[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 698 KB, 780x452, mullins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4139236 No.4139236 [Reply] [Original]

Digital art is 1000x better than traditional
>all you need is a tablet
>colors are vibrant
>easy to make changes
>easy to make prints
>no need to mix paints
>no toxic ingredients
>no cleanup
>normies think it's cooler


prove me wrong, tradfags

>> No.4139238
File: 408 KB, 843x1000, september-30-2019-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4139238

>>4139236
>implying you photobashing your own paintings isn't the key to making it

>> No.4139240

Anyone who fundamentally rails against digital is a stupid dumb retard BUT also you shouldnt rely on digitals toolset as a crutch, you should be perfectly capable of doing physically what you do digitally.

>> No.4139250

>>4139236
It also has a lower barrier to entry. And that barrier is going to continue to drop as AI will begin to fill skill gaps.

I have a feeling that skilled traditional artists will have the last laugh when all is said and done.

>> No.4139252

>>4139240
>you should be perfectly capable of doing physically what you do digitally.
what's the point? trad art is hardly in demand anymore, it's just for old ladies now. digital art is the industry standard for everything. there's no need to waste time learning it

>> No.4139254

>>4139250
>I have a feeling that skilled traditional artists will have the last laugh when all is said and done.
true but only because traditional makes you better at digital

>> No.4139261

>>4139240

it's to easy to fix mistakes.
it's lazy because of this.

as long as you can do the same with traditional media.

I just bought painter 2019.
it's awesome.
it's for practice/learning.

"real" art goes on paper.

>> No.4139288

>>4139250
>>4139252
>I have a feeling that skilled traditional artists will have the last laugh when all is said and done.
The worst thing about traditional is it's becoming full of art supply collectors who never paint. There are these people with an art supply shopping fetish, I think this affects other things as well, like the "EDC" thing. People who get casual with art buy the cheap student quality stuff and stay there, but art supply collectors read about art supplies and buy "the best" but never use them, so when a brand becomes popular with art supply collectors they slowly drop the quality because nobody notices. So you constantly have to drop your favorite supply/brand because they suddenly changed it, and navigate through 5 star reviews from people who don't even know the basic use of the shit they bought.

>> No.4139337

>>4139250
>It also has a lower barrier to entry.
so what? that makes it better than traditional because you don't need to spend a lot of money on supplies or waste time learning how to mix paint. you can make art a lot faster.

>I have a feeling that skilled traditional artists will have the last laugh when all is said and done.
no they won't. people are becoming more health and environmentally conscious. digital painting has zero waste and it's better for the environment and personal health.

>> No.4139339

why not both?

>> No.4139349

>>4139236
>do commission for mtg or similar
>sell painting afterwards and make more money since it’s done with traditional medium.

>> No.4139371

>>4139349
Do you have permission to do this? Comic artists do it, but I'm not sure if it would be the same for wotc

>> No.4139483

>>4139250
Crab Mullets actually said he thinks the future of digital is traditional.

>> No.4139500

>>4139236
> colors are vibrant
Anon, there are colors that computers have yet to replicate.

>> No.4139531

>>4139483
when did he say this?

>>4139500
who cares?

>> No.4139586

>>4139236
>>all you need is a tablet
Yeah, no need for talent, skill, creativity - just buy a Wacom, we're all gonna make it!

>>colors are vibrant
Vibrant colors are fine, but the subtlety of oil is why I use oils.

>>easy to make changes
Or, you know, improve at painting so you don't need to.

>>easy to make prints
Define "good". A print off a consumer grade $50 Walmart inkjet? Not good. And, if you have a decent camera, I can print off prints of my paintings just as easily, and have.

>>no need to mix paints
Mixing paint is good for your soul.

>>no toxic ingredients
Never had a problem here.

>>no cleanup
Not lazy.

>>normies think it's cooler
Never noticed that, particularly. I get more "Wow, you actually painted that by hand?" comments than I do for digital.

Digital has it's place. I make a living from it. But so does traditional, and it's entirely more satisfying to dive into a session of oil painting or watercolors than it is to stare at a monitor for another 10 hours, because I do that all week. And, it's not a race. If you don't like traditional, fine, but shitting on it, and claiming digital is "better", is childish. Maybe if you mature a little, you'll realize how pointless this is, and apply yourself more to whatever makes you a better artist, regardless of what medium you choose. I dunno, give it a try, see what happens.

>> No.4139681

>>4139250
implying pencils (even colored) and paper is not the lowest barrier

>> No.4139686

>>4139531
> who cares?
People who care about good art

>> No.4139709

>>4139686
>People who care about good art
so you need a bajillon colors to make good art?

>> No.4139746

So I'm looking at buying my first drawing tablet and I'm probably going to go screenless just to avoid being hunched over. What features do I need to pay attention to when picking what to buy? And are the more expensive ones actually better? I don't mind spending the extra money if its getting me something but I don't want to buy something that they slapped a higher price tag on for no reason.

>> No.4139752

>>4139586
Your childish, digital is superior in every way. You dont want to admit it cus ur an immature child go kys.

>> No.4139835

>>4139236
>better
Pointless distinction.
You can make art with whatever the fuck you want. Digital is generally more practical, and I prefer digital myself as a digital artist, but it really doesn't matter what you use as long as the image is good.

>> No.4139853

>>4139236
Easier to have SOUL with a trad piece. Puppeteer Lee’s oils turn out way more SOULful than his digital work. Both are good tho but the SOUL comes out more in his oils.

>> No.4140049

>>4139586
pyw faggot i bet what you paint looks like dickcheese.

>> No.4140060

>>4139752
(pats you on head) its okay, its gonna be okay, he wasnt insulting your toys.

>> No.4140107

>>4139288
Noticed this while browsing yt vids. Tons of supplies, work at best is in the doodle level. On the other side, see many normies with the iPad and procreate selling their shitty drawings

>> No.4140122
File: 79 KB, 1280x720, me right now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4140122

>>4139236
This argument is as stupid as every other internet argument (e.g.: kindle vs paper books; film vs digital cameras; MS Word vs Scrivener) and the reason is that it doesn't matter.

You can have an opinion based on your own experience of the tool, but the most important thing is that whatever tool allows you to create what you want to create then that's the best tool for you.

In photography, a long standing adage is that the best camera is the one you have with you. It doesn't matter whether it's objectively the best camera (not that anything like that exists) because the most important thing is to take the photo.

Similarly with art, the best tool is the one that allows you to create the art you want to create.

6 months ago I started taking drawing seriously but all I had was a shitty, tiny Bamboo tablet that's been in a drawer for 3 years, and some pencils and a sketchbook. I started with trad (fully knowing that in the future I'd want to switch to digital) because I didn't know how to do anything with digital and I had the trad tools available to me.

After about 4 months of grinding pencils, buying markers, and filling sketchbooks I started learning digital by scanning my trad drawings and going over them. I got comfortable enough now that I can work fully digitally, and by the end of the year I plan to buy a Wacom screen tablet.

The tools that you're using don't matter as long as they enable you to start drawing, and the only person who will not draw because their tools are "not right" is the person who doesn't want to draw anyway.

All that said, both digital and traditional have their strengths and weaknesses. Digital has allowed me to make changes far more easily than traditional, while traditional has a certain soul and texture that, as far as my knowledge goes, still cannot be recreated in digital.

Just use what's available to you as long as you're making art.

>> No.4140127

>>4139236
Spend all day looking at screens, from the moment I wake up to the second I go to sleep. So painting away from the screen feels great on my eyes.
Traditional painting als isn't restricted to the number of colours a RGB monitor can pierce into your eyes.

>> No.4140142 [DELETED] 

>>4139531
I think in this video, though I'm not watching 40 minutes to confirm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWwXGxk6bBc

>> No.4140153

>>4139531
Somewhere in this video, though I'm not watching 40 minutes to find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWwXGxk6bBc

>> No.4140210

>>4140153
Longish about 18:30

>> No.4140214

>>4139236
>normies think it's cooler
Objectively false. Normies are more impressed with traditional media. I have noticed that they tend to be skeptical about realistic digital art, they think the computer does most of the work for you.

>> No.4140225

>>4140107
You can tell by looking at watercolor palettes because none of the wells are digged in.

>> No.4140239

>>4139500
People will always look at your drawings through a screen, traditional or not

>> No.4140245

>>4139236
I always though trad was more of a performance art. You get one shot and it’s essentially a recording of how well you could do it.

Digital is like a polished remix.

>>4140239
But you can take photos of your trad shit at a rakish angle and spread all your tools out

>> No.4140250

>>4140245
>But you can take photos of your trad shit at a rakish angle and spread all your tools out
There are people who do this except the art is digital art photoshopped on the white paper

>> No.4140311

>>4139236
No feedback sounds to anything you do. Fuck digital. The sound of pencil on paper is amazing.

>> No.4140493
File: 1.48 MB, 1364x1326, bed7bdb241cd85e319584718d2cd328d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4140493

>>4139236
Digital is fantastic for learning but traditional is where it's at. Real paintings have real value and that will never change. I encourage everyone to at least give it a try. You don't need to do oil painting or whatever, can stick with acrylics.

>> No.4140521

>>4139500
>>4140127
Pigments are substantially more restrictive than a monitor in terms of color, but nice try.
Not to mention that traditional painters still try to mix with a RYB color model, which is an even smaller gamut still.

>> No.4140522

>>4139261
>>4140493
>real
Brainlets.

>> No.4140527

>muh ctrl z

>> No.4140530

>>4140527
>Real artists don't use 'Undo'
>Real artists don't use erasers
>Real artists don't use palette knives
etc.

>> No.4140531

>>4140522
What else would you call it? Digital paintings are just 1s and 0s

>> No.4140540

>>4140531
And tradional paintings are just pigment.
Do you think computers are fictitious, brainlet anon?

>> No.4140541

>>4140530
No rulez, just toolz

>> No.4140553

>>4140540
I have a traditional+digital process, I do preparatory work digitally and finish traditionally. Nothing wrong with either medium but from a practical standpoint you choose digital for convenience and traditional for a texture and look that computers have yet to reproduce. Also traditional is objectively much more pleasing to work with. I might be biased but I think your brain works differently when you use "real" tools like thousands of generations of humans before you, versus a plastic thing that does hundreds of abstracted functions.

>> No.4140568

>>4140540
Not sure what your problem is but obviously traditional paintings are more valuable because yes, it's real. Someone can buy it, own it, put it on their wall and say, "I own a real Picasso."

>> No.4140578

>>4140553
>I might be biased
You are, that's not a reasonable conclusion.

>>4140568
>It's real.
So computers are fictitious, yes?

>> No.4140579

>>4140568
Where do you draw the line? Kinkade paintings were traditional and all "original" but almost factory made
What about all those Chinese reproductions?

>> No.4140590

>>4140579
Next I was going to ask him
>Is printmaking a "real" art form?
But you beat me to it.

Digital art in essence is a sophisticated form of printmaking, if you don't consider that "real", you have to also say printmakers aren't real artists either, which should make it obvious that that viewpoint is retarded.
OP is to blame for making a fucking medium war thread though.

>> No.4140595

>>4140579
What I meant is that real paintings are valuable because they're actual objects people can own. If someone owns a real Michelangelo drawing it's not just special because Michelangelo used that paper, it's hundreds of years old. It's a piece of history itself. That's the real value of ownership. Nobody "owns" a digital painting. It's just a file. Plus traditional painting is just way more fun. I own a cintiq pro 24 but I still prefer a cheap pencil

>> No.4140629

>>4140590
printmaking is an even better example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA7x9PVHtiQ
aside of the woodlblock itself, even making the print takes skill and effort. It's artisanry at every stage. At what point does the process become too automated to turn this object into something you can't call original? There are old mass-produced items that are highly valuable because few exist or are in good condition / in their original package.

The idea that a file isn't real because it can be easily copied and reproduced is not going to stand over time. I think the majority of people already look at digital goods as real goods (look at skins for videogames).
All the value attached to traditional art was mostly due to absence of means of reproduction, but with higher quality prints it will make less and less sense. I read somewhere that you can get prints with accurate paint thickness thanks to advanced scanning technologies.

>> No.4140799

>>4140595
It's hilarious that you're using "real" to mean "historical significance", considering that's a metaphysical property to begin with.
Elvis' guitar is just a guitar.

>Plus traditional painting is just way more fun.
Surely you don't think this is an objective statement.
Surely.

>> No.4140803

>>4140799
>Surely you don't think this is an objective statement
No of course not. I mean in a world of cola some retards still drinks pepsi

>> No.4140806

>>4140629
Additionally, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that would claim that they consider the woodblock, stone, or whatever to be the art object itself, which means the image reproduced from the instructions set up by the artist is the actual artifact.

>> No.4140809

>>4140803
I happen to not like either of those drinks, and I also find digital painting more 'fun'. It is just personal preference, and no one should ever get uppity about personal preference (OP included)

>> No.4140950

>4140595
This

>> No.4141005

>>4140799
Well with real paint you can feel it move on paper, push it around, feel its weight and thickness; it's "real", with digital there's a disconnect.

It's kinda like making ramen in a microwave vs actually making it on a stove top, gathering all the ingredients, and using all the ingredients

They're both technically food but there is a distinct difference.

>> No.4141016

>>4141005
It's becoming increasingly clear that trying to get you to think critically and rationally about this topic is a fruitless effort.
Let's just say that you're an ignoramus and leave it at that.

>> No.4141047

>>4141005
I completely agree with you about traditional feeling a ton better, I'm >>4140553
I detest working digitally so I insist on doing as much traditional as possible while using digital only for convenience/saving time. But other anons like >>4140809 say they prefer to work digitally. They're not retarded, there are just people who like Pepsi more. Maybe that feel of the brush I like so much, or mixing real paint is completely irrelevant to other people and they see it just as an obstacle. There are people who hate that they have no control over watercolor, if you don't want to embrace that pigments will blend into each other according to water's whims you're not going to like it.
There must be a traditional medium you don't like, right? I don't like acrylics. If you are capable of disliking a traditional medium then it makes sense that people might have a preference for digital. It's all subjective.

>> No.4141175

>>4141016
>stoplikingwhatidon'tlike.jpg

>> No.4141269

>>4141175
Did you click the wrong post or something? How does that apply to the post you're responding to?

>> No.4141323

>>4141269
If someone points out a very clear and universally known difference between two things and your response is to call that person ignorant, you're the retard.

>> No.4141361

>>4141323
Should I just expect that you'll only stay on topic every other post or what?

>> No.4141607

>>4139236
> No product to sell

>> No.4141622

>>4139250
jist wait until robots learn to paint traditionally

>> No.4141629

>>4141622
Meh. Put robot art in your wall and be called kitschlord

>> No.4142691

>>4141016
I'm not even the same guy anon. That was mean...

>> No.4142701

>>4141047
Yeah it really annoys me when I'm sketching on digital and I can't "feel" the pencil rubbing against a paper surface like with traditional.

>> No.4142710

>>4142701
you can try taping a paper sheet on the tablet or use the felt type nibs, they cost the same as the regular ones

>> No.4142724

>>4140540

real in the sense the buyer has a real world copy... the only copy instead of a useless file that has to be printed.

digital art is worthless.
a museum with TV's on the wall ...
Is this the future of shit art?

digital as far as i'm concerned is for professionals with deadlines who's work is going to print.

who in their right mind would ever pay money for a bmp file that isn't a newspaper, magazine, or comic book business needing art for print?

you can't Undo mistakes on a canvas.
you can't photoshop a canvas.
Digital all day until someone requests real media and you can't do it.

>> No.4142741

>>4142724
>the only copy instead of a useless file that has to be printed.
So printmaking isn't a real art form?

>a museum with TV's on the wall ...
>Is this the future of shit art?
O, the generations! O, the morals!
Retard.

>bmp file
lmfao how out of touch are you?

>you can't Undo mistakes on a canvas
Yes you fucking can, it's called a pallette knife, or a eraser in the sketching stage. And what difference dies that make either way?

>you can't photoshop a canvas.
What on Earth does this mean?

>Digital all day until someone requests real media and you can't do it.
You are fucking delusional, kindly hang yourself.

>> No.4142759

>>4142724
You are just confusing what is satisfying about art with what really matters. It feels like a bigger accomplishment to make good art on canvas, it takes more raw skill, it feels more satisfying, personal and 'authentic' to draw with as little reference as possible or no reference.
You know what people will tell you? That your imagination drawing isn't worth shit if your art doesn't look exactly like a photo, and if that guy traced a photo and rendered it pixel faithful with a grid he's a better artist. Any non-artist person thinks this way.
So as good and satisfying these things are, nobody gives a shit. I agree with all your sentiment but you're confusing purely personal enjoyment with real value.

Being a working artist has nothing to do with this, in fact it's all about giving up these things that "feel" good to do in order to make work that looks better and is faster and easier to make. Sargent would be tracing on a Cintiq in no time if that meant getting work.

>> No.4142768

>>4142759
>It feels like a bigger accomplishment to make good art on canvas
This really needs to be qualified with a "to you".

>it takes more raw skill
This really needs both qualifications.

I also get the sense that you're conflating digital art with over-use of photo reference.

>> No.4143268

future digital art...

paint as particles..
canvas as subdivision surfaces (polygons)
thin 6-10mm sheets of 3d printable material.

print paintings with strokes and canvas texture.
coloring shit... no idea lol.
I know clothing dye will stain light colored plastics. could be interesting.

>> No.4143452

>>4143268
Are you having a stroke?

>> No.4143487

Digital art and traditional art are like the difference between listening to a song on a CD or listening to a live performance.

There's a certain energy with a live performance that you absolutely can't get with a studio recording. But both have their place, and both are perfectly valid.

>> No.4143540

>>4143487
this is the best response.

>> No.4143643

>>4142741
No because there's a distinct difference between printmaking and reproductive printing. You still have to use physical tools to printmake as well, which means it also has the same-ish learning curve like traditional in a sense

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/special-topics-art-history/creating-conserving/printmaking/v/moma-printmaking-01

They literally say in this video the reason they print make is because they don't view printed copied art as real art.

You get exactly what he means when he says you can't photo shop or undo physical paintings.

And going from pure digi to something traditional is a real issue artists have, since learning how to control the paint, the brush, and the wetness on a textured canvas while not being able to fix anything other than small mistakes is a beast of its own.

>> No.4143645

>>4143487
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be an MP3 vs a vinyl record.
A live performance would be better compared to performance art. The "performance" of a traditional painting is totally irrelevant to the finished piece, and unless you're some postmodern pseud nobody cares about the journey you went through in making your painting, they just care what it looks like.

>> No.4143657

>>4143643
>No because there's a distinct difference between printmaking and reproductive printing.
There is not a distinct difference between printmaking and digital art.

>You still have to use physical tools to printmake as well
A computer is a physical tool. Moronic point.

>You get exactly what he means when he says you can't photo shop undo physical paintings.
Undo? Yes, I know precisely what he means, and it's a retarded thing to say because, as I said, undo is analogous to any other corrective tool.
But I haven't the foggiest fucking clue what he means by "you can't Photoshop a canvas". I can't screenprint a sculpture either, so what is that even supposed to mean?

>And going from pure digi to something traditional is a real issue artists have
Is it an 'issue' to not be proficient in a tool or technique you haven't practiced? Do you believe a traditional painter that had never touched a computer is a failure if he can't use photoshop? Is a writer a failure if he can't play a guitar? No? Then why is the reverse true?
The fact of the matter is that you don't have a grounded, intelligent, logical opinion about this topic, and it's just your typical luddite knee-jerk to a new medium.

No medium is more valuable than any other, just use whatever you want and focus on improving instead of getting uppity about what other people use.

>> No.4143691

>>4143657
They literally carve drawings into fucking stone and use actual paint sometimes, and ink almost 100% of the time. What are you on? Are you sure you know what printmaking is exactly???

I think he means you can't move an entire chunk of arm up or down to correct an anatomical mistakes. Don't know if this is photo shop exclusive because I'm not familiar with digi.

>Do you believe a traditional painter that had never touched a computer is a failure if he can't use photoshop?

That's... exactly why I called it just an issue not fucking world breaking. It takes time to get good at either, years even.

Point is one is a real physical object that a printed copy can't match up to (yet).

>No medium is more valuable than any other, just use whatever you want and focus on improving instead of getting uppity about what other people use.
This thread was a literal "fuck you" to traditional artists, we haven't said jack shit about digi being worse, just why traditional can be considered as valuable as digi, but these autists decided to make it a digi vs trad war for no reason.

>> No.4143692

>>4143645
You're disregarding the point just to be pedantic.

Looking at a digital painting on your computer screen is like listening to a studio recording of a song. The quality of the sound output is irrelevant.

Going to a gallery to look at an oil painting on the wall is like going to a live concert to listen to a song. The reason this is so is because a live performance has an energy to it that a studio recording doesn't. You're there, you feel the music with your entire body. When you look at a canvas painting on the wall with physical paint on it, you feel the painting and become immersed in it, in a way that you simply can't by looking at a digital painting on your computer screen.

>> No.4143705

>>4143692
I'm not disregarding shit.

>Looking at a digital painting on your computer screen is like listening to a studio recording of a song.
Looking at a finished piece is like looking at a finished piece, yes. I take issue with your claim that looking at a traditional painting is somehow a more of an emotional or naturalistic experience. The experience you had painting it is not the same experience I will have looking at it, not by a long shot.

>Going to a gallery to look at an oil painting on the wall is like going to a live concert to listen to a song. The reason this is so is because a live performance has an energy to it that a studio recording doesn't.
This is all total nonsense.

>You're there, you feel the music with your entire body. When you look at a canvas painting on the wall with physical paint on it, you feel the painting and become immersed in it, in a way that you simply can't by looking at a digital painting on your computer screen.
How could that possibly be the case? An image is an image. You are not thinking about this rationally. You have an emotional attachment to what you think of as "real art" and you are trying to justify your irrational feelings about the topic.

>> No.4143708

>>4143705
Yeah its clear you've never been to a major museum or literally any concert lol

>> No.4143731

>>4143708
Nice argument, retard. When I went to art school I had 2 large art museums in walking distance. One focused on contemporary work, one historical. I went to them all the time.
No, there is not a substantial difference between looking at a digital painting and looking at a traditional painting.
In all likelyhood what you are actually responding to is the PRESENTATION, not the actual artwork. Are you comparing a painting done on a giant canvas to one that you're looking at on your laptop screen? Of course you're going to have a different experience with it, and it has nothing to do with the medium.

>> No.4143737

>>4143731
I don't know if it feels the same for you anon, but a 4x4 small as shit traditional painting looks way fucking better then a 4x4 print made digitally.

>> No.4143742
File: 17 KB, 300x196, I+feel+like+black+widow+got+more+charcter+in+cpt+_5875c9479dd606dd260b68d4d44dac44.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4143742

>>4143705
It's an analogy that regularly functioning human beings will get. Dunno what you're on about, but I guarantee it isn't important or interesting.

But hey, as long as you feel smart, you're the winner in your own world, I guess. And that's all that matters, heha.

>> No.4143745

good art is good art.
digital or traditional media.
i wouldn't pay for digital though.

i can't foresee myself investing in art
so that i can leave my children a thumb drive with jpg's on it.

>> No.4143748

>>4143737
That's nonsense. If you're talking about a giclee compared to a canvas painting with artists of equal skill, then there's no logical reason why one would have a stronger impact than the other. You have an irrational, emotional attachment to traditional media. Your experience is nowhere near universal, nor does it indicate some kind of rule of aesthetics.

>> No.4143751

>>4143742
>just shut off your brain bro

>> No.4143759

>>4143745
Dürer prints go for upwards of $3000, there's no reason to believe a high quality art print on archival paper of a digital master wouldn't too.

>> No.4143764

>>4139236
Pure digital looks fake and boring, because it's too perfect. I personally do a mix of traditional and digital, but also only because digital makes it a lot easier.

>> No.4143769

>>4143764
Style and medium are two totally different things, anon.

>> No.4143774

>>4143769
What are you even talking about? Digital simply looks different, because it's unnaturally perfect. Traditional looks natural and more interesting, because it's full of tiny little "imperfections". That's why traditional art has more character.

>> No.4143779

>>4143774
This is pure ignorance. You can do hyperrealism with watercolor, you can do painterly strokes with digital. You put too much importance on medium.

>> No.4143783

>>4143779
You will always be able to tell if something is digital or not, because you can't really emulate traditional with digital, idiot.

And even if you would come close to it, the amount of extra work you have to do to achieve this effect is not worth it, and you could as well just do it traditionally then.

Digital is shit. It's only really good for concept art, where it's mainly about the idea anyway. The only reason so many people use digital here is, because it's a lot easier. Easier doesn't mean better though, in contrary.

>> No.4143787

>>4143783
>You will always be able to tell if something is digital or not, because you can't really emulate traditional with digital, idiot.
Totally false.

>Digital is shit. It's only really good for concept art, where it's mainly about the idea anyway. The only reason so many people use digital here is, because it's a lot easier.
Jesus Christ. I've read a lot of ignorant shit ITT but this really takes thr cake.

>> No.4143792
File: 86 KB, 421x600, Emil Keyser (Swiss, 1846-1923) Young sisters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4143792

>>4143787
>Totally false.
Not false at all. You think you could create something which looks like pic related, digitally, or what?

It's not possible to paint like this digitally, you fucking retard.
Digital will always look fake and unnatural, compared to traditional.

>> No.4143795

>>4143792
>You think you could create something which looks like pic related, digitally, or what?
You are looking at a digital recreation of that pic already, so yes, of course.

>It's not possible to paint like this digitally
Ignoramus.

I have no interest in talking to you in particular, just go kill yourself.

>> No.4143797
File: 27 KB, 450x512, naehschule_hi - Benjamin_Vautier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4143797

>>4143795
>he unironically believes pic related could be as well done digitally
Get a load of this retard lmao

>> No.4143799

>>4143797
kys

>> No.4143820

>>4139236
It completely ceases existing if we ever lose control over electricity.

>> No.4143845

>>4143820
if we ever lose control over electricity, art is the last thing you will have to worry about

>> No.4144127

>>4143820
Unless you know, you make a print. Likewise if you upload digital art to the internet, it can't be lost in say a fire, which is substantially more common than the apocalyptic scenario of us losing control of electricity.

>> No.4144510

>>4144127
You know whats more common? Corrupted files, your work not being saved, overwritten layers, crashes. Unlike traditional digital art can sometimes just completely disappear by chance at any point, and something tells me a corrupted file is more common than fires.

>> No.4144514

>>4143795
>You are looking at an inferior digital copy*
There I fixed it for you.

>> No.4144528

>>4144510
>Corrupted files
If you fuck up.

>your work not being saved
If you fuck up.

>overwritten layers
If you fuck up. Also this applies to traditional painting too.

>by chance at any point
lol no

>something tells me a corrupted file is more common than fires
How about rain? How about accidentally spilling something on a painting? How about dropping something, bumping into it, slipping while doing something else? How about improperly storing it, exposing it to moisture, or just fucking losing it? How about having it stolen or vandalized or thrown away accidentally? Any number of things could happen to an original, physical work.
In fact, far, far more things could go wrong than with a backed up digital file.
So not only is all of the stuff not actually that big of an issue for digital art, but it's WORSE for traditional. You have inadvertently brought up a point for how digital could be considered better than traditional while trying to do the opposite, which is fucking hilarious.

>> No.4144621

>>4144528
lame excuses.

i don't know anyone who would actually buy digital art. nobody will pay $30 mil for digital art in 100 years.

people buy prints of Van gogh ....because there's only 1 real painting and they can't buy it.

>> No.4144633

>>4144621
What excuses, you retard?

>> No.4144646
File: 1.20 MB, 1705x1212, serenity framed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4144646

>>4144127
Just curious. This last painting I did had a ton of texture to it. Some areas were really lifted off the canvas. Is this possible with digital?

Not taking a side in the debate and this thread actually convinced me to start looking into digital. I'm only a couple years into painting, and I started at an old age, so anything that can improve my skills in a short amount of time is helpful. Thanks.

>> No.4144718

>>4142724
drawing traditionally is more satisfying to the senses but there's nothing wrong with digital, and it makes a ton of side tasks easier to accomplish.

>> No.4144746

>>4139337
>digital painting has zero waste and it's better for the environment and personal health
Stop huffing paint and maybe some of that retardation will be able to drain out of your head. Electronic manufacturing isn't saving the environment and canvas definitely isn't hurting it. Not that you should care about that shit anyways.
I would argue digital is significantly worse for you in terms of personal health. Sitting inside constantly being blasted with blue light and emf seriously effects circadian rhythm and congnitive function. The only thing potentially harmful about painting is cadmium (which has zero effect unless ingested) or turpentine. Both can be avoided easily if they bother you.

>> No.4144795

>>4144633
if you're stupid enough to have coffee next to a painting... you deserve it.

I have drawings from grade school.

I also have a stack of failed HDD's

Digital media is for suckaz

>> No.4144798

>>4144646

not without 3d printing lol.
i think corel painter can simulate paint thickness but it's only 2d approximation. you see the strokes and brush lines.

>> No.4144903

>>4144646
Depends on what you mean.
Is it important to you that the texture literally juts out of the canvas in 3 dimensions, to the extent that looking at the painting at different angles changes what you see? Then maybe you should look into mixed media or sculpture instead of painting.
Is it important to you that the viewer could touch the painting and feel the ridges? Then maybe you should look into interactive art or installations instead of painting.
But if the thing that is important to you is the way the texture effects the 2D image, the way it LOOKS, then yes, you can absolutely do that with digital.

If you're looking to get into pure digital painting, or even just to supplement your workflow with digital tools, here are some tips:
1. Get a drawing tablet. Wacom is the best by a country mile, and from there you have a few choices. If drawing from the shoulder is important to you, or if you really just can't stomach the idea of not seeing your hand while you're drawing, then you could get a Cintiq. Intuous and Bamboo are much cheaper alternatives, so give those a shot before you go all in on a screen tablet.

2. Find a program you like. Photoshop is the industry standard and has the most features and gives you the most control over your image by a long shot. If you find Photoshop intimidating, Corel Painter is more directed to people that are used to painting traditionally, and it's designed to imitate the way traditional media works as much as possible.

3. Try before you buy. Big libraries often have tools you can rent or test out before you invest in anything. If nothing in your area does anything like that, check around with friends, or maybe even a local community college.

4. Learn about printing, and make sure when you're painting that it will be ready for print. 300 DPI is the standard printing resolution, anything lower and you might see the pixels of your work, which is probably not what you want.

Cont.

>> No.4144904

>>4144903
>>4144646
Beyond that, look into more professional printing services. Places like FedEx or Office Depot can give you cheap prints, but the quality is poor and they don't do any color adjustments. Before you print an image, always be sure to do a separate file for test prints. Inkjet prints typically come out darker than your digital file, and (depending on the process used), have trouble replicating bright additive primaries. A fine-art quality print is called a "giclee",

5. Backup your files. This should go without saying, but just make sure your paintings are saved in more than one location just in case anything happens to your computer.

6. If you really get into it, something to think about is the color calibration of your monitor. There are kits that you can buy to make sure that your monitor's calibration is as close to perfect as possible. This is worthwhile if you're a perfectionist, and will help with printing too. One thing to note though is that most people do not have color calibrated monitors, so you will just have to accept that your average viewer will be looking at your image a little differently than you did.

>> No.4144909

>>4144795
>if you're stupid enough to have coffee next to a painting... you deserve it.
How about a water jar to rinse out your brush?

>I have drawings from grade school
And?

>I also have a stack of failed HDD's
Sounds like you're just computer inept. Which is to say: if you're stupid enough to brick your hard drive or corrupt your files... you deserve it.

>> No.4144923

>>4144909

digital art is for people who need crutches.
training wheels.

>> No.4144926

>>4144923
Retard.

>> No.4145034

>>4144621
>i don't know anyone who would actually buy digital art. nobody will pay $30 mil for digital art in 100 years.
there are famous artists who paint both traditionally and digitally. prints of their digital work sell for a mere fraction of what their trad paintings sell for. yet OP and other retards here are talking about how digital art is sooo great when not even tax evading art collectors are willing to invest in that shit. if a person is given the choice between an original painting or printed photo of art done by their favorite artists, they will choose the original painting every time. digital art has come a long way but it will always be seen as inferior, especially as less people are willing to master traditional art.

>> No.4145049

>>4145034
>prints sell for less than originals
Retard.

>> No.4145135

>>4144528
You can corrupt files by saving your work

Sometimes you program doesn't actually save work when it says it does

You'd have to be hyper retarded to paint on a layer by mistake for hours with traditional. It's so much more easier to unknowingly be painting on the wrong layer out of the other 20 layers you're managing.

You don't even acknowledge the program crashing, which also can be entirely random.

My point still stands, digi art can cease to exist by complete chance. At least with traditional if you take the simplest of precaution it makes destroying your peice accidentally 99% harder.

>> No.4145145

>>4145049
That's why people would prefer the original to be a physical object rather than a fucking file on a thumb drive or a picture on printer paper.

A digi original painting can never match up to a physical traditional original painting.

That is if they're at the same level of course.

>> No.4145206

>>4145049
you are terminally stupid

>> No.4145315

>>4145135
>You can corrupt files by saving your work
If you're computer inept or the power goes out, sure.

>It's so much more easier to unknowingly be painting on the wrong layer out of the other 20 layers you're managing.
Moronic point.

>You don't even acknowledge the program crashing
I don't think I've ever had photoshop crash on me once, so sounds like you're just retarded and don't take care of your computer.

>digi art can cease to exist by complete chance
In fewer ways than traditional and with more safeguards if you aren't an idiot.

>>4145145
Compare prints to prints, dumbfuck.

>> No.4145962

>>4144904
Thank you for all of the information. I appreciate it. I mentioned the thickness of the paint on the canvas as it was mentioned by the person who bought it and they liked the texture of it. I am looking into getting a wicom. This will be more convenient for me at times during the day when I need to be in the office vs jumping into my studio. They are both in teh same building but sometimes I have to be available to answer calls and such so I'll be able to practice a bit and see if I like it. I don't think I will switch to pure digital though as I really enjoy throwing paint up on a big canvas and buyers definitely like the idea of owning a one of a kind painting. Even though im still a novice. Thanks again.

>> No.4146066
File: 100 KB, 1200x784, roll-safe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146066

>ITT: we talk about the long term value of traditional work
I only sold a 15$ digital commission while I saved a whopping ~45$ in Christmas presents with traditional paintings over the span of my career
You don't have to worry about lightfastness if the giftee doesn't hang the painting
Net win for traditional

>> No.4146079

>>4146066
see
>>4143452

>> No.4146110
File: 197 KB, 1600x1200, mountain2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146110

so i played around with a program called sai. I guess i enjoyed it. Hated working with the mouse but so be it. Theproblem im having is everythign is blending too much.

>> No.4146175

>>4146110
I'm not familiar with Sai so I don't know how to help with that, but another option is GIMP, which is a free Photoshop clone, should give you some more control over brush properties. And yeah, painting with a mouse sucks. A proper drawing tablet with pressure sensitivity makes a world of difference in terms of speed and comfort.

>> No.4146191
File: 466 KB, 800x986, 362950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146191

>>4139236
You forgot the part where it's not actual painting though

>> No.4146536

>>4145315
>Compare prints to prints, dumbfuck.
A digital painting can only exist either as a file (displayed via some kind of device) or as a print, and it doesn't become an actual art object until it is printed or otherwise made physical. So if one is to compare a digital painting to traditional one you must compare it to a print of some kind, dumbfuck.

>> No.4146784

>>4146536
>So if one is to compare a digital painting to traditional one you must compare it to a print of some kind
So literally what I said, then?
Reading comprehension is very important.

>> No.4148073

Their is a distinct "digital look" that does not look good.

So for that reason alone

Paint > digital

>> No.4148093

>>4148073
dumb thing to say

>> No.4148455

>>4139236
Most people only think commercially it seems.

>> No.4148545

>>4148455
can't blame them, having a job fucking sucks

>> No.4148559

>>4148455
cope

>> No.4148650

>>4148455
enjoy painting your soulful art at the local homeless shelter

>> No.4148661

I worked in oil painting for about 10 years, and now I've been working in digital painting for around 3-4.

The oil painting and traditional art mediums gave me a strong understanding of how to build and utilize digital tools.

I would say while traditional art may not be as commercially viable as digital - it still gives a person a very real understanding of how something is being built, and helped me know how to use my digital brushes I use more efficiently as I already knew how the movement and mixing worked.

>> No.4150436

>>4146784
>Compare print to prints
>Print to prints

Huh?

>> No.4150463

>>4145315
No the computer or software can just fuck up and corrupt a file while saving, there's not much else I could do to corrupt a save other than intentionally turn off the program. Are you sure you use digital? Or are you just lucky.

>I don't think I've ever had photoshop crash on me once, so sounds like you're just retarded and don't take care of your computer.
Nice anecdote retard.

>In fewer ways than traditional and with more safeguards if you aren't an idiot.
Aside from spilling water on a painting which can just be completely avoided by putting the canvas on a stand, there really isn't a way to ruin your painting if you're not a complete retard.

Let's say your right anyway though. What are you left with after? Wow a fucking file on a computer, or a print. At the end of the day you digi cucks lose to trad chads. No ones paying for a fucking digital original over a traditional original.

>> No.4150468

>>4150463
>Let's say your right anyway though. What are you left with after? Wow a fucking file on a computer, or a print. At the end of the day you digi cucks lose to trad chads. No ones paying for a fucking digital original over a traditional original.
this