HOME | DD
Published: 2011-08-27 02:26:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 6469; Favourites: 128; Downloads: 282
Redirect to original
Description
. . .Related content
Comments: 21
FredAckerman In reply to Nite-Lik [2011-09-05 16:23:27 +0000 UTC]
Thank you. The popularity of this image is overwhelming me lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FredAckerman In reply to Carringd [2011-09-03 18:33:56 +0000 UTC]
Thank you. You know, it's kinda strange. I never really thought about this image very much after completing it, yet it's somehow become my most popular image on here since I joined. Glad it's well liked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BCsupport In reply to FredAckerman [2011-09-05 21:22:37 +0000 UTC]
Welcome! You deserve all the credits
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 02:28:17 +0000 UTC]
Your kind words are very much appreciated. I especially like your signature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 02:52:38 +0000 UTC]
thanks. it's an abbreviated argument, but it gets my point across.
as to your render:
you managed to make a realistically proportioned figure have the same feel as the cartoon. well done.
what application did you use?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 03:09:20 +0000 UTC]
Well, I once had someone I consider a "friend" tell me that what I do isn't "real" art, so now I have something to retort with once the argument arises again.
As to the application, it's a program called Poser. I use this in conjunction with Photoshop CS3 to do all my images.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 03:11:55 +0000 UTC]
I keep meaning to upgrade mt old Poser, but never get around to it.
as to your friend: any deliberate act involving skill is a work of art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 03:20:41 +0000 UTC]
Glad to see he's in the minority on that one. He feels that since I don't model the figures myself, it's not real art. By that definition, Michaelangelo wasn't a real artist because I'm pretty sure he didn't make his own chisels or escavate the stone for his sculptures. Also, since my father didn't make his own paints or construct his own brushes, he wasn't an artist either. Really pissed me off when this guy said what he did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 03:35:46 +0000 UTC]
He's befuddled by linguistic slovenliness.
An illustration: A painting of a pipe, bearing the legend "ceci n'est pas une pipe" is not itself "art" any more than it is itself a pipe. It is a work (noun: product of deliberate labor) of art (skill). This modern sloppy shorthand of calling works of art by the abbreviation "art" has led to much confusion and strife.
The art of the painting is in the skill of conception, composition, and manual rendering of the composed concept in an intelligible manner that conveys the artist's (Magritte's) intent.
CG requires comparable skill in conception and composition, and to this extent CG composition and rendering is largely comparable to the traditional graphic representational arts.
On the other hand, in my opinion: off-the-shelf CG is a lesser art form than the traditional arts. The major differences between CG and the traditional media lie in the lack of a need for tedious manual application of pigments, the automatically correct proportions, scale, perspective, and spatial relationships.
So, yes, it does lack that level of skill.
However, on THAT note, it is directly comparable to studio photography.
Does your friend consider studio photography "not real art"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 03:41:26 +0000 UTC]
I've always said, myself, that what I do is more like virtual photography, so that's valid. That being said, the figures and proportions may be automatic, but the lighting, composition and layout, camera angle, and extensive postwork are what make the image. Before I learned to work with these particular elements my work was downright atrocious and will never see the light of day. Anybody can load a figure and hit the "render" button. It takes skill to make the finished image look good, though.
Never asked him if he considers photography to be an artform or not. Probably not. Dude's got more issues than TV Guide, so he'd probably lie about it to support his "opinion", anyway lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 03:44:16 +0000 UTC]
ah, yes: post-working, like darkroom work, is what makes or breaks an image.
additionally, postworking can be the digital equivalent of manual drafting, painting, airbrushing, etc... and whether you use a wacom or a mouse, it is every bit as demanding as pencils and brushes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 03:47:18 +0000 UTC]
Actually, if you use a mouse, it's even MORE demanding. Trying to paint with a mouse in Photoshop and make it look decent is about as difficult as producing a perfect counterfeit dollar bill using green food coloring and a large brick as a brush. But that's what I've got, so that's what I have to use lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 04:02:06 +0000 UTC]
I've painted with a mouse.
I remain unhappy with the result.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredAckerman In reply to demosthenes1blackops [2011-08-27 04:51:11 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, it isn't easy. Sometimes I wonder if I'd have an easier time of it hanging upside down and using my feet to draw my images in crayon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
demosthenes1blackops In reply to FredAckerman [2011-08-27 11:37:51 +0000 UTC]
hehhehheh... sometimes it seemed that simple hanging would be easier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0

























