Liar, Liar, Wacom on fire..
Jan. 21st, 2004 @ 07:11 pm
|Date:||January 22nd, 2004 03:50 am (UTC)|| |
I'm really confused, could someone please define what a paintover is? Is that where someone paints over parts of a photo, but keeps bits of it in the finished product? Or is a 100% painted picture still a paintover if a photo was used to trace the pose but completely deleted after that? I was under the impression that just using a pose, and nothing else, was perfectly legal. You can't copyright a pose.
I don't know that naming names is such a good idea. But I think that it would be nice if you set up a site that showed techniques on how to get certain effects that beginners don't know about. I sure would like to know some of them ;)
I am not 100% sure but I THINK a paintover is where someone takes a photo, pulls it up in a paint program, and then paints over it a little so that it no longer looks like a photo. I could be wrong but this is what I think the term paintover means...
Yeah, that's about what I think of when I see/use the term paintover. There's always some variation on the theme...some paintovers I've seen have just played with a feature a bit (the hair, face color, whatever). Some artists put in a lot more work and it's difficult to tell if there was a photo actually as a layer of the painting or not.
I think paintovers could be made into a constructive exercise to study colors and features (if one isn't just mindlessly painting over the source), but I personally
don't like seeing people try to pass off paintovers as wholly original artwork, unless they've done more than just a minor adjustment to the ear or something. :P
Apparently, you and I are in the minority then. Many people seem to feel that it is okay to paint over a photo and claim that you never used one. It just served to confuse me, really...
Sucks to be in the minority on this one... I use paintovers for technique-building studies ocassionally, but that's about it. And those things eventually get thrown into the virtual trash can once it's served its purpose.
For artists who do paintovers and pass it off as something totally original...well, we don't have to look at their art, or we can encourage them to move away from that crutch if it's painfully obvious it's a paintover. Kind of depends on whether the artist is willing to take some critique/criticism, I suppose...
It's really their
problem to work with if the artist isn't willing to put in the effort to learn the fundamentals, and lets their creativity be restricted to what's in the photo. I'm not going to let it bug me too much. And I guess that sums up my feelings on artists who lie about paintovers. :)
On the other hand, there are a few artists out there who make a living working in photomanipulations/painovers in combination - and some of it's pretty darn good! But they're using their own resources, usually. So I'm not saying it can't be a valid form of artistic expression or anything like that, it's just the others who have little to no respect for the copyrights that need an education :P
Honestly, I don't have a single problem with people who do those paint-overs with photos up and until they lie to someone trying to learn Photoshop and then sneer at them when they cannot reproduce the effects.
Being lied to when you are honestly looking for help really hurts, especially when you have taken the step of swallowing your pride in the first place so that you can ask for said help. I, for instance, am a very independant person and I have a bit of trouble sometimes asking for help because I feel like I am being a pest. And to have a person lie to me, as one once did in the story I told in one of my other comments, REALLY stings. It's almost as if the person who is doing the lying is saying, "You're never going to be as good as I am so why should I tell you anything!".
Ah well. Where is your Epi page? Or Elfwood? I was unable to find the link in your user info page. You have a really cute icon and I want to see your art!
If they paint over their own photograph, it -is- completely original. What? You've never done a sketch and then transferred it to a canvas/paper/other to create the finished work?
And paintovers are not an indication of lack of skill as you're suggesting, and they are not inherently restrictive. You can add or remove anything you want over top of a photograph. You can have a paintover that looks very graphical in nature, with flat colors and shapes, or you can have something photorealistic, either from one set-up shot, or more usually with a combination of different elements from various photos.
Have you ever compared the difference in results between someone who has some artistic training and skill and someone who just traces because they don't know how to draw on their own? I've always found it really obvious when someone traces something and don't know what they're doing. In the hands of a skilled artist though, tracing techniques do nothing but save time. It doesn't mean they can't sit there and meticulously draw the subject freehand, or use the grid system to transfer a picture, it just means those are tedious, time-consuming methods that tend to really get in the way sometimes. And really, those techniques are better learning tools than painting over a photo. Yes, paintovers can be abused, or stuck to too rigidly, but that's due to a lack of skill on the part of the artist, or a lack of experience. It has nothing to do with the technique itself.
Even the pro's like Boris and Olivia use photos in a projection thingie and project them onto a canvas for the initial sketch. And yeah, you can tell when someone who knows bupkus about art tries to trace something. I have been known to print out photos and transfer the outline of the pose onto the canvas, althout I nearly always change the face to that of someone I like or some supernatural creature.
Yeah, I can spend three hours drawing the pose that looks damn near like it did in the photo. I am pretty confident of my sketching abilities. But let's face it, I stand a much greater chance of burnout if I don't take a few shortcuts. Someone recently told me about a contraption called a light box. As I have not had lessons, I had never heard of it before but I sure as hell wish I had. Might have saved me hours of brain melting work.
I am not trying to harp on you or anyone else here, Alcuishpa. I do appreciate your input because different opinions help me get this into perspective.
I still feel that lying to a newbie is wrong but I know there are plenty of people who disagree.
Heh, i didn't know what the hell a lighbox was for until probably my second year of high school art classes. When the teacher told us how to use it, i was like, "shit man, that's what i use the window for!" I still just use a window, actually...
I don't feel like you're harping on anybody, and even if you were, i wouldn't mind :) I hope you didn't feel like i was responding to you with that post previously. LJ has a weird system of classing these boards, so it came up looking like i was arguing against you when i was mainly speaking to muse_gnome. You didn't seem to be talking about paintovers so much as being lied to about it, and that's cool. It just really burns me when people act like a particular technique indicates a lack of skill.