Another new face

New Member greetings & introductions
Hi, guys. I'm Dan Zoernig.

   

   This is one of my first posts here. I have been lurking for a bit, and am very impressed with the knowledge and interest that you all have in this topic. I am hoping to learn something on here.

   

   I have been creating aviation illustrations for about 7 years using digital photography and photoshop as my standard tools. I can??   t draw and I can??   t paint, but I??   m not letting that get in my way. I love warbirds and as a Photoshop jockey in my day job since 1995, I decided to put my background as a photographer to work with my affinity for these aircraft and the men who flew them.

   

   My style is somewhat different from that of the other digital artists on here who use simulator programs to render the work. Those guys have produced some pretty amazing stuff and there is no doubt that what they do, what I do, and what guys like Wade Meyers do is art. The end result is an image that tells a story and evokes an emotion. Art is art. The only difference is in the tools used.

   

   My own style is to build up a 1/48 scale model of a given subject. I paint it silver and then digitally photograph it with a Phase One camera back on a Hasselblad body with a Hassey lens. The chip gives me a 63mb file (before cropping) and can capture it in 16 bit. This allows me to do all the coloring in Photoshop, and gives me enough pixel depth to move the color from silver to OD or anything that I want to. I can also adjust the color to reflect whatever is is going on around the subject. It is critical to select the environment first, then drop in the cut out image of the a/c. Backgrounds once upon a time were created in Bryce, but now are actual photographs that I either take myself, or purchase the rights to use. As I got further into this, I determined that digitally rendered backgrounds didn??   t produce the look I wanted.

   

   I??   ve been fortunate enough to have at least one traditional artist, Jack Fellows, comment that my work was on par with his own, but a quick look at his website will show that this is not the case. He is a fantastic artist, and while it was extremely good of him to pay me the compliment, I can in no way consider myself to be in the same league. However, I??   ve done a number of projects with Bud Anderson, and he seems to like the work, so I guess I??   m doing OK. I??   ve also been contacted by Mrs. Chuck Yeager to do a piece, but have been sort of warned off by some folks to avoid that and have taken the advice. Some on here may get my drift.

   

   Anyway, I have the utmost respect for the traditional oil and canvas guys on here because what they do is incredible. I have the luxury of trying something and then starting over without having to wipe paint off canvas. I can do it over and over again until I get it right. I just don??   t see how guys like Wade can do what the do as well as they do the first time around. Amazing. I try to emulate their work by producing something that is digital but has a painterly quality to it. I??   ll let you decide. Posted is one of my latest images, Finger Four, which was created at 12x44 inches at 300dpi, making for a 300mb file with layers flattened. With layers, it was about 700mb and really left my old Mac out of breath, but hopefully I??   ll sell a few prints.

   

   http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r52/photoshopjockey/FINGERFOUR.jpg

   

   http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r52/photoshopjockey/oldcrow.jpg

   

   http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r52/photoshopjockey/budclose.jpg

   

   I print my 13x19s off an Epson 2200 on Legion Somerset Velvet Textured watercolor paper. I also do canvas which makes for better color saturation and contrast since the ink sits up on the surface. The watercolor stock draws the ink down into the fibers of the paper and produces and image that has a more muted look. Some folks like that, others prefer the color. All depends upon personal taste.

   

   Anyway, I??   m looking forward to what people think, and hopefully I??   ll learn something on here. For a review of my porfolio, please feel free to visit my webstie at:

   

   www.danzoernig.com

   

   Cheers!
17/12/2006 03:48:12
Hi Dan, and a warm :welcome to eHangar.com!

   

   I remember your work was one of the first to be posted to the eHangar.com Aviation Art Directory when the site was started end 2003. We corresponded and you sent me a CDRom with your images as we had some issues with the email attachments.

   

   At the time, one of my main motivations was to try to promote the works of a new aviation artist in a relatively new art medium. I am glad to see that you have gone on to achieve a pretty good level of success in your career in aviation art.

   

   I'm looking forward to your participation on this site and seeing more of your new works. Please update the Aviation Art Directory by using the Submit Art link.
17/12/2006 15:54:58
Welcome Dan

   Look forward to your contribution here.

   

   My comments here arn't specifically aimed at you, there are many "photoshop" "computer??" artists here already, so apologies, but you are the catylists so to speak.

   

   I think the skill and end results speak for themself, some terrific imagary and the detail you guys put into your is incredable, I know it can take weeks of manipulation

   

   My problem remains, as a fan of the painted medium, I still need convincing it is ART. I've in fact just looked up the dictionary meaning of "Art"....

    art1??? noun 1 the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively (pl) subjects other than sciences,requiring sensitive understanding rather than use of measurement.

   

   It certainly fits the first meaning, is it the science bit thats the problem I wonder.

   

   As 10cc sang "art for art sake" I want to accept it, can you help me :?:

   

   daz
17/12/2006 17:00:23
Hey Daz, here are some thoughts that might help. IMO, the dictionary's definition of art is very narrow and incomplete, & quite possibly wrong in the case of aviation art. One point is the fact that almost all recognized art is based on mathematical principles, whereby the artist composes his piece using geometry to produce an aesthetically pleasing picture. In the aviation art genre in particular, it's impossible to accurately portray a subject without geometry and precise measurement. Whatever medium an artist uses requires instruments that are also created by mathematical/scientific means: Drafting tools, straight edges, elipses, whether they are hand drawn or created with the click of a mouse, are still just tools. It's the artist's vision, skill and sensitivity using those tools that allow him to create great works of art. There's been a lot of discussion about digital vs traditional art, so I don't need to comment on that. When I go to a museum and see a Picasso that looks like my grandson just drew it blindfolded, I'm amused that some people call it art. Like anything it's just a matter of you like and appreciate best. As for Dan's work, when I first saw his pieces I thought they were done by traditional airbrush. That he can produce such painterly looking pieces with digital medium speaks volumes of his virtuosity.

   Cheers! :)
17/12/2006 19:19:58
Welcome Dan. I've always admired your work and was some of the first digital aviation art I saw. That was about three years ago.

   

   Daz there are many forms of digital art. We all have our likes and dislikes in art. I'm sure traditional painters use models, 3D, CAD, overhead projectors, descriptive geometry, photos, hand sketches or anything else they can lay their hands on to get the job done. They're all tools. Dan using a model as a basis to paint digitally is no different than a traditional artist using a model to paint with brushes or going out to photograph the sky and then copy it to his canvas.

   If we all enjoyed one type of art, what a truly boring art world it would be. Think of the improvement digital art has seen in the last five years. Think where it will be in another ten or fifteen. I'm sorry Daz, resistance is futile.
18/12/2006 04:49:39
Welcome Dan

   Look forward to your contribution here.

   

   My comments here arn't specifically aimed at you, there are many "photoshop" "computer??" artists here already, so apologies, but you are the catylists so to speak.

   

   I think the skill and end results speak for themself, some terrific imagary and the detail you guys put into your is incredable, I know it can take weeks of manipulation

   

   My problem remains, as a fan of the painted medium, I still need convincing it is ART. I've in fact just looked up the dictionary meaning of "Art"....

    art1??? noun 1 the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively (pl) subjects other than sciences,requiring sensitive understanding rather than use of measurement.

   

   It certainly fits the first meaning, is it the science bit thats the problem I wonder.

   

   As 10cc sang "art for art sake" I want to accept it, can you help me :?:

   

   daz

   

   Daz,

   

   Thank you for commenting, and let me say that we evidently share an appreciation of 10cc. I grew up when that band was hot and have several of their tunes on my desktop. You might also agree that their music qualifies as art, and that many of their tracks were built electronically. Today, if they were producing the same music, it would be mastered digitally.

   

   Art is a subjective discipline. In 1980 I went on a field trip to the Nelson-Atkins art museum in Kansas City. They showed us a wad of trash (actual rubbish) slapped together and hung on the wall for which they paid one million dollars. They were actually quite proud of the acquisition. To me, it was just a load of trash, but to them...art. Go figure. I guess I am tossing out millions every month although the inclusion of my daughter's diaper bombs might devalue the package some! :D

   

   The definition of what art is can be a pretty loose construction, but the general consensus is that 'art' is a creation that either conveys a meaning, expresses something from the artist or elicits an emotion from the viewer.

   

   I think the end result, the image, whether created traditionally or digitally, can fit that meaning. The difference is in the tooling used. One thing that digital manipulation does is to open the doors to those of us who can neither paint nor draw, yet we still have a passion for creativity. This provides an outlet for those of us who would never have had such an opportunity, and for that, I will be ever grateful to the kind folks at Adobe.

   

   While I believe this, I will say that there are distinctions to be made between the different categories of artists in the field of aviaiton imagery. There are those who are good and those who are better, and I will state for the record that guys who paint (Wade, Mark, etc.) are better.

   

   I work hard (if you've seen the jpgs I posted of Old Crow as a model and Old Crow as a finished element) you can see that there is quite a bit of handwork done with the mouse. There is no button to push on the computer to tell the program to 'render' anything. It's all done by hand with the mouse via electronic brushes loaded with color. Every scrape and scratch on that fuselage is done by my hand.

   

   Traditional painters work harder. They do everything by their own hand too, but they don't have the luxury of going back multiple times as I do of trying something and starting over until they get it right. Or they do have the luxury, but will use up a lot of rags wiping off paint and hitting it again and again. Doing work in Photoshop has given me a profound appreciation of how hard these traditional painters work at their craft. I think that most of them get it right the first time because it's simply too hard to go back and start over. For me to do so is much easier, but as I've been doing it for several years, I have managed to get things right without so much trial and error and so can put that time into more precise detailing.

   

   I might not be going out on much of a limb saying that a traditional painter's work should be worth more than an image created by my methods, and I believe that to be the case. These guys simply have more skill and ability than I do, and they work harder. But as far as whether or not this alone disqualifies digital as art, I'd have to say no.

   

   The end result is still an image and what that image means to the viewer. The ability to create that image as an expression of what the artist wants to deliver is also manifested by the digital revolution and it provides him or her with an outlet for creative ingenuity.

   

   I try to emulate traditional methods electronically. I want my images to look 'painterly' rather than photographic because I have such a profound admiration for what painters do. Mannyromano just did a P-26 that is world class. The shadow of the prop against the cowl and the rippling of the reflections on the underside of the wing are spot on. Those little touches feed into the overall believability of the image that, if not done corrrectly, would give you sense that 'something is just not quite right.' But he did it right. I don't know how many times he had to attempt it to get there, but I would have made several passes before I nailed it.

   

   But the end result, for both of us, is an illustration that I think qualifies as art. The difference is that Manny works harder and for that I think his work has greater merit than my own in this case. His stuff ought to command more in the marketplace because, as a traditional painter, it was done with more skill. But if we simply go by the level of skill as a benchmark of what art is, that would disqualify a whole category of painters who still use the brush.

   

   You've posed an excellent question, and the bottom line is whether or not you like the picture. I think it's perfectly valid to say, "I like the picture as a piece of artwork, but I appreciate traditional artwork more because of the methods and skill that go into the creation of it." If I could paint, that's where I'd be standing in the discussion.
18/12/2006 04:53:40
Hi Dan, and a warm :welcome to eHangar.com!

   

   I remember your work was one of the first to be posted to the eHangar.com Aviation Art Directory when the site was started end 2003. We corresponded and you sent me a CDRom with your images as we had some issues with the email attachments.

   

   At the time, one of my main motivations was to try to promote the works of a new aviation artist in a relatively new art medium. I am glad to see that you have gone on to achieve a pretty good level of success in your career in aviation art.

   

   I'm looking forward to your participation on this site and seeing more of your new works. Please update the Aviation Art Directory by using the Submit Art link.

   

   Thank you Sunny. Good to be here. How's that new additon to the family doing? I'll upload some new works to round out the gallery as soon as I get a chance. Thanks for remembering me.
18/12/2006 05:03:07
Welcome Dan. I've always admired your work and was some of the first digital aviation art I saw. That was about three years ago.

   

   Daz there are many forms of digital art. We all have our likes and dislikes in art. I'm sure traditional painters use models, 3D, CAD, overhead projectors, descriptive geometry, photos, hand sketches or anything else they can lay their hands on to get the job done. They're all tools. Dan using a model as a basis to paint digitally is no different than a traditional artist using a model to paint with brushes or going out to photograph the sky and then copy it to his canvas.

   If we all enjoyed one type of art, what a truly boring art world it would be. Think of the improvement digital art has seen in the last five years. Think where it will be in another ten or fifteen. I'm sorry Daz, resistance is futile.

   

   Thank you for the warm welcome, Gray. I'd agree that the genie is out of the box. Digital is here to stay. There will just be good digital and not so good digital. In advertising imagery, most people would consider select automobile spreads to be some of the best fine art photography in print, but today, most of what you are seeing is CG. Lots and lots of shooters in Detroit are either converting or going out of business because of cost.

   

   Robert Taylor wrote that he spent more time learning to paint cloud formations than airplanes because good backgrounds were paramount to good aviation imagery. I have seen a lot of art where some guys have nailed the plane and blown the clouds. At that point I think all you have is an image fit for a comic book. I gave up on Bryce 3D for that reason, and went with photos that I either took myself, or paid for. But photography is recognized as art, so I don't have any sort of disconnect employing it.

   

   I'd still maintain that traditional painters put more skill into what they do than digital artists, but that doesn't negate the point that digital is still art. There will always be good art and bad art, which is always the viewer's call.
18/12/2006 05:21:17
Having painted and drawn in traditional media for many years and only recently tried computer graphic art I am in no doubt that the latter is still art as we know it.

   To me it is simply painting and drawing with electronic versions of the tools I use in conventional works .

   

   The computer can't make the image - that is all down to the skill and vision of the user. There will be very good computer artists and

   very bad computer artists - just as in the conventional field . :)

   

   Like learning to cope with fast drying Acrylics - computer art has some techniques that take a bit to master and in some respects is more difficult to work in than conventional means - I greatly respect some of the digital work I've seen .
28/12/2006 13:03:13


   I'd still maintain that traditional painters put more skill into what they do than digital artists

   

   "interesting" generalisation that..... It sounds like you are not too familiar with what it takes to do fully self-created 3d digital art (not based on simulation screenshots or model photography). That needs very good skills in model building, texturing, lighting, postprocessing, painting, mastering complicated software, etc etc, a much wider field of skills than what is needed for painting alone (and please note, I say wider, NOT better).

   

   Its similar to saying that a top chef puts more skill in what he does than a great writer. Nonsense, you can say a top chef puts more skill in than a Burger King head burger flamegriller or whatever they are called, that does make sense.

   

   Sorry if I come across in a pissed off manner, I am not at all. Just a bit baffled by generalisations like this.

   

   Welcome to ehangar by the way.

   

   Wiek
28/12/2006 14:35:07
I Like your work very much Dan and the message about art provoking emotion is very much what its about -you convey that very nicely !

   

   I am sure you know about the dangers of using models which are innacurate in shape or scale -your P51 looks pretty good - Hasegawa ?

   Look forward to seeing more of your work ,getting into Mustangs more and more myself and currently doing a painting of one ,have one in my mind of a scene which I will call " Return to Raydon"

   

   Best Wishes and welcome ...Ron
28/12/2006 21:45:07
I was just reading my latest 'WWII Fighters' magazine and on the big one page spread advertising 'Aviation Art Central' limited edition artwork there are five paintings shown. The artists are Roy Grinnell, Robert taylor, Gil Cohen, Stan Vosburg and our new member Dan Zoernig. Congratulations Dan, I'm really pleased to see your work being displayed like that.

   

   Cheers, Gray.
29/12/2006 21:53:09
Having painted and drawn in traditional media for many years and only recently tried computer graphic art I am in no doubt that the latter is still art as we know it.

   To me it is simply painting and drawing with electronic versions of the tools I use in conventional works .

   

   The computer can't make the image - that is all down to the skill and vision of the user. There will be very good computer artists and

   very bad computer artists - just as in the conventional field . :)

   

   Like learning to cope with fast drying Acrylics - computer art has some techniques that take a bit to master and in some respects is more difficult to work in than conventional means - I greatly respect some of the digital work I've seen .

   

   Neil,

   

   

   Thanks for responding. I agree that there is always going to be a level of skill that will make some art good and some bad. The digital work that I do does take a level of craftsmanship that requires the artist to understand light, shadow, etc.. I have in some 25 years practice as a professional photographer and I rely on this every time I create an illustration. And I think the end result, being the image, is the final say.

   

   When all is said and done, you have a picture. Regardless how it was created, this is what either moves you or doesn't. Thank you for your level of respect for this medium.
30/12/2006 03:16:43


   I'd still maintain that traditional painters put more skill into what they do than digital artists

   


   "interesting" generalisation that..... It sounds like you are not too familiar with what it takes to do fully self-created 3d digital art (not based on simulation screenshots or model photography). That needs very good skills in model building, texturing, lighting, postprocessing, painting, mastering complicated software, etc etc, a much wider field of skills than what is needed for painting alone (and please note, I say wider, NOT better).

   

   Its similar to saying that a top chef puts more skill in what he does than a great writer. Nonsense, you can say a top chef puts more skill in than a Burger King head burger flamegriller or whatever they are called, that does make sense.

   

   Sorry if I come across in a pissed off manner, I am not at all. Just a bit baffled by generalisations like this.

   

   Welcome to ehangar by the way.

   

   Wiek

   

   Wiek,

   

   You're right. I do not have any idea what goes on in 3d modeling art and should have clarified that my "generalization" was made in reference to how I put together my own illustrations. I am interested to learn how other digital artists do their work. As a computer guy, I understand that a profound knowledge of the software/hardware package is essential for producing a piece of art from that skillset and that it takes a great deal of effort.

   

   Still, unless a 3d artist is drawing out a set of vectors by hand and then filling them in with color and texture, I'd have to say that, in my own opinion, an artist who can produce an accurate outline of an a/c by hand, on a canvas with a brush, and then light it with paint, has a level of skill that surpasses that of a computer operator. You and I have unlimited ability to undo and redo, and so does a painter, but for him it comes at a greater cost in effort and patience. Get the outline wrong after painting it up and you either live with it or wipe it off (taking the background with it) and begin again. Ouch.

   

   In a way, arriving at the end (the image) is like comparing apples and oranges. The tools used are very different, but the product is still art. Using Photoshop has given me a profound respect for the work and effort that a painter (traditional) has to put into his work, and while I sweat over my own stuff (as I'm sure you do too) I would still maintain that the oil and canvas guy's degree of skill surpasses those of the digital guy's.

   

   Traditional art is still the benchmark that we're all trying to measure up to because that's the only standard we have at this point. Photography is a different animal because photos taken of combat were not done with artistic balance and compostion in mind. For those reasons, I think it is necessary to consider aviation art as categorical art. it's either traditionally done, or digitally done, but it's still art.

   

   Thank you for the welcome by the way, and if you could, please give me some schooling on how you do your own work. I have always been under the impression that an artist using Maya, for example, begins by scanning in a set of diagrams of the subject and then goes from there. I am probably wrong and eager to learn how it really works.
30/12/2006 03:50:24
I was just reading my latest 'WWII Fighters' magazine and on the big one page spread advertising 'Aviation Art Central' limited edition artwork there are five paintings shown. The artists are Roy Grinnell, Robert taylor, Gil Cohen, Stan Vosburg and our new member Dan Zoernig. Congratulations Dan, I'm really pleased to see your work being displayed like that.

   

   Cheers, Gray.

   

   Gray,

   

   Thank you very much. It's quite an undeserved honor to be included in such company. I am sure that Taylor, Grinnell and Cohen have no idea who I am, but its good to see that digital artwork is appreciated enough to be considered in the same advertisement.

   

   What image did Theresa (Aviation Art Central) post by the way? I wasn't aware that she was still putting my in print.
30/12/2006 03:56:57
The posted print was 'The Archer' Dan.

   

   Cheers.
30/12/2006 04:38:38


   Thank you for the welcome by the way, and if you could, please give me some schooling on how you do your own work. I have always been under the impression that an artist using Maya, for example, begins by scanning in a set of diagrams of the subject and then goes from there. I am probably wrong and eager to learn how it really works.

   

   Hey Dan, feel free to send me an email to: wiek at luijken dot com or if you have MSN, that might be easier. I'll gladly show you the process.

   

   Wiek
30/12/2006 12:59:48
Still, unless a 3d artist is drawing out a set of vectors by hand and then filling them in with color and texture, I'd have to say that, in my own opinion, an artist who can produce an accurate outline of an a/c by hand, on a canvas with a brush, and then light it with paint, has a level of skill that surpasses that of a computer operator.
For crying out loud, how clueless can you be. A 2D artist has to get his shape right in two dimensions. A 3D artist has to get his shape right in three dimensions. See the implications there? ...

   

   Keep on generalising while I try to ignore the comments in your posts, which do nothing for me but :roll: and :duh while I try to avoid going all :soapbox and :frusty

   

   Photo editing of scale models is digital art the easy way - a shortcut. It's hard enough getting a bit of respect and understanding for our work as it is and your generalistic comments based only on your own work sure doesn't help. But as long as it produces a decent image, nothing wrong with it. Just another technique, it's the final image that counts. But please don't apply your generalisations to all forms of digital art or you'll create quite an angry mob here amongst digital artists who go the painful route.

   In all honesty, my "shortcut" is using backgrounds which are largely based on photographs. And I have great respect for 2D artists (traditional AND 2D digital) who can render a perfect cloudscape. Perhaps I could do it too with some practise, but I already know it would bore the hell out of me. But please don't say that creating a 2D shape is easier than a 3D shape, as I can assure you it isn't.

   

   Anyway, welcome to eHangar. Please be careful with bold statements about digital artwork though. Some people, myself included, have grown extremely tired of ill-founded statements being repeated again and again.

   

   Glad you're eager to find out more. Please do :)

   

   Over and out.
30/12/2006 13:10:51
Ronnie, I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are so many different forms of digital art that one needs a program to sort it out. Its one of the difficulties that holds back digital from being a more accepted form of art. Trying to decide which has the greatest amount of effort or talent is futile. I've seen painters throw up a painting in less than an hour, you can't do that with digital. But its like comparing apples and oranges. I look on a piece of work taking usually 50 to 70 hours. Can I paint with a brush, no, I've never picked up a brush and have no interest in doing so. Can I sketch, yes, but I haven't for a long time and I don't need to in the work I do now. I enjoy working with the computer as a tool so thats what I choose. If that makes me a talentless shmuck in some peoples eyes, so be it. I enjoy digital so thats what I do. When I see the work that you and Kiwi turn out in 3D I know digital is the right direction. Digital is growing and improving exponentially. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell where the future lies.

   

   Cheers.
30/12/2006 16:49:56
Still, unless a 3d artist is drawing out a set of vectors by hand and then filling them in with color and texture, I'd have to say that, in my own opinion, an artist who can produce an accurate outline of an a/c by hand, on a canvas with a brush, and then light it with paint, has a level of skill that surpasses that of a computer operator.
For crying out loud, how clueless can you be. A 2D artist has to get his shape right in two dimensions. A 3D artist has to get his shape right in three dimensions. See the implications there? ...


   

   Keep on generalising while I try to ignore the comments in your posts, which do nothing for me but :roll: and :duh while I try to avoid going all :soapbox and :frusty

   

   Photo editing of scale models is digital art the easy way - a shortcut. It's hard enough getting a bit of respect and understanding for our work as it is and your generalistic comments based only on your own work sure doesn't help. But as long as it produces a decent image, nothing wrong with it. Just another technique, it's the final image that counts. But please don't apply your generalisations to all forms of digital art or you'll create quite an angry mob here amongst digital artists who go the painful route.

   In all honesty, my "shortcut" is using backgrounds which are largely based on photographs. And I have great respect for 2D artists (traditional AND 2D digital) who can render a perfect cloudscape. Perhaps I could do it too with some practise, but I already know it would bore the hell out of me. But please don't say that creating a 2D shape is easier than a 3D shape, as I can assure you it isn't.

   

   Anyway, welcome to eHangar. Please be careful with bold statements about digital artwork though. Some people, myself included, have grown extremely tired of ill-founded statements being repeated again and again.

   

   Glad you're eager to find out more. Please do :)

   

   Over and out.

   

   Well...it would seem that someone's monthy bill has come due. You might want to try Midol. Or maybe some Monistat perhaps. Those used to work for my wife pretty well. Turned her from a raving lunatic into a nice, calm bastion of reason.

   

   I'm writing from America. We are used to expressing ourselves freely here. You don't have to like what I have to say, and you are more than welcome to disagree with me. But name calling while foaming at the mouth doesn't help you to gain the respect that you, as a digital artist, are apparently quite desperate for. Please calm down and try again.

   

   It will always be my opinion that an artist who can put together a fine piece of work by his brushes and paint has a higher degree of skill at illustration than you or I who has a computer to help us along. It doesn't disqualify the product as artwork in any way, but my opinion (which does not speak for anyone else) is allowed by Mr. Chow to be on placed on this forum. And I think most people on here understand that if they wish to rebut it they can do so in a civilized manner without turning this into a bomb throwing contest. So if the "boldness" of my opinion threatens you, it speaks to your issues more than my own.

   

   Please feel free to ignore my comments. You'll probably feel better about yourself if you do.

   

   For anyone else who might care know what I think, please read on.

   

   A 2d artist might have to get his shape right in two dimensions, and a 3d artist three dimensions, but the end result (the print) is still a two dimensional representation. Either way, the guy still has to get his lines right. I happen to believe that, unless you wrote the program that renders the lines, the oil and canvas guy has more skill for illustration than the computer operator. But I have an open mind. If you can give me more information, my views could change.

   

   As far as using retouching for the easy route, compared to the oil and canvas artists, I suppose it is. In my opinion, it is certainly a less skillful route if we try to equate it with traditional methods. And since you've called your methods a "shortcut," this is apparently what you are trying to do. Since digital and traditional methods differ, I don't see the point in that. One is an apple, the other is an orange. But both produce art.

   

   I've never had a problem getting enough respect for my methods that people wouldn't buy the art. In fact, I've never had any negative feedback about how I make illustrations from Yeager, Anderson, or the Smithsonian. They've all been very supportive. In the end, they all just want to see a pretty picture.

   

   Finally, I don't think I've said that making digital art is easier than creating traditional art. I've said that the latter requires more skill at illustrating than the former. I work very hard to produce my art, as I'm sure you do too. But effort is not the same as skill at illustrating. Besides, I'm not sure one can say that one method is easier than the other if he/she is not already a competent painter. Only then could you make a viable comparison. I think Jim Laurier does both so maybe you could aske him to weigh in.

   

   I've tried and failed at painting, so I believe painters to have more skill. (Again, skill differs from effort or "ease.") You, however, can assure me that 3d methods are not easier to employ than 2d methods, so I guess as a painter yourself, you would drawing from a reserve of experience to know the difference. Right?
01/01/2007 07:11:57