Welcome to Gaia! :: Forum :: Posts By User

If you're using OC 1.1, there is no way. As SF said, none of the files OC 1.1 can open are transparent except it's own native .wpb, which photoshop can't save in.

If you are refering to OC 1.1, well, obsolete and broken aren't the phrases I'd use, but it's a tiny and old program. I feel it's logical to assume that if a program is small enough to put on a floppy (now those, that's obsolete and broken), and old enough that I'd have ever put it on a floppy in the first place, that it's probably not going to be up to speed with professional grade programs like Photoshop. OC 1.1 is a very wonderful little program, but it has it's limits.

What you can do is to bring it in as a jpg and work like that. OC layers do have some transparency to them, though likely not the sort you're hoping for.

If it's a newer version of OC, you should be able to import other file types, however, so it is a problem with the program.

When friends are over and they stumble across my reference photos they always act like they've found some buried treasure. Pfft, my porn is much weirder than some hot chick holding a rifle, and better hidden besides. Why they didn't start assuming the 20 photos of mountains and art deco building facades looked similarly pornographic, I can't imagine, since god knows the porn I leave in plain sight on my computer is so weird no one would ever guess. xd

I used to feel self-conscious about it, but after a while, I really stopped caring. If someone wants to assume I'm up to something suspicious when I'm actually doing something perfectly legit, then I can simply point out that they're for reference. If they choose not to believe me, then they obviously don't know me well enough and they're paranoid idiots to boot, since I've never anything but reasonably open about any inappropriate material on my computer.

I also used to panic and cover my art when I was drawing, but after working as a caricature artist, I was pretty effectively cured of that habit. Getting paid to be watched while drawing pretty much does that to you, or you can't really do the job properly. That was probably one of the hardest parts of training, though. Even just teaching myself not to turn around when people would come over and take a look was harder than I thought it would be.

A few years after that, however, my boyfriend-at-the-time (now definitely an ex) gave me a lot of insecurities about my art. He constantly harped on it, criticizing things that often weren't wrong and acting huffy if I didn't try and fix them. I suspect he did it out of his ever-growing inferiority complex, and in retrospect, I'm just upset that I let him hurt me like that, but it made me very uncomfortable drawing around people for a while. It took time to relearn the lesson I had at Six Flags, and I think it's the most important one when it comes to drawing in public comfortably - it doesn't matter what some schmuck looking at your art as you draw thinks. If they mistake your incompleteness for a flaw, then their opinion is clearly not one that matters. Most people who watch an artist draw do so because they can't do anything similar, it's not a judgmental act. And if it is, then they're probably a jerk and you shouldn't care about the opinion of anyone who looks at other people's art just to tear them down to make themselves feel better.



Are you trying to blind innocent people? stare Besides, rules 1 and 2 feel so violated now, thanks to you.

/wildly off-topic

I agree. I find it easier to do sketches traditionally myself. I like rotating the paper constantly when sketching, something that takes more time digitally. I also feel more comfortable that way, if only from having worked traditionally for longer than digitally.

I also find that inking traditionally is faster, because when you work on a 8.5x11 piece of paper, it's as big as it gets. The only way to make zoom in is to put your face to the page and take off your glasses if you're nearsighted. Digitally, however, with a 300dpi image, you can get quite a lot of detail zoomed in. I get obsessive over my digital lineart and work on stupid details that end up invisible in the finished product. I ink traditionally on almost all pieces, inking digitally only on things that need more precise lineart, like black and white comic pages, or occasionally on commissions if I feel the need for the smoother lines. I take an inordinate amount of time on lineart as it is, no reason to further extend and bog down an already tedious process.

All the images in my signature have pencil lineart, actually, even though all were coloured digitally.

Ah, Dune. I haven't read the new ones, only the original series, but I've always found that universe to be an excellent example of technophobia. I think part of the "flak" digital art gets is, in a large part, technophobia. Look at the art vs math thread, and see that several people have said math is being phased out by computers. The digital art bashing threads imply that art is being phased out by computers.

I work amidst technophobia as a tech support agent. I'd say more than half of my customers call in with some degree of fear of technology and the new opportunities i offers. People don't understand technology, and so they expect it to work flawlessly and do everything, but, as a result of their lack of understanding, they fear it. They see technology as boundless, and in that view, they see a threat. There's a good reason there's so many works of sci-fi wherein technophobia plays a large role, works like Dune, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I, Robot, even the Matrix.

As far as the next new medium to be treated this poorly, I can't say. I'm not psychic, but I do suspect it will have something to do with computers, and possibly 3-d. 3-d printing sounds like a logical choice. I suspect when we become capable of effective holographic projection that it too will be viewed with distaste and alarm.

I think right now digital 3-d is viewed as something for videogames and animation, but as it progresses to being used more for fine art it will receive more attention, and subsequently, more negative attention. Especially as computers get better and rendering gets smoother and more lifelike, I think people are going to start assuming it must be easy if such beautiful things are possible.

Completely off topic, painting on spice would be pretty wonderful.

Any tablet works for a laptop, as far as I know. Wacoms plug in via usb.

However, if you're looking for the sort of tablet that is built into the top of the laptop, then no. Those sort of tablets are designed for note-taking, not serious art usually.

The Art Resources sticky has more information on tablets, as well. Please don't bump, it's considered spam in the AD. It's almost 4am here, and likely most of the AD's inhabitants are asleep.

I own a Wacom Graphire 2, which was roughly 100$ US when I bought it. Someone who knows a more accurate date for each release in the Graphire series might correct me on this, but I'm fairly sure I've owned it six-or-so years now, and it hasn't let me down once. I love the little thing. The Graphire line is since discontinued, and Wacom is phasing it into the Bamboo/Bamboo Fun line. Bamboo Fun being the one oriented towards artists. Most of my experience with tablets is with Wacom tablets, which is honestly my favourite brand. I've had a lot better experience with mine than my friend did with an off-brand, and I'm naturally biased.

As far as tablets, in my opinion, the things to look for are longevity, size, pressure sensitivity, and bundled software.

As I said, my Graphire 2 has lasted a considerable time. Wacoms have a good reputation for being long-lasting, durable tablets, for the most part. I'm pretty abusive to mine - there's superglue on it still from a cosplay project, and I use it as a coaster when I'm being careless. They are also easy to repair if you damage just one part, as you can purchase replacement parts for the clear cover, the pen, and just the pen tips online. The only thing I've had to replace was the pen tip, and it came with several nibs for $5 US, free shipping, which I considered very much more than fair. Some brands it's harder to replace missing or broken elements to the tablet, and that might be something to take into account.

My Graphire 2 is the size of a mouse pad, roughly, with a drawing area of roughly 4x5 inches. It's really all I need - larger wouldn't fit well on my tiny desk, and would require more arm-movement. I tend to draw rather small anyways, so a small tablet suits me. In my experience, if you're used to working on large canvases, you might prefer a larger tablet, but I like working on things the size of a standard piece of paper, and as such, the Graphire 2 is a great size.

I'm not sure that pressure sensitivity is a large issue when it comes to most tablets, but it's important to get a tablet designed for drawing, not writing. Iirc, Graphires have 512 levels of pressure sensitivity. You probably don't want to be going for something that doesn't list it's pressure sensitivity capabilities unless it's a very trusted brand, because a lot of people nowadays are getting into using tablets for things like taking notes, which requires only minimal pressure sensitivity.

If you've already got Corel Painter and Adobe Photoshop, well, you're probably set. But if you don't, or you'd like to try either, Graphires/Bamboo Funs come bundled with scaled down versions of both. Some tablets come with bundled software, and it's something to consider if you don't have any art software already, or if you're looking to purchase some as it is.

I think deviantART is a nice art community, and that it's size allows one to easily get their art spread to a variety and large number of other users.

That said, in my eyes, it's something of a Facebook-of-art. I'm sure proponents of it will disagree, but my faith in deviantART as a site for artists, by artists, devoted entirely to art, is somewhat lacking these days. They used to have a very poor record when it came to responding to art theft, and even still there seems to be an issue of favoritism when it comes to TOS-breaking deviations and members. I'm somewhat disappointed that high-selling, high-view, paid subscribers seem to receive favorable treatment when it comes to TOS-breaking, because especially with issues of copyright infringement and artistic integrity, I believe any site that truly cares about the artists must be proactive and fair.

DeviantART has it's ups and downs, and overall, I appreciate that it provides artists of all backgrounds and situations to share their art equally. However, I simply don't understand why fans of the site treat it as some second-coming of web 2.0. As far as social networking goes, it's an incredible site, but there is a lot of immaturity from the members, and more oversights from the staff than I think truly appropriate. The coding glitches drive me up the wall, too. I don't believe it's too much to ask for the code not to stall my browser frequently, and to work correctly and consistently in two out of the three browsers I use on my home computer.

While I wouldn't consider it the cesspool the way I would some other prominent social networking sites, and I do hail deviantART for having the best of intentions and ideas, if not the most outstanding execution of them.

I had a professor who had us draw with sharpened sticks in ink. Needless to say, it was random, blotchy, and messy, and part of the point. God knows after that I was a lot more precise with a pen. But I was only better with that pen because I was being lazy - that stick was hell of a lot harder.

I worked as a caricature artist at Six Flags Fiesta Texas. I had to work with the sun on my back, taking no more than five minutes per picture. Since we worked with marker and chalk pastel, we had to get it right the first time, it had to look fast and effortless. The easel was also twice the size I was comfortable with.

I don't work with a sharpened stick on my pictures. I don't work straight in marker without sketching first. I don't draw on an easel larger than I like, and I damn sure don't work outside in south central Texas in the summer, where I can feel myself getting a sunburn and drops of sweat starting at the top of my head and running all the way down my legs.

As Pink argued earlier, where do we draw the line between "lazy" and "efficient?" Where ever it affects someone else?




I love my lack of life. It's hard to program if you're not on the computer. It's hard to get the news simply and in writing at all hours. I've tried to work my job, tech support for a major ISP, without a computer when the network goes down, and trust me, it's pretty impossible. I can check all my course work, do my job, check current events, talk to people... all of which, I suppose, is more laziness. Or convenience, if we want to take another look at it.

I'd personally say go with the one that shows off your voice the most, but if you really love one of the other pieces, there's nothing wrong with going for one just because you're fond of it. As far as songs that aren't as easy to sing, I have a large range of notes that I can hit okay enough to sing chorally, but only a small range that sounds particularly good. The rest sounds too strained, and I find it harder to hit the notes as accurately. A voice major friend of mine had a fancy word for the range that a singer sings best in, and explained that it's often more important in judging your vocal range than the notes that you can kind of hit. I've never heard anything contradicting it, but since this is just hearsay and I'm not a very good singer myself I can't say it for a fact. But I wouldn't recommend doing anything painful with something for a competition or recital, at least personally. While I think it's better to go with something a little risky and flashy than something too easy, anything painful goes into the too-risky category in my book.

Totally off topic, but since you mentioned it, I really love Jekyll and Hyde, personally. Dangerous Game is one of my favourite songs from any musical.

I believe all the ones in that thread cite where they are from.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the poll, actually. That's why I was asking about range. My apologies for not reading carefully enough.

I've never been a soloist as far as vocals go, but when I played piano, I always looked to pick the most challenging piece I knew I could pull off. It might be risky to pick a more challenging or showy piece, but if you're trying to wow someone, especially judges, I think it's a worthy gambit. I don't personally know any of those pieces very well, and as a high contralto/low mezzo I probably couldn't sing any of them anyways sweatdrop . But my general advice is usually to try the one that seems hardest, as long as the difficulty doesn't keep you from being able to pull it off successfully.

But in the end, it's ultimately up to you. Do you have a teacher or tutor who could offer some feedback on which they think would be the strongest piece for you, maybe?