"Photobashing"

[Anonymous No.1841644]

Yes, another thread abot photobashing but this time with a bit different direction.

first off i would like to say that i am illustrator and painter so i don't prefer "photobashing", photomanipulaion or matte painting.
BUUUUUUT.... why would i complain and talk shit about people who do it?
Why can't you guys understand there is a difference between illustration and concept art?
Why do you consider using photos for the sake of saving time in CONCEPT ART as bad thing?
Let those people (mattepainters, concept artsts, photomanipulators) do what they do and we (illustrators and painters) do what we do.

we might look at them as lazy fucks with no knowledge but eather they have it or not, they just can do it if they want.

THE ONE AND ONLY bad thing about people using photos DIRECTLY (copy paste) in ther work would be if they would claim it's an illustration instead concept art/photomanip/matte painting.
but that only low percentage of people do.

[Anonymous No.1841648]

>>1841644

Concept art is illustration you dummy.

[Anonymous No.1841654]

>>1841648


Ohh... so mindset like this is a reason for that. Thanks for your honest opinion and bad knowledge you shared :)
it's good to be annonimous right? You probably wpuldn't write that on forums, right?

[Anonymous No.1841655]

>>1841648

>>Concept art is illustration

top kek

[Anonymous No.1841661]

I think the main problem is that many noobs on /ic/ just don't have the knowledge or skill understand what goes on in a well made photobash and as an end result, they just assume it takes no skill anyway because photos.

It's kind of the same reaction that shit tier traditional purists often have towards digital art in general. They don't understand how some people can create beautiful digital art that looks way better than any of their crap, so they just try to convince themselves that it requires no skill and that photoshop is doing all the work. These people also refuse to at least once try out the medium / workflow they look down on so much, because if they did and inevitably failed horribly at it, they'd no longer have any excuses as to why they can't do something as good looking as pic related other than their lack of skill and knowledge. Ignorance and stupidity go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.1841662]

>>1841661
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.1841670]

>>1841662
Funny you're already dead...

[Anonymous No.1841672]

>>1841662
I know the truth hurts sometimes.

[Anonymous No.1841688]

>>1841661
that image looks horrible, photobashing truly is shit.

[Anonymous No.1841690]

>>1841661
Does the artist 'own' all those trees, the water and the things that he put in there?
He cannot take credit from all those shit, all he can is be praised for his ability to mash a number of picture together and blend it with Photoshop.

[Anonymous No.1841692]

>>1841690

no this is one of the best currently available (and analyzable since the psd file is out there) examples of legit, quality photobashing.

[Anonymous No.1841696]

>>1841661
/thread

[Anonymous No.1841697]

>>1841692
>currently available
link pls?

[Anonymous No.1841717]

>>1841690
Probably stock photos, but even if they aren't, there's no need to own the rights to photos that are used as microtextures and noise. It would be different if he copy-pasted a copyrighted photo of a castle, left the composition the exact same as the photo and then painted a bit on top of it.

But the composition is designed and arranged by the artist, the castle is completely hand-made, started as a 3D model and the hills and background are made up of many different photos that were transformed, adjusted and painted over to make something that looks completely different from the original photos. so yeah, if you are the photographer who recognizes a tree or some foliage patterns somewhere in there, good luck with that lawsuit, bro.

[Anonymous No.1841731]

>>1841697

http://www.dropbox.com/s/ypk9u1ua4j0963n/demo-castle.psd

[Anonymous No.1841738]

>>1841731

makes you realize that this dude is actually incredibly incredibly good. despite his reliance on photos, they don't seem to dictate the image at all. that's how it's supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.1841783]

>>1841644
>Why can't you guys understand there is a difference between illustration and concept art?

Can you elaborate on this? What makes you think photobashing is viable only within concept art?

[Anonymous No.1841784]

>>1841783
Did he say anywhere it is?

[Anonymous No.1841791]

>>1841783

Learn 2 read m8

[Anonymous No.1841874]

>>1841661
Kalen why are you here...

[Anonymous No.1841881]

>>1841661
that picture is bad.

i think some noobs like you have a problem where you literally don't have the capacity to see the common problems that photo bashes often have.

this is evidenced by the fact that you assume other people evaluate pictures based on how much skill they took to make and not on the aesthetic qualities of the picture itself. that's because you yourself evaluate pictures by skill because that's the only option you have, being that you're basically 'art blind.' and being that you're too ego encumbered to notice this lack in yourself you assume your way is the only possible way.

ignorance and stupidity go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.1841889]

>>1841648
>>1841654
>>1841655

I always thought they were pretty much the same thing, just focused on different goals.

[Anonymous No.1841899]

>>1841889
concept art is a type of illustration. it's sort of unique though in that it's not part of the end product, it's either part of the pitch or part of the pipeline...although obviously they use it for advertising and bonus material and stuff now.

[Anonymous No.1841901]

>>1841784
>>1841791


>Why can't you guys understand there is a difference between illustration and concept art?
>Why do you consider using photos for the sake of saving time in CONCEPT ART as bad thing?

>implying photobashing in illustration is a bad thing

Thats why I was asking.

[Anonymous No.1841903]

>>1841881

>says one of the best paintings from one of the top industry pros is bad

Kek. I love how scrubs in here like to shit on artists that are gods compared to them.

[Anonymous No.1841914]

>>1841881
>that picture is bad.

Why is it bad?

[Anonymous No.1841929]

>>1841881
It's kind of sad how so many noobs like you are basically completely unable to judge art somewhat objectively. You are practically "art blind", all that you are able to identify is either "great" or "shit". There is no in-between for you due to your lack of knowledge and skill.

Look, the bottom line is, if people like you exist, then this kind of art can not be called bad, simply because that word already describes art of your level, yet guys like Eytan are a million times better than you will ever be. Why is it so hard for Dunning Kruger suffering noobs to call good art what it is, good, or decent. The value statement is great, the read from the thumbnail is amazing, the composition is nice, the colors are spot on, this is a well done painting, the fact that it might have some minor flaws here and there does not make it bad.

[Anonymous No.1841933]

>>1841914
because it looks like a bad shop. it's not like a secret badness hiding in the details, it just doesn't have the capacity to suspend disbelief to borrow a movie term.

>>1841903
this is further evidence of your 'art blindness'

>h-he has a good reputation, he's a pro! ..it must be a good picture.

you can't look yourself and find out if it's good or not, so you need to base your conclusions on factoids about the artist.

[Anonymous No.1841936]

Clearly Photo's automatically makes your art good.

[Anonymous No.1841957]

>>1841936
you'd think they'd bash old paintings instead.

[Anonymous No.1841965]

>>1841957
Yeah, thats what he did on the bottom right but I generalized it as a photo drop in because im Lazy.

I Pulled this off FB and the artist that did this clearly can't paint very well.

[Anonymous No.1841992]

I can't understand one thing about 4chan users: why can't you guys be honest and tell how you actually feel since you are annonymous?

Why can't you admit why you care what and how others do it (especially if they get paid for it)?

1. If you could do a photobashing or any sort of photomanipulation OP mentioned and get paid for it, you would do it.

2. If you prefer ilustration over photobashing and you are good at it, you would also make a money and wouldn't care about how other people make a living.

And stop saying those people who do any sort of photomanipulation will take a job from illustrator.
If you will get on Jaime Jones or Maciej or Mullins or Kekai or Justin Sweet level and do the same amount of work for years like they do, i bet nobody will take a job from you.

but it's easier to complain how hard illustration is and how "easy" photobashing is before you even put any effort in your work, right?
Why would we be studying, working hard on our illustration journey if we can bullshit on /ic, right?

Do you find yourselfs in what i wrote, annons? Did it touched your heart? This is just a retoric question, i know you won't admit, but we all know the truth.

it hurts you. It hurts you bad. But complaining (you can find million reasons to complain on /ic every single fucking day) won't make your art or life better. And the sad thing is that you don't realize that others are still making money while some annons talk shit about them. That don't hurt them. That hurts you.

[Anonymous No.1842016]

>>1841992

>projection

And anyway, if people had basic instruction about art they would know how shitty it really is, photobashing is just making use of the ignorance of most people

[Anonymous No.1842022]

>>1841933
You might be slightly retarded.

[Anonymous No.1842025]

>>1841933
>because it looks like a bad shop

Except it doesn't. Get your eyes checked. The main focal area of the painting, the castle, isn't even a photograph but done entirely by hand using a 3D model as base. The artist did a great job unifying the photo elements and no area of the painting looks off or out of place. The values and colors are near-perfecty by the way, so your "hurr it doesn't have the capacity to suspend disbelief" is flat out retarded. Learn to use your brain and stop trying so desperately to be edgy and hip because quite honestly, you just come off as an idiot. As you are now, you will never make it as an artist.

[Anonymous No.1842033]

>>1842016
But it's always people like you who constantly whine about photobashing who seem to have zero artistic knowledge to back up their angry, teary-eyed drivel. In your amateur eyes, a Deathelm or Wojtek photobash apparently looks the same as pic related. And you seriously call people "art blind". If you weren't so fucking stupid, the irony would kill you.

[Anonymous No.1842077]

>>1842025
>no area of the painting looks off or out of place.
i wouldn't go that far. that mountain texture in the top right looks pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.1842082]

>>1842025
>The main focal area of the painting, the castle, isn't even a photograph but done entirely by hand using a 3D model as base
Not true, I watched him explain it in person at the MB event. He had a 3d model as a base, then tried to paint a texture he liked from a photo onto it but couldn't paint it. So he just settled for pasting the wall of the castle photo on top of the model (which he didn't even make either, he just downloaded a premade model and stretched it vertically).

But I will agree that the painting is harmonious and for the most part works well and the lighting looks pretty good, though I would have made some small tweaks personally.

[Anonymous No.1842085]

>>1842033
deathlam lol.

[Anonymous No.1842089]

>>1842082
>He had a 3d model as a base, then tried to paint a texture he liked from a photo onto it but couldn't paint it. So he just settled for pasting the wall of the castle photo on top of the model (which he didn't even make either, he just downloaded a premade model and stretched it vertically).

>people actually look up to shitters like this like they're doing something amazing

[Anonymous No.1842100]

>>1841992
So much this.

/ic/ is currently a buzzing nest of frustrated newbies angry at the world who dont even work as artists yet. Once/if you become good enough to get paid for creating art you stop giving a fuck about other peoples art and focus on how to make more with yours.

[Anonymous No.1842127]

>>1841644
You need to consider that most of /ic/ is a bunch of kids with no skill that get off at having an unwarranted sense of elitism.

[Anonymous No.1842196]

>>1841648
not at all you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.1842197]

Implementing photos into a painting without having the photos ruin the design you are going for is hard. If it was easy we would see /ic/ filled with it but since most people here are still struggeling with their fundamentals it's something they don't comprehend.

Keep on grinding still lives and doing studies guys, eventually you will be able to take the jobs from these shit tier artists who use phototextures...

[Anonymous No.1842222]

>>1841889

You shouldn't spend too much time on /ic/.

[Anonymous No.1843854]

>>1842025
>castle built right next to a marshy water area

>incredibly tall

>not out of place

[Anonymous No.1843855]

>>1842197
I'll take this as a challenge

[Anonymous No.1843878]

Why do you care so much about why people care so much about photobashing?

[Anonymous No.1843880]

>>1841936
>That perspective

[Anonymous No.1844193]

>>1841717
>>1841692

I trying was pointing out the fact that he didn't create those things out of his own understanding of what makes a tree a tree. The effort of putting things he got in his own mind onto the canvas, manually drawing this, thus making it his 'own'. Not all these copyright bullshit.

A photobasher should only be praised for his ability to mesh things together and blend it successfully. Thats it.
And he can't be compared to the other artist who went through a lot of shit just to get some foliage looks just right.

[Anonymous No.1844205]

>>1841889
Concept art is concept art, art to portray a concept. Its main purpose is to illustrate (in the meaning of to show something rather than draw) a concept to others. That's it, its purpose is to show an idea, not necessarily to show technical skill

[Anonymous No.1844206]

>>1844205
It requires technical skill.

[Anonymous No.1844209]

>>1844206
>what does necessarily mean
Sure it does, but its main goal isn't to show it off.

[Anonymous No.1844217]

>>1844209
So this is a semantics issue.

Its the same job pretty much, just a different set of tools. Illustrators can photo-manipulate, why not?

[Anonymous No.1845430]

So question /ic/ is it considered bad to use a plain 3d model as a placeholder for a building in the background, and then paint your own texture over it? Is it bad to use 3d models at all to aid in the speed of your process as long as you don't rely on them all the time and know proper perspective?

[Anonymous No.1845436]

>>1845430
Realize that 99% of people here are scrubs that dont even work profesionally and the 1% wont tell you.

[Anonymous No.1845439]

>>1845436
So it's not bad then?

[Anonymous No.1845449]

>>1845430
What the fuck does "bad" mean. As long as your finished work doesn't look like it was blatantly traced or referenced then you're fine. Use what ever toolsyou need to use.

[Anonymous No.1845538]

>>1845449
just don't tell anyone exactly what you did, amirite?

[Anonymous No.1845560]

>>1845538
tell noobs you painted it, because they're so hung up on process, everything becomes a magic brush.

how do you think we got to peak saturation of terrible photobashing.