CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

hey Everyone! CR HERE With a question/poll thing.

Recently, I downloaded gimp, and I am learning to color things digitally.. however, I noticed something about coloring digitally.

some of the effects you creat...aren't all because of one's natural talent. (talking about filters and stuff) I mean sure it takes talent to now where to put them...but is it the same as actually designing it yourself?

Maybe I am wrong, and just used to doing everything by hand...but...does it feel like cheating to anyone? To color digitally? (I don't want debates, and I am not bashing digital coloring at all! In fact, I think it's very beautiful, and quite possibly the next era of Art. )

I dunno It might be because I am new, I am not saying it's easy...it's not easy... but yeah, just curious!

also which do you preger? Digital or Traditional?

Well, I wouldn't really call it a lack of talent, you have to use the filters well, and know how and when to use them. And things that would take hours can be done in moments. As long as it is well done, in my opinion, Digital art can be more productive.

o.o i use both equally...

I think, if you don’t already have the talent to draw and create with you own two hands.
Then you really couldn’t draw on a computer to began with.

Think about it CR.
Take something as simple, as knowing, how a human body, is proportioned.
If you didn’t already know that would a computer help that much?

Now, I know where you are coming form.
I felt the same way when I started drawing on my comp.

But look at it this way.
We all use tools for our art.
A painter will use a specific brush for painting his clouds and trees. If he didn’t use that brush his art wouldn’t look as good.

And as to your poll I can’t pick. Sorry I love both.

I use both on an equal and consistant basis... even merge them together... can't choose, sorry.

To quote a proverb from one of my design professors,
"Knowing how to type does not make you a good writer. Knowing Photoshop doesn't make you a great artist."

I think you have to have some level of proficiency with hands-on media--at least a head knowledge of the way shadows work and shading, etc.--to be truly effective in the digital realm, but at the same time digital media helps TREMENDOUSLY with those of us like myself who KNOW what to do but can't get our hands to work.

I may be working with a 3d program soon so I hope I will be able to learn some digital art. As for the question I love traditional art, but currently my inntrest is with digital art.

This sounds a bit like an argument used against photography by traditional artists when the camera first came around. "Well it's not art because ANYONE can click a button and get a picture of a flower!"

Wrong. :3 You have to know how to position the camera, how to frame your subject, not to mention the technical aspects of focusing the camera an capturing the correct amount of light. In the same way, I think digital art is NOT easier simply because you have filters and spiffy Photoshop tricks. Sure they may make some things easier, but the need for a knowledge and a knack for traditional art is still there.

You have to know proportions, as WhiteRaven mentioned. Perspective, shading, how to correctly utilize the tools in your program are also crucial to creating a piece of art.

I do most of my artwork digitally, simply because it's cheaper than buying traditional media (which I would learn, had I the time and money). And to be honest? I try to stay away from filters as far as possible. I learned early on they can make you a bit lazy, and if you don't know how to use them to your advantage, their presence can actually detract from your work!

I get all traditional and elitist sometimes--but that's only to hide that I can't handle anything digital and am jealous of those who can. ^__~

I actually prefer a hybrid. Pencil it the traditional way, ink it, then scan it in and colour it using the computer.

But since I can only pencil, I am mono-skilled and thus unable to fully appreciate the beauty of creating digital art.

I echo White Raven's thoughts on the matter.

Ultra Magnus wrote:I actually prefer a hybrid. Pencil it the traditional way, ink it, then scan it in and colour it using the computer.

I have come to really like that method too. I find for sketching my hand just doesn't work nearly as well with a mouse as it does with a pencil.

I voted Digital because I use that more often and I'm probably better at it, however, I enjoy both of them very much.

Digital art can be very pretty, but I think there's just something special about traditional art that makes me appreciate it more. Of course, both are fine mediums and if someone liked Digital art above traditional art I wouldn't necessarily think them less of an artist. ^^

My only pet peeve would be if traditional art was eliminated completely (like seems to be the case with traditional animations)

EEK! OH..I really didn't mean that it wasn't as good as traditional art WR and KD!!! I am so sorry you thought I was downing DA!!! I am not!! I told you I really appreciate it!! And I want to learn how to do it better!! ^^; I am sorry...I hope I didn't mean to make you feel bad.

Of course you need to know where to put everything....that takes talent in the art aspect...I knew that....

*feels bad...*

KD, WR, you guys have some interesting points.

I can't vote in this poll because I like them both the same. Both take different skills and different methods of creating art. Both are enjoyable to me.

my answer: I LIKE BOTH!

Which do I use more? Digital. Which do I wish I was better at? Traditional. True, filters and other digital shortcuts help speed up results, but trained eyes easily spot the amateur from the advanced. Like many here, I use both cooperatively. The digital artists I find truly amazing are the ones which can make a photoshop drawing, look like a real oil or gouache painting. And no, there isn't a filter which can really do that.

I was talking to an older artist once, and he really kind of pushed my buttons in some ways. He's a great traditional artist, but he said that creating computer graphics was neither artistic nor creative. He said, "Well, you're not really creating anything." That made me a bit mad, although I didn't say anything to him.

Like others, I've used a combination of both and enjoy both. Depending on what you do with them, I think they can take a more or less equal amount of work. Of course, that depends on the complexity of the piece you're working on.

Digital art is simply a new medium. Similar to how charcoal, pencil, acrylics, oils, gouache, ink, etc. all look *completely* different and some work better than others for artists. I know that personally, I am hopeless with charcoal and pretty good with ink, while painting is somewhere in the middle ground ^^;

Yup, digital programs do allow for all sorts of fancy pants effects, but anyone how has ever used on can immediately recognize filters. I believe that digital art remains extremely competitive against others of it's kind and it shouldn't be compared to most traditional mediums. Similar to how you wouldn't compare a sculpture to a painting. They're both good, but rather different.

And in the end, traditional art wins out for me because a sketchbook is way more portable than a laptop ^^

[quote="ChristianRonin"]EEK! OH..I really didn't mean that it wasn't as good as traditional art WR and KD!!! I am so sorry you thought I was downing DA!!! I am not!! I told you I really appreciate it!! And I want to learn how to do it better!! ^^]
Oh, I didn't think it sounded like that at all, I was simply addressing your post with the reasons digital art and traditional art can work in the same way - I was fully aware you weren't trying to down anyone. Please don't worry about it, I'm sorry if I sounded hostile in my post.

And Kneko brings up something that's been haunting me for a while - it would be terribly sad to see traditional art go the way of the dinosaurs. I have no experience with most traditional mediums, but I appreciate them deeply and anyone who can create something beautiful without the use of an "undo" button is amazing in my book. I say this has been haunting me because we're living in an era where traditional darkroom photography doesn't seem to be getting the same respect as traditional art, and looks like it's going out. *sniffle* A lot of photo companies are starting to discontinue their film SLR cameras in favor of digital. My dad keeps telling me I'm a dying breed. D: I think he might be right. (XD oh no, looks like I can be a traditional elitist too!)

I finally voted on the traditional side, since all of the underlying work for my digital pieces is done using traditional techniques AND that I have notisced that I do better digital work when I know the medium I am working in in the traditional method first.

I like Digital Art just fine, and I think it's got plenty of good points, but I prefer paint and brush, or other assorted utensils, for art. If it's something your mass producing, then using things like photo-shop and other things are fine, but I think that if you don't pour every bit of sweat and energy into a piece, then your not doing justice to the piece. Of course, I'm very traditionalist when it comes to art (I refuse to acknowledge Modern and Post-Modern Art as art, seeing as I stay mostly with the Classics or the artists of the Enlightenment) so thats just me. There is something to be said for putting all of your sweat and blood into even the most minute details, and I think it shows. Also, I haven't seen a gimp produced picture that could shade to the smallest detail as well as someone with good art utensils.


But thats just me.


P.S. All of this is ironic when it comes to light that I'm actually working on a piece Digitally. Of course, it's only a doodle, but....Eh. >.<


P.P.S And it's just plain sad when people figure out that I only do pencil and Pen art anyway....


P.P.P.S. And that I'm not an artist.... -.~

Well, that's assuming that filters actually make a picture. http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12764980/

Also, professional artists hardly use filters at all.

Both have their qualities, and both require a good degree of knowledge and skill in order to come up with a satisfactory piece. So I can't vote on either option.

The term Art doesn't seem to have a standardized definition... It has sort of become this term people use to differentiate between things they like and things they don't like, or between things that are entertaining and things that are merely status-raising... I hate that term, now... It's so divisive and abused and completely drained of all meaning... It is a term used either arrogantly or dirisively to raise or lower the status of something (IE "This movie is definately art" or "Yeah, it's one of those 'art' movies")

And to answer your question, I think I like all media (sculpture, modeling, painting, drawing, music, film, television, radio, puppets, felt boards, slide shows, photographs, cell based animation, digital cell animation, 3d CG animation, clay animation, other creative forms of animation such as the sand art in Miracle Maker, video novels, video games, interactive movies, digital paint, etc) the same... Or, at least, think they all have equal potential, albeit some are better used for some purposes and others for others, but these differences are small. I am removing the term art from my normal conversation and reserve it in that section of words that I only refer to to say I hate them, and say you can get great and wonderfull things out of all of those media, as well as horrible things, as well as mediocre things... Whether it's made for one person or mass produced primarily to make hundreds of millions of dollars, neither one inherently stops it from being good. So, that's my view.

I actually use both forms of art quite often, so I can't really choose one over the other. I can say, though, that I usually finish my traditional pictures MUCH faster than my digital ones. Digitally painting a picture is pretty tough, especially when you're working through all those layers and colors and opacities and...gyah! A lot of people have tons of respect for traditional artists, and not as much for digital art, and I think that's wrong. They're both art, they both make awesome pictures that were made by a certain artist, and they both take an equal amount of knowlege and talent to create. Think about it...A digital picture, before it can be colored, must actually look good on paper first, before it can be spruced up with Photoshop. In other words, if someone couldn't draw, but colored their creations digitally, it wouldn't really look that great, since the talent wasn't there to begin with. So yeah, I didn't vote for either option, since I couldn't choose. XD I'll just say both for now!

Traditional vs digital: It's just a bit different, really... Though, I would say digital is more "cheating" than doing it the traditional way