Well Here They Are, Paintings

[threedot]

I posted a link to a tutorial where anyone could achieve the same effect within minutes thus I cannot believe a competent computer user (sorry, by posting on a forum you qualify) would take a day to produce these images. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However.... Your title says Paintings. Are you telling me this isn't misleading?

[doppa]

I posted a link to a tutorial where anyone could achieve the same effect within minutes thus I cannot believe a competent computer user (sorry, by posting on a forum you qualify) would take a day to produce these images. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However.... Your title says Paintings. Are you telling me this isn't misleading?

i really couldn't care two tosses whether you give me the benefit of doubt, and if the word painting is the only evidence you have of me misleading you, and others , well i'm afraid you'e jut made yourself lok a bigger idiot than you are, and if you were half the man i thought you were, you'd retract your original accusation...not holding my breath.

what would you like me to call them,'artificially digitally produced representation of a painting using 3 seperate computer programmes , followed by a photoshop tutorial technique, followed by hand retouching with the necessary oil and watercolor pencil, gouache, from a photograph thats not mine, but should be, because its not original'

so go ahead and produce something, youv'e made the accusation you can do it in 3 seconds, well go on then.

with a mouth the size of yours, you really need to be more carful.

[Puwa]

If there's no actual paint involved, you can't really call them paintings, can you?

It's like playing a one-armed bandit, having cherries and lemons come up, and calling it farming.

Or pacing up and down on a moving train and claiming that you covered the distance by foot.

No one is saying that the results aren't nice. It's just stretching the truth too far to call it painting.

[threedot]

doppa, I have no intention of having a slanging match with you, but people originally praised you because they thought it was a painting ... no let me rephrase... that there was paint, a paintbrush and physical movement of a brush involved in its creation.

In fact you took some of Ian's excellent photos, ran some computer software and called them paintings. I find this misleading and I don't think I'm the only one, so why should I retract anything?

[Ulysses G.]

what would you like me to call them,'artificially digitally produced representation of a painting using 3 seperate computer programmes , followed by a photoshop tutorial technique, followed by hand retouching with the necessary oil and watercolor pencil, gouache, from a photograph thats not mine, but should be, because its not original'

"Digital art" would be a lot less misleading.

[MJo]

OP, they have a point, topic title calls them paintings and honestly i was thought they were paintings as well until the girls black top gave it a way and the river picture somehow did not match with real painting. Also you have later said you have used comp softwares and are printing them out.

So no they are not paintings so people are wondering why so misleading topic.

Not that they are not nice, looks great but maybe you could call them "digital art" or something else. Paintings they are not.

Edited June 15, 2009 by MJo

[doppa]

If there's no actual paint involved, you can't really call them paintings, can you?

It's like playing a one-armed bandit, having cherries and lemons come up, and calling it farming.

Or pacing up and down on a moving train and claiming that you covered the distance by foot.

No one is saying that the results aren't nice. It's just stretching the truth too far to call it painting.

i think your trying to stretch a comparison there, amusing.

but if you've read my other posts it quite clearly states that when the 'piece' has been printed ,that depending on what surface its printed on, paper, canvass, that there an amount of finnishing to the piece., either that is pencil, oil paint, watercolor, pastels, crayon, letting it run under the tap, whatever is necessary to finnish the 'piece'.

so on the basis of your point, 'no actual paint used', i guess now that ive made it clear that i do use extra mediums, does that not suggest, on the basis of your argument, that the piece, now becomes a painting.

but i have to confess, i havn't quite developed the technique of showing oil paint on a computer screen.

read the posts more carefully in future, smart arse.

[Puwa]

All I know is that you are making yourself look like an ass and a half by arguing this thing. We've all complimented you on the results. Why not be a gentleman, acknowledge the praise and accept that you might have been clearer from the start? Now you just seem truculent, defensive, and less than forthright. Oh that's right, you said you were in advertising. Time for a sandwich.

[Tywais]

I believe we are just talking semantics here. Programs like PS, Corel, MS Paint or often referred to as "Paint" programs. The technique being used here is Computer Painting (aka Digital Art) and is a recognized art form so physical paint brushes are not the only methodology in the technical age to produce art. So lets relax and appreciate the effort the OP has made to show an interesting technique and I would appreciate no more sniping.

To be clearer, no more bickering or posts will be removed.

[eek]

doppa, the main thing is to explore and enjoy! If you are having fun, then keep going, and dont get disheartend. I moved into digital and graphics from a Fine Art background a couple of years ago. It take a bit of time to get used to it..and you never stop learning. There are just so many things, i think its near impossible to know any program inside out!

Here is a couple of fun things i did after I learned some basics in 3d graphics (they are lambert/greyscale on purpose ) :

and some 2d renders of a 3d woman I havent finished yet (on hold for a LONG time already..i got sick of her!):

Just started learning some digital photo manipulation, here are a couple im working on (using tutorials from the web..which i recommend..great for learning):

------

Go for it, and enjoy it. I know that no matter how much i learn, i will never know enough..and thats half the fun of it. You can never truly get bored!

Edited June 15, 2009 by eek

[NaiGreg]

Is your nick pronounced "Dawp-pa" or "Dope-pa" ? I read of a character called "dawp-pa" that was quite interesting.

[doppa]

Is your nick pronounced "Dawp-pa" or "Dope-pa" ? I read of a character called "dawp-pa" that was quite interesting.

tell us more of the character you read about.

[Ulysses G.]

doppa, the main thing is to explore and enjoy! If you are having fun, then keep going, and dont get disheartend. I moved into digital and graphics from a Fine Art background a couple of years ago. It take a bit of time to get used to it..and you never stop learning. There are just so many things, i think its near impossible to know any program inside out!

Here is a couple of fun things i did after I learned some basics in 3d graphics (they are lambert/greyscale on purpose ) :

and some 2d renders of a 3d woman I havent finished yet (on hold for a LONG time already..i got sick of her!):

Just started learning some digital photo manipulation, here are a couple im working on (using tutorials from the web..which i recommend..great for learning):

------

Go for it, and enjoy it. I know that no matter how much i learn, i will never know enough..and thats half the fun of it. You can never truly get bored!

This is the kind of thing that I really enjoy. Jefferson Airplane album cover art!

[doppa]

truth is eek, i havnt even smudged the surface, let alone scatched it, ta anyway

[loong]

When it comes to art, I may be considered a heathen. I'm one of the "I know what I like" brigade.

When people mess up a bed or cut a cow in half or make a pile of bricks, I don't appreciate it as art, It does nothing for me. I don't like most abstract paintings and I don't particularly like most portraits.

I must admit that I did think that the images were hand painted, but now I know differently, it makes no difference to me.

The first image of Ian doesn't do too much for me (portrait), but the second one does. It is so much better than a photograph. It's hard to explain, but it stirs an emotion inside me and I guess that's what art is about.

Those of you that can photoshop an image, I take my hat off to you. I cannot do more than the basics and find it very frustrating as I cannot get the effects that I want. I just ruin it.

I enjoy looking at the "Evaluate my photo" thread. Some of those images have been photoshopped and are fantastic pieces of art as far as I'm concerned.

The topic title was misleading, but please don't dwell on it. It really isn't important now, because you know that these are not hand paintings.

I, for one would like to see more of the OP's work and it would be such a shame if he decided not to share any more with us.

[loong]

Eek,

I love your cat

[Ulysses G.]

The first image of Ian doesn't do too much for me (portrait)

I would enjoy it more if my wife were not leaning against him in it.

[GUANO]

Doppa, a few of my friends in Chiang Mai are digital artists and many print their work onto real canvas. I hadn't seen it before and it's pretty cool. Although you wouldn't have any real 3d brush strokes etc it may still be of interest to you.

[doppa]

Doppa, a few of my friends in Chiang Mai are digital artists and many print their work onto real canvas. I hadn't seen it before and it's pretty cool. Although you wouldn't have any real 3d brush strokes etc it may still be of interest to you.

luv to hear more, my printer prints onto canvas but havnt got around to that yet.

[fred2007]

I am not knocking doppa at all, but I think the title Painting is very much missleading to me as I mentioned before to him I did do some paintings long time ago in oil and he said water colours are harder to do then oil colours but he did not mentioned to me he never picked up a single paint brush. Real painting takes years of hard work to learn and most of the famous painters only got reconised and became famous after they died. To me this a not paintings at all this are pictures created on a computer based on a sample.

[orang37]

"I am an artist ...

It's self evident that what that word implies is looking for something all the time without ever finding it in full.

It is the opposite of saying, "I know all about it. I've already found it."

As far as I'm concerned, the word means, "I am looking. I am hunting for it. I am deeply involved."

Vincent Van Gogh

[Blinky Bill]

Eek,

I love your cat

Yes, agreed. Eek has a beautiful pussy.

[IanForbes]

doppa, the main thing is to explore and enjoy! If you are having fun, then keep going, and dont get disheartend. I moved into digital and graphics from a Fine Art background a couple of years ago. It take a bit of time to get used to it..and you never stop learning. There are just so many things, i think its near impossible to know any program inside out!

Here is a couple of fun things i did after I learned some basics in 3d graphics (they are lambert/greyscale on purpose ) :

and some 2d renders of a 3d woman I havent finished yet (on hold for a LONG time already..i got sick of her!):

------

Go for it, and enjoy it. I know that no matter how much i learn, i will never know enough..and thats half the fun of it. You can never truly get bored!

Very balanced reply, Eek, as usual. I didn't include your computer art to save band width, but what you showed truly IS an art form. It is not painting with brush and paint, but it is still a form of art. I use my own photos all the time for painting and drawing. It saves me a huge amount of time.

For example, if I want to do a painting of a wild animal in a natural, pleasing setting I will use a series of photos that I've taken, or others have taken. I will cut and paste them in various positions to show me what a finished painting might look like and it gives me a starting point. That is exactly the technique that eek used in her excellent reply on this topic.

Proper lighting is always a problem when not painting from an actual scene or photograph. In that situation I will often make a model out of clay to place in various positions. Then I will use harsh, artificial light to show me where the shadows occur naturally. It is an evolved process but the finished results are better.

And, I make a point of never belittling anyone on an internet forum. It's beneath my dignity and besmirches my character.

[IanForbes]

The first image of Ian doesn't do too much for me (portrait)

I would enjoy it more if my wife were not leaning against him in it.

You always give me a laugh, Ulysses. Thanks. Actually, Miss Bom disappeared from the Chiang Mai scene about 4 months ago. I know some stories but I won't tell.

[nigelandjan]

I have to admit it took me in this mrning early ,, I did sus a paint prog , but then I thought no-one would post saying these were his paintings ,,, crazy I do paint using brushes and pain ,, oil and water and graphite THAT is painting not filtering photos through various software programs ,,, however I have to say reading the ensuing bitching has given me a bloody good laugh tonight before I go to bed .

Mabe as your in CM if you care to drft around the night markets you might bump into some drag artists ,, you have something in common,, neither of you paint !

[doppa]

I have to admit it took me in this mrning early ,, I did sus a paint prog , but then I thought no-one would post saying these were his paintings ,,, crazy I do paint using brushes and pain ,, oil and water and graphite THAT is painting not filtering photos through various software programs ,,, however I have to say reading the ensuing bitching has given me a bloody good laugh tonight before I go to bed .

Mabe as your in CM if you care to drft around the night markets you might bump into some drag artists ,, you have something in common,, neither of you paint !

would you like to see some of my attempts at oil paintings, i'll dig out the files and post them , just for you, and while were at it, why dont you post some of your art, would luv to see what you do. not in chiangmai yet, will be in 2 weeks, so tommorrow i will attempt to find the box with my original scans, 60x 40 inch oil canvasses, ok

[seesip]

It looks like Painter was used for the portrait, which lets you paint digitally with actual brush strokes, and mimic different media. As hobbyist illustrations, hats off. But as Paintings, imho, they just don't cut it. Even if the portrait was painted entirely by hand, it looks like a slavish rendition of a snapshot... there's no decision making going on.

[Tywais]

This topic is getting very close to being shut down. Flames and accusatory posts have been deleted. Any more of same will come with penalties and the topic closed. Be civil guys, the P & A forum is supposed to be fun and informative.

[Mark Wolfe]

When people see the Mona Lisa, for example, I would wager that very, very few people comment on the brush strokes or the kind of paint used or the particular technique employed alone. They comment on the subject as well -- who is the Mona Lisa model? What is the deal with that...is it a smile? a knowing smirk? What was the relationship of the model with da Vinci? Or, as some speculate, was the subject fact da Vinci himself?

So please don't vilify me for commenting on the nature of the "painting" submitted for exactly the purpose of being commented on.

No one, even those skilled in the arts who could know of nuances in painting with brushes and palette knives, would fail to comment on the subject of any artwork.

I encourage everyone, including the foul-mouthed member who PM'ed me, to go back and look at the original image. What strikes you first about it? At the very least you think, "Who is this guy? Who is this girl? Why does she have her head like that? Are they friends? Lovers? Father and daughter (it could be)? Who took the photo or was it on a timer? And where is this?

I could make the same kind of comments on the other "painting"; what program did you use to do this or did you paint over a photo or something? Where is this? Who is that person? Did he catch any fish? And so on.

I do not think the intent of this sort of public posting was, "Look at the image but ignore the content -- just look at the "technique." The fact is that is impossible in any art form. We all look at the photo of the little girl running naked in the road away from her napalmed village during the Vietnam War and think: "Gosh, I wonder what ASA he had his camera set at? I guess that must have been Kodak film. Wonder what lens and body he was using."

Yeah? Ya think?

I made my own judgment on what I was seeing and posted it. It wasn't defamatory any more than saying the Mona Lisa looks like a dyke. I mean, she's not very feminine-looking to me. Who would get upset over that opinion, whatever it's worth?

Viewers should remember that these two people in the "painting" are complete strangers to almost everyone looking at them and as such, might as well be models in a magazine ad or two ducks in a pond. You wouldn't cut people off from commenting on those anonymous models, so why here and now?

The OP, who I haven't seen back, choose that photo. We all have the right now that it is in the public domain, to comment on it.

Oh, and this post in NOT directed at any moderation issues or moderators. It is directed at fellow members who might have taken umbrage at my comments on the original "painting."

[doppa]

When people see the Mona Lisa, for example, I would wager that very, very few people comment on the brush strokes or the kind of paint used or the particular technique employed alone. They comment on the subject as well -- who is the Mona Lisa model? What is the deal with that...is it a smile? a knowing smirk? What was the relationship of the model with da Vinci? Or, as some speculate, was the subject fact da Vinci himself?

So please don't vilify me for commenting on the nature of the "painting" submitted for exactly the purpose of being commented on.

No one, even those skilled in the arts who could know of nuances in painting with brushes and palette knives, would fail to comment on the subject of any artwork.

I encourage everyone, including the foul-mouthed member who PM'ed me, to go back and look at the original image. What strikes you first about it? At the very least you think, "Who is this guy? Who is this girl? Why does she have her head like that? Are they friends? Lovers? Father and daughter (it could be)? Who took the photo or was it on a timer? And where is this?

I could make the same kind of comments on the other "painting"; what program did you use to do this or did you paint over a photo or something? Where is this? Who is that person? Did he catch any fish? And so on.

I do not think the intent of this sort of public posting was, "Look at the image but ignore the content -- just look at the "technique." The fact is that is impossible in any art form. We all look at the photo of the little girl running naked in the road away from her napalmed village during the Vietnam War and think: "Gosh, I wonder what ASA he had his camera set at? I guess that must have been Kodak film. Wonder what lens and body he was using."

Yeah? Ya think?

I made my own judgment on what I was seeing and posted it. It wasn't defamatory any more than saying the Mona Lisa looks like a dyke. I mean, she's not very feminine-looking to me. Who would get upset over that opinion, whatever it's worth?

Viewers should remember that these two people in the "painting" are complete strangers to almost everyone looking at them and as such, might as well be models in a magazine ad or two ducks in a pond. You wouldn't cut people off from commenting on those anonymous models, so why here and now?

The OP, who I haven't seen back, choose that photo. We all have the right now that it is in the public domain, to comment on it.

Oh, and this post in NOT directed at any moderation issues or moderators. It is directed at fellow members who might have taken umbrage at my comments on the original "painting."

which magazine was this published in again, i have it here somewhere, was just reading it the other day, poor effort.