Who thinks they can pull a drawing like this off?

I am looking for someone to make me a rendering similar to this style(drawing skill wise).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/CrazyPhantom/0801tr_02_z2006_ford_sport_tracsket.jpg

The rendering would be of a 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Let me know if you think you can do a rendering similar.

Thanks,
Joe

i could, but i dont have the materials now, and i dont get any money until my birthday, in 7 days.

Now it would take me a lot more time than usual, usually i dont WANT to put that much detail into a car.

It'll take over 20 hours i assume, so its gonna be a pain in the ass to find the time ;)

What and whom is it for? When is it needed? Roboduck

It is for me. It would be of a 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

I can do it with color pencils, but my work ain't cheap. Especially for color.

i'd do it cheap but the quality matches the price ;)

Ive started it to pass the time, as i am off school ill (nasty bug :()

If you want to buy it at the end, feel free, but i'll be drawing it now no matter what :P

*raises his hand* ... you can see my sig for my website to get examples of my past work and my contact info. Good luck in your search.

Renderings is what I do.

hotrodkristina (at) gmail.com

http://hotrodkristina.com/kristina/hrk/images/rhys_solstice.jpg

http://hotrodkristina.com/kristina/hrk/images/kn_lexus.jpg

That is a badass style. It is hard to tell these days if it is digital or traditional media. Wish sean would show up here and tell us how he works. Either way he pulled off a nice loose concept drawing marker look.

ok guys, ive got a good outline but i do believe you would be better in PS/Illy at rendering, anyone wanna take my lineart and do someting with it?

I work in more traditional media (marker, pen, pencil) but I still think I could give you that same look unless of course you definitely want digital work. Here are a couple samples. let me know what you think.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/Stallion1114/VegasRSX.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/Stallion1114/Revvin9kEvo8.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/Stallion1114/Untitled-5.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/Stallion1114/Trans_Am-3.jpg

Hey guys. I like alot of your work and I will be contacting each individually.

I threw this together litterally in 2 minutes. It is a rough design of what I am looking for, for more of a direction for you guys.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/CrazyPhantom/1-2.jpg

I am also a webdesigner. If anyone wants to trade this job for maybe a website design I will do that as well.

actually, im no good when it comes to web design but i guess thats my own fault. I see what you're after, ill go over my rough pencil then neaten it up and scan to see what you think

Here is an attempt.

Snip

Hmm... I like.(Dont take this in a bad way, not trying to be an ass) But I think if i took my time to vector it out, i could make it looks exactly like yours too by using shapes. I want something changed up a little differently than the direct image I posted. Do you guys think the FIRST image I posted in my thread is digitalized or hand rendered?

Don't take this the wrong way but it is raster art airbrushed in photoshop. Not vectors. It is hard to tell if he did it digitally or not. But digital doesn't preclude the hand. "i could make it looks exactly like yours too by using shapes."

Show me.
But I want you to make it looks like this one. :)

Grantrl78... Man... I really like this one... regardless of how it was done. It is Sweet.

Im not hating on your drawing. That last one is sick. I am just saying I didnt want the exact quick photoshop'd image I made duplicated. Maybe make it at a different angle like the first post or something.

Your first point is legit. I can't argue that. But your "i could make it looks exactly like yours too by using shapes." is total bs. What no one wants to own up to is that 100% of the realistic art in this art section is traced. And it is either rendered with a pencil, a paintbrush or with a digital airbrush. When I trace a car and render it with a digital airbrush, it takes no less skill than any other form of art I mentioned. It kills me when people fail to understand this.

I still want you to paint one for me. :grinyes:

What no one wants to own up to is that 100% of the realistic art in this art section is traced.

I will argue against that.
Admittedly, I haven't shown that much here but I haven't traced anything so there goes your 100%.


....not that my little drawings are in any way realistic...

When I trace a car and render it with a digital airbrush, it takes no less skill than any other form of art I mentioned. It kills me when people fail to understand this.



Yep, and the ones who critique are the same ones who won't even use ellipses to make the wheels perfectly round, and think boat curves are 'cheating'. Try getting away with THAT at Art Center... lol riiiight.

You're awful nice to have done that quick PS of the Jeep. All I see is a 'look a gift horse in the mouth' scenario going on here. That's why I only do freebies for friends now.

Yeah it is the lack of understanding that kills me. I can see if my 80yo Grandma can't appreciate how hard it is to paint something in photoshop, she grew up in the era before frickin toilet paper. But when fellow web forum art people dismiss what I do on the basis that I didn't draw it "by hand" it gives me gas. These are the same people who trace a photograph with a graphite pencil and pretend that other art people aren't aware of it. There is some pretty hardcore hypocrisy going on here.

Drunken Monkey, I agree - most non realistic art is not traced. But that ferrari in your sig surely was. :)

I can see if my 80yo Grandma can't appreciate how hard it is to paint something in pohotoshop, she grew up in the era before frickin toilet paper.
LOLOLOLOL

That quote is a keeper!!!

You and I both know that we 'trace' because it saves time. Clients aren't happy if their stuff takes weeks to get done (although sometimes it happens that way, anyways). Or if you're developing a body kit, the perspective HAS to be decent, or the tooling gets messed up. CARtoon-y stuff is different, because that's a whole other look, much more organic. But at least make the wheels round and the lines straight!

I can draw things freehand, I have for years. In fact, I am my daughter's own 'real live coloring book'. (I can draw a My Little Pony in my sleep). But I don't have the leisure to sketch and redo and sketch. This is my JOB. That is why I have a Mac and a Wacom. (I actually prefer to sketch stuff in Photoshop w/ a small solid brush now, but I'd REALLY love to get Painter, and use the pencil tool). And I also have a toolbox full of boat curves and ellipses of all sizes, from my before-mac days. There is a reason why Thom Taylor mentions that stuff in his book.

I am my daughter's own 'real live coloring book'. (I can draw a My Little Pony in my sleep).
Heheheh. :)

What no one wants to own up to is that 100% of the realistic art in this art section is traced.

I try to get my drawings realistic but i don't trace. Nor do i have any tools to draw ellipses.

But that doesn't make me appriciate your art any less. I am sure that the 'tracers' can also draw things without their lightbox or PS but it just saves time. If i want to draw a wheel it will take me 30 minutes just to get it round. So i am sure i would trace if i had a lightbox.

My :2cents:

JK

Photoshop...

I try to get my drawings realistic but i don't trace. Nor do i have any tools to draw ellipses.

But that doesn't make me appriciate your art any less. I am sure that the 'tracers' can also draw things without their lightbox or PS but it just saves time. If i want to draw a wheel it will take me 30 minutes just to get it round. So i am sure i would trace if i had a lightbox.

My :2cents:

JK

And if you had an opaque projector? :grinyes:
That f430 is beautiful. And it was traced like a 1986 Mercury Tracer with a 50 Caliber
chain gun mounted over the sun roof blasting tracers at bowling pins at night in the desert.

Yeah it is the lack of understanding that kills me. I can see if my 80yo Grandma can't appreciate how hard it is to paint something in photoshop, she grew up in the era before frickin toilet paper. But when fellow web forum art people dismiss what I do on the basis that I didn't draw it "by hand" it gives me gas. These are the same people who trace a photograph with a graphite pencil and pretend that other art people aren't aware of it. There is some pretty hardcore hypocrisy going on here.

Drunken Monkey, I agree - most non realistic art is not traced. But that ferrari in your sig surely was. :)

that thing in my sig.
is it traced?
dunno.
i didn't do it.

I have a question:
by "trace" do you directly over the image or to copy from an image? Are you calling an A2 drawing that is copied from a small 4"x6" photograph a tracing?
Or are you speaking of directly tracing over an image.

Either way, I shall repeat myself.
Nothing of the little that I have shown here is traced.
Again, not all of it is amazingly fantastic so even your implying that none of my work is anyway "realistic", a term that perhaps you should also define for the sake of the discussion, doesn't mean much to me.

Because it is relevent to this topic; I've never been entirely resolved with the whole "art" thing. Painting can be an art but not all painting is art. The same goes for drawing (dy drawing, I mean any work done using primarily lines). Then there's also the now complex world of what constitutes an illustration.

I can draw and I can paint but I don't call myself an artist, nor do I call what I produce art. I don't even say it is my "work". Why are you so hung on on getting recognition for it? Is it just the hypocrisy you see (whether or not is valid isn't that important) that bothers you? The thing that I keep in mind is that you should see who those comments are coming from and judge the comments accordingly, as you so rightly point out with your grand-ma example. For the most part, what I read on an internet forum has very little effect on me.

One thing though, you must admit that there is a world of difference between drawing something up in any medium from scratch and a bunch of reference material and isn't a direct copy of an image and simply copying an image. When you are tracing, it is tracing and you are glad to admit that. Is the bit that annoys you; that people don't admit when it is a tracing?

I'm going to be honest here and say that I don't entirely see the point of taking a photo and replicating it pretty much 100% in Illustrator because as you put it, it is just tracing. I imagine that to those who do original Illustrator work, that is more or less the same as how a person who draws from still life looks at a guy who traces from a photo.

I should point out that just because I don't see the point, it doesn't mean that I don't know it takes a lot of time and practice be good at it. It's just that because it takes so much time that I don't fully see the point (or should that be worth?) if it is virtually indistinguishable from the original photo. I also can't get over the thought that given the time, more or less anyone can do it.

quite simply:
:dunno:

Nice showing of styles and work, fellas.

boy have i missed a lot whilst ive been here.

I have to agree, tracing isnt wrong. I try not to to IMPROVE my drawings, but if somone wants me to draw something for them, i'll trace a quick outline so perspective is perfect.

That way, they can hang it on their walls without thinking something doesnt look right EVERY DAY.

Tracing isnt wrong, but many people have an opinion that tracers are not at all skilled. well i say if i traced a car, id never be as good as some people are in illy here.

I will finish by saying a comment i read somewhere.

"opinions are like assholes. everyone has one, and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks."

And if you had an opaque projector? :grinyes:
That f430 is beautiful. And it was traced like a 1986 Mercury Tracer with a 50 Caliber
chain gun mounted over the sun roof blasting tracers at bowling pins at night in the desert.

No idea what you meant with that :wtf:

Even after checking all the word seperately in a dictionary it still makes little to no sense.

But i guess it was meant as a compliment...

JK

I am just joshing with you 1986. Dictionaries don't usually pickup on that type of thing....yet. Paraphrased for you: That is a beautiful drawing of a ferrari, but you OBVIOUSLY traced it.

:) :)

here it is again

should have warned you Hotrod X.

Tracing is a viable illustration method. Time tested and true. It goes back centuries. To the masters and before. If you think otherwise you are stoned. If you think tools like cruves, sweeps and ellipses are cheating then you are really stoned.

We have this discussion 15 times a year on here and it never changes anything. fact of the matter is "if you can't draw well, you can't trace well either" I think it was Bonzelite who professed that.

This is the silliest topic ever. The working artists sites never have this discussion. You folks in denial need to wake up and smell the industry. If you think a client is going to appreciate the fact that you didn't use an ellipse on the tires on the drawing you're doing for him because you think it's cheating and that's why your tires are wobbly and not quite right....dream on...he'll call you an amateur and hire someone who knows what they're doin to do his work. If you go to industrial design school and try to pull that "no tools" line you'll get dropped like a bad habit.

Illustration and fine art are two different beasts and the line is blurred severely these days. Technically a pencil is a tool. If you use one are you cheating?

oh to answer dudes question...I think the initial rendering is both. Hand done and computer enhanced.

one more thing

Joe, can you post reference of the vehicle you want drawn and the wheels and detailed information. Also if you are willing to pay say how much. If you're asking for a freebie that's cool, but asking for the initial drawings skill level and "free" doesn't seem to line up IMO. That's a pro level drawing so some compensation for whomever attempts it would be in order, especially if you plan on using the drawing to generate income in any way.

and sup to Bonzelite...it's been a long time man

thanks

Lemorris... I always love your input... it forces one back to reality. Most "Illustrators" I know can draw; however, they do most of their magic using vector over photos, or pencil roughs, etc. I do both, sometimes on the same work. Could anyone ever think of Jeri as a non-artist? Her work is, to say the least, as professional as they come. Robo

I am just joshing with you 1986. Dictionaries don't usually pickup on that type of thing....yet. Paraphrased for you: That is a beautiful drawing of a ferrari, but you OBVIOUSLY traced it.

if you mean putting a piece of paper over a photo you're :screwy: want to bet on that?

if you mean i only used 1 ref pic, then yeah, guilty of that

if you mean putting a piece of paper over a photo you're :screwy: want to bet on that?

if you mean i only used 1 ref pic, then yeah, guilty of that

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. :lol:

well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe you did just freehand that car by looking at the reference pic. It really doesn't matter. It's a fine piece.

It looks like it was art-o-graphed or grid method which sorry to tell you guys is not "freehand" the grid is in fact a "tool" it is a method used to duplicate a photograph. Yes you draw it by hand without tracing over the photo but you do use squares at a larger size and refer back to the smaller grid to get your key points. You are in fact copying what you see into predetermined proportioately scaled and measured squares. It is copying. Once again it's a viable illustration method but it ain't any purer than doing a pencil sketch, scanning it and redrawing it in Illustrator or whatever. It's all relative. Art isn't in the method.

Your drawing is very very good. It does have a "photograph" look though. Remember...the camera only has one eye and it's take on reality has a distinct signature as a result. Your drawing has that as it's level of realism and tone looks like a photo. Now that's not bad at all. Rockwell, who I would challenge anyone here if they didn't see the masterfulness in his works, did in fact trace and transfer and light table and whatever he had to do to make that lineart work so he could paint it. From a certain perspective if you use lineart in any form it's a "cheat".

I don't think Grant is trying to insult you here. I think we all think it's a great piece and once again if you're saying you freehanded that just by looking at a picture, no grid, no art-o-graph, not light table (which I use religiously I might add) then good for you.

Art is not a competition. You do not have to "prove" anything to anyone. As an artist you never truly compete against anyone else. The individual pursuit is where the true art lies. This back and forth is silly too. Just draw what you draw. Illustrate what you illustrate. Get down how you get down.
Post it when you're done cause regardless of skill level it's all awesome.

-Lemorris

1986 you freakin rule. Your work is stellar.

Wow I deliberately avoided this thread . I took offence to the title. "Who thinks they can pull a drawing like this off? (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5637165#post5637165)" F you! But I am on both sides of the tracing issue. I started drawing when i was 4. In day care an artist came in drew a race car and gave it to me. I went home and traced it probably a thousand times until i could draw it freehand with my eyes closed. In 30+ yrs I've done probably more than 20k automotive drawings/illustrations/renderings. If i said I haven't traced since i was 4. I'd be a liar. Some times it just makes more sense. I love tackling a drawing armed with only an eraser and a pencil. I also love putting out an awesome technical looking masterpiece. And u cant consistently draw true lines and perfect ellipses with out some sort of tools. Since I've been turned onto Illustrator Ive regretted not having known or used it the last few years. I never considered computer assisted drawings art. Until I actually fell in love with it. When kids ask me what i think about their art work. I always give Kudos. But I also tell them its not what i think. it only matters how it makes u feel. Art is an extension of our souls. Or at least its an extension of mine.

well said

again, i was hoping that the :dunno: sums up my position on this.

Just so you know, I am not the best person to put to the "if you think anyone can do it, you try it" test as I am not entirely alien to how the programs are done. As it happens, the only thing I've got installed on my home pc right now, is Vectorworks, Autocad 2006 and Max 9.

I can attempt a drawing if you really want me to but it won't be any time until after the 22nd as I'm out of the country from this thursday until then and I've got too many things that have to be issued before I fly.

For the sake of the discussion.
You say that using a program takes no less skill and hand eye co-ordination than drawing by eye. Thing is that isn't the same as tracing but you seem to be comparing either tracing or drawing in digital media with "traditional" media to suit your argument.

As I said before, tracing is tracing no matter the medium and as far as I see it, tracing is easier than drawing by eye, just as drawing in a digital format is harder than tracing in a digital format.

No?
Or is it just different?

It seems to me that it annoys when people don't know the difference between tracing and drawing and it follows from this that it annoys you when people don't admit to tracing.

Going back to my point about the questionable worth of copying an image; I wasn't talking about monetary worth.
Let's say I have a photograph.
You spend x number of hours replicating that photograph near enough 100%.
What was the point of copying the photograph?

Y'see, I am also not a philosopher.
I see myself as somewhat of a realist and realistically, I am a good copier; no more. Now this is probably down to me having a thing against people who seem to be too hung up on titles and classifications. More specifically, I have a thing against people who seem to wear things as if it defines their existance. I'm going to revert to stereotype and paraphrase Confucius;
the wise man does not think he is wise, rather it is other people who tell him he is so.

Why do you care that some people can't see the work involved in doing what you do? Why do you feel the need to proclaim that all decent drawing (here or otherwise) is traced?

Does this qualify as being "realistic" in your books?
Do you think any of the three are traced?
http://xaa.xanga.com/5d6c0a0a56132149492645/w111239961.jpg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"right turn clyde" :) lol

the old schoolers should get this one :)

those are of a chimp, clyde was an orangutan.

so... it should be.....

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

with a response like that, i am left wondering if you are just looking for an argument and that popcorn munching smiley isn't helping.

Thank you for your advice.
For the record, first of all; those were done nigh on 11 years ago back in school as method studies (as in the result isn't the important part of the exercise) and are just what I have already online somewhere. I also asked you using them as reference to get an idea of what it is you're talking about.
If, as it sounds, you are talking about photo realistic images, I have to ask; why bother when you can just take a photo?
I also have to ask, where do you get that I have whatever century artist code delusions?

if you are asking whether i need your validation, I again ask you, why does it bother you that other people don't recognise the skill in doing a digital image? Do you need other people to validate your own worth as an artist/illustrator/whatever you want to call yourself?

As for what I am drawing, what if I don't want to trace?
You seem to be putting forward the notion that if you aren't tracing you're either lying or your drawing isn't going to be as good as a tracing.

Y'see, despite what you might think, I am just trying to understand you; hence questions. If I didn't want to know or if I am just trying to force my opinion on you and argue for the hell of it, I wouldn't be asking questions.

See man I knew this thread was trouble. I just didnt realize how bad.

A great article >>> Craig Tanner - The Myth of Talent (http://media.radiantvista.com/download/radiantVista_ar_mythOfTalent.pdf)

Kristina--Thanks for the link, that's a very good read.

This line really struck home with me, "Being labeled talented only means we have survived being untalented."

The "seven ways" are a great path for any "artist" to follow.

A great article >>> Craig Tanner - The Myth of Talent (http://media.radiantvista.com/download/radiantVista_ar_mythOfTalent.pdf)
I enjoyed that.

I'm a commercial artist by trade and I trace things with free abandon if it means I can sleep longer. That is really the point. However, I cannot find exact angles and compositions of MOST things that I need. Therefore, I need to be able to draw from my imagination, too.

Frank Frazetta is a perfect example of this. He had to draw from his imagination because his scenes were total fantasy. I'm sure he drew from live models as a kid to learn anatomy. He even admits to having to "resort" to references and drawing his friends sometimes as it is inevitable.

Likewise, I can draw from life, my imagination, and from a photo, and from tracing. It's nealry all the same to me. What differs is the time involved in laying out the drawing. I need this skill set at my disposal to wage war upon the client successfully. It is warfare. The more in my arsenal, the more they're owned.

I can sit and look at a car at a car show, draw the car in front of the owner, and it looks like the car. I've done this for charity work mostly to keep my skills sharp (and to donate my time). All procedes of the 10 dollar sketches (which are worth more than that in my opinion) go the children's hospital.

But the deadlines there are lax. For a real client with more complex subject matter, IF I can even find something to trace, I will gladly. I don't give a sh!t. Nobody cares. The bottom line is the deadline, the money, and my sleeping time. None of that work hangs in museums nor represents my soul. Perhaps a wee bit, but not really.

Moreover, rendering is another story. If you trace something and then try to render it, without any knowledge of light or form, you cannot realisticallly create a convincing piece. It will look flat. You must have serious skills to pull off a well-renedered drawing, even if it's stylized, highly painterly looking, or dead-on photographic.

The true measure of an artist's talent and skill in real direct terms is their freehand sketches, blank paper, pencil..... GO. No references, nothing but you and the world in front of you.

I guarantee that most would fold cards under those conditions. I'd bet money on it. You can use a crutch only so long before you get too used to it. Having a bigger tool box with tools in it is unstoppable. A limited tool kit, ie, only tracing, will eventually catch up to you and limit your opportunities as an expressive artist.


Anyway..... I hope some of that makes sense to some of you :grinyes:

The true measure of an artist's talent and skill in real direct terms is their freehand sketches, blank paper, pencil..... GO. No references, nothing but you and the world in front of you.

Says the badass art guy who quickly draws stuff out of his head all day for the movies. :) That is what we call in the business a self serving statement.:grinyes: But that is impressive to watch.

My opinion on what is the single greatest display of artistic skill is the person who can make the most comfortable living painting and drawing what he loves with the fewest compromises.

Frazetta is a badass but Vallejo was just as successful tracing everything he did. I think they both rule.

Kristina. Yeah talent is one of those bullshit words coined by art dealers and marketers. It is all about hard work and study.

See man I knew this thread was trouble. I just didnt realize how bad.

Why is it or does it have to be trouble.
As far as I can tell, we're just trying to have a decent discussion about this, no?

It doesn't have to turn into an accusing, insulting or otherwise offensive situation and as of yet as long as people are clear and direct in what they are saying and offer up questions and points to move the discussion forward.

Simply saying "this is it" and then not going beyond that statement is when things start to turn. By the same token, not discussing it is perhaps also not the best way forward.


Bonzelite:
Nice post and one that I fully agree with.

However, I would also like to add that in my opinion, perhaps the best thing that programs offer is that it gives everyone the opportunity to draw. Not everyone can draw by eye from a live subject. Even when you have someone standing over your shoulder giving you step by step instruction in how to measure out and proportion objects and how to construct perspective lines etc, etc, you will and most do, still get it wrong. With a pc and suitable program, everyone can skip that and spend a little time and produce something they can be proud of.

That is why I offered up the notion that perhaps digital work and, let's call it "real" work are just two different things in the same way that model making and sculpting are different or perhaps even drawing and painting.

Put it this way, I learnt my photography the old fashioned way. I was making prints doing photoshop the "real world" way using fabrics, pigments, negative sandwiches in the enlarger etc etc, to achieve the desired result on the final print; essentially what a lot of popular modern PC based Photoshop work does. While the two do similar things and give similar results, I see that the two skills are different enough by way of their methodologies that they can't be directly compared. One isn't easier or harder than the other and one is either harder or easier then the other depending on the effect wanted.

Perhaps the same is true of drawing in digital media and real world media.
Perhaps the point isn't that people should recognise that digital drawing is just as hard as real real drawing but that they just different things.

The true measure of an artist's talent and skill in real direct terms is their freehand sketches, blank paper, pencil..... GO. No references, nothing but you and the world in front of you.

Says the badass art guy who quickly draws stuff out of his head all day for the movies. :) That is what we call in the business a self serving statement.:grinyes: But that is impressive to watch.

My opinion on what is the single greatest display of artistic skill is the person who can make the most comfortable living painting and drawing what he loves with the fewest compromises.

Frazetta is a badass but Vallejo was just as successful tracing everything he did. I think they both rule.

Yeah talent is one of those bullshit words coined by art dealers and marketers. It is all about hardwork and study.

:pimp: hey, who loves ya, baby :p


I agree with everything you said, including the self-serving comment. I take that as a compliment :grinyes:


for the record Frazetta owns Borris...

:evillol:

Why is it or does it have to be trouble.
As far as I can tell, we're just trying to have a decent discussion about this, no?

It doesn't have to turn into an accusing, insulting or otherwise offensive situation and as of yet as long as people are clear and direct in what they are saying and offer up questions and points to move the discussion forward.

Simply saying "this is it" and then not going beyond that statement is when things start to turn. By the same token, not discussing it is perhaps also not the best way forward.


Bonzelite:
Nice post and one that I fully agree with.

However, I would also like to add that in my opinion, perhaps the best thing that programs offer is that it gives everyone the opportunity to draw. Not everyone can draw by eye from a live subject. Even when you have someone standing over your shoulder giving you step by step instruction in how to measure out and proportion objects and how to construct perspective lines etc, etc, you will and most do, still get it wrong. With a pc and suitable program, everyone can skip that and spend a little time and produce something they can be proud of.

That is why I offered up the notion that perhaps digital work and, let's call it "real" work are just two different things in the same way that model making and sculpting are different or perhaps even drawing and painting.

Put it this way, I learnt my photography the old fashioned way. I was making prints doing photoshop the "real world" way using fabrics, pigments, negative sandwiches in the enlarger etc etc, to achieve the desired result on the final print; essentially what a lot of popular modern PC based Photoshop work does. While the two do similar things and give similar results, I see that the two skills are different enough by way of their methodologies that they can't be directly compared. One isn't easier or harder than the other and one is either harder or easier then the other depending on the effect wanted.

Perhaps the same is true of drawing in digital media and real world media.
Perhaps the point isn't that people should recognise that digital drawing is just as hard as real real drawing but that they just different things.


Yes I agree with you.


It's like music for me. I could probably be a muscian if that is all I did and practiced. But I can only have that as a minor interest at best. Drawing is my life's calling and I do that better than anything else I do. I'm a good friend, a good worker, a step-father, all else, but I'm best at drawing. Not music, not even being a good friend.

So if I need a click track to set my timing, I will use the machine to help me achieve my musical ends if necessary. Just in the same way I will trace something to "cut to the chase."

I also have to put colored sticker dots on piano keys to help me remember patterns because I cannot read a blank keyboard and have no idea how to read music.

So I use whatever it takes to get it done the way I can. What others don't know won't hurt them. But I'll never be a professional session musician... not ever in a million years. I'm nowhere near that level of talent and skill. But I can make music. I've been in bands and invited to be in them. I can play well enough to con you into thinking I can do more than what I really can.

If the program "Painter" can help someone achieve painterly images without use of real paint, then let them have that. It doesn't matter really because it's what they create as an end product that is moving to the viewer. They could have used cow sh!t to paint and if the picture is genius, then so be it.

:lol:

But I'm serious.

"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it" - Thomas Jefferson

All I do is draw cars. I make money at it, and it makes my clients happy, and in a way, I believe my life led me here, to what I'm doing, today, this moment. No matter how 'good' I get, I will always be humble, because I can look at any simple silly drawing my 6 year old does and be moved to tears - because it shows the world through her eyes.

Sometimes I'd rather be mucking out stables at a ranch or doing landscape work, as that kind of work is much more gratifying in the end.

DM, a person who can't paint with oils is not usually going to be able to magically make a good digital painting in ps or painter. Painting - digital or otherwise - is about what is going on in the video card between your ears. It is about seeing, not how you make marks. A three year old is capable of making the right marks with a pencil. But he has no chance of knowing where and when to make those marks without years of experience like bonzelite.

thanks, grant. true and kind words.....

and where have I ever dismissed the skill involved in creating an image in a digital medium?

Let's go back to my questions;
Is tracing easier than drawing free by eye?
Is it easier to do a detailed tracing in a digital format?

Or perhaps in another way:
can you do what you do on a PC on a piece of paper by hand?
Do you need to?

It has been said that if you can't draw/paint, you're not going to be able to do well using a digital format. So is it true the other way around? If you can draw in a digital format, does that mean you can draw and paint? Again, I have to ask, are the two even that comparable?

You say that the art is this thing is how you see and not the marks you make.
I have always seen it is that the art is the way you make a mark. That is why I don't hold any notion of anything being either right or wrong when it comes to drawing and painting; as long as the method fulfills the requirements.
After all, we all more or less see the same. The difference is what we do with what we see and perhaps more importantly what we do with what we see.


And one last thing:
I've been re-reading some of the posts here and have only just noticed that you have been specifically talking about photo-realistic drawing/painting.
For that I must apologise because I have been taking the discussion to be about all drawing and painting.

Well, here is my take on your questions as I find them interesting:

and where have I ever dismissed the skill involved in creating an image in a digital medium?

Let's go back to my questions;
Is tracing easier than drawing free by eye?

Depends on the subject matter and how familiar you are with it. In some cases, I can draw something right away quicker than meticulously tracing it. If I'm looking at my own hand in the mirror, I'm essentially tracing the outlines of what I see in front of me in my mind's eye. So drawing what is in front of you is a form of tracing, but much freer because you can interpret the subject.

Wh is life-drawing a form of tracing? It's all given to you. You just have to capture it. It's really the same as using tracing paper to trace lines literally. This is why the "still life" is a great excercise: it's literally tracing exactly what you see. And it forces your mind to train itself to "see." Then taking it farther, one day, you can then invent your own setups and objects from your mind.

Is it easier to do a detailed tracing in a digital format?

Again, depends on your level of proficiency. I suck at computers but use them profusely. To "trace" something on a PC is very tedious for me. I'd rather hand draw it and then scan my linework into the PC and then manipulate it further. This way, it's analogue from it's origins and retains the flow of human energy and idiosyncrasy.

Or perhaps in another way:
can you do what you do on a PC on a piece of paper by hand?
Do you need to?

Some people can but not me. No and no for me. I never draw anything on the PC. Some use the Cintique and draw right onto the screen and it looks almost the same. Cannot tell in many cases.

You still must physically draw. The PC isn't drawing anything for you. Never. If you cannot freehand draw, you cannot draw on the PC any better.

It has been said that if you can't draw/paint, you're not going to be able to do well using a digital format. So is it true the other way around? If you can draw in a digital format, does that mean you can draw and paint?

No. Hell no. Most people I've seen cannot go from the PC environment to the pencil and paper/real paint medium right away and just be the same. Some people can, but MORE people cannot.

You need to use the actual tools in order to use the actual tools. Same for the reverse case.

Again, I have to ask, are the two even that comparable?

You say that the art is this thing is how you see and not the marks you make.
I have always seen it is that the art is the way you make a mark. That is why I don't hold any notion of anything being either right or wrong when it comes to drawing and painting; as long as the method fulfills the requirements.

Sure but there is bad art like any other form of creation.

You can draw sh!t all day and it's art, sure, but do I like it? Does it tell anything about me or a story? Is it beautiful? Does it have magic?

Lots of art is very rehashed and safe; technically well executed, but very uninspiring. Lots of CG "concept art" is this way. It looks like the same artist has done 70% of it, with only the subject matter changing.

This stuff you see, very well done, with CG software... I don't know the names.. "Shake" or "Cinema 4D".... "Maya"... loads of others.... it looks great as "Industrial or Film concept" portfolio pieces but how many times can you see a futuristic cityscape or robot? Or an industrial grey atmospheric scene of.... something.... like you'd see in a 1st person role playing video game?

There is just as much generic well-made stuff as ever. The medium has changed but not the general level of interesting things. You can have younger people learning software year after year and they can make cool stuff or loads of so-so stuff.

After all, we all more or less see the same. The difference is what we do with what we see and perhaps more importantly what we do with what we see.

Generally agree. It's what YOU bring to the subject that can make it magical. The "everything has been done" is only 1/2 true. Sure, but has it been done well? Has it been done a bit differently than what everyone else has habitually done?

grant:
if you read my posts carefully, you will see that the first time I said anyone can do it I was refering to importing a well shot photogrqaph and directly tracing it in photoshop or whatever to get a good likeness in their drawing. This is not about drawing "free".

The bit you quote is about the programs being a means in which everyone, whether or not you can draw using a pencil, more so if you are not usually that capable with pencil and paper, to draw or trace or whatever to make something to be proud of. If you want to ignore the spirit of the point and read what you want, fine.