copassldr: menace: It's not a copy - if you 'copy' / reference* it piece of image it's not possible to maintain proportions/anatomy correct to that degree. What you clearly show here is a conversion/trace of someone's picture.
*for me i's fine if it's not whole composition, subject of picture - but idk - hand, head, piece of landscape, architecture etc. In short- you reference a piece for YOUR vision/composition Most of artist reference parts of composition.
However to trace / convert is different story. And to have audacity to compete with others... (it's not 80/90' anymore ppl - you can do better - it takes like 3 months work to learn drawing, 3 decades have passed since frazetta/valey compos)
But sad part is you are lucky here because it was 'real' artwork - most of pictures from many top demoscene artist are done the way BUT from AI generated gfx (almost impossible to prove/trace unless you are artist with a lot of experience in various areas)
to be clear - I like color choices here and overall composition - there is some skill involved. it's nice picture it would look a lot different if done just with referencing parts (maybe better??) if more when done from scratch form imagination.
jok: converting is the worst... this method is used by people who can't draw. this wouldn't be a problem if you didn't win a contest where everyone else is submitting their own work. Pixelating an image like this isn't really a big deal. coloring book, only with pixels.
this is subjective: but the composition is not good either. what is the hero looking at to the right? why are there so many trees on the left? is the sun shining in the middle of the clouds when the sun has already set on the left?
In my opinion, mastering the art of drawing is not a task that can be accomplished within a mere three months. It is a skill that requires consistent practice throughout one’s life, with the difficulty level increasing as one ages. Achieving the proficiency necessary to replicate the original artwork rather than a pixelated version would necessitate several years of dedicated effort, potentially spanning a decade if one commences practicing during their youth. The final skill level is exceptionally challenging to attain.
In this instance, the primary motivation, if not other factors, appears to be a trace of someone else’s work. This disqualifies the image and undermines the integrity of the competition. It constitutes dishonest conduct towards fellow competitors and serves as a blatant lie. Furthermore, I am perplexed by the source of satisfaction derived from engaging in such activities. The individual involved is fully aware of the illegality of their actions yet chooses to continue. Where is the inherent enjoyment in this pursuit? It lacks personal growth, learning, and any semblance of authenticity.
11 comments
AWESOME!
copy...
source: https://www.deviantart.com/caraidart/art/Winter-Campaign-606770417
Copy??? Maybe inspiration, c'mon...
miker: inspiration?!:D you are blind?
1:1 copy, detaling is nothing...and ofcourse, no info the original artist...
https://ibb.co/6nDGzmt
copassldr: Keep the discussion civil, please. We can disagree without accusations of physical disability.
menace: serious?
irony...
copassldr: menace:
It's not a copy - if you 'copy' / reference* it piece of image it's not possible to maintain proportions/anatomy correct to that degree.
What you clearly show here is a conversion/trace of someone's picture.
*for me i's fine if it's not whole composition, subject of picture - but idk - hand, head, piece of landscape, architecture etc.
In short- you reference a piece for YOUR vision/composition
Most of artist reference parts of composition.
However to trace / convert is different story. And to have audacity to compete with others... (it's not 80/90' anymore ppl - you can do better - it takes like 3 months work to learn drawing, 3 decades have passed since frazetta/valey compos)
But sad part is you are lucky here because it was 'real' artwork - most of pictures from many top demoscene artist are done the way BUT from AI generated gfx (almost impossible to prove/trace unless you are artist with a lot of experience in various areas)
to be clear - I like color choices here and overall composition - there is some skill involved.
it's nice picture
it would look a lot different if done just with referencing parts
(maybe better??)
if more when done from scratch form imagination.
sorry for typos ;)
jok: converting is the worst... this method is used by people who can't draw.
this wouldn't be a problem if you didn't win a contest where everyone else is submitting their own work.
Pixelating an image like this isn't really a big deal. coloring book, only with pixels.
this is subjective:
but the composition is not good either.
what is the hero looking at to the right? why are there so many trees on the left? is the sun shining in the middle of the clouds when the sun has already set on the left?
In my opinion, mastering the art of drawing is not a task that can be accomplished within a mere three months. It is a skill that requires consistent practice throughout one’s life, with the difficulty level increasing as one ages. Achieving the proficiency necessary to replicate the original artwork rather than a pixelated version would necessitate several years of dedicated effort, potentially spanning a decade if one commences practicing during their youth. The final skill level is exceptionally challenging to attain.
In this instance, the primary motivation, if not other factors, appears to be a trace of someone else’s work. This disqualifies the image and undermines the integrity of the competition. It constitutes dishonest conduct towards fellow competitors and serves as a blatant lie.
Furthermore, I am perplexed by the source of satisfaction derived from engaging in such activities. The individual involved is fully aware of the illegality of their actions yet chooses to continue.
Where is the inherent enjoyment in this pursuit? It lacks personal growth, learning, and any semblance of authenticity.