February 8th, 2009, 07:31 PM
I agree with just about everything that has been said, and it is refreshing to read this debate on a writers forum (except for the fact that every comment is a book).
heres my nonsense:
you can scribble around with a pencil forever on sketchbook pages an inevitably come up with a concept to develop into a finished work.
DIGITALLY: You can scan in a sketch and paint right over it, saving multiple versions as you work to build up a selection of comps. And the comp that you choose you can paint right on top of that for the finished work. i can also layer my work so that I can experimant over existing renderings. And I can undo undo and undo. I don't have to mix colors, transparency is set by percentage, and brushes create consistent strokes(which makes it easy to texture, but causes a loss of stroke variation which can give digital art a rigid and synthetic look in many cases).
TRADITIONALLY: I have to transfer my sketch to a surface that can withstand paint. I must do this multiple times for comps, on custom sized surfaces which i must cut myself. For the final I must blow up the original through various methods to transfer to final canvas. I have to mix my own colors and transparencies, and use artistic ingenuity to texture instead of relying on my brushes. Lastly, While painting I must paint over or wipe out any strokes I have laid down if they are wrong. There are no second chances, and I may repaint an area 100 times before it is right, regardless of how much I fall in love with what I previously paint.
The same artist skills apply in digital and traditional, but there is a factor of CRAFTMANSHIP that is lost with digital art, which is in turn its advantage over traditional, especially in commercial entertainment. The true artist no matter what his current media, has his feet in traditional art.
Last edited by GuerillaWarfare; February 8th, 2009 at 07:36 PM.
August 14th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by CatJack
I always think it looks way classier with traditional art. Digital art in general (although very detailed), has too many flaws and of course, very little creativity. My family just got an HD tv with digital cable and I am telling you, it looks horrible. The camera pans look like they are moving in ff. I was wondering though, are youjust a fan of the art of fantasy or are you also a fan of the literature/movies?
August 24th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I use both traditional and digital media.
I sculpt figures traditionally in polymer clay (Super Sculpey + Premo Sculpey), epoxy (Aves), styrene (Evergreen), toy wax (TMS & Willow Products), Industrial Styling Clay (auto/mechanical clay), FX Clay (Monster Makers), etc.
But I'm also trying to learn to use Photoshop CS4 and a Wacom Intous pen tablet for drawing & painting images by hand (not photo manipulations/filters). It's so different to me than a traditional pen/paper that I'm used to. With the layers palate, infinite undo, brush creation, etc... I'm like paralyzed by all the choices open to me!
I prefer "2D digital painting" to "3D digital art" which often means to people 3D stock models posed in some environment (like a video game or movie effect). I don't like the look of that at all myself outside of movies. There's no touch of the artist left in that stuff. That's why I think people imagine there's no creativity in digital art, much starts to look the same or plastic. However, if you go through the Spectrum art gallery books more than 50% of that stuff was painted digitally in photoshop, painter or some other software yet it all still retains the touch of each artist as if they'd used paint on canvas showing their brushstrokes, pen lines, etc.
Just to clarify, this is what digital painting is compared to putting together digital montages of 3D items:
As you can see there is no difference to traditional painting/drawing other than there is no hard copy at the end.
I looked into some of that 3d model making software like Lightwave, Maya, Blender and Bryce to create my own 3d models but I can't get into all the numbers and coordinates you have to play with. I own Bryce and Blender but do not use them. Doing up polygon meshes, skins, etc. I'm used to working traditionally/visually I didn't enjoy my CAD classes in high school, that's what those programs remind me of. They can do neat stuff in movies but I just don't "click" with them.
One 3d software program I do like is Daz 3D which I use as a on-call anatomy/pose model reference. Instead of building a wire armature and blocking in with clay to ascertain how a pose might look I can just open my heroically proportioned male or female models and pose them. When I get what I want I turn on the "muscle maps" which basically skins the models so I only see their muscle masses. Then I can zoom in and zoom out and see how that model looks from all angles as I sculpt. A digital life model who never complains of getting sore holding a pose (or having been flayed).
Last edited by swords; August 27th, 2009 at 05:30 PM.
October 21st, 2009, 08:58 PM
I like both
I'm kind of better drawing with a pencil and as hard as I try to paint traditionally I think I'm better at it digitally, I've been a graphic designer since I left high school so I think I've just become more used to the computer, but I still love my drawings.
February 5th, 2010, 04:44 PM
The fact is this lol I didn't grow up with digital... Computers weren't cheap and software just wasn't that available yet. Regardless I still had paper and pencils etc....
The best thing I like about digital is the level of detail that can be achieved as well as the customization of these programs. No painter can achieve the detail in the time a digital painter could.
The best thing I like about traditional is the hands on feel you get from it.... No computer will ever replicate a brush to a canvas or a pencil to paper.
In the end both are equal in my view and what it really comes down to is a matter of personal taste.
June 11th, 2010, 03:14 AM
What's Your Opinion--Digital Art or Traditional?
If anyone were to tell me that digital work doesn't constitute painting, I think I would punch them on the nose... This past week I spent about 20 hours working on my latest digital painting and if that isn't art then I don't know what is. As someone who did traditional drawing for years, I can tell you that there is just as much work in a digital painting as there is in traditional drawing (I've never done any traditional painting so I can't compare the two but still...
June 23rd, 2010, 02:24 PM
Maybe it's just me, but digital tends to have sharper outlines, or maybe it's just sharper contrasts.
August 18th, 2010, 01:09 AM
Traditional for me and in all types of mediums- I just don't like digital art...
August 18th, 2010, 07:50 AM
Originally Posted by Queen Aurora
Nowadays, it's very likely you have viewed what you think is "traditional" artwork when in fact it was almost entirely created on a computer.
Can you tell which is which?..
August 19th, 2010, 09:16 AM
Originally Posted by Sparrow
I have no idea, I mean art that I know is traditional, mainly painted things etc that I have seen.
I do like some digital artwork but prefer traditional art. I like the texture etc. Just generally what I prefer. I like unusual stuff but digital just isn't something I would pay to hang on my wall if IFYKWIM.
August 26th, 2010, 08:49 AM
If digital tools provide more space to focus on the creative aspects instead of the productive aspects, yes. Technology for artistic purposes should enhance, rather that compensate a lack of skills.
August 26th, 2010, 09:06 AM
I must say I prefer the more "traditional" styles of art. By that, I mean things that look drawn or painted rather than those that look digital. Some digital art looks amazing, I won't deny that, but I can't say I'm a fan of "digital looking" art.
I think The Deed of Paskenarrion is one of the few exceptions to that rule :P
November 13th, 2010, 03:15 AM
I respect digital art, especially being surrounded by it as an art student. However, (and I am be biased) I strongly prefer traditional art. It is much more human, much more tangible, much more emotive. There are things I can do with a paintbrush, a pencil, and an ink nub that you can't possibly do with a computer. Also, since traditional art is more hands on it's much more efficient and exact, that is if you know what you're doing. If I want to draw a portrait I can draw the portrait, ink it, paint it, do whatever I want with it and it's all up to my hands and eyes. Doing it digitally, one has to go through so much process that I feel it nearly sucks the life out of you when instead it's so much easier and simpler to just do it by hand.
Sure, digital media might make coloring easier (and most comic books today are colored digitally, which can look very visually pleasing), but it will never be able to do what one can do with paint, especially oil paint. One of my favorite coloring jobs on a comic book is Frank Miller's 300. His wife at the time used acrylics to color everything in and I absolutely love the way she can portray blood by using paint splashes. Spontaneity like this cannot be achieved through digital means.
November 17th, 2010, 06:49 AM
Use The Force
call me old school mkay
November 19th, 2010, 03:40 AM
'Untitled' and 'Waterfields' are drawn with graphite and/or charcoal. The others appear to be a combination of traditional and digital art. Tell me if I'm wrong, because as you said the line is very thin. The others could very well be skillfully executed oil paintings for all I know.
Originally Posted by Sparrow
Nonetheless I really like your style and skill with a pencil.