FA+
Shop
Photo Paintovers-Rant!
16 years ago
Painter is a glorious, wonderful program that I never cease to enjoy. BUT. While it has a vast selection of natural media brushes to play with, it also has a wide array of cloning brushes available to those who wish to "clone a masterpiece".
A photo paint over can be a couple of things. It can be a tracing painted directly on top of a photograph or a source photo is selected and is then re-painted onto a new digital canvas. I am sure it can be a lot more complicated, I wouldn't know.
I think that this is a technique that is just fine for those who wish to go down that path. I have seen very nicely arranged cloned paintings that have a lot of interesting brushwork and have way more depth to the finished image than the photo or photos used as a source. People make a pretty penny these days doing pets, children, families, whatever, as new works of art from a photo. I am sure you have seen the ads at photo kiosks or framing shops near you: Turn your treasured family moments into a timeless painting! or something like that. It's also great way for those who may not have the skills to make something they are proud to show their grandchildren.
It's not that people do paint overs that upsets me. No, it upsets me when people choose to lie about what they are doing.
I see it all the time. People will post a paint over and instead of stating "Hey! This was cloned from a photo!" they say nothing at all and bask in the high praise their viewers leave them. Comments are often along the lines of "Wow! So real! I thought it was a photograph!" Well fancy that. There is time and some skill involved in paint overs, but I see the omission of the full truth and it makes me :/
What makes me more disappointed is when someone uses a photo that doesn't not belong to them or do not have permission to use. I don't want to get into the whole copyright thing tonight and the associated myths that have come up about "crediting" and such.
I can spot paint overs with a high degree of certainty. They have a very subtle yet distinct look to them, especially in the eyes. The eyes tend to be unusually crisp around the highlights. There are subtle variegation of color in some places yet a smeared over blur in others. The backgrounds are smeared over and out of focus. The colors are a little too perfect here and there. The fur strokes tend to look very harsh and lined, yet still somehow right, like a how a photo mosaic or pixel art looks funny up close but far away it reads as very realistic.
I can never be 100% sure though, short of asking the artist. How do i know the artist isn't just that good? If it's here on FA or DA, I can look at the rest of the gallery and tell if a photo is really well copied, or really painted over.
Why do I care? How does this effect me? It discredits the work I do, the work all digital painters do. We are often asked, "So does the computer do the work for you?" "Are you cloning that fur texture from a photo?" "This isn't real art."
I work hard to learn anatomy, light, colors, composition, and so much more than I will ever be able to know. I do not like my hard work being written off as "computer generated imagery". I do not like the dishonesty I see out there. It is lying by omission. It is taking advantage of people's trust that the artist is true to their craft.
To get a feel for yourself on what photo paint overs look like, take a look at the Corel Painter Magazine website. Most of the art uploaded there is a cloned painting. The thing is, people who visit the site know it. The magazine pushes cloning techniques in every issue. However, the site does not allow any stolen images. Copyrighted photos used without expressed permission fall under that rule. The company still pushes creativity in the artist.
Here is the animal art section. Take a moment to look at some of the images and you can see what I mean. http://www.paintermagazine.co.uk/pi.....h&cat=1868
If anyone who sees this clones photos, I hope you are honest with you viewers. People take the time to look and maybe comment/fave your art, they deserve honesty from you.
P.S.: To anyone I spoke to about Painter Magazine in my chat yesterday, please don't mention what I said! I will get to that in another post. :3
A photo paint over can be a couple of things. It can be a tracing painted directly on top of a photograph or a source photo is selected and is then re-painted onto a new digital canvas. I am sure it can be a lot more complicated, I wouldn't know.
I think that this is a technique that is just fine for those who wish to go down that path. I have seen very nicely arranged cloned paintings that have a lot of interesting brushwork and have way more depth to the finished image than the photo or photos used as a source. People make a pretty penny these days doing pets, children, families, whatever, as new works of art from a photo. I am sure you have seen the ads at photo kiosks or framing shops near you: Turn your treasured family moments into a timeless painting! or something like that. It's also great way for those who may not have the skills to make something they are proud to show their grandchildren.
It's not that people do paint overs that upsets me. No, it upsets me when people choose to lie about what they are doing.
I see it all the time. People will post a paint over and instead of stating "Hey! This was cloned from a photo!" they say nothing at all and bask in the high praise their viewers leave them. Comments are often along the lines of "Wow! So real! I thought it was a photograph!" Well fancy that. There is time and some skill involved in paint overs, but I see the omission of the full truth and it makes me :/
What makes me more disappointed is when someone uses a photo that doesn't not belong to them or do not have permission to use. I don't want to get into the whole copyright thing tonight and the associated myths that have come up about "crediting" and such.
I can spot paint overs with a high degree of certainty. They have a very subtle yet distinct look to them, especially in the eyes. The eyes tend to be unusually crisp around the highlights. There are subtle variegation of color in some places yet a smeared over blur in others. The backgrounds are smeared over and out of focus. The colors are a little too perfect here and there. The fur strokes tend to look very harsh and lined, yet still somehow right, like a how a photo mosaic or pixel art looks funny up close but far away it reads as very realistic.
I can never be 100% sure though, short of asking the artist. How do i know the artist isn't just that good? If it's here on FA or DA, I can look at the rest of the gallery and tell if a photo is really well copied, or really painted over.
Why do I care? How does this effect me? It discredits the work I do, the work all digital painters do. We are often asked, "So does the computer do the work for you?" "Are you cloning that fur texture from a photo?" "This isn't real art."
I work hard to learn anatomy, light, colors, composition, and so much more than I will ever be able to know. I do not like my hard work being written off as "computer generated imagery". I do not like the dishonesty I see out there. It is lying by omission. It is taking advantage of people's trust that the artist is true to their craft.
To get a feel for yourself on what photo paint overs look like, take a look at the Corel Painter Magazine website. Most of the art uploaded there is a cloned painting. The thing is, people who visit the site know it. The magazine pushes cloning techniques in every issue. However, the site does not allow any stolen images. Copyrighted photos used without expressed permission fall under that rule. The company still pushes creativity in the artist.
Here is the animal art section. Take a moment to look at some of the images and you can see what I mean. http://www.paintermagazine.co.uk/pi.....h&cat=1868
If anyone who sees this clones photos, I hope you are honest with you viewers. People take the time to look and maybe comment/fave your art, they deserve honesty from you.
P.S.: To anyone I spoke to about Painter Magazine in my chat yesterday, please don't mention what I said! I will get to that in another post. :3
See, it's not cloning nor tracing of any kind that bothers me, it's the dishonesty about it in public image.
This is without any reference (hence the retarded perspective): http://www.furaffinity.net/full/2108810/
This is from looking at photos on the side: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/2013937/
These clouds were photocollaged by me, then painted over 100% (almost tracing) http://www.furaffinity.net/full/748326/
Nothing else on my FA is really realistic enough to enter this conversation.
Look at this: http://www.paintermagazine.co.uk/us.....24/rooster.jpg
Its very pretty, nice and painterly. It is a cloned photograph. Not eyeballed and copied, but cloned from a photo with painter's powerful brushy cloners. Do I make sense?
I
;
Why, I _never_ saw any "big gun artist" to cra
edit there (photo) references what they used for anatomy etc. I cant belive that every of them works from hea, with out anything to look on...
Thats my opinion.
I sometimes work from my head, and sometimes I don't.. There is no need for me or any other artist to point out every tiny photo used as reference. Reference is a different animal than copying an image. If I copy a photo I did not take, I have permission to do so. I either asked or it is an image that has a Creative Commons License, and, depending on the specifics for that image, I will link back to the original photographer.
I had written permission for this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1278149/
This was under the creative common license: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2077141/
And I used so many different images of my own photos, stock, non stock, and items right in front of me for this piece that if I were to list them all it would be a page long: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1009648/
Realistic artists use reference, it's a given. Wildlife artists, concept artists, portrait painters, still life painters, my darling muse Rembrandt...everyone has reference and it's not always what you think.
After that few years, I got about 3-5 note that my stock were used as a reference, one time I found a Gall whom used one of my Photo and craved it very well to silver papper, yet she does not credited me, I had to ask for it...
On Dev since Im there, people are far more "fair" to credit such thing when it is ask.
Anyway if you need some high res stock(Mostly Canidae), please pay a visit at my deviantFart page:
http://chrysocyonfrax.deviantart.com
I am forever confused why people think admitting their influences or references will somewhat make their artwork less. If your honest, the time and effort spent on such a work is no less than before :/
On the topic it reminds me of some site I saw a while back that pretty much helps people make amazing miniature paintings (as in the fine detail type) by the use of some sort of hand held contraption, and heavily packed in the fact that you didn't even have to be able to draw a stick figure to do it, yet could convince people you are a master. I find that kind of saddening in a way XD what happened to appreciating what you cant do hehe. (I cant make music to save my life for example, and even though I am sure there are programs that could make it seem like I could..I don't know, it would feel cheap and a lie.)
But yeah. I want to hit this one kid upside the head with a "dont be suck a dumbass" bat, he traces fucking everything and it's an insult to people who value school and art as well.
As for that person who's tracing, I always just tell myself that if people who are doing that are displaying this work in the PROFESSIONAL world (ie: more than just their knitting circle which is where I think a lot of these hobby paint-over-ists show their wares) it will....WILL....catch up with them. The great thing about the art industry is that everyone's connected, and a lot of the images copied are familiar to most people, or at least familiar enough to someone who will call them on their bullshit if it came down to the wire.
but yeah, I can't imagine anyone doing it and then thinking it was their own original art or something.
I find it infuriating when people paint over photos and lie about it. One good way to tell is to look through the rest of their gallery. I've noticed that people who paint over photos usually have dismal or nonexistent traditional skills and haven't depicted any subject matter that couldn't be photographed (i.e. dragons, anthros, mermaids etc).
I have a friend who is a curator at a local museum and is an excellent artist and instructor himself. One way he has used to spot paint over is to divide the piece into quarters or sixths and evaluate piece of the painting as its own unique stand alone work. He has that often you spot a paint over or someone who has used an opaque projector to put part of an image on a working surface this way.
On completely different yet in a similarly linked way, the whole issue of AP and the Obama "Hope" painting has possible chilling ramifications for the use photo reference in illustration work. If it is true that the artist did not do a paint over and created a "new work" based on the photo but AP is able to claim copyright infringement and sue for damages this makes things dicey for the use of photo reference unless you are also the photographer that took the photo.
However, what about the case when a part or a figure in the drawing/painting is added to the drawing, then modified so much that it does not resemble the original article that was "imported?" According to copyright law, that's fair game. I do not think that doing that is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, Photomorphs (like I do) would fall under that category. I also do other media works (by myself and with my husband), but a good photomorph (like those seen on Worth1000: http://www.worth1000.com/ ) I have to consider "art." Of course, those who post on Worth1000.com will tell you that it's the technique that they are going for, and I would agree. They would also consider it "visual parody." However, I do believe no one posting there would consider their new "created artform" blatantly THEIRS.
One must be careful when making a judgment call on art that incorporates modified pieces like that. Collages could easily be another example that may fall under your scrutiny. Being a Professor and an Art Department director, I had many years trying to sort this all out. Mant times, my students tried to "pass off" works as their own. And many times the assignment was to "imitate" the style of the artist.
I welcome your comments on this. I want to learn what you have to say. It's important to me because I consider you an incredibly talented artist who is extremely gifted. I would like to "sit in" on one of your discussions when you are having them. Would that be when you are on Ustream?
</I>
Yes.
Painter and other programs have a way to take a photograph. Any photograph, and set it as a 'source'. Then, you can select a tool, say an oil brush. Every stroke you make will pick up the "source" photograph (e.g. if you are brushing on the lower left corner of the canvas, it will copy from the lower left corner of the photograph) and simply RE-APPLY the very same digital information, but with the "effect" of the tool, such as the oil brush. An analogy: consider a color copier. You scan in the image you want the color copier to copy, and the print head copies the image exactly onto a new sheet of paper, right? Okay. What the "Cloning" part of programs allows you to do is to use the program as the copier, and your brush strokes are the print head. It is like running a simple "artistic" filter over the existing photograph... the only difference is that the 'aritst' has control over HOW painterly the strokes are. In the end the image is more painterly.
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pa.....tercolor_3.htm
Perhaps this will illustrate what I mean. This is a photograph, essentially manipulated to look like a painting. ANY random stoke will bring 'up' the image (colors, values, details) of the photograph below. No skill is needed. There is nothing wrong with that! It's only when this method is passed off as a true painting from scratch that I feel cheated.
What Vantid and I get bothered about are those that would pass off this work as being the -same- as painting from scratch. It is misleading, and insulting to artists that have worked hard for years, sometimes decades for some of us, to be able to create work from our skills, not a fancy filter method using a computer program. Except for my friends, I constantly have to explain that I do not let the computer paint for me when I do digital art. I do not mind if someone utilizes this method and is honest about it, it's just those that INTENTIONALLY mislead for the sake of praise that bother me.
Also, for the record, simply adding or manipulating an existing image without permission is still copyright infringement; the 'change a certain % of the image and it's yours' is a myth and does not hold up in court. Even in photomorphs, one must be careful because editing two photos together (skillfully) can sometimes lead to problems if the original photographer(s) did not lend permission.
As for Copyright and Photomanipulation: I hope my previous comments did not lead you into thinking that I just "do what I please." I take Copyright violation very seriously!
As a past Administrator and Art Department Chair (and an artist who has exhibited all over the continent), I have spent countless hours and educational seminars covering many of the finer points of copyright, both visual (2 and 3D art) as well as aural (music), so I am well aware of copyright infringement. In Music, the schools that I worked in were scandalous in what they ASSUMED that they could use (especially in PHOTO-COPYING sheet music for the choirs and choruses, and copying full scripts for their school plays and musicals!) It took me years to change mind-sets and months to clean out files and files of "violations".
Now, as I am retired and in my 50's, I am appalled at the rampant indiscretions of artists who work in the "digital field" which was not so prominent when I was exhibiting.
That is why whenever I do my photomorphs, they are:
1. With written permission of the artists (or people, or companies) who own the respective pictures (mainly the bodybuilders in question)
2. With my own photographs
3. Stock photos that I have paid for
4. Public Domain/Orphaned works
I have found that most male bodybuilders (and even some female) adore the "enhancements" that I do to their person, and the "furry" morphs play on their sense of "fantasy." They love being "changed." Even if their own "head" has been "replaced" by an animal. Go figure...
Every time someone hears that I work digitally, it makes my work look... cheaper, less authentic because of people who do paintovers and pass it off as their own work. It's infuriating. Congratulations. You can make 10,000$ selling something that wasn't even yours to begin with. That's really got to feel good.
I remember talking to my mother on the phone about something like this. (she's somewhat technologically impaired)
I began talking about digital artists, and she has the nerve to say that anyone who uses a computer is not a "real" artist, because the computer "does all the work for you".
This is so far from the truth, as being a digital artist requires one be well-versed in traditional art, as well as needing to develop several new ones.
Digital art has different obstacles than traditional art, and so many people don't understand it.
I remember sort of yelling at her, afterward.
That's why I truly appreciate digital artists who are just totally awesome at what they do - like you!
I guess what I'm getting at is the actual artistic motive. You already have a nice picture....and yet you want to paint over it to turn that nice picture into a nice painting instead? Seems a bit redundant. I guess I can understand how a person on the other end, a (non-artist) buyer, would like to turn a cherished photograph into a pretty painting, but then for an artist to pride themselves on those works? Well it seems to miss the point (or perhaps my point, I'm probably mixing a lot of my own feelings on art in this).
So before I delve too far into how this sort of thing crosses over my personal art tastes/philosophy/assholery I will close with this:
Credited, acknowledged paintovers are fine and can be nice but they just really don't impress me at all. (Of course every artist's goal should be to impress me right? I'm going to take off my bad phrasing hat now, I promise.)