Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
Let me state clearly in this opener that I don't want to start a discussion about whether digital works are art. If you conceive it and make it, it's art (in my opinion). I'm just curious to hear from the "crossover" people what the ratio is of their digital work to their traditional work, be it photography, painting, collage (on a support), sculpture, etc. how often you switch gears?
I call myself mainly a photographer because that's mostly what I have posted, which in this day and age is mostly digital, but I'm "craving" doing something on paper this weekend. Do you have withdrawal from one form of art when you've been concentrating on another one for a while?
I find when I'm concentrating on photography, it's easier to come up with a subject when the weather is nice. For example, when I go to the beach, obviously I make images of the water and things on the beach. For works in a physical medium, it's a lot harder for me to come up with ideas, themes, etc.
How often do you "cross over" and what media do you work in? How do you get ideas? I need some inspiration.....
Interesting, Carmen. I've worked in acrylic, oils, collage, ink, but I have not tried the three dimensional things like fused art glass...that would be interesting to try. Today, I'm trying to get some ideas for paper collage, which I just started trying last year and I quite like it....
Well, Andee - it's gray and cloudy here today, so I'm going to be making something on paper if I can come up with an idea (if not, I'll be luring in here all day LOL), but I was curious for people who work in many different media if they have a favorite. You do much better with "indoor" photos than I do by far.
From this...................................................to this..........................................................to this
Spending perhaps too much time on this new toy (digital)..Justifying it by .."Thinking of the future when sitting is all I can do".....And avoiding what I got to do, to continue making money, creating Vulture Sculptures
LOL, Roger - "avoiding what I got to do, to continue making money"...does that mean you need a break from the Vulture Sculptures?
I need a break from photography. I have not sold a lot here, but I've sold some. The works on paper get far more views, but only the photography has sold. I "NEED" to make something on paper, though, which prompted me to start this thread. I think you are doing quite well with your digital creations. As long as you enjoy it, why not?
LOL, yeah, I've been thinking about making a collage for the last week. I'm still sitting here with the computer on my lap. I need someone to boot me in the butt....waiting for the second cup of coffee to kick in. I just hope my old, old, desktop computer and scanner are still working so I can scan it in when I'm done. I find that works much better than making a photo, especially if there is some shiny paper involved.
No favorites Mary-- I tend to let elements coalesce. Just came in from a great break out in our yard -- getting some interesting captures of birds -- they're getting more used to me now making some candid shots useful in other applications.
Yesterday -- caught this blackbird heading up with a peanut he grabbed, right in front of me. And so, he became even more art....
Twenty years ago, I was a traditional photographer, with a darkroom instead of kitchen, showing and selling my photos in my spare time. Just as I was getting bored with 'straight' photography, I discovered photo-manipulation, which became the (obsessive) primary focus of my work. Over the past five years, I'm leaning more toward purely digital work (no photo source).
It's been a long time since I considered myself a photographer -- I've been a 'digital artist' since the '90s. Photo-manipulation is still my favorite way to create; I'm a total geek who is endlessly excited by the marriage of photography and computer software/hardware.
Only about 75 of the nearly-600 images in my FAA portfolio are straight photographs, and I list them only rarely. I still love photography, and never leave home without a camera, but digital -- in its many various forms, has my creative heart. :-)
In the 'real world', I also do occasional interior decorating and high-end furniture painting and decoupage, plus fiction and technical writing -- all of which, I'm sure, influence my 2D visual work; hopefully, to the better.
I like having a foot in all those creative worlds, and having the freedom to step in and out of them, at will. I'm only limited by time -- and there's never enough time!
Good luck with your Saturday Paper Project, Mary; I hope you share the results with us. :-)
See, that's creative - use the output of one medium in another....I do have a journal started eons ago with photos supplemented with drawing. Maybe I'll look and see if any of those would be interesting if I scanned them and did some digital tweaking....
EDIT - this last post was directed at Carmen, but it works for Wendy as well... "mix and match"....I'm off (well 2 feet away) to check out that journal, but I'll be in here for a while
Try scanning actual objects Mary -- you'll be amazed at the result :) Some call this 'scanography' .
Further to paper collage -- an activity my students really enjoyed was tearing multicolor tissues & gluing them to acetate -- an easy version of stained glass 'suncatchers'.
Created some interesting mobiles with old CDs this way also -- they refract full spectrum colour & are easily perforated with a heated sharp metal point of old knitting needles, screwdrivers, etc. -- making stringing hangers through a breeze. We glued all manner of found objects to these -- including dried beans, lentils, etc.
A dear friend sent me 3 'Zines' her 18 year old daughter & friends create regularly -- handmade paper publications/booklets incorporating their digital works, articles, etc.
Each Zine is personalized -- assembled by hand -- the covers usually embellished with some manner of collage -- cutouts, glitter, sequins & more.
Yes, I scanned keys once....but I really need the feel of paper today. - I do have a box of old photos lying about here somewhere, maybe I can cut some of those up...you guys are giving me ideas...BTW - nice image, Carmen!
Thanks Mary -- there's one character in particular I'm enjoying -- this one I've named 'Crow Magnum' is getting used to my presence and gets within a few feet of me now. Also a capture of this week's 'rapture' outdoors ;)
Further to the feel of paper Mary -- your scans -- as images printed on paper & cut, or torn, can be incorporated into your handmade works.
Torn paper edges are particularly texturally interesting... I've burned/scorched edges for FX, also.
I've tried my hand at quite a few things. One of my passions is creating handmade, one-of-a-kind artist books. There is so much freedom of expression possible and you never have to do the same thing twice. I love incorporating movement, elements that pop out or unfold in unexpected ways revealing something new. I love the tactile nature of something you can pick up, hold and turn to see from all angles. Artist books don't even need to resemble traditional books at all: they can be created from found materials, come in any size, and take on almost any form. There are so many wonderful artist books to inspire, and I'm always amazed at the variety and creativity that goes into each piece. I've been itching to create a new book for some time, but that is the element in shortest supply for me: time!
I thought I was going to be strictly selling photos but when tinkering around in editing software and some of the effects its almost impossible not to attempt even more things. Paintbrush I have never held with the exception of maybe pre-school but being here with all this talent you never know what may brush off. Feels kind of like cheating when the computer does all the work with the digital stuff but mine is fairly simple in comparisons with some of the digital abstracts.
I started out with photography but since I live in the middle of nowhere and do not drive I tried digital art when I got bored..that lead to photo manipulation...which lead to kaleidoscope art and so on..I always switch back and forth depending how I am feeling..and I never get bored..:)
@ Niki - I love looking at made books and have a couple of books on made books (that sounds awkward), but I've never attempted it...some day when I have more time I'd love to attempt one.
@ Craig - interesting images - love the bubbles.
@ Rhonda - I know what you mean - I work full time and don't have the luxury of driving al over the place every weekend - the local hiking trail is getting stale for me. I need to work out of my imagination for a while.
@ Andee - too funny!! Hey, maybe I can put some toilet paper into my next collage ;-).
Carmen, I do have a lot of different colored tissue paper, but no acetate. That would be interesting to try.
Mary -- for acetate -- your local stationery store should carry relatively inexpensive acetate sheets. I used to buy the desk blotter cover sheets -- they're a good weight -- some have a matte finish. Craft store prices can be outta sight.
Another option if you really want to try something funky -- get a piece of plexiglass cut at your local hardware & collage dried skins of acrylic paint to the surface with an acrylic gel medium, or save money & use watered down white glue.
To create dried skins -- spread acrylic paint on a ceramic plate -- experiment with mixing the paint -- don't water down much, if at all -- let dry -- soak in warm soapy water for about a half hour and you'll have a 'skin' ;)
You can work your papers into this also -- and just about any other substance you feel inclined to incorporate.
You know, Carmen, we used to use acetate layovers at work back when keylining was still going on....I'm wondering if there'a a large roll of it somewhere in the basement that I can abscond with....I'll have to look on Monday. Shhh, don't tell, but if it's still there, it's been sitting there for 15 years LOL.
;) I get that '15' years thing Mary -- there are glass beads rattling softly in their containers..not to mention a rattling in a box I have to tend to immediately -- robin slammed into a window -- think he's going to be okay though...resting quietly in a darkened box & we're heading out to see what he thinks of things now...a bit of grated apple coming his/her way too...
Further to windows -- we do have raptor silhouettes & other 'preventatives' in place ... they don't always work :(
Look forward to seeing your innovations, Mary -- have fun!
I switched a while ago. I started out traditional, but found I had allergies and switched to digital. Where I may miss working with some of the media, I don't miss the mess or clean-up!
I'm a digital mixed media artist in that I switch between applications, 3D and 2D depending upon what I'm working on. Some of my work is photography and photo-manipulation, at lot of what I do is straight digital. I'm attending University for Graphic Design and Creative Writing/Poetry. I love to switch back and forth. Most of my fantasy work is based on a story in my head. Some of my work is even inspired by music.
No favorites, I work with whatever is needed. I try to keep my camera handy as often as I can. Particularly when I go up into the Berkshire Mountains in MA.
I "cross over" all the time.. for many years I was 100% traditional painting and drawing. These days the majority of my work is intended for printing and might combine text, photographic, drawing... and painted elements. Sometimes I print the digital work and draw and paint onto it.. then scan the result back in.
I like the ability that combining media gives me to create imagery that is not purely digital, or drawing or a painting and not easy to categorize.
I also like the idea that the nearest you get to an "original" of a digital work is delivered via Print on Demand.
On the digital art debate.. unlike a photo of a painting all digital work is created to be printed.. its not "reproduction". For me a piece of digital art is more valid for a POD site than a photo of a painting.
Hi, Roseann - I forgot I did some "painting" with colored pencils as well - if you use the waxy Berols, you can get some effects that look directly like traditional oil painting, but that takes layers and layers, burnishing and a lot of time as well. I stopped when I started working 60 hours a week. I have enjoyed the little bit of purely digital art I've made, but I'm certainly not a master of the medium.
I can see where digital media would be the choice if you have allergies to traditional media.
And I'm still in here instead of working on something LOL. Getting out the paper box now. I have an idea, but I'm not sure if it will work.
Andy - interesting post - for a while, I tried to keep all my media "pure" - that is straight photo, straight drawing, etc., but then the digital world came into play and there's a whole new option...I'm trying to learn how to mix and match. I do digitally alter my collages....and I really am in awe of some of the purely digital art here...
Mary, this week I worked on a huge digital painting (freehand) and an oil on canvas - sort of simultaneously. I either do that or actually mix the two, or three or whatever. I seem to need some hands on. It's hard to explain the feeling.
I think I know what you mean, Zeana. I like the look of a lot of stuff - pure digital, pure paper, a mixture....I've always wanted to try monotype, but I don't want to clean up the mess LOL. I'm enjoying the input in this thread. I'll still be in here while I'm looking through the paper box...
But the "hands on" also applies to pure digital, I think. After all, nobody makes digital works with their nose (I don't think ;-).
I am 100% film photography but once in a while I shoot digital as experiment to something.
I can only concentrate on one media. When I used to paint I only could paint, the same with drawing and now the same with photography. Often I got ideas that to do on painting and especially sculpture, but I never migrate. I try to apply the idea in the photographic media where I am used now.
My main ideas I get aether reading about art and sociology or working on something, which brings ideas for more things.
I think if you don't wait for what looks to be the best situation you will impress yourself, because it is on chalanging situation that you often find more inspiration.
For example, I once was at home mad to take photographs but it was raining for days. So instead of wait the rain stop I decided to attach a umbrella to my jacket in order to have my hands free to shoot and I went to streets. The bad weather street photos are some of my most interesting photos.
I also for long time had to shoot only with 1 lens and 1 flash and 1 light bouncer, because I didn't had money. I couldn't make the photos I wanted as beginner but I look for what I could make with what I had and I good many good light ideas thanks to my tools limitation.
In resume, when you feel limited and really want to work on something you get many inspiration from your limitation.
Now that I have more tools and resources I still continuous to use many ideas I had when I didn't have options of lighting, lenses, location, eve weather (because back in Ireland the weather wasn't often good).
Marcio I can relate to what you're saying. 90% of what I've sold are images I took with a point and shoot camera or scanned film shots. Have not sold anything but cards of the images I have taken with the better camera. You work with what you have.
I started out 100% as a watercolor/water media artist. Now I paint less the 1%. I do more photography because of the DSLR - but - my real creativity is in my digital illustrations. So the split is now about 1% paint, 80% photography, and perhaps 19% creative digital illustration. Just returned from a trip to the Smoky Mountains - all photography - no digital illustration and for sure I didn't take paper and paint. The real sad part - of the several hundred photographs - less than 10 are really art quality.
I met two professional nature photographers. one taking photo's of a waterfall - the other one of bears. Yes, we saw real live bears, a mother and three cubs - they looked at us looking at them and were bored and wandered off, momma bear feeding as she went - the little ones romping, playing and standing up to look back at the lookers.
Roy, I think that's normal. I usually shoot about 250 images on a weekend day. I'm lucky if I get 1 or 2 that are good enough to post. Cute story about the bears. I have not seen any in the wild, just deer, bison, elk (the later two in Yellowstone)....and I think your digital work is outstanding.
Roseann - no I really don't have any questions because I wouldn't know what to ask. I work in Photoshop elements on scanned artwork, or in a free vector drawing program. Since it's not my principal manner of working, I'm just recently getting into it. I'm enjoying it, though....
Since about 2005 until present, I've been studying, and experimenting with 3D stereo in namely the Anaglyph and side-by-side crossview formats. (Anaglyphs are the images which require 3D stereo glasses with Red/Cyan filters. Crossview does not required glasses but you need to be able to converge (cross) your eyes and focus on the middle image that appears while ignoring the outside). This "freeviewing" technique is similar to viewing the old "Magic Eye" images, where a hidden image could be seen by converging your eyes. Not everyone is successful with it which is why the anaglyph glasses have been the most common method of viewing 3D stereo until present day.
Not many members here, seem to know or are interested in this art form as they I suppose, have taken a more traditional route and training in their art. 3D stereo however, has been around almost as long as photography itself. Although artists in general have for the most part kept to more standard techniques in the art world, there is and audience for 3D stereo "Out There", who enjoy the genre' and would appreciate the opportunity to view images and animation with depth rather than flat 2D. There is a saying... "The world is not flat, why should your pictures be?".
Recently, in an effort to try and get more people back into movie theaters, 3D stereo has been revised and reinvented (in case you haven't noticed). Theaters have undergone a mass transformation to accommodate newer 3D stereo technology. 3D stereo TV is now a standard option with new HDTVs and ongoing work is still in progress to create 3D TV that does not require head-wear or 3D glasses.
Virtually all animated movie features are done in 3D stereo today, not to mention the option to view many other new films in the 3D stereo format. They say however that the real recent surge into 3D stereo was/is due (at least in part), to 3D stereo images sent back from the space probes we've put on other planets. In any case, 3D technology is re-surging into the market place and everyday life by way of smart phones, tablets, monitors, LCD displays, digital frames, TVs, certain digital cameras, and even sports channels.
3D Stereo Anaglyph format: Red/Cyan filtered 3D glasses required...
3D Stereo Crossview format: Gently converge (cross) your eyes and focus on the middle image while ignoring the outside...
Where I think it's really cool and I love the work that goes into making it, I'm not a fan of needing glasses to watch movies or look at art. 3D movies work well for action, sci-fi/fantasy, they don't do much to enhance comedies or dramas. So I think you're gong to see this fade out again.
I can see a market for the art. It's unique and different. Does it sell well?
@ Roseann - Thanks for your response. I have found what you said about not wanting to put on glasses to view 3D stereo to be true of many people I've met. Personally, I think that's a very small price to pay for viewing an image in 3D stereo but to each their own. Eventually, there will be 3D stereo that may be viewed without 3D glasses or crossing one's eyes. It's a matter of time.
While you say 3D stereo doesn't do much to enhance comedies or dramas, I don't think it hinders those type of films either. If we view normal life in 3D stereo, why are we against viewing images and films with depth? BTW, most animations are also comedies which work very well in 3D. Of course some movies are more thrilling in the 3D format but some would say that was overdone in the 50's with the "poke your eye out" effect that was a "cheap thrill" and eventually led to the decline of the popularity. Just because Avatar is classified as a "sci-fi" film, doesn't mean it's not a drama too.
As far as them selling well... when I started here on FAA, half of what I was selling were 3D stereo images. I have to say however that I didn't think the images viewed as well on FAA as they do on other web sites such as Flickr, or even Facebook. I inquired several times to FAA about that problem and asked if it could be the colorspace used on FAA or something else, but have never received a reply, even when another interested member also inquired. Because (I suppose) 3D stereo is such a nontraditional art form for FAA, I have to suspect it's not a large concern for them to look into the matter. Because of the viewing problem (typically showing more ghosts than normal on anaglyphs), I have curtailed uploading of 3D stereos here and have focused primarily on 2D images. It's very unfortunate for me because I have spent so much time creating 3D images and it has become my niche'. There are only a couple of us on FAA that do stereo images.
The thing is... if you ARE successful, it becomes easier each time you do it and eventually it becomes second nature.
I would say that the best way to a side-by-side format is not to have it too small on the screen but you must have the entire side-by-side image viewable at one time. If the image basically fills your monitor, view it at the distance you normally view images. When just learning the technique however, you may try different distances from the screen if it helps you to learn the technique. I can say there are many that prefer this method once it's learned, as they don't need 3D glasses, there is no ghosting, and the image is in full color. Each image format (including 2D) has its own advantages and disadvantages. Because side-by-side images will view smaller in order to have two images viewable, the details will be smaller as well. Some people prefer anaglyphs because the details are larger, no need to cross your eyes, and you can even scroll the image.
@Mary - You're welcome. I hope you find you enjoy fractals. :-)
@Brian - Yes, but you always have to have the glasses on to view it. I look forward to a day where we can do it without needing the glasses. I'm not against viewing, I'm against having to have the glasses on all the time or carry them around. I don't like carrying a purse of any kind. I hate the idea of having to carry a number of excess items. Avatar, like many other sci-fi/fantasy films, is also dramatic. I'm going based on what Hollywood considers it. On that aspect, you're preaching to the choir. Your OOF images are exceptional. Very few people do them well, to me, but I really enjoy yours. :-)
Thanks Roseann. I don't really have to carry 3D glasses around with me but it's no big deal to have them in the car if I want to hand them out to others. I only need the glasses at my computer when I view 3D images there. I put my 3D images all in the same folders so when I want to view a number of them I only have to put the glasses on and leave them on until I'm done viewing the images. I also find it easy to only hold the glasses up to my eyes rather than wear them for individual 3D selections. I honestly believe some people just can't get over the feeling of looking silly wearing 3D glasses even when they're alone in their own home. Amazing!
By the way, they do have viewing devices that allow one to view 3D stereo without the use of glasses. My 3D camera for instance has an LCD screen which acts similar to a lenticular screen. They also have larger screens or monitors that view the same way. They are expensive however. The 3D TVs for use without glasses are still being developed in several technologies but will be different than the lenticular method described above.
If I had a vote, I'd ask to watch *everything* in 3D -- action, drama, comedy, etc. I'm crazy for 3D, and would like to see the IMAX/3D version of every movie and all my favorite TV shows . . . at least until holographic films are the norm. :-)
Roseann - business is a competition. Movies, TV, phones, computers, what have you. They will do what they must to compete. I've never subscribed to cable TV or a cell phone, let alone a smart phone, but everyone has their own reasons. It doesn't mean something is always a fad. Supply and demand. Sometimes technology just takes time to be perfected to the point of popularity. And when something does fade or wane, it doesn't mean it always disappears. It just means those that like it provide a demand for it. If that demand is enough it survives but, they may still want it to be improved. And the cycle of competition repeats itself. I look at the new 3D technology as another step in a positive direction and I'm anxiously waiting for the next step instead of for the shoe to drop!
3D stereo has been around almost as long as photography itself. Competition forced the entertainment businesses to push technology forward. Then another competitor will be forced to try and get customers back to their side, and on and on. These things don't happen instantly and as they're perfecting one system and trying to build a standard, something else is being developed that may sway the market in another direction, and so on. Like many things, people will try to hold on to same ole same ole and things they understand and are use to. Meanwhile the next generation will be more open to newer ideas while culture slowly adapts and changes.
Brian - that's part of my point, though. Until you can do it without the need for glasses, it will be a fad. If you were to survey people my guess, and it's just that, is that the main reason for not wanting 3D or seeing 3D movies is because of the glasses. Hollywood will jump on a fad for the initial burst of profit that comes from it. But when they don't find it to be cost effective, they let will dump it. Hollywood has one of the most unique accounting systems there is.
Yes, the younger generations could probably care less about the need to wear the glasses and that's great! I don't go to the movies much at all any more. And now that the kids at MIT have finished figuring out how to get all the ketchup out of a bottle, they can now focus on something like this. I'm not trying to hold onto anything. I just stated, until they can do it without the need to wear the glasses, I'm not going out of my way to watch, buy or support it. That doesn't mean I don't think it should exist or that progress shouldn't be made in that area. I don't have cable, been without it for a few years now. I had no plans to get a new TV, I had a 20 year old Sony that was finally on it's way out. The only reason I wound up with a newer LCD TV is because I went to a friend's Jack and Jill and won a $10 raffle and got a new TV. Still don't have cable.
Actually this change would come about a lot more quickly if there was a big benefit to be had from 3D. Right now the focus is on action/scifi/fantasy type movies. But if you were to show that same benefit to drama and comedy, you'd see a larger focus on it. Right now TV doesn't benefit from it at all. The bottom line for them is most definitely the almighty dollar, so until they see a larger benefit profit-wise, it won't get as much attention.
The investment put into theaters by changing all their equipment to higher standard technology has gone far beyond "Fad", as across the nation many innovations have been installed in order to present 3D stereo in a newer better way. It has started a revolution of sorts, spawning the TV companies to answer with their own 3D stereo options. Fortunately for you, it's a choice in that you have the option to view only flat 2D if you so desire. Transition is difficult for some. Not everyone can view 3D since you must be able to see with two eyes and some folks have problems in that regard. They no longer require 3D stereos to be in the anaglyph format. Packaged plastic polarized glasses are now used in theaters which are recycled and are not cardboard with colored filters and the viewer having to put up with ghosting and alignment problems if one slouches. It's the most realistic 3D experience next to your own vision that folks can experience. It's not going away. It is however improving and changing to meet the needs of the market place.
Transition is difficult for some, but I hope that's not directed at me specifically. Because if so, I'm going to be laughing for a while on that one. With things like this, I roll with the flow. It doesn't have a huge impact on my day-to-day life, so it's not a huge worry. I've made some observations here, is all.
The only reason I saw Avatar in 3D was because a friend wanted to go with a large group and I said I would go. I haven't bothered with any of the other 3D movies as it's not that exciting for me. I never bothered much with IMAX either. When it becomes the norm, if I still do an occasional movie, I might see it. However, since the viewing experience at home is much better and less annoying, I tend to wait until movie are out on HBO or Netflix.
I don't know if 3D is a fad or not - and care less. I do remember my mom and dad drove over 100 miles to go see South Pacific in "surround" sound - which wasn't totally surround but was certainly about five screens that arced into a half moon or thereabouts. I saw Cleopatra with Burton and Elizabeth in that same sort of surround. then the screens have shrunk back down to smaller than outdoor theater size - they have the bells and whistles of digital magic and sound - but not the sight of being able to see them coming from the side. Three D won't last - JMHO - it's too expensive and there be few that truly care. Personally - I'd rather read the book.
Yes, of course some companies will try and take the shortcut when jumping on the bandwagon, but seriously, it's very difficult to get funding for films in Hollywood which limits what some films are able to accomplish. We're hoping the audience gets wise to this and it will dwindle down on conversions which (usually) are lacking in the finished result when compared to films actually being shot in 3D stereo. BTW, I hope you didn't just look for all negative critiques on 3D stereo films and ignore the positive. That might seem a little one sided and misleading. Remember that this new 3D technology is just really getting off the ground. Anything new is bound to have some drawbacks or roadblocks for a while.
No, don't take it personally... I'm not referring to you but in generalities when talking about "Transition is difficult for some". Like I said, you generally have a choice when viewing for either 2D or 3D.
I wish I liked to read Roy, but I would rather see a movie than read a book. BTW, as mentioned previously 3D HAS lasted even with poor technology. The entire market place is now competing for 3D. Everything is more expensive in the beginning until there's more competition to drive down prices. I remember when a cd writer was $6000. It wasn't that long ago that laptops averaged $2400. Now you can get them for under $400. Nothing happens over night.
I'm 38... well, I am in imminent danger of turning 39, so I sort of came into my own as an artist right upon the precipice of digital art also coming into its own. Now I was first and foremost a traditional artist, trained in the traditional Italian Renaissance and Flemish methods of oil painting, but many years ago I began experimenting with digital painting. I bought myself a Wacom Intuos tablet and went to work.
I found working within PhotoShop to be immensely appealing, and the painting to be so flexible, forgiving and malleable that soon I was using PhotoShop exclusively to execute all of my sketches and color studies for my oil paintings. The process goes so much faster and I can churn out a greater quantity of quality work. In my instance at least I have come to find that digital art and traditional art are inextricably linked to the extent that for me both methods accentuate and highlight the other.
Here's an example of a digital sketch that I made into an oil painting. On the top is the digital version, and below is the oil...
Hmmm... I think I like the digital version better. :^(
@Roy - I do both, I read and see the movies. In most cases, naturally, the book is better.
@Brian - I Googled "How many movies are being made in 3D" and "How many movies have been made in 3D since 2000." Those are the majority of what I found. Avatar gave it a resurgence, but most people are not really jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe they are waiting for the next evolution of 3D. As long as there is profit, Hollywood will make it.
@Mark - The colors appear to be more rich in the oil painting than the digital. But the digital is a sketch, yes? So if you were to finish the digital painting, I wonder how that would look? Have you ever tried Corel Painter? It really does a great job simulating traditional media.
Roseann - Hello! I also do some much more finished work digitally, though for the most part the digital work is sort of a vehicle to further my oil painting... or so I like to think. I do own Corel Painter XII but I have the worst time getting it to work, though yes, I do agree the possibilities are endless with this program. If I had a Mac I don't doubt for a moment that I would be using Painter exclusively, though unfortunately I have a Windows PC, that while exceptionally powerful, is terribly buggy when using Painter. Primarily it crashes constantly. PhotoShop performs extremely well and is very stable, but it has its limits with it's meager assortment of brushes.
Here's a couple of examples of more finished digital paintings...
Also in answer to one of the original poster's questions, I don't think I prefer one media over the other, digital over oil, or visa versa. I am in love with the aspects of both of them, and for me they sort of overlap and intertwine as it were.
Hi Mark - that's funny because I have never owned a MAC or am I likely ever to. I build my own PC's and they are all Windows PCs. Sounds like something is causing Painter to crash, but unless you know something about PC's it's going to be difficult to find out.
Those are fantastic paintings! The first two seem related. They have similar coloring and composition. Very life like people. The third one looks like an oil painting. All beautifully done.
Wow, I stepped out for a day, and you guys kept going....
@ Mark or anybody else - tell me about the program "Painter". I do have a Mac book and I love it (worked on Mac at work for about 15 years and then had to switch to Windows, which I still hate - Mac is SOOOO much better).
Anyway, I was considering getting a tablet, but only if it's useful for editing photos as well as drawing.
@ Brian. I have looked at your stuff before and wished I had some 3D glasses to better appreciate it. As for IMAX - I can't do IMAX. Every time there is an action sequence, I get violently ill even though I don't get seasick or airsick in real life. Just can't do IMAX.
Mary and Anyone interested... Some 3D web sites offer all kinds of 3D glasses. I actually recommend the simple cardboard variety. Some sites even offer a pair for free. They are cheap and you can order different amounts per package. I went too cheap one time by ordering from "Oriental Trading" and the glasses had glue on the filters. I would recommend these higher standard 3D web sites...
Make sure the filtered lenses are Red and Cyan. (The most common method and variety today).
On several occasions I was able to obtain plenty of free 3D stereo anaglyph glasses when there was a promotion going on. One example was a special on the Grammys for Michael Jackson.
Spy Kids 3D used the Red/Cyan glasses. I went to a half price theater and asked if they had any left over and they gave me a box of them. I've been giving them away to my anaglyph friends and acquaintances that are interested in viewing 3D.
This is the application that I feel best simulates traditional media. A large number of people use it for photo manipulation, so they can call it a "painting." However, people that actually paint with it, can get some most amazing results.
I did this in Painter using the Impressionism brush. I had a lot of fun too.
Mary -- if you purchase even the smallest low cost tablet -- a Bamboo, for example --80. or less -- depending on where you buy...you'll find having a tablet stylus in your hand just like using a pen or pencil on paper if you give yourself time to get used to the movements.
For me, drawing, or editing with a mouse feels comparable to dragging around a building brick size 'pencil' or pen -- brush, etc.
By the way -- lost in my post way back when -- the robin that hit our window -- after a couple of hours rest in a nice dark box and a beak full of grated apple -- stabbed vigorously at my hand to let me know he was A-OK -- & flew up and away :)
Thanks, Roseanne, Brian and Carmen. I'll take a look at the video and the links when I get home - I'm at work right now and only able to drop in occasionally.
I know what you mean about editing with a mouse, Carmen. I took the background out from behind a flower once in a photo. When I was editing close to the flower, I had to blow it way up to avoid problems and it took forever. Glad your birdy recovered by the way. I nursed 3 nest-less bluejays once. They fell out pre-flight feathers. Fed them dog food with a baby spoon for a week until they could fly off on their own.
Roseann ~ Haha, you've got me all fired up to break out Painter again and give it a try! That's a very impressive piece (pun intended)! I also build my own PCs and have for some time (I like the flexibility and the ability to upgrade parts rather than having to replace an entire computer every three or fours years. I'm unsure why my version of Painter is so buggy... it may be that it is conflicting with some software on the PC, but a couple of months ago I completely reinstalled Windows. I haven't tried Painter since then, so perhaps whatever the conflict was has now been eliminated. I shall try it again soon.
You've a good eye for continuity... those two pieces I posted are from a 12-piece series I called "The Forest" - http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/mark-zelmer.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=304489 The original intention was to paint all of these pieces in oil on large 48" x 40" canvases, but then I realized in hindsight that no one would ever buy such weird paintings under any circumstances ever.
Brian - please name one thing today that has lower costs because of competition. certainly not gasoline - not the electric company nor the computer industry nor the the telephone company - vegetables - every grocery around here gets their groceries from the same folks - Walmart - the largest grocer has absolutely no effect on the other three large grocery chains. ALL of their prices are higher - usually by about 10% or more - sure - it's because Walmart is the big gorilla that outbuys everyone else - just like MacDonalds can still offer 99¢ burgers while Wendy's has gone up to over $3. There is really no such thing as competition in some industry - the government simply created regional monopolies - true of electric companies. I sit right on the dividing line between my electric co-op and the oldest electric co. in Florida - our bills, the house across the street - is essentially the same as mine. and if it were less, or mine were less - we cannot cross the street and join the other electric company. The price of automobiles is not less because of competition between Ford, Toyota, Honda, and government motors. The only thing that lowers the cost of anything is the supply vs the demand.
You would think the POD's would be in competition with each other - they are not - and not one of them has caused the cost of another to go down. The fear is always - if THEY can charge that much - we can too.
and, my regrets to Roseann - but that looks like photo manipulation not painting with a paintbrush.
Mary ~ I could not recommend getting a tablet strongly enough, and as Carmen stated, the affordable Wacom Bamboo would more than satisfy all of your needs for both photo editing and photo manipulation, and also, while the Bamboo is not packed to the brim with features like the Intuos (features which are seldom used anyway) you can absolutely paint and draw with it in a program like Corel Painter and produce amazing results.
I had a look at your portfolio (which is splendid by the way!) and it looks like you enjoy doing some mixed media and collage work... you would LOVE doing these digitally! Here's kind of an example of mine of a piece I did recently just for fun... I took a photograph of a weathered piece of aluminum plate and imported it into PhotoShop, then hand wrote the song lyrics on top of this, then finally drew the whale on top of all of the other layers.
I also collaborate with a friend from Ontario, Canada who is a photographer. She emails me photos which I then import into PhotoShop and then use my tablet to hand paint in some creature, person, or artifact. We call this collaboration "Flock of Marys." Here are a couple of examples:
Let us know if you get a tablet and start producing some masterpieces!
Roy, the debate you're inviting me into would be very long and tedious and I get the feeling you've already made your mind up about it, plus it would also open up political discussion which I hate with a passion and is probably still frowned upon here at FAA. The only thing I might suggest is that certain things you mentioned (gas) is a political catch all for taxes which includes cigarettes (and I don't even smoke). Other utilities are often regulated, preventing them from charging less than they would like, and I would guess more than they would like. Other considerations, especially on new and even not so new technology is the long drawn out, ongoing legalities and red tape of ISO standardization which affects all the competitors of said technology. I would have to say that we must agree to disagree on the opinion you stated above. (Thanks for playing).
@Mark - Since you have a fresh install, now would be a good time to reinstall Painter and give it a try. Depending upon your security/antivirus software, it might need to be configured to work with Painter. I have the Cintiq. It makes my life much easier. The Forest is a great series! And you never know who will buy what. Really nice work on that series. The collaborations you posted "Flock of Mary's" are so cool. The bathroom one is hysterical. I can see that.
@Roy - Nope. No photo underneath there. This place exists in my head and now in that painting. Can't photo a place that doesn't exist. The paintbrush was the pen of the Cintiq tablet I use, the paint was the pixels of the program that was used, which was Corel Painter and some Photoshop. Lots of layers were used. But no photo.