. I am an
amateur artist working exclusively on computer pictures. I create them
pretty much in the same way that other comic book art is made; first I
work sketches into black and white figures; then those figures are
assembled, then coloured, until the finished picture is made. I only draw
as a hobby because I have computers to assist me; to be entirely honest, I
found pencils and paints to be frustrating media, largely because there's
no "Undo" button.
Apart from that, there isn't much -radically- different between what I do
electronically and the traditional methods of comic art. I start with
"inks" rather than pencils, because the basic art is black and white.
Colouring is a two step process; you begin with crude colours, to create
an "object" that can be moved around or reposed; and I add subtler colours
once all the objects have been put together.
There are differences, of course. Computers make it radically easier to
assemble a morgue of eyes, noses, swords, guns, and other props; but then,
of course, by-hand artists do the same thing also. Still, it isn't as if
every pixel in the final picture hasn't been attended to with just as much
care as every square millimetre of a traditional drawing.
--
________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. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
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
DP Cannon <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>
>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?
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
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
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.)
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
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Ian Finnesey (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) quoth:
: 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>)
The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
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 |
`---------------------------------------------'
Herman Miller
In article <E23wE...@iglou.com>, gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>Ian Finnesey (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) quoth:
>
>: 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>)
>
>The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
>node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
>at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
I haven't tried that, but for the kind of art I do, a combination of
customized pencil and airbrush tools, water, the "fade" command (a variable
undo), and assorted other tricks works fine. (I use mainly Fractal Design's
Painter 2.0. I draw better with a mouse only because I've never tried drawing
with a pen.)
Some of my drawings start as pencil sketches, but others (such as
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/MiceSkating.html) were entirely mouse-drawn.
doctor damonto
gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>Ian Finnesey (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) quoth:
>
>: 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>)
>
>The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
>node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
>at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
i find htis maddening on corel.
but i suspect that anyone using corel is aching for a maddening.
but it's all i have available to me.
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-
IHCOYC XPICTOC
doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) quoth:
: >The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
: >node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
: >at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
: i find htis maddening on corel.
: but i suspect that anyone using corel is aching for a maddening.
: but it's all i have available to me.
With Corel, which is what I use, I have both versions 3 and 5 on my
machine. I find myself using Photopaint 3 for the basic stuff. PP3
-preserves- fixed palettes, so I can find the colours I like. And the
curved line function works similar to the one in Deluxe Paint Plus, which
is what I started out with.
I do the basic work in PP3, and then load it into PP5 for the finishes as
often as not.
--
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
Ian Finnesey
com> Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Distribution:
IHCOYC XPICTOC (gust...@iglou.com) wrote:
: The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
: node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
: at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
That only works for a few styles. If you want smooth, even lines,
perhaps (even then some angles require you do it freehand, or start with
the line tool then round out the edges freehand), but that won't work all
the time, AND, on most programs, that tool looks like SHIT anyhow.
(honestly, though, I think I might go and try that sometime...I had
previously written that tool off as almost completely useless, but I see
now how it might have SOME purpose)
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 \/ \/ \/
Bradly E. Peterson
gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) quoth:
>: >The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
>: >node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
>: >at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
>: i find htis maddening on corel.
>: but i suspect that anyone using corel is aching for a maddening.
>: but it's all i have available to me.
>With Corel, which is what I use, I have both versions 3 and 5 on my
>machine. I find myself using Photopaint 3 for the basic stuff. PP3
>-preserves- fixed palettes, so I can find the colours I like. And the
>curved line function works similar to the one in Deluxe Paint Plus, which
>is what I started out with.
>I do the basic work in PP3, and then load it into PP5 for the finishes as
>often as not.
Here's something a little different...
I use Logitech's Fototouch. I use the lightening / darkening
tool to draw the lines out a little bit at a time. It's slow as
hell, but I dig the effect. Once the basic figure is drawn, I
add lines in to shade and then blend them in with the blending
tool. It comes out a lot like charcoal drawing or ink and wash.
Oh, that's if you are working in 256 color black & white, not
color. heh...
I've been experimenting with it to "ink" pencils as well. I did
a partial on a scanned convention sketch by Terry Moore of
Francine and was quite pleased with the results.
Brian Moffet
It's a moot point. Something I tell people when they tell me they want to
get into computer animation, something I do s a hobby, is to make damn sure
they can draw, with the usual pencil and paper.
It's easy tteach someone an interface to a computer program, it's much
harder to teach someone to draw.
brian
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)
Gordon McVey
In article <58ilgo$a...@nntp-2.io.com>, hmi...@io.com (Herman Miller) wrote:
>In article <E23wE...@iglou.com>, gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC) wrote:
>>Ian Finnesey (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) quoth:
>>
>>: 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>)
>>
>>node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
>>at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
Stuff I've drawn with a mouse is usually about 95% done in freehand mode. I
only use curve, line etc on a few occoaisions.
the downward damon
>: >node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
>: >at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
>
>
>: but i suspect that anyone using corel is aching for a maddening.
>
>: but it's all i have available to me.
>
>With Corel, which is what I use, I have both versions 3 and 5 on my
>machine. I find myself using Photopaint 3 for the basic stuff. PP3
>-preserves- fixed palettes, so I can find the colours I like. And the
>curved line function works similar to the one in Deluxe Paint Plus, which
>is what I started out with.
>
>I do the basic work in PP3, and then load it into PP5 for the finishes as
>often as not.
lessee,
just checked, and we have corel.6 on this computer.
i can't remember if i used 5 or 6 on the other one, and i'm sure
some of my experience has been with .4
my complaints w/ this--
[1] it's REALLY hard to draw soemthing [or work with something in paint]
unless you know the program inside and out.
[2] there are some obvious features that simply do not exist
in these programs-- for instance, drawing a curved line.-- you
Have to either draw an open arc w/ the circle, or use that nodal
thing you're talking about, and neither of these work
effectively when i'm trying for irregular curves.
i had Thought there was a smoothing function which would let
me hand draw it, and then smooth it, but nope.
[3] paint adds about 100% extra memory to a picture that's not
represented in the picture in any way.
----
now, the reaosn i wanted to post--
the great advatage of using something like corel on comics is it's
background function. i have been looking for static
background for years for the short story i've stopped drawing
[mark my words, i WILL resume soon!!!],
and i'd decided [i think] to photocopy mackean's painted
[probably computer generated] static from signal:noise.
now, with the static background from corel, i may not need to.
they have LOTS of different neat backgrounds.
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
IHCOYC XPICTOC
the downward damon (db...@po.cwru.edu) quoth:
: my complaints w/ this--
: [1] it's REALLY hard to draw soemthing [or work with something in paint]
: unless you know the program inside and out.
This is true; but I find it also true about Photoshop.
: [2] there are some obvious features that simply do not exist
: in these programs-- for instance, drawing a curved line.-- you
: Have to either draw an open arc w/ the circle, or use that nodal
: thing you're talking about, and neither of these work
: effectively when i'm trying for irregular curves.
This is the great advantage of having a copy of Photopaint 3. Its curve
function is much easier to cope with, and the results are generally
superior. The Corel folks should get on the ball and put the function
back into the later releases
: [3] paint adds about 100% extra memory to a picture that's not
: represented in the picture in any way.
FWIW, the programme I have found that writes the -smallest- GIFs is a
shareware programme called Neopaint 2.0. When I am saving a 256 colour
picture, while I don't use Neopaint to draw in, I will load it in and out
just for the extra compression their GIF writing program seems to squeeze
out.
Then I convert it to PNG.
The newest versions of Neopaint don't support GIF or PNG.
Matt Harpold
doctor damonto (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: >
: >The trick is not simply to "draw" with the mouse. Instead, you use the
: >node curve tool, however it works on your machine. You make a whole line
: >at once, and move it around until it looks like you want it to look.
:
:
: but i suspect that anyone using corel is aching for a maddening.
:
: but it's all i have available to me.
Freehand isn't too bad, cost-wise, and it''s a much more stable program.
Corel just became unusable for me after I got a design job working with
Freehand. Nice roll up control panels, an intuitive context-sensitive
"nspector" panel, and it's a program supported by a good company. Corel's
quality control is sporadic at best.
-Matt
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