On May 25, 8:37 pm, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> I think it'd be more accurate to say designs that can't be reproduced
> exactly as the original. On the flip side though you can scan a
> non-digital design which would then make it digital and you could then
> do various forms of color correction and what not at that level...of
> course, again, it wouldn't be even remotely as flexible or precise had
> you simply started digital.
Oh, *that*...yeah, okay, sure! Well, I have to look very closely to
see the difference between a 24-bit and a 32-bit color palette,
anyway, depending on the artwork involved.... ;-)
> Not necessarily, in fact rendering engines and cookie cutter graphic
> forms are quickly starting to turn things back to the way they were.
Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Yeah, it'd be great for technology to advance such that we wind up
back with how things were, with one illustrator doing all the work
(you see this with animated shorts on the web, where technology's
allowed the possibility of one-person animation studios).
> Just look at my character sprite generator for a good
example:http://www.backwater-productions.net/RMXP_CSG/
LOL!! That's real cute! Though, I can't say I saw a difference
between a B-cup and C-cup female, the way you'd rendered them!
> There are software titles that cater SPECIFICALLY to illustration,
> like Adobe Illustrator. The advantages are nothing short of
> incredible. For one, your drawings are done via vectors, which means
> your line illustration will become infinitely resizable.
Yeah, but so is a good scan with high-end equipment, no? Again, if I
need a picture of something, I would just pick up a pencil or pen and
draw on paper and scan that in and then maybe touch-up where needed
(and most likely it wouldn't be needed) with software. With a Wacom
Cintiq 20WSX (I'm so tempted to get one today even though I have
absolutely no need for it!) it's even simpler.
My question really boils down to this: why tell the computer how to
draw something when we ourselves can already draw??
> Two, every
> single line you make can be redrawn, moved, and manipulated in just
> about every manner you can conceive of.
Yeah, but I can do that on paper, too! And as someone who's really
good at drawing and even painting with watercolors, I pretty much get
it right the first or second time around anyway: no need for infinite
manipulations or corrections!
Don't get me wrong; I love technological gadgets and gee-gaws; I'm
just wondering if there's something really incredible, in itself, that
can be done by a computer that we simply cannot...I don't mean that a
computer simply does something faster or somehow easier -- though that
would be quite formidable in itself, depending on the project -- but
from what I can tell, a computer's just not necessary for general
illustration work (except insofar as everything's computerized these
days...).
> To that extent you can
> actually easily create multiple versions of a drawing, one with say a
> different face, one with say a different outfit.
Again, speed aside, that was perfectly do-able before computers, too.
Perhaps computers are only needed for instances where speed is an
issue?
> Further, in paint
> programs like Adobe Photoshop you can paint on digital layers, so
> often what artists will do is draw the model form and then paint the
> skin tones on one layer, the shadows on another layer, the clothing on
> another layer, the lighting on yet another. The advantage obviously
> is that you can go back to any point in the pieces creation and alter
> some specific element without having to recreate the whole thing from
> scratch. Modern paint programs also include hundreds of different
> brush styles that can digitally simulate any sort of real world medium
> whether it be chalk, colored pencil, paint, water color, you name it.
Yes, yes, I've seen them, and they're really fascinating, don't get me
wrong...I'm hard-pressed to see any advantage beyond "mere" speed
(though, as Lenin said, quantity can become a quality all its own
after a certain critical-mass level!)....
> There is a downside to all of this though...the learning curve is
> steep...REALLY steep. Pretty much unless it's something you want,
> that you want so badly that you're going to pour every ounce of your
> will into experimenting, playing, practicing, researching and
> testing...yeah, yer not ever gonna get very good at it...at least not
> to the point where you could recreate digitally what you can already
> do "by hand".
Yes, that's just why I wonder about it all...learning to use the
software is, frankly, much harder and less interesting than learning
how to do something by hand -- I dislike painting with oils, but even
that's more interesting than learning how to work a program such that
may create the same picture, only digitally, to look like an oil
painting!
> The digital world has incredible advantages, but it's not as simple as
> just doing what you do by hand with a graphic tablet and pen. You
> have to understand file formats and encoding schemes, you have to
> understand how layers work, layer blending, masking/selection
> techniques, color composition (it's reverse digitally), filter
> effects, color correction techniques, the list goes on and on.
I understand general concepts (l mean, "layers," that's just cel
animation), but it's the time involved learning the software
packages...good grief! Right now, I just don't see a need for it
myself, and wonder what anyone actually uses them for....
> If you're willing to invest the time though, the rewards are simply
> unbelievable...so long as you can see them, and I guarantee that in
> your current mindset there are many you can't, many you haven't ever
> even considered. It's one of those things that once you learn it and
> use it, you'll wonder how you ever did without it.
Oh, I'll learn it, of course, because I love fooling around with
technology (I'm even learning programming with JavaScript and Python
right now, and my upcoming website really don't need them at
all)...but I had to wonder. I mean, consider music, and how
electronics have made possible sounds which were literally unheard-of
before...has computers done the same thing for the visual arts?
Sights that simply would have been impossible otherwise...not just a
faster way of working, but that something that simply could not have
been otherwise seen -- literally...like how a machine gun is just a
faster rifle, in a sense, whereas an atomic bomb is a whole other
beast altogether....
|
