Dragonball Ecks

Snail · Post by **Snail** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:09 pm

DemonKingPiccolo wrote:
I agree, but I hate how pencils and general traditional art is going out now. Everyone is into that digital crap, I don't even think you can call yourself a real artist if that's your base used to make your pictures look good or better then your original drawn copy. There are some good pictures out there on DiviantART, but the only reason they look better then regular penciled and inked pictures is because they have been digitally modified. As far as I'm concerned, adding a digital element to your work is both unfair to artists who go the traditional route, and it serves as a lazy shortcut in order to heighten your status as an artist. And to me, digital modification is quite literally: a steroid for art.

But of course usually I can spot originally drawn elements in digitally modified pics that I find tweaked wrong, or the perspective looks off... That's what makes these people look lazy to me: their drawn pic is off so they distract people from the flaws in their hand drawn work by adding digital elements.

That's why I enjoy the artwork of Pandora, none of it is modified digitally, even if some of it is weird like oversized parts in order to heighten the appeal of the picture. Lots of comic artists due that, they over-extend joints and stuff like that to make the visual element more appealing to the viewer or reader.

Nicely said. One of the reasons why I've been extremely skeptical about my future with an art career is because everything revolves around photoshop, bla bla etc. etc. I've never gotten the chance to improve those skills.

DemonKingPiccolo · Post by **DemonKingPiccolo** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:37 pm

Snail wrote:
DemonKingPiccolo wrote:
I agree, but I hate how pencils and general traditional art is going out now. Everyone is into that digital crap, I don't even think you can call yourself a real artist if that's your base used to make your pictures look good or better then your original drawn copy. There are some good pictures out there on DiviantART, but the only reason they look better then regular penciled and inked pictures is because they have been digitally modified. As far as I'm concerned, adding a digital element to your work is both unfair to artists who go the traditional route, and it serves as a lazy shortcut in order to heighten your status as an artist. And to me, digital modification is quite literally: a steroid for art.

But of course usually I can spot originally drawn elements in digitally modified pics that I find tweaked wrong, or the perspective looks off... That's what makes these people look lazy to me: their drawn pic is off so they distract people from the flaws in their hand drawn work by adding digital elements.

That's why I enjoy the artwork of Pandora, none of it is modified digitally, even if some of it is weird like oversized parts in order to heighten the appeal of the picture. Lots of comic artists due that, they over-extend joints and stuff like that to make the visual element more appealing to the viewer or reader.
Nicely said. One of the reasons why I've been extremely skeptical about my future with an art career is because everything revolves around photoshop, bla bla etc. etc. I've never gotten the chance to improve those skills.

You speak the truth, I worship DaVinci amongst other historical artists of that time, they didn't have the convinience of photoshop or anything, but they did brilliant artwork. Proves how lazy humanity has become as a result of this new technology. I also have questioned a possible future in art, art isn't what it used to be, even animated movies now are rarely cel animated. It's all digital. Digitalizing takes the fun out of art, with the digital element, there is no challenge anymore. Challenges can be frustrating, but it's worth the struggle because that's what makes it fun, and there's no feeling greater then having the ability in the end to truly say, "I made this" without having that little demon in the back of your mind saying "But of course I used photoshop to help me" .

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:38 pm

I agree completely. Technology drastically unbalances the playing field for real artists. I mean erasers?! Fuck, that's not real art.

DemonKingPiccolo · Post by **DemonKingPiccolo** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:46 pm

I'm starting a new thread on this, this topic is getting a bit off subject now

New Thread:
http://db.schuby.org/daizex/viewtopic.p ... 966#147966

BlueSky · Post by **Kaboom** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:28 pm

DemonKingPiccolo wrote:I'm starting a new thread on this, this topic is getting a bit off subject now

New Thread:
http://db.schuby.org/daizex/viewtopic.p ... 966#147966

I coulda warned you it wouldn't last the hour... So I'll put my response here instead.

"Traditional" Art has been around for millennia. It's not going anywhere. True, the advent of the computer has caused a bit of competition for it, but mostly because it's just easier, and people these days like things that are easy.

As an artist, I'm capable of and like to use both. I'm just as comfortable with a tablet pen as I am a paintbrush, and probably just as good. I've been in the process of self-teaching myself Photoshop for the last year or so.

But I've got to say, the feeling of finishing an easily-editable, all-the-work-done-for-you-automatically, digital piece pales in comparison to the feeling of finishing a piece of traditional artwork. Not having instantly adjustable tools, or an "Undo" button to instantly repair your mistakes means it requires a lot more care, planning, and dedication, and the satisfaction in completing something is that much greater. I've got a piece of Christmas fanart in the works, which I plan to do in watercolors (real watercolors). It's gonna probably take a whole week or so to complete, rather than the average day or two it takes me to color something in Photoshop.

Not to say digital art should be TOTALLY shunned. Heck, even with tradition art, I use it to fix mistakes. It's really handy in that regard. I don't want to end up having a stray drop of water ruin a character's face or anything.

Godo · Post by **Godo** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:52 pm

I say the following: People that use photoshop when doing art are actually beginners. It takes a lot of practice to make real paintings and to learn how to use the colors in the best way.
Not many of the big artists were self-learned.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:59 pm

Godo wrote:I say the following: People that use photoshop when doing art are actually beginners. It takes a lot of practice to make real paintings and to learn how to use the colors in the best way.
Not many of the big artists were self-learned.

Hahaha. Holy shit. All I heard there was "damn kids, get off my lawn". Did you miss my 'eraser' post, or are you just really that insecure? Computers are just tools. Like pencils, erasers, paint, canvas, and cameras. You honestly can't think that a specific tool invalidates art. Seriously? How is Photoshop different than a paintbrush? I'm sure, at the time, they were looked at suspiciously too: "Hmmph, he's not a real artist. Real artists use burnt sticks".

Do you say the same thing about colour films, too?

Godo · Post by **Godo** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:36 pm

desirecampbell wrote:
Godo wrote:I say the following: People that use photoshop when doing art are actually beginners. It takes a lot of practice to make real paintings and to learn how to use the colors in the best way.
Not many of the big artists were self-learned.
Hahaha. Holy shit. All I heard there was "damn kids, get off my lawn". Did you miss my 'eraser' post, or are you just really that insecure? Computers are just tools. Like pencils, erasers, paint, canvas, and cameras. You honestly can't think that a specific tool invalidates art. Seriously? How is Photoshop different than a paintbrush? I'm sure, at the time, they were looked at suspiciously too: "Hmmph, he's not a real artist. Real artists use burnt sticks".

Do you say the same thing about colour films, too?

I use photoshop myself and I'm pretty good at it, but I don't see it as an achievement if I make work with it, mainly because of that you can erase mistakes with photoshop.
Real art has its flaws. Plus in a painting as an example, you can see the artists work with each draw he/she has made with the pencil/paintbrush ect.
Art made on photoshop doesn't look alive at all and is not appealing for my eyes.
Anyone can make a scetch and master photoshop. Not as many people can master painting for real.
And to add, someone that can make beautiful art with only one medium only, like with pencil only, is a true artist in my eyes.
The beauty of art is how you express yourself with limitations. Photoshop takes away all the limitations, which makes it not as appealing for me.
And yes, I think that if you manage to make a great black and white cartoon and make it better than a colored cartoon, then you are a genius and talented. The same for black and white films.

So it's a personal opinion. No need to have hard feelings against one persons opinion.
I'm not an old geezer, I am from the same generation as you. It's just that I have a more specific opinion on what's art and what's not.
Sure you can agree on that what you think is art is individual? Can you also agree that all works are not art?

Yeah, I missed your "erasers" post.

Big Momma · Post by **Big Momma** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:01 pm

This is how I see it. Art is art.
I know people who are complete and utter wizards at photoshop who can make the most incredible things I've ever seen on it, but when they pick up a pencil, etc....its...not...as good.
I'm not sure where, but i saw the word "art" tossed around somewhere in here.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art

Granted, it does say that art includes paintings, scultputres, and/or drawings. However, art is more than just that, it has many forms, such as dance. Art is really just what the first definition says, it is just a way to express what one thinks is beautiful. And I think that using photoshop, etc. is a form of art, but shouldn't be catogorized with the art that uses pencils, paint, etc. I can draw pretty well with a pencil, but I can't color with paints and everything worth a crap. Thats why sometimes I like to load up a drawing in paint( I don't have PS or anything, and I'm working on GIMP) and just touch it up a bit, and I have to say, when you paint it on the computer, it looks a lot nicer than when you do it by hand. But I also believe that when you make mistakes by hand and they show in the finsihed piece, it helps show how hard you worked to make that piece of art. Both have they're advantages and disadvantages, so to each his own I guess!

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:46 pm

Godo wrote:I use photoshop myself and I'm pretty good at it, but I don't see it as an achievement if I make work with it, mainly because of that you can erase mistakes with photoshop.
Real art has its flaws. Plus in a painting as an example, you can see the artists work with each draw he/she has made with the pencil/paintbrush ect.
Art made on photoshop doesn't look alive at all and is not appealing for my eyes.
Anyone can make a scetch and master photoshop. Not as many people can master painting for real.
And to add, someone that can make beautiful art with only one medium only, like with pencil only, is a true artist in my eyes.
The beauty of art is how you express yourself with limitations. Photoshop takes away all the limitations, which makes it not as appealing for me.
And yes, I think that if you manage to make a great black and white cartoon and make it better than a colored cartoon, then you are a genius and talented. The same for black and white films.

So it's a personal opinion. No need to have hard feelings against one persons opinion.
I'm not an old geezer, I am from the same generation as you. It's just that I have a more specific opinion on what's art and what's not.
Sure you can agree on that what you think is art is individual? Can you also agree that all works are not art?

Yeah, I missed your "erasers" post.

Photoshop takes away some limitations, but you said yourself that it creates a stale, lifeless piece. That is a "limitation". By your own logic (art is art because of limitations), Photoshop creates art.

I'm fine with you not liking specific art styles, but Photoshop isn't an art style - it's just a tool. Exactly like a paintbrush or a palate knife. You can use it to create different forms of art, in different styles.

Godo · Post by **Godo** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 am

Even though I am open to different styles and methods, I'm a little bit conservative when it comes to art.

Chuquita · Post by **Chuquita** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:52 am

I mainly use those clicky pencils when drawing. :3
I can draw with a mouse but I find it more difficult to use. Easier to erase with a mouse though.

I inked my art a while back, but I've pretty much given up on that method. And while I love using stuff like actual paint and colored pencils; rarely do traditional art mediums transfer well via scanner onto the computer. The last time I used colored pencils the scanner murdered the look of it. TT_TT (It was an DA id I believe).

I actually really like coloring using PaintShop Pro, I can do some shiny, very cool stuff with it.

So, yeah. Drawing = traditional mediums. Coloring = digital mediums.

Tamagon · Post by **Tamagon** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:54 pm

Why are we talking about art.

baragon_kun · Post by **baragon_kun** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:21 pm

By the way, how about the Echii Art, no, I'm not talking about the Hentai art, but there´s some Good Echii Art too

Like this one for example

http://baragon-kun.deviantart.com/art/C ... Y-59016272

also here is one of my earlier artworks, yes I Know is a trace, but it was popular

http://baragon-kun.deviantart.com/art/A ... i-35958933

And Here is some good Stuff

http://glee-chan.deviantart.com/art/DBZ ... s-68148229

http://the-chichi-club.deviantart.com/a ... y-37701620

Some Nice Stuff Right?

Rocketman · Post by **Rocketman** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:18 pm

Tamagon wrote:Why are we talking about art.

Talk about Chichi being banged by Rocketman or some other wierd hentai you look at.

I am unsure how to feel about this.

Li'l Lemmy · Post by **Li'l Lemmy** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:01 am

Tamagon wrote:Why are we talking about art.

Talk about Chichi being banged by Rocketman or some other wierd hentai you look at.

The thread moved into a fascinating area of discussion through a rather natural evolution, so I'm not sure I'd count it as off-topic as . . . say, randomly throwing in something about Goku vs. Superman. But at the same time, I suppose the thread was made specifically for . . . er, (the discussion of) porn. So I'm not sure what direction is best in which for this to go. Wasn't a new thread created for the artistic aspect that's emerged?

I haven't been posting, but I have been watching, and in doing so I'm actually rather surprised that "DragonBall Ecks" has lasted for this long without undoing itself to utter chaos and a Big Ban Attack . . . but then again, it's not as though everyone hasn't been (mostly) mature in discussing the topic. The thread actually looks somewhat professional in its discussion! I ain't a moderator, though, so my opinion means jack shit in that particular instance.

Rocketman wrote:I am unsure how to feel about this.

Oh, please. You aren't fooling anyone, you maniac.

~Da Lemmy

Rocketman · Post by **Rocketman** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:08 pm

Li'l Lemmy wrote:
Rocketman wrote:I am unsure how to feel about this.
Oh, please. You aren't fooling anyone, you maniac.

I resemble that remark.

Super Sonic · Post by **Super Sonic** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:24 pm

Not quite ecchi, but did once find a pic some thought of Goku's wedding night here:

http://annakiyah.deviantart.com/art/Nev ... re-7535396

Was put on another forum's joke thread and had one of Goku assuming she had monsters coming out of her chest and she was annoyed with him.

Suupaa Gohan 2 · Post by **Suupaa Gohan 2** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:33 pm

Super Sonic wrote:Not quite ecchi, but did once find a pic some thought of Goku's wedding night here:

http://annakiyah.deviantart.com/art/Nev ... re-7535396

Was put on another forum's joke thread and had one of Goku assuming she had monsters coming out of her chest and she was annoyed with him.

It really makes sense, though, when you consider his reactions to Bulma and everything during his childhood, and the fact that he was 18 when they got married and really hadn't changed, like, at all. Granted after having two children and living with the woman for so long one couldn't say Gokou was totally 'innocent' anymore, but the Doujinshi that always show him to be this sex-hungry macho dude really ignore the base of his character, and that pisses me off, especially when he's either A) violently screwing his wife B) violently screwing the Saiyajin Prince who is also painted to be this moaning screaming uke or C) him being the moaning screaming uke while being screwed by an asexual green alien.

Super Sonic · Post by **Super Sonic** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:50 pm

I don't know what an uke is, but from the way you mentioned it, I probably don't want to know.