/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1779198]

It's come to my attention that a lot of professional digital artists use references to the point of it being copious - sometimes just flat out copying a photograph and making some minor changes.
I see this a lot with the GTA promo artist, and there was a case of this as well with a Mass Effect artist that caused a huge shitstorm regarding a picture of Tali's face.
Essentially, I find this really demotivating. I always thought of digital painting as fun because I could come up with anything I wanted and bring it to life. But now it seems that most digital artists need to copy a bunch of photographs and mesh them to together for that to happen. It seems more like overcomplicated photoshopping to me than art.
Any opinions on this?

[Anonymous No.1779200]

>>1779198
The perspective is fugged, reminds me of Loomis's tipping figures when the perspective is off.

[Anonymous No.1779202]

>>1779198
it's not new.

[Anonymous No.1779206]

It's a job. Job needs to be done fast and with best possible quality. Every tool is legit. Client nor consumer will not care about how picture was made if it looks good in the end.

[Anonymous No.1779208]

>>1779200
It's not. The artist simply lowered the horizon line and adjusted the figure accordingly. At the very least learn the fucking basics of perspective before you try to be a smartass about nonexistent perspective "errors".

[Anonymous No.1779210]

>>1779202
True, but artists back then a lot of the time had models for them that they could pose however they liked. It was their picture. Nowadays artists are just taking pictures off the internet that aren't theirs and hoping people don't notice.
>>1779206
So is artistic integrity dead?

[Anonymous No.1779213]

>>1779208
You just keep telling that to yourself.

[Anonymous No.1779215]

>>1779198
>changed the pose
>changed the perspective
>changed the story
>changed the lighting
>heavily referenced the face, hair and the overall anatomy
>painted everything by hand

Looks like a smart and perfectly legit way to use reference. He clearly did not "flat out copy a photograph and made some minor changes" or "meshed photographs together" or some shit you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.1779217]

>>1779202
There is a difference between hiring models, getting costumes, making up a composition, posing them, lighting it, and photographing it for reference, and grabbing an image of a famous model off of google image search that you don't own the copyrights to and using it.

It's scummy and takes out a large chunk of the artistic deign of an image. It's like when Peter Morhaalksjdflajs got caught recently tracing some rapper's face into an mtg card. It's just fucking lazy man, and of questionable ethics/legal standing.

[Anonymous No.1779219]

>>1779215
This.

[Anonymous No.1779220]

>>1779213
You realize that perspective is not something subjective, right? There's no need to start an argument here. Just study up on it and stop making a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous No.1779223]

>>1779220
he's right though, perspective is fucked, the artist doesn't account for the lens distortion from the camera so the lower body looks smaller than it actually should be.

[Anonymous No.1779224]

>>1779206
Let's not be fucking retarded here.

When it comes to concept art, sure you can google kate beckinsale boops and trace it and nobody will give a shit. But when it's promotional/illustration art you better fucking hire a model to take refs off of, because if you just google shit and rip it off, not only do you open up yourself and the client to legal action, you also potentially get bad press.

Even when only doing concept, you should only use images you own the copyright to. Ideally.


>>1779202
This is totally fine and encouraged. He took those pictures.

>>1779198
This is a hack job. Not because he used a reference, but because the reference wasn't his.

[Anonymous No.1779229]

>>1779215
Those are all minor changes considering the photo is still, in the end, a babe in a bikini. And the only reason the perspective changed is because he probably used another photograph for the background. So yes, he did essentially mesh photographs together. I don't really care if he painted everything by hand, it's just a more skilled form of copying.

[Anonymous No.1779230]

>>1779223
Alright then, I'm too tired to argue with the perspective masters of /ic/ who can't even understand the very fucking basics of perspective.

[Anonymous No.1779231]

You can always tell that an artist is either in highschool or a freshman in college by posts like yours OP

>TFW Literally EVERY ARTIST since the dawn of photography uses photos for reference
>Artists before photography had their own tricks as well
>research before bitching on image boards

[Anonymous No.1779232]

>>1779230
No, no, this is a place for study and arguments that question fundamentals in order to discuss and asses issues for higher learning and enlightenment.

Get back in here fucker.

[Anonymous No.1779233]

>>1779229
>Those are all minor changes considering the photo is still, in the end, a babe in a bikini.

Well, maybe because that's what he was tasked to paint you fucking retard. Why would he not use a photo of a babe in a bikini as reference when that's exactly what his client paid him to illustrate? Dear god, sometimes I wonder if people like you are genuinely brain damaged in some way.

[Anonymous No.1779236]

>>1779210
>So is artistic integrity dead?
Not really. If you're good and fast without any tools, I don't think anyone will not hire you because you're not using photos and shit.
And you still can use whatever proccess in your personal work, right? Or if you're hobbyist or fine artist, than you don't have to worry about any of this things.

[Anonymous No.1779239]

>>1779231
>>1779233
Okay, I guess I just had a fundamental misunderstanding about how most art is done. When I think about you're right, it's dumb of me to think you could paint with little to no references and have it look good. I've only gotten into more detailed/realistic work within the past few years, so I'm still sort of used to cartoons where you can whip things out with minimal references. If being a digital painter means having to do stuff like this then I guess I'm going to have to reevaluate my plans as an artist.

[Anonymous No.1779244]

>>1779239
has nothing to do with digital art holy shit learn to fucking read

[Anonymous No.1779245]

stop being such fucking idiots /ic/
https://www.google.com/search?q=mucha%27s+photo+reference&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS560US560&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SQfEU832A4nroASoy4KADw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1057

[Anonymous No.1779246]

>>1779230
He lowered the horizon but the camera angle is still set near the head, which males the foreshortening on the lower body too extreme, as evidenced by the disproportionate shoulder-to-hip ratio.

Keep pretending you're the perspective pro and everyone else is a noob.

[Anonymous No.1779248]

>>1779244
No I understood your point, I just meant personally I was specifically interested in digital painting. But yeah, it's not any different than any other sort of painting, which is what my tiny brain didn't realize.

[Anonymous No.1779249]

This thread is pissing me off. YES artists use reference. BUT the image in op is not the right way of doing it. It's illegal, and lazy. It's also common in the industry for people to pull shit like this and think they can get away, and oftentimes there probably won't even be consequences. That doesn't make it any more right though. The fact that half of the responses here think this is perfectly acceptable just makes things worse too. You guys need to reevaluate your morals. I see this shit way too often, some famous artist will post some image on fb and get praise for it, when it's clearly just a hack job piecing together other artworks or photos, and no one calls them out on it.

[Anonymous No.1779250]

>>1779245
Again, there is nothing wrong with using photo reference when you take it yourself and compose the image. OP's example though is ripping off a photo from a google image search that he didn't take and doesn't own the copyrights to. The two are not the same thing at all.

[Anonymous No.1779251]

[Anonymous No.1779252]

>>1779250
so? I bet they paid for the royalties of the photo before using it. Just saved them the time of hiring a model, giving her a bikini, and say cheese.

you guys need to just get the fuck over it. Obviously the artist could have fucking taken the photo themselves but its just easier to skip all that shit and buy one. The end result would have been pretty much the same

[Anonymous No.1779253]

>>1779251
oh shit

[Anonymous No.1779255]

>>1779252
I bet they didn't pay the royalties, since the company denied using her as a model.

And the whole "it's easier to skip so whatever" mentality is dumb and ruining the industry.

[Anonymous No.1779256]

>>1779255
eh then they need to get sued.

The artistic process is fine. Morally and legally the photographer should get paid for their work

[Anonymous No.1779260]

No one is stopping to consider that the artist asked for permission to use the photograph?

[Anonymous No.1779261]

>>1779256
>The artistic process is fine
But it's not, since he didn't take the photo or have the rights to them.

[Anonymous No.1779262]

>>1779261

>process of using someone's else's photo for your painting
>morally and legally the photographer should get paid for their work

[Anonymous No.1779264]

>>1779262
but but but what if the artists hires the same model with the same makeup and hair and poses them in the same way and and and

[Anonymous No.1779269]

>>1779261
He isnt selling the photo, he is selling the painting/drawing he made, what is wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.1779270]

>>1779269
wat

[Anonymous No.1779288]

>>1779198
It's not even that copied.
I mean you can see he used her as a reference for face and hari but that's about it. Give the man a break.

[Anonymous No.1779293]

>>1779288
I have given enough demos at colleges to know that entry level art students have no idea how to use reference or that reference is used at all for paintings. Most seem to think its all from IMAGINATIOOONNNNNNN

also hope the GTA guy got the rights to use the photo cus this is copyright infringement if he didn't

That shit flied for students under fair use but not professionals.

[Anonymous No.1779295]

>>1779293
He didn't have the rights. It's also way more common than you think, and people just get away with it cause they hide it better. Most enviro guys these days are using multiple photos in their work that aren't theirs to use, they just stretch it and maybe shift the hue a bit so they don't get caught.

[Anonymous No.1779299]

>>1779293
And people like you cant draw which is why you have such a hard on for relying so heavily on reference. Why the fuck do you think scott robertson wrote a book on how to draw from IMAGINATION?

[Anonymous No.1779300]

>>1779295
That's all this pretty much boils down to.

Have the rights to use the photo?
>If yes have it, if no fuck off
Are you a student or using the photo for educational reasons? *and not selling it*
>If yes have it (should give credit of the photo but ya don't HAVE TO)

[Anonymous No.1779304]

>>1779299
>b8
Please stop shit posting and read the thread

[Anonymous No.1779312]

And people like u dont have a FUKKING CLU wut it like to be a artistic champion like me. I lift waits and i fucked ur mom after i drew and it felt good and then i draw some more. It made me a champion because i draw again and again while i pump my muscles by doing curls in the greatest world gym and your mom loves me for that. I promised your mom and your girlfriend that i would get in shape so i can kick your ass.

[Anonymous No.1779314]

This artist didn't use a reference

[Anonymous No.1779315]

>>1779314
>"Artist"
Le pinacle du kek

[Anonymous No.1779323]

>>1779264
This is a good question, though

[Anonymous No.1779324]

>>1779202
i think the original photo has better composition.

[Anonymous No.1779326]

>>1779324
>judging composition off of a cropped image

>>1779323
Yeah I have no idea. Legally, you cannot copyright a pose.

[Anonymous No.1779328]

>>1779198
when you change the horizon from the reference yet keep the body perspective exactly the same you come up with a image that's completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.1779335]

>>1779326
didn't know it was cropped

still looks better to me.

[Anonymous No.1779337]

>>1779335
ah shit sorry I thought that was a reply to a different image in the thread.

Ignore that. It's not cropped honk honk

[Anonymous No.1779367]

Ah Ok, this thread has made me a bit anxious.

As someone who is learning I'm doing gestures and studies of photos.
What if when I eventually create my own artwork it looks too close to a photo and someone accuses me of stealing/coping.
How is it possible to know the difference?

[Anonymous No.1779375]

>>1779367
for professional work take your own reference

[Anonymous No.1779383]

What to do if:
>draw some face from imagination for magazine cover
>suddenly, some guy with same face exist IRL and he's going to sue you
?

[Anonymous No.1779384]

pic related is how you should use a copy-righted reference without going through the hoops of royalty to the photographer and all that bullshit.
also, artists should be using multiple references in this sense.

op's artist is a hack.

[Anonymous No.1779385]

>>1779383
innocent until proven guilty

Burden of proof is on that guy not you

[Anonymous No.1779389]

>>1779384
Yup this is a better way of using reference. Not 1 for 1 copying, but rather just referencing it for things like shape or colour/light or materials.

[Anonymous No.1779399]

>>1779389
>>1779384
>there is no correct usage of reference images...
>stop spreading your cancer

[Anonymous No.1779402]

>>1779389
what? no

Good reference is reference that looks close as possible to the final illustration.

Fucking christ a bunch of amateurs in here

[Anonymous No.1779405]

>>1779402
>Good reference is reference that looks close as possible to the final illustration.

I can be an artist extraordinaire with a single push of a button with my flashy soul nabbing doohickey.

[Anonymous No.1779413]

>>1779402
If you are taking your own reference then that's fine. When using reference that you don't have the rights to better to do it like the Miles image there.

But yeah there's two types of reference, direct and indirect.

[Anonymous No.1779414]

>>1779198

I am just going to drop this in here. It's 32 minutes but Dan Warren explains thoroughly why you shouldn't mash-up+trace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbwudlfJpM

I hope that explains most but I still don't know how a stock image was so blatantly used for Mass Effect.

[Anonymous No.1779416]

>>1779375
But, I'm not a profession. Yet.

I just want to learn how to draw, and this is getting me paranoid.

[Anonymous No.1779418]

>>1779416
Studies are fine to do, feel free to copy out artists and photos for it. For finished personal work though, get in the habit of taking your own reference photos or using indirect reference.

[Anonymous No.1779419]

>>1779416
Then it's all good mate. Draw to your hearts content. People will only care if you're a professional.

[Anonymous No.1779439]

>>1779418
>>1779419
That's what I want to become, the only thing I'm worried about is when I apply my studies to my own imaginative work, (which then may develop into profession work/commissions luck willing)

That people don't say that I stole from those people. If that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.1779442]

>>1779405
do cameras also setup the lighting, composition, poses, style, and emotion?

>>1779413
Well... yea. If you are using direct reference then it is always better to get it as close as possible to your final image. This means less work for the artist, helps composition, and a lot less frustration overall.

For indirect it really doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not. *for lighting, clothing, style, colors, whatever* Literally no one is going to be able to tell or even care.

[Anonymous No.1779450]

>>1779399
>"no correct usage of reference images"
>being this retarded
>using ellipses
>unnecessary greentext
this is a board for ages 18 and up, please lurk more and gtfo.

[Anonymous No.1779471]

>>1779315
>Can't appreciate art that isn't a scene or a landscape

True pleb

[Anonymous No.1779480]

>>1779264
If he used someone else's photo, he should pay.
If he takes his own exact same photo, he's not stealing because he did the work and created the picture.
Photography isn't so much about the content of the picture, but more about who did the work and who owns the film/flashdrive that it's on

[Anonymous No.1779488]

>>1779439
>If that makes sense
It doesn't.
Your original question was "What if when I eventually create my own artwork it looks too close to a photo and someone accuses me of stealing/coping.
How is it possible to know the difference?"
You have eyeballs, you will be able to look at the picture and tell if it's too close to the reference.
Then you say "I'm worried about is when I apply my studies to my own imaginative work, (which then may develop into profession work/commissions luck willing) That people don't say that I stole from those people"
About this aspect, you shouldn't be copying your studies verbatim into your "real" work. Studies are for studying and if your "real" work looks enough like them for someone to think the tertiary piece is stolen from the original reference, you're doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.1779516]

So true, man, Like, I hate how everyone copies my style of taking a shit. They even have the balls to take shits in bathrooms. These fuckers even use the same brand of toilet paper as me!

I'm with you OP. Let be mad and let the blood drip from our ass.


-.-

[Anonymous No.1779530]

>>1779384
this
i was going to post this pic but you did it before me

[Anonymous No.1779532]

[Anonymous No.1779538]

>>1779532
ohhhhhhhh fucking kay. lets get this shit closed up before the dunning-krugliners fly in.

[Anonymous No.1779548]

>>1779488
Oh of course not verbatim, just studying so I can draw that pose and others from imagination.

Sorry, it wasn't clear the first time.

[Anonymous No.1779549]

>>1779538

it's the work of a professional. he/she chanced almost everything in this picture. Perspective, back ground composition, colours, light source(direction and source count), gesture, detailes like jewerly, accesseri , body movement and makeup. The claim woudln't go through. dunning-krugliners my ass. learn how to draw and paint and then try to make judgement. but the most important thing. how do you know he/she didn't pay the photographer?

[Anonymous No.1779673]

>>1779248
Tiny brain indeed. Do you think cartoonists really just whip things out? You're fucking wrong, unless you want your shit to look like an abortion. Every good, respectable artist uses references. Traditional, digital, cartoon, realist, and everything in between. References are the foundation.

[Anonymous No.1779676]

>>1779532
>let me draw arrows everywhere and it'll seem like i know what i'm doing because that's what hampton does

so sick of this shit

[Anonymous No.1779729]

These discussions about this are all the same across the internet and each and every time it rustles my jimmies and makes me sick that there are people who consider themselves "artist" and defend full on no shame swiping. No matter how much people try to explain the difference between reference and swiping some simple minedf fool still defend it tooth and nail. It's disgusting. Thread hidden for my own sanity.

[Anonymous No.1779767]

>>1779676
It's obvious he's just pointing out the differences between the two images. You don't need to be a master artist to do that.

[Anonymous No.1779776]

>>1779532
any changes are because he got the ref wrong.

still a shit painting either way.

[Anonymous No.1779783]

>>1779549
i dunno what you're even on about. a dunning krugliner would be a noob who thinks he's great that redlines shit on /ic/. Usually when one person redlines or draws corrections onto an image, others follow.

but yeah he copied the photo then lowered the horizon while not changing anything, because he's an amateur that has great rendering skills. cry about it though.

[Anonymous No.1779787]

I have concluded that only 1/4 of you know what you are talking about.

Have fun trying to figure out which group you belong to.

[Anonymous No.1779802]

>>1779532
he didn't trace, he used it as reference. has it even occured to you that he didn't like perspective in the reference? i mean if you just look at the background, it's plain obvious that he changed it intentionally.

[Anonymous No.1779804]

>>1779787
Hint: If you are trying to figure out what group you are in, you aren't in the right one.

[Anonymous No.1779805]

>>1779549
he wouldn't have to pay the photographer, because he changed enough.

[Anonymous No.1779809]

>>1779783
>lowered the horizon while not changing anything
nigga, you are blind or stubborn/act retarded?

[Anonymous No.1779813]

>>1779673
I think it's fair to say that cartoonists have to use less references than painters do.

[Anonymous No.1779818]

>>1779673
cartoonists use reference, but not for the pose like OP did.

[Anonymous No.1779819]

>>1779202
>>1779245
Even using you're own photo kind of turns me off. Doesn't matter if you took it, these are still basically copying a flat picture.

[Anonymous No.1779823]

>>1779673
Plenty of artists can draw a full, correct, interesting figure purely from imagination.

Every artist will look at pictures from life ofcourse, but you're a dumbass if you think all artists need to actively use references for every single piece.

[Anonymous No.1779826]

>>1779384
does anyone know the artist who did this?

[Anonymous No.1779828]

>>1779826
Miles Johnston

[Anonymous No.1779829]

>>1779384
using photos for color palette is still in the cop out ballpark. it's like admitting that you can't mix a natural or pleasing palette by yourself.

[Anonymous No.1779831]

>>1779198
Who's the gta series artist?

[Anonymous No.1779843]

>>1779831
I'm not sure, I've gone to the GTA website where they have a bunch of their artwork as desktop wallpapers but the artist isn't cited anywhere on the page.

[Anonymous No.1779847]

>>1779831
>thinking its a single artist and not a room full of asians

[Anonymous No.1779851]

>>1779847
he's right you know

[Anonymous No.1780002]

>>1779805
This. He eyeballed the action of the head on the neck, and the shoulders, that's it. Everything else is different, even the face. You guys are acting like he flat out traced the picture.

[Anonymous No.1780103]

>>1779215
Mte.

[Anonymous No.1780106]

>>1780002
agreed. i think the way he used the reference is really good. i have seen artists copy references 1:1.
i actually thought that chick's face was from miranda lawson from mass effect(forgot what the real person's name is)

pic related. that's not how you use references.
btw. i dont have the actual reference but it's a naked asian woman. he pretty much copied the pose 1:1.

[Anonymous No.1780138]

>>1779314

Looks like he didn't do his studies.

HIS FUCKING STUDIES!

[Anonymous No.1780140]

>>1779383

What kind of human anatomy is this crap? Bitch please, get an anatomy book for christ's sake.

[Anonymous No.1780144]

>>1780106
>he pretty much copied the pose 1:1
it's a weak move, but if you're paying your bills, are you really going to worry how bad of an artist you are? you deliver and get paid.
now doing this for personal or portfolio is another matter...

[Anonymous No.1780164]

>>1779673
Yes actually most cartoonists that aren't hacks do their work without reference, high stylized drawings where the mean to create
many drawings as fast as possible with as less resources as possible, do you really think that if you are a comic/manga artist with a weekly
Serialization you will be having the time to google for reference on every pose you do on every panel? also have you ever been to
pixiv chat or comicet? artist do live demonstrations all the time. It's your choice to use reference or not as an artist, if you are an
illustrator that will be doing highly detailed single illustrations i kind of get it, but if you do very stylized art and you still need reference
because you can't memorize basic proportions and light properties i will have to call you a hack.

[Anonymous No.1780218]

>>1779673
>>1779314


What do you think about Kim Jung GI?

[Anonymous No.1780246]

>>1780218
Imho Kim is a bad example: he's probably just gifted.
I mean, he's the only one in the world able to do this kind of detailed stuff out of the blue.
Moebius, for example, surely had drawn a lot more than him in his life but he still used refs, underllines and vanishing points for his more detailed stuff.

[Anonymous No.1780251]

>>1780246


Yeah, that's pretty true. Kim's pretty passionate about drawing. It's likely that nothing deterred him away from it.

[Anonymous No.1780257]

>>1780246
>I mean, he's the only one in the world able to do this kind of detailed stuff out of the blue.
citation needed. you might know a few famous artists, but it's not too farfetched to think that there are many of unheard talents out in the world. at least it's fair to say that he's not the only gifted person in the world. that's just ignorant. you just don't want to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.1780259]

>>1780246
I think anyone can be like Kim if they practice enough freehand drawing with no construction. I think a lot of people use things like vanishing points and drawing rules as a crutch. It takes a lot of courage to jump into a full detailed drawing on blank paper but everyone should try. I never draw vanishing points, rarely draw construction drawings and I draw just fine.

[Anonymous No.1780260]

>>1780259
muh nigga.

[Anonymous No.1780262]

>>1780259
yeah but he still thinks about all those lines when drawing i mean he obviously knows perspective like the back of his hand

[Anonymous No.1780281]

>>1780257
>>1780246
I would expect any working artist can draw competently with no reference or he's a hack. I remember i saw vilppu draw directly with no construction in one of his videos to demonstrate and it came out good. It's just internalizing it

[Anonymous No.1780426]

I wish I never saw this thread.

[Anonymous No.1780428]

a lot of underage in this thread.

Give it time. Keep up on your studies, learn the process of illustration, and all the kids in here will understand how fucking ignorant they use to be about art.

[Anonymous No.1780440]

>>1780428
its that realization you get like when you find out dinosaur skeletons aren't their actual bones, those nasa photographs of nebulas use false colors, pineapples grow on the ground and artists use photo reference.

Its all a part of growing up.

[Anonymous No.1780448]

>>1780259
>Anyone can be successful, if they just work hard enough

Wait, you actually believe in the american dream? Get out of here.
Yes, learning things like anatomy and perspective is a matter of hard work, and I think that most people have the potential to get to a point where they can bring what is on their mind into reality using the medium of their choice, but that doesn't matter if what's in their mind is shit. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are things that you can not change through hard work.

[Anonymous No.1780462]

>>1780440
he was talking about you.
just stop trying to justify you actions. you're a hack. i don't give a shit how you do it. unless you're a troll. why? because you continue to ignore multiple examples of artist who draw without reference. enjoy your trololols, i'm sure you had many in this thread.

[Anonymous No.1780469]

>>1780462
>being this underage

[Anonymous No.1780474]

>>1780462
calling the greatest and influential artists of all time hacks~

:3

[Anonymous No.1780476]

>>1780426

[Anonymous No.1780479]

>>1779198
>It's come to my attention that a lot of professional digital artists use references to the point of it being copious - sometimes just flat out copying a photograph and making some minor changes.
Well, isn't this what you fags consider good art? Completely safe and totally "realistic".

[Anonymous No.1780481]

>>OP

Isn't that the picture/char that Lindsay Lohan sued over? Looks nothing like her.

[Anonymous No.1780488]

>>1780481
Exactly. It doesn't look like Kate Upton either.

[Anonymous No.1780489]

>>1780462
you... you realize painters like LOOMIS, PARRISH, PYLE, ROCKWELL, MUCHA, AND MANY MORE LEGENDARY PAINTERS all used photos right?

Or are you that fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.1780491]

>>1780479
>that
>totally "realistic"

LOL

Fuck off abstractfag cunt. Go spew some more paint out of your hairy pussy you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.1780494]

>>1780491
#rekt

[Anonymous No.1780506]

>>1780489
yeah, it's OK to use for client work, dipshit. clients are scum anyways.
it is really fucking stupid to do for personal work.
also, animators. oh, i guess they don't make "real art".

[Anonymous No.1780508]

>>1780506
Ya know I've been against blatant reference abuse for a long time, but that's until I heard this statement.

Clients ARE scum. They're the worst shit because they just want to pound your creative pussy until it is reduced to joyless sand.

[Anonymous No.1780530]

>>1780508
Yeah, reading Appledinger's slow fall into despondency on DA is kind of depressing. I don't know why so many people want to be commercial artists. I want to make that kind of imagery and on that level but I wouldn't want to do it for somebody else.

[Anonymous No.1780632]

>>1780508
Or the clients want what they're paying you to provide. They don't care that you want to be Mr. Creative-And-Deep-Artist.

[Anonymous No.1780637]

>>1780530
appledinger? you mean algenpfleger?
what happened with him? i thought he was well off.

[Anonymous No.1780642]

>>1779217
>>1779249
>>1779250
>>1779295
>>1779300
Copyrights aren't a question in this circumstance, so it really doesn't matter. If it were illegal to download an image, the Internet would be nonexistent. If it were illegal to view an image without paying for it, we'd all be fucked. Parodies are legal and so are reimaginings. You don't need permission for this.

Unless the artist broke into the system with computer fraud to obtain his/her photos, there's nothing illegal about it - and there shouldn't be. If these things are posted in the public arena, there shouldn't be a debate. Also, unless you can prove that he did obtain this illegally, there's no need for a discussion.
By the way, this would be dismissed immediately in court as well since pretty much the entire image has changed. I doubt the photography copyrighted "girl on beach in bikini" across all mediums.

[Anonymous No.1780643]

>>1779776
>>1779676
>>1779538

Why are there so many retards in this thread? I guess I spent too much time in the drawthreads and their almost complete lack of stupidity and wasn't prepared for the shocking truth that most of you are idiots.

[Anonymous No.1780651]

>>1780643
>the shocking truth that most of you are idiots.

Where the fuck have you be-
>in the drawthreads

Let me guess, you're from the elitist traditional draw thread.

[Anonymous No.1780654]

>>1780642
Wow you seriously believe that any image posted online makes it available for people to use? The body on this painting is changed enough that it's fine, but the face and hair are directly taken from the photo. I don't see how you see this as being legal. Read up on Shepard Fairey and the legal shitstorm with his Hope poster. You can't just make artwork based off other people's photos without permission.

[Anonymous No.1780662]

>>1780654
As long as you yourself aren't making money directly from the image (ie, posting it on your own site, etc), it's covered in fair use.

Shepard Fairy's legal shit storm came from destroying evidence, perjury, and interfering with the investigation.

[Anonymous No.1780676]

>>1780662
He still got sued and settled out of court before the other things came out in the open.

Also OPs image was used as promo art of one of the biggest moneymaking video games of all time.

[Anonymous No.1780679]

http://www.dailydot.com/gaming/gtav-grand-theft-auto-girl-bikini-model/
guys, stop this shit. She was paid for this

[Anonymous No.1780684]

>>1780679
>No fun allowed

[Anonymous No.1780687]

>>1780679
Did you even look at the comparison dude? The face and hair is definitely reffed from the Upton photo. All they showed for hte other thing was an invoice from some other model. Maybe her body was used or something, but the boobs, har, neck and face are definitely Upton: http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2013/9/12/gta_v_upton_2.png

[Anonymous No.1780702]

>>1780654
that's interesting read!

[Anonymous No.1780711]

>>1779198
Why do you all care what other people draw? Why not focus working on yourself rather bitching. Life not fair tough shit.

[Anonymous No.1780721]

>>1780711
u gadda stop bitching, srl!
I no it's hard, I do it everyday, go scream at the wall/dog/life partener, kock yourself out but don't come here and moan like little faggoty bitch.

[Anonymous No.1780757]

Manara for the erotic comic book Click 1 used as reference these pics from Wingate Paine Book

Though he can draw from imagination pretty well

[Anonymous No.1780797]

>>1780757
If it's the perfect shot you had in your mind, why not, right? Not like these poses are copyright by some photagrapher. There's probably thousands of pictures like that.

[Anonymous No.1780820]

>>1780797
>Not like these poses are copyright by some photagrapher

It doesn't look like just a pose.

[Anonymous No.1780826]

>>1780757

[Anonymous No.1780862]

>>1779198
What the fuck, if you want to copy and change some stuff to it, do it.

[Anonymous No.1780865]

>>1779250
What?
I can take photos of myself for a picture I want, but what if I like another picture, am I not allowed to draw it?
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.1780866]

>>1780643
you say we're stupid yet can't refute any of our posts.

[Anonymous No.1780869]

>>1779300
You don't need rights to use references for fuck's sake, you're retarded

[Anonymous No.1780871]

>You cannot create art because you have not the rights
FREE COUNTRY

[Anonymous No.1780873]

>>1780865

just don't do an exact copy and you'll be legally safe.

though some people on Internet will accuse of you of being a plagiarist

[Anonymous No.1780879]

Leonardo Da Vinci was a hack, fuck that guy.

[Anonymous No.1780892]

>>1780654
>Wow you seriously believe that any image posted online makes it available for people to use?
Yes, otherwise, fuck off the internet, faggot.

[Anonymous No.1780971]

Art is art. There's still a requirement for skill in order to make it. Reference images are just that a reference. Not everything has to be made from imagination.

[Anonymous No.1781005]

>>1780971
this just looks like a study.

[Anonymous No.1781116]

>>1780506
seriously, you're an idiot. Fucking amateurs like you think up excuses to try and make for their own shitty art.

"weah these artists are only better than me because they aren't retarded and know how to properly utilize the tools available to them"

this is why you will remain a fucking nameless useless human being while non ignorant artists will prosper. These artists that know how to use reference don't give a fuck how others make art. they focus on their own shit and try to better their technique and push the boundaries.

/ic/ is full of dumbasses like you. Fucking stop trying to put up rules defining what makes art "legit" There is no such thing as cheating in art. its just bullshit reasoning shit artists make up because they can't fucking do it themselves.

fucking bitches leave.

bitches, leave

[Anonymous No.1781122]

>>1781116
Oh shut up, fag.

[Anonymous No.1781130]

>>1779198
well... mass effect isn't a good example of this just because of how rushed the fucking game was. look at ea and bf4 where they got sued by their shareholders for rushing the fuck out of the game, i refuse to believe that ME3 turned out that way without HEAVY interference from ea. i think they tried for a while, but because all the shit parts of the game happen near or toward the end, i assume its a mix of burnout, not giving a fuck and just plain not having the time. knowing ea also got sued for not paying employes overtime for the better part of a year, i just have to assume the artist on tali just said fuck it, im not payed enough to do a good job and just took a stock photo and added 1 filter layer and 6 lines and said done.

[Anonymous No.1781141]

>>1781122
honk honk

say what ya want your arts shit and i make bank for mine

[Anonymous No.1781144]

>>1781122
>living in denial

[Anonymous No.1781151]

>>1780491
Loomisfag seems asspained, I see.

[Anonymous No.1781345]

>>1779383
This. What if you draw a pose from imagination for a profession publication, and someone finds a photo in the exact same pose?

[Anonymous No.1781525]

>>1780826
Looks like he just reffed the expression.

[Anonymous No.1781577]

>>1781525

Oviously in a comicbook he can't add a pic as it is

[Anonymous No.1781588]

>>1781345
You get sued for coincidence

[Anonymous No.1781609]

>>1781588
>>1781345
Can't copyright poses dipshits

[Anonymous No.1781613]

>>1781609
You can't copyright individual poses

[Anonymous No.1781658]

>>1781613
>>1781609
People might still call you a 'plagarist', though.


Regarding the picture I'm not seeing much similarity between the two pictures other that the action of the head on the neck, and the hair.

Surely neck positions can't be owned.

[Anonymous No.1781943]

>>1780642
You'd be surprised what people try and copyright.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110819/11075915600/judge-slams-photographer-bogus-copyright-lawsuit-says-use-some-common-sense-points-out-utter-lack-similarity.shtml

[Anonymous No.1782485]

>>1780654
But fairly didn't change anything, this guy did.

[Anonymous No.1782605]

>>1780428
Let's hope so.

[Anonymous No.1782958]

>>1780426

[Anonymous No.1783189]

Our imagination is derived from our individual perception of the world anyways. No art is 100% original, it's an expression of what is experienced, and of creativity. If I draw a dragon, or whatever, and you copy that drawing to add more elements to it, does that make yours less creative?

[Anonymous No.1783191]

>>1783189
its a measure of effort and originality/your signature to it and how it affects those around you

[Anonymous No.1783199]

>>1783191
So it's not about art, it's about pretentious nonsense?

[Anonymous No.1783205]

When you draw have fun. Talk about art, design and be happy.

[Anonymous No.1783213]

>>1783205
I love this shit , can you post more ?

[Anonymous No.1783216]

>>1783205
You drew that creature's wiener. You're sick.

[Anonymous No.1783234]

>>1779673
Cartoonist dont need that much references as other artist. They have to learn and train themselves how to draw well from imagination, and fast.

[Anonymous No.1783246]

>>1783216
They're called penises.

[Anonymous No.1783256]

>>1783246
whatever you say pervert

[Anonymous No.1783262]

This and the Mullins thread made me respect digital as a medium way less. A guy that goes be the "brush name" Daarken mentioned an anecdote wherein his art teacher in college tore up a picture he made in digital in front of the class in one of his tutorial videos and while that was a huge dick move regardless I can see now where the disdain comes from.

>please tell me Jaime Jones doesn't do this shit too

[Anonymous No.1783639]

This thread has made me really confused.

[Anonymous No.1783646]

>>1783262
>This and the Mullins thread made me respect digital as a medium way les

why?

even loomis heavily relied on references, this includes shit he has done for FWAP(yeah that pic that is suppossed to teach you how to draw from imagination relies on reference, oh the ironing)

[Anonymous No.1783657]

Let's face it, unless you work under a heavy deadline or study composition and other abstract concepts, there's no excuse for copying reference, photobashing and the like. It's just artists being lazy/insecure/just not good enough.

The master (pic related) has been drawing for decades, it's not some divine gift, it's just consistent practice at an alarming pace, and even he's got his own preferred subject matter that he rarely deviates from. Saying he's gifted is just being in denial

[Anonymous No.1783661]

>>1783646
this is such bullshit. what the fuck man. i'm ok at drawing from reference, but i feel like shit drawing from imagination and if a guide to construction relies on reference that's just making fun of me. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

[Anonymous No.1783708]

>>1783262
>>1783657
Ignorance of amateurs continues to amaze and sadden me

[Anonymous No.1783712]

>>1783708
enlighten us o' learned one

[Anonymous No.1783759]

>>1783657
>>1783708
Concept designers to what you say. Get over it
>and even he's got his own preferred subject matter that he rarely deviates from
you mean porn?

[Anonymous No.1783873]

>>1783759
?

[Anonymous No.1783900]

>>1783646
>even loomis heavily relied on references, this includes shit he has done for FWAP(yeah that pic that is suppossed to teach you how to draw from imagination relies on reference, oh the ironing)

Proof?

[Anonymous No.1783985]

>>1783262
>>please tell me Jaime Jones doesn't do this shit too
>>1781067
>>1781069

[Anonymous No.1783989]

>>1783657
>Saying he's gifted is just being in denial

Man shut the fuck up, you must be one of this fucking faggots who don't believe in talent
This guy is gifted as well, he loves to draw? Yeah, he really enjoy art, but he is like that other autistic nigger (forgot the name), this is an rare brain condition wich boosts a fucking lot with practice.
But guess what dumbass, you're an idiot if you let things like this stop you of doing something that you love (at least if you aren't drawing just for attentionwhorism)
Peace

[Anonymous No.1784235]

>>1783873
It's not a secret concept artists do photo-bashes and paintovers, so probably Jaime Jones does them as well, they have to save time, and that's the best way.

There are purists tho

[Anonymous No.1784237]

>>1783989
Kim Jun Gi friend's, who works at superani as well, draw as good as he does, freehand, no construction etc. So yeah, there is talent, maybe but yeah, it's not like superani artists are all gifted, so go git gud

[Anonymous No.1784366]

>>1784235
Oh, I get that, I just didn't understand what your sentence was saying, I then realised you used 'to' by accident, instead of 'do'.

[Anonymous No.1784556]

>>1779250
But, what if you're drawing animals, like an elephant or a polar bear? No one can just get the fucking money to just go out to sub Sahara Africa or Antarctica to take first hand pictures of animals.

Surely, doing studies for a final piece and maybe even referencing what the animal looks like is OK?

[Anonymous No.1784592]

>>1781588
Are you joking?

[Anonymous No.1784701]

>>1783639

[Anonymous No.1784720]

>>1779198
How do you know he did not acquire sufficient rights to use that image?! You are talking shit. Prove it was stolen!! And really!! Who the fuck cares, worry about your own career busybody!!

[Anonymous No.1785160]

>>1783989
>you must be one of this fucking faggots who don't believe in talent
You're saying that like it's a bad thing. I don't believe in god, magic, ghosts, santa claus and talent. I believe in hard work, and not coming up with excuses to justify your jelly on other people's seemingly impossible skills

[Anonymous No.1785161]

>>1785160
Just fuck off m8

[Anonymous No.1785226]

>>1784556

[Anonymous No.1785232]

>>1785160

You do sound like a faggot. People saying talent not existing is just a method of encouraged for people who don't have it. "Talent" doesn't exist as a particular thing, it's a variety of enhanced personal abilities that one person has over another, that combine to make someone better at something.

For example, Person A may have a better memory, great motor skills and hand control, and be able to perceive true colour relativity more than person B. This makes Person A naturally more talented at art than person B. Yes, Person B can work their ass off to try and close the gap, but Person A will always be more naturally better in those areas and will adept to new ideas involving those areas more quickly.

This is why you get talented greats. It's not because they put in more work, it's because they are naturally biologically inclined to whatever constructed social task we have created. It's naive and ignorant to believe this doesn't happen. Maybe it makes you feel better in some blissfully ignorant delusion, but that's not how things work in the real world.

[Anonymous No.1785280]

>>1785232
>It's not because they put in more work
It's 90% work and drive.

[Anonymous No.1785297]

So, wait. It's not ok to use references? Then what do I use to study to build up my visual library? /beginner here.

[Anonymous No.1785302]

>>1784237

Of course we have to git gud.
But considering underlines, reference, vanishing points as crutches because there is ONE or maybe TWO guys that don't need them for their amazing stuff is just unrealistic.
And honestly I don't think that people bitching about using refs could actually do good stuff with them, like it's super easy or something like that.

[Anonymous No.1785310]

>>1779198
he did not copy that photograph at all and he didn't even draw kate upton, they actually hired another model for this, pic related.
and the mass effect thing wasn't even drawn, they just photoshopped a stock photo.

[Anonymous No.1785312]

>>1785310
yeah totes dude, im not op but look at the lips,cheekbones,and jawline. it totally lookes like kates in those aspects

[Anonymous No.1785313]

>>1785310
What is that Mass Effect thing you guys are talking about?

[Anonymous No.1785315]

>>1785280

Maybe at the top ranks, but that initial motivation for a strong work ethic is developed because they understand there is an innate ability they have that many others do not. It's the same thing that you see in delusional shitty artists - they think they're great, which drives them to work harder. But if you were to match two individuals, one with talent, and one without, and both of whom have the same drive and motivation, the one with talent will pull far, far ahead.

The question is whether it's possible to be a shitty un-talented artist and become as good as a talented one, assuming you put in insane amounts of effort. I personally don't think that low level biological traits that represent talent can actually be developed through hard work alone. But, assuming that it can for a second, what happens when the untalented individual realises they not only have to work much harder than the talented one will, but may also never get as good as the naturally talented one at all? They become demotivated and give up.

This is the reason why you see so few pro untalented artists. Many were cranking out good shit when they were 8-14 that most adults couldn't even do. Like I said above, I'm personally of the opinion that if you're untalented you simply won't ever become as good as a naturally talented person, but even if I'm wrong, the untalented person will have to work impossibly hard and remain motivated to ever actually get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.1785317]

>>1785312
they hired this woman through her agency, payed her money and listed her in the credits. i have nothing more to say.

[Anonymous No.1785318]

>>1785315
The thing is, no one ever considers artists talented before they make it, only after they have already put in the tremendous hours of work, so your whole theory becomes worthless. There are no good artists without talent, because the moment they are considered good, people will call them talented, regardless how shitty they were before they became good.

[Anonymous No.1785319]

>>1785315

The problem I find with "talent" is that you really don't know for sure who has it and who doesn't. It's easy to look at professionals and call them so, but even the ones who grew up poor had access to resources at some point in their life which boosted their abilities. Think of the countless artists around the world who never fully developed and end up making average work like the "untalented" or give up art altogether for whatever reason. Without an extra push from some direction, whether it be schooling, a close mentor, or a demanding creative job, you can't tell them apart from everyone else.

[Anonymous No.1785320]

>>1785313
tali has a helmet on through the whole game so you never see her face. then she leaves a pic of her face finally, and everyone got pissed cause they just quickly photoshopped some random stock photo and that was it.

[Anonymous No.1785323]

>>1785320
Oh god

That was part of official art/game?

I guess they cant afford to have Jason Chan 24/7

[Anonymous No.1785327]

>>1785315
>what happens when the untalented individual realises they not only have to work much harder than the talented one will, but may also never get as good as the naturally talented one at all? They become demotivated and give up.

That conclusion makes no sense at all. You don't have to be the greatest artist in the world to become good at it and the better you get, the more motivated you become. The fundamentals of art, except for composition, are pretty much a hard science, everyone who is not literally mentally retarded can become good on a technical level. That's already enough to become a good artist who can paint what he enjoys in a competent manner.

[Anonymous No.1785329]

>>1785318

Not true. If you went through primary school then you saw the kids in class who could just seem to draw better than everyone else, even though they barely had any experience, and definitely had zero formal training. They just had a better eye and motor skill for it, whereas the majority of other kids didn't really know how to transalte what they saw on to paper. This is the purest distinction between talent and non-talented. Take two kids who have drawn about the same in their life (don't pick one who draws every day after school and one who doesn't), same age, and tell them to draw something from life. One kid will be better, i'd stake a shit ton on that. That kid is the more talented of the two, on the basis that talent is a spectrum. Humans aren't carbon copies of one another - it's why we have ability division in society.

>>1785319

Yes, this is a quantifying and identification issue, that doesn't disqualify it's existence. Like i said above, pushing two kids, one who is talented (on a basic biological level) will move forward at a faster rate and, in my opinion, go further than the untalented kid ever will.

[Anonymous No.1785332]

>>1785327

I should have said there is a tendency to give up. I guarantee you there are many more people who dabbled in art, tried to learn, got demotivated,a nd finally gave up, than there are untalented people who succeeded. It's not impossible to be untalented and succeed as well, but the odds are stacked against you, and you'll almost certainly never rise to the ranks of someone who is talented and has put in the same quantifiable amount of effort as you.

[Anonymous No.1785337]

>>1785332
But you have no idea who was or wasn't talented. All you know is that there are people who are dedicated and work through the frustration and then there are people who quit once it gets hard. That's not an indication of talent, just an indication of work ethic and personality.

[Anonymous No.1785338]

>>1785329
>Not true. If you went through primary school then you saw the kids in class who could just seem to draw better than everyone else, even though they barely had any experience, and definitely had zero formal training.

Yeah, I was one of those kids. I was always so much better than my peers at drawing shitty children doodles and adults would go "wow, he's so talented!" Guess what, that is entirely and utterly worthless and in fact can hinder you in many ways as it enforces a fixed mindset in those children.

[Anonymous No.1785340]

Talent is essential for becoming a good artist. I think that if you dont feel that youre talented you should just give this up and create in another field, youre just wasting time on this while you could be getting better at something else that you feel like you have a talent for.

There are some walls not everyone can climb, find a wall thats right for you.

[Anonymous No.1785345]

>>1785337

I mentioned this above. There are kids who are under 14 and can clean the floor with the work of many adults. Go look at works of big name pro artists when they were kids. Some of the stuff they were doing is incredible, and can only be explained by talent. And if you want to see this in action, do what I said above to test any kids innate talent.

I mean, this isn't really debatable, honestly. Talent exists, and it would be kind of stupid to say it doesn't. There's a reason why we have Frazetta's. Work ethic contributes to end success (after all, talent is nothing if it's not utilised), but talent describes not only the starting point but also the end point, and rate of advancement in the middle.

>>1785338

Yeah, this is another issue. How a kid with talent is treated can determine their work ethic later. It doesn't detract from their talent, but it can harm their progress.

The issue is there's so many factors involved. On a broader level, though, I think it's safe to say that a highly talented individual who consistently utilises their ability at a young age, actively develops and is motivated towards a good work ethic via correct instruction (ie. praise effort, not the end result), is the one who's most likely going to succeed and have a good chance of becoming one of the 'greats'.

[Anonymous No.1785346]

>>1785345
Can you post any examples of childhood work from professional artists, I'm curious about how good they really were even then.

[Anonymous No.1785347]

>>1785340

This is the problem I'm running into in this thread. People don't like other people telling them that they have a very small chance of making their dream become reality because of innate traits they have no control over. Nothing is impossible, but realistic outlook must be considered.

[Anonymous No.1785352]

>>1785312
It looks nothing like Kate Upton.

[Anonymous No.1785354]

>>1785347
But how will someone know if they're talented or not if they don't try. THIS is the problem.

Should people just say to themselves "oh well, I never copied the Mona Lisa in kindergarten, guess I ought to give up now!"

[Anonymous No.1785361]

>>1785354

I'm not telling anyone not to try, just to have realistic expectations. I was going to say that talent is immediately visible, but now that I've thought about it there's too many variables and traits that could potentially hide talent. But there needs to be a realistic timeframe on which the individual can say with a high level of confidence "I am not talented". For most, I will say that it will be immediately apparent by setting a simple life drawing task. But, because talent may not be immediately visible (ie. they may have traits that allow them to gain motor skills and observation at exceptional rates, or perhaps they are talented but are otherwise blocked due to psychological reasons), then the timeframe should be widened. Say, to a few months with different teaching applications to stress any possible blocks to talent revelation. After that point, anyone who is not talented will be immediately identifiable from those who are talented and who have taken a quick grasp to the work.

[Anonymous No.1785378]

>>1785361
mike butkuss drawing ability has always been insane and his 5 yr old daughter or whatever made some drawing thats probably better than all of /ic/ some people are just gifted, if you want to be professional but dont have talent, quit wasting your time. just keep drawing as a hobby. i wanted to be this badass artist but i dont have the talent. this whole "follow your heart chase your dreams" whatever the fuck is all bullshit. if everyone had talent everyone would have amazing jobs where they get to use their amazing skills. sadly, most people just have shitty day jobs and very few people with talent get to do something awesome. thats the shitty reality of life.

even very successful business people have a natural talent for being able to sell, doesnt matter what field. some people are just born useless and should either kill themselves or be happy they can even hold a job at mcdonalds for being as untalented and as worthless as they are.

[Anonymous No.1785387]

yeah if youre a typical talentless d/ic/k think of it this way. it will take you DECADES of intense study, thousands of dollars worth of instruction, and tens of THOUSANDS of hours for you just to reach the same level as it took for a TALENTED person about 6 months of development. this kid is only 8, getting millions of facebook likes, and what about you?

well youre 56 years old, not getting any facebook likes, youre overweight, and you will probably die of a heartattack soon because you let your body go to shit.

meanwhile, this talented 8 yr old spends 20 seconds and whips out a quick gesture, posts it on facebook. Bam. 800 likes baby. You slave away for the next 20 years, not even to get 1 facebook like, man. Now what you gonna do? All of those talented children are laughing at you.

[Anonymous No.1785390]

>>1785361
>>1785378
We're putting lines on paper. Unlike singing, 100m sprinting, or gymnastics, there's no physical barrier in art that just says "nope you suck."

Learn where the lines go and then put them there. This shit is not complicated, it's a fucking MMORPG level activity--just grind properly and you will get good.

[Anonymous No.1785393]

>>1785387
That was some serious tism you just let loose, anon.

[Anonymous No.1785402]

Questions to all of the 'if you're not talented you need to give up' people posting:

Why are you here? Why do you even draw at all?

[Anonymous No.1785412]

>>1785402
They don't believe what they're saying. They want other people to give up as well so they feel better about shitting all over their own dreams.

[Anonymous No.1785425]

>>1785320

still not over this, such a lazy, lame move

[Anonymous No.1785473]

>>1785320
Did they get the rights to it?

[Anonymous No.1785776]

>>1785402

No one said to give anything up. I've reiterated this several times now. Don't give up if you're not talented, just understand that progress will be extremely more difficult for you, as well as the potentiality of never being able to reach the level of a naturally talented artist. If you want to bathe in blissful ignorance and delusion that "we're all going to make it, brah", then that's your prerogative. Bullshit yourself, but don't bullshit others.

>>1785412

Ok.

>>1785390

I can't tell if you're being wilfully ignorant or you're just stupid. The artistic process is a physical and mental task - it involves many, many different processes, from motor skills to depth perception and colour relativity perception. As humans aren't shit out exact copies of one another, there is naturally going to be variation. "Talented" people are people who are naturally more inclined towards particularly traits involved in the task of making art.

Just like how the average person can train and train and train and never achieve the running talent of Usain Bolt, the average person will also struggle to create the images of Frazetta, no matter how hard they train.

[Anonymous No.1785831]

>>1785776
>Don't give up if you're not talented, just understand that progress will be extremely more difficult for you, as well as the potentiality of never being able to reach the level of a naturally talented artist.

How does someone tell if they're not talented? What is the time frame/criteria for assessment?

[Anonymous No.1785837]

>>1785831
I'm curious as well. I was able to do this and I started drawing in september of last year, no experience before then. But I havent produced many pieces like this, it took around 30 hours, most of the shit I do is crappy 1 hour sketches. Id still like to know if I have any talent or if I'm doomed to be painfully average.

[Anonymous No.1785840]

>>1785837
Arg my bad, I started in September 2012, not last year.

[Anonymous No.1785856]

One of my friends working as a DC concept artist recently posted this on Facebook:

"... Implementing photos can take you everywhere in this industry. But nowhere if you can't design. And design starts with foundation."

That's all you really need to know

[Anonymous No.1785860]

>>1785831
10K hours to achieve mastery of ANY subject. If after that much time you havent mastered whatever it is, you're fucked.

[Anonymous No.1785861]

>>1785361
I think if you truly have the passion and desire to create then you will go far regardless of natural "talent". people go above and beyond because it is what they truly love, you just have to learn how to untap that potential, it can be unlocked if you live and breathe that overwhelming desire to succeed.

[Anonymous No.1785864]

>>1785860
So... Roughly 6 years, given that a person studies 5 hours a day, every single day of the year. 8Or so with everyday life factored in.

That's a pretty wide berth. Wouldn't talent become evident much sooner?

[Anonymous No.1785868]

>>1785861
I used to be a scrawny fuck and a lot of my friends would tease me for being a weakling in highschool, so I finally got a gym membership and wanted to get big. Of course, the first couple years was filled with ridicule and people telling me what I should do to get stronger. But I had this fire burning inside of me I wanted to be big and strong, so I obsessively read about powerlifting and watched videos, and met some guys who knew what they were doing. I stacked on about 50 lbs of muscle, and developed a strong technique for lifting, pretty soon people started coming to me for advice. I did a few competitions, I wasnt the best because I hadnt been doing it for very long, but I definitely was on my way. Of course now I'm out of shape haha Ive put all of my energy into drawing and I'm a poorfag so havent been inside a gym for awhile. But developing this skill is attainable, and you can be great at it. You may not be the BEST, but you dont need "talent" to reach a highly respectable level of skill.

[Anonymous No.1785870]

>>1785864
Anyone who puts in the full 10k hours of proper practice will be at such a high level of skill that talent becomes irrelevant. If there is such a thing as talent then they might be considered god-tier instead of just top-tier.

[Anonymous No.1785874]

>>1785868
Of course drawing is harder than lifting, but I'm just saying, you can surprise yourself if you become obsessed with something.

[Anonymous No.1785892]

>>1785870

I disagree with this. A talented individual (read: someone higher on the talent spectrum) will progress more and be at a higher level after 10k hours, than an untalented individual who does the exact same work. This is talent in action.

I think some people misinterpreting what I mean by talent. Talent as I'm using it refers tot he spectrum of ability accumulation towards a particular socially constructed human task, such as art. When I say someone has talent and another doesn't, more accurately i mean that they are higher up on the talent spectrum. The gapc an be larger or small.

The main problem is quantifying it. It can be difficult to isolate specific traits and skills that contribute towards talent in a task. Rthermore, many of these traits are transferable - a good programmer is one who is innantely a good problem solver, much like an engineer or a detective. Again, this is talent in action.

>>1785868

I've said it repeatedly. People are mistaking me when they think that I'm saying "give up if you're not naturally talented". That's not what I'm saying. i'm saying that a) you will struggle more because you will need to fill in the gaps left by biological shortcomings (ie, your position lower on the talent spectrum) and b) your 'endpoint cap' will come much quicker (or in other words, the better you become, the slower your progress will be at the very highest levels).

And then to expand on this, the untalented artist is often also unmotivated (where the motivated but untalented artist is often known as delusional) because they can see they lack talent. Under no circumstances does this mean that they cannot achieve a high level of skill. Again, that's not what I'm saying. However it does mean that the untalented who try to become professional are trimmed out of the pool, purely because they aren't delusional and understand how much the odds are against them, and end up pursuing something more achievable (such as programming, for example.)

[Anonymous No.1785896]

>However it does mean that the untalented who try to become professional are trimmed out of the pool,

I should clarify before I'm attacked, they are often trimmed out, not all the time. There are untalented professional artists, but you may be hard pressed to find one.

[Anonymous No.1785898]

>>1785896
BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT OR LACK IT. I MUST KNOOOOOOOW.

[Anonymous No.1785912]

>>1785898
You don't. So this whole argument is irrelevant. Just try your god damn hardest - that's all you can do.

[Anonymous No.1785913]

>>1785837
I say keep doing what you're doing friend. I'm pretty impressed for only two years.

[Anonymous No.1785914]

>>1785898

Do you believe that your artistic ability is disproportionally advanced for your age and work ethic? Have you found yourself advancing quickly or slowly in artistic endeavours? Were you the kid who could always draw better than all the other kids for some reason? Do you have any skills that you think may be transferable towards artistic endeavours (eg. A natural eye for perspective (drawing in perspective instinctively without formal training), strong ability to isolate colours even in relativity, strong hand coordination motor skills without practice, good memory for form, shadow, shapes, etc. without studying their properties, e tc. etc.)?

These all examples of an indication of someone being higher on the talent spectrum.

[Anonymous No.1785927]

>>1785776
>from motor skills to depth perception and colour relativity perception

Wow, what huge handicaps. Assuming you are a relatively healthy person with no disabilities, a few thousand hours of experience can fudge through that trivial shit easily.

[Anonymous No.1785933]

>>1785927
Seriously.
These people spouting all of this crap about talent made making a big deal out of nothing. Work hard to be a master draughtsman and you'll make it some way or another. I'm sure there are more so-called talented people who quit than there are average joes who put their head down and worked for their dreams and never gave into self doubt.

[Anonymous No.1785949]

>>1785927

These are simple examples to make a point. The biological complexity of some of the traits involved in the artistic process is too difficult to easily isolate.

Unfortunately, time is often not a good indicator of anything other than mileage when it comes to information absorbtion. This is an entirely different topic. However, I'll use Frazetta again as anaexample. I doubt Frazetta had put thousands of hours into art before the age of 8. Not impossible, but unlikely. And yet he could paint bettert han many adults could. Why? Because, again, he had innate biological traits and skills that happened to be accordingly important in what we define as art.

Now he is an extreme example and someone well out of the standard distribution of talent, even for those higher on the distribution chart, but it makes an important point that hours, even well spent, does not equal to skill.

But this whole arguement is fairly worthless, even if true. People here don't want to be told they aren't talented. It seems to be elicting a similar response to what you see when someones religion is confronted. So i suppose bissful ignorance / delusion is better in this case.

[Anonymous No.1785952]

>>1785949
>People here don't want to be told they aren't talented. It seems to be elicting a similar response to what you see when someones religion is confronted. So i suppose bissful ignorance / delusion is better in this case.

How do you know everyone here is untalented?
Are you talented?

[Anonymous No.1785973]

>>1785952

People here who aren't talented. I'm assuming there are many talented people here due to how standard deviation works.

And sure, I'm talented. Wasted talent more than anything. I barely did any drawing as a kid, but by the time I had hit highschool for some reason I was outclassing everyone, including the asians who had been going to a dedicated art school for years and already had portfolios. I didn't have one because i barely touched a pencil, and yet I could match their work easily in any drawing task we were given.

And now I'm attempting to close the gap of where i could be at this point if i had actually done some art occasionally. I'm picking things up very quickly, but at this point I probably need mileage more than anything.

[Anonymous No.1786128]

>>1785973

let's see your portfolio anon

[Anonymous No.1786133]

[Anonymous No.1786136]

[Anonymous No.1786139]

>>1786128
And that's where it all ended.

[Anonymous No.1786140]

>>1786133
l2 make a comparison gif

[Anonymous No.1786147]

>>1786139
>>1786128
I hope he's not "too shy about his work" after arguing his position so well. I will seriously give up my talent is overrated opinion if he post some mind blowing work.

[Anonymous No.1786158]

>>1786147

Why don't you post your own work so we can all tell if any single one of us gives a shit about you giving up your precious opinions?

[Anonymous No.1786165]

>>1786128

No portfolio, already said that. I have done no completed works in the last 9 years (19 now). I'll try and find some of my works from when I was 10 and upload them tomorrow. Before the age of 10, I did little to no drawing. Copied some anime if I remember right, but that's about as much as I did.

Pic is a study I did in an hour and a half or so. Everything I do at this point is study. I went through Scott Robertsons book last week. I'm currently going through Hamptons Figure Drawing book right at this moment. This study was done about a month ago when I decided to start doing art again. Hadn't done any figure work before this. Done on an old Wacom Bamboo fun I picked up a few years ago when I wanted to learn but never got around to using it much. Might get myself a cheap large Huion or something similar soon. If you want to see any figure drawing studies on paper let me know and I'll take some photos.

>>1786139

I can't be on /ic/ all the time. Have art study to do.

>>1786147

Why would I be? I said above I was wasted talent. Doing very little work before age of 10, and then doing nothing for the next 9 years fucked me hard, and I'm kicking myself for it. If I'm being honest, though, I still don't really enjoy it, I'm just not much good at anything else, and I can see that I'm higher on the talent spectrum than most people are. Not significantly, but enough to make me strongly consider trying hard enough to turn pro within a couple of years.

As I also said above, I need mileage more than anything. Using a pen tablet is uncomfortable and slippery as fuck, and blending is a fucking nightmare. Value and form is easy and transferable from my pencil work, but not actual technique.

I also want to clarify that I have zero evidence for anything I'm claiming, and I don't want to mislead people. I haven't seen any academic work on the subject of talent, so I'm basing everything off my own experiences and witnessing the progression of people around me.

[Anonymous No.1786179]

>>1786165
Although I really find how you call yourself 'talented' annoying. Props for actually posting your work.

I think the word just rubs people on /ic/ the wrong way because the board's mentality is geared towards training and dedication.

Its viewed as some half arse excuse and rationalization that people tell themselves when they don't try hard enough and fail.

[Anonymous No.1786187]

>>1786179

I know. It annoys me to use it too. It is a seemingly binary word (ie, you have it or you don't), when in reality it's just a scale. My intention was never to discourage anyone. That's the last thing I want, and I can see how what I've been saying can easily dissuade people. In all honesty, unless you're on the very bottom rung of the talent spectrum (everyone technically would have talent in this case, just some more than others. That means that I'm either using the word wrong from common usage, or there is no word to describe what I'm talking about, and talent just happens to be closest), as long as you put in the effort you can always turn professional, you just may have to work harder and it may take longer.

If anything, this is more relevant to explain the "greats" and why they, among the talented artists (read: above the average ability in art, regardless of the amount, and of who would probably make up the majority of this board), somehow exceed even the best of their peers with the same resources and time. It may also be more applicable to explaining the very lowest in talent who seemingly can't progress no matter how many hours they put in.

[Anonymous No.1786196]

>>1786136
Do you have a link for the original comic page? It woud be cooler to just watch that side by side rather than getting epilepsy seizure

[Anonymous No.1786304]

>>1786165
Pretty solid. I bet your stuff on paper looks better though.

[Anonymous No.1786309]

>>1786179
its especially weird because in any creative industry people call people talented literally all the time. there's no implication that they're not hard working or whatever. just that they have the capacity to do great stuff.

[Anonymous No.1786318]

>>1786309

Yes, this is a poor assumption in the industry. Talented or not, pros need to also have done hard work to get where they are. It can just be difficult to pick who the talented are and who are the ones who just put in more work. But that's where you begin to see the 'greats' appear, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.1786325]

>>1786318
but they aren't opposed in the way people use it in the various creative industries, being a hard worker is part of being talented.

[Anonymous No.1786332]

>>1786325

Talent is natural, not something you develop. They aren't interconnected. You can develop skill or ability, but talent is inherent to the individual at a much lower level, and relates to the individuals base traits.

This is why you can have wasted talents and untalented professionals. Talent is being used wrong most of the time because people can't distinguish between talent and skill.

[Anonymous No.1786339]

>>1786332
so then some people have a talent for working hard, so hard work is also natural, so it's part of the set of natural 'artistic' inclinations one might have. so it's talent. ipso fatso por favor.

[Anonymous No.1786346]

>>1784556
This question needs answering in relation to this thread.

[Anonymous No.1786370]

>>1786332
Between two artists: one who has great concepts, but terrible skill vs the other who has great skill but boring concepts

Would you say the first is more talented than the other?

[Anonymous No.1786511]

>>1786304
>Pretty solid
Yeah, it's a solid waste.

[Anonymous No.1786527]

>>1779210
Once you're immersed in the industry, terms like 'artistic integrity' would probably become like a silent taboo. Because the most important thing is the deadline.

I think you'll get over this shock of the use of references. Try to think of the artwork (created with use of reference) as having not only the artist standing beside it, but the entire company that employed that artist as well as the industry in which it performs in. Personally, this makes the offense of using references a lot more insignificant. Dunno about you!

[Anonymous No.1786531]

>>1784556
Going to the zoo, or watching videos of moving animals is helpful in learning zootomy.

Even if you are stuck with photos, there is no need to completely copy off of one photo. You don't even need to be an expert in the animal to use multiple references. You just roughly sketch out a pose, then you look for photos that show parts of the animal you aren't familiar with, and you fix up your sketch.

[Anonymous No.1787962]

>>1780218
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oQEPB0Lus4

Fuck my little butthole, to just blast that out like that, no construction, no guidelines of any kind, wat even

[Anonymous No.1787996]

>>1786165
>Everything I do at this point is study
stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.1788005]

>>1786370
>talent
Neither. And they both lack essential skills, so they're bad in different ways and this hypothetical is dumb.

[Anonymous No.1788151]

>>1787996
Are you implying talented people don't need to study?

[Anonymous No.1788159]

>>1788151
no, i'm implying that you'll end up like a copy machine if you only do studies. don't expect your personal work to get good without actually doing it. you need to balance them.

[Anonymous No.1788164]

>>1787996

good for you. at least hes making an effort

[Anonymous No.1788177]

>>1788159

he never said he was only ever going to do studies forever, just that for now he's trying to learn his fundamentals, which i agree with when starting off. no need to get frustrated and lose motivation when your original work looks shit because you dont know any foundations, of which i have seen a fuck load of times in inspiring artists.

[Anonymous No.1788190]

~sigh~ i remember when a study was a bunch of sketches you did before a painting. /ic/ is a real sinking ship with all this photo molesting going on. step outside please...there's plenty to draw out there i promise.

[Anonymous No.1788194]

>>1788159
>you'll end up like a copy machine if you only do studies

I don't understand why people believe this. Every artist starts off by copying stuff (and yes, drawing from life is copying).

[Anonymous No.1788202]

>>1779198
that one on the left has no fucking spine, how do you fuck up that bad

[Anonymous No.1788218]

>>1788177
>trying to learn his fundamentals

The better way to learn the fundamentals is trying to apply them.

Doing only studies = staying in your comfort-zone.

Do what you want to do and study the specific things you need to know to do it good.

And when I say "study" I mean being able to say at the end of it "drawing this I learned that".

Copying a photo without a specific purpose isn't even a study in my opinion.

Also
>>1788190

[Anonymous No.1789162]

>>1786531
So, I could apply the same to guns and weapons, get pictures (multiple if possible) and then do studies from them?

[Anonymous No.1789746]

Great, now I'm scared to draw from references, and I only want to learn.

[Anonymous No.1790208]

It doesn't matter what you draw, or how you draw, whether you spend your life copying everything or not, it's fine. Do it the way you want too, fuck all the pro's, the vilpus and the loomis' the hogarths and the fuckysqogglebaggles, they did it their way, you do it yours.

[Anonymous No.1790861]

>>1780481
lohan sued over an actual character who was a small part of the game
i dont think the pic had anything to do w it
the character was some super famous hollywood actor

[Anonymous No.1790871]

>>1789162
yeah
You just have to have a basic understanding of how the kinds of weapons would work

[Anonymous No.1790977]

>people using real images as references for art
HOLY SHIT REALLY???????????????????????
NO FUCKING WAY!!
WOW

[Anonymous No.1791281]

>>1779246
this guy is correct.
i'm learning perspective so i figured i'd say something
the horizon was lowered so we should be looking up at the model, but the model is still drawn as if we were looking down on it.