|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:50 am
whoa, congrats, Euclid! Certainly about time you got highlighted!
I don't mind getting into the holiday spirit early, but i wish folks would at LEAST wait until it's actually december confused
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:59 am
@euclid's - yeah I've used other ways to take work...that oh so magical key on my keyboard is wonderful xp But I don't save people's work onto my pc. I like looking at it online, but that's why it's there on the site, so I can look at it online, I just don't like the idea of people actually saving my pictures on their computers...they forget who it's made by...
@flikr - watermarking is a good idea, but sometimes it spoils the picture sweatdrop sad
I love christmas but because commercialism is showing it at the end of October I'm bored of it by the time it actually reaches christmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:20 pm
Shadow__Dweller @euclid's - yeah I've used other ways to take work...that oh so magical key on my keyboard is wonderful xp But I don't save people's work onto my pc. I like looking at it online, but that's why it's there on the site, so I can look at it online, I just don't like the idea of people actually saving my pictures on their computers...they forget who it's made by... @flikr - watermarking is a good idea, but sometimes it spoils the picture sweatdrop sad I love christmas but because commercialism is showing it at the end of October I'm bored of it by the time it actually reaches christmas. i agree about watermarks--they can spoil the picture. i'm not a big fan, but at the same time, i know why people use them. it's hard to watermark a picture in such a way as to deter theft but still leave the picture to be enjoyed. i save pictures onto my compy, but i always make sure to include the artist and whatnot (although that's one thing that Elfwood, I think, has over DA, because DA has names like "sweetgurl23523" for the artist's name, and I just feel it's unprofessional and tends to spoil the atmosphere of the work, while Elfwood has a real--or at least real sounding--name policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:43 pm
About the watermarks:
Aye. Watermarks can be a pain, but that's what they're for. *shrug* That's a lose-lose situation, but it's become necessary.
About the pics:
lol. I'm guilty as charged. There's one set of pictures I got off a site that was in Japanese and I can't find it again... I really, really wanted to find them again because their pics were just so neat!
dA makes sure you can find the pics on dA, so unless they use the username elsewhere, you have a bit of a time trying to find them somewhere else. But because of dA, I've really started trying to make sure I put the artist's name in the title. Helps me find them again if I don't have them bookmarked, and it also helps me organize the pictures I collect. biggrin
@Kirio:
Thank you! biggrin
@Shadow:
I know! I went into Wal-Mart on Halloween to get some supplies and they were already putting in the hard core Christmas stuff! surprised Oh, that makes me mad! I feel really sorry for the employees of those department stores, because they have to listen to the same twenty or so carols sung in fifty horrible ways for two months! And as soon as Dec. 26th rolls around, it's like everything that's happened is just thrown out the window because Christmas Day has passed. I honestly think Dec. 24th is celebrated more than the 25th nowadays.
@Everyone:
My family keeps telling me I need to stop selling pics for pixels... Do you think they'd sell, though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:28 pm
@euclid: i think they would. you're getting a lot of Gaia commissions, right? that means you'll probably get at least a few $$ commissions. ask around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:47 am
@euclid - ah yes I feel their pain. They have christmas carols in theshops ALREADY sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:21 pm
@Kirio:
True.. I'll probably post a few things here and there to fish around. biggrin
@Shadow:
I know... It's terrible. Talk about killing a holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:04 pm
i'm about to rant.
I have a bone to pick with people who blatantly copy every aspect of a picture.
particularly very famous photographs, like this one: http://mazhear.deviantart.com/art/Afghan-Girl-67746066 .
Originally, this is a striking photograph, wonderfully done. Why do people feel the need to just copy it? there's not even any mention of Phidon (sp?), the original photographer, and i would assume that he's probably not so okay with blatant copying.
this is the second time i've seen this particular photograph highlighted in a remake for its awesomeness. the first was at an art show in my local library. i mean, i'm not down on that talent required to duplicate a photograph, but where's the ingenuity, the creativity? Wouldn't it be all the more interesting if it wasn't obviously a direct copy...?
i think so.
doing a study by copying a photograph is one thing; it helps with anatomy, composition, etc., but why make it a polished "this is mine" work...?
don't these people feel that they're cheating?
/rant
what do you guys feel about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:25 pm
Hmmm... The deviant does mention that the picture was originally published by NG, though, so I think that's where the credit is given to the original photographer.
I think that it's important to learn the techniques used here, like the skin textures, anatomy, and natural shading, but it's true that I would generally like to see a bit more originality. To me it's kind of a, "Ok, now that you've learned the techniques, go paint someone that's not already famous." Preferably, someone who's portrait is taken by you, as well.
It's kind of like copying a da Vinci or Michaelangelo work and getting awarded for being able to copy something so perfectly. They weren't recognized for their ability to copycat, so try to learn from them and do something original.
Those're my feelings on it, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:27 am
that's how i feel about it. it doesn't bother me that they're copying a picture, but more that they're getting such accolades for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:00 am
Aha!
This is where you all dwell.
Anyone noticed that most traditional work scanned look like CRAP?
(or is my scanner that retarded?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:16 pm
you have to know what setting to put your scanner on...but it never looks as good as the actual picture, for me anyway sweatdrop it picks up the marks that have been erased on the page..and the colours go darker too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:31 pm
Shadow__Dweller you have to know what setting to put your scanner on...but it never looks as good as the actual picture, for me anyway sweatdrop it picks up the marks that have been erased on the page..and the colours go darker too. Mine kills the contrasts. D: So everything turns grey. And you get to see the smudging. D: And there's no adjustable settings whatsoever. But it's better than a camera, I must say...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:45 pm
don't get me wrong, i cursed my scanner many times, but now i know the error of my ways.
you never know what you've got till it's gone.
with the right tweaking (and the right scanner, meaning one that's cheap and won't pick up every little dustmite), traditional work can look passable. the only thing is that not all medias seem to scan the same way (gee, wonder why). Ink scans the best, while things like chalk and colored ballpoint pen just get killed, in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:11 am
in the flicker. don't get me wrong, i cursed my scanner many times, but now i know the error of my ways. you never know what you've got till it's gone. with the right tweaking (and the right scanner, meaning one that's cheap and won't pick up every little dustmite), traditional work can look passable. the only thing is that not all medias seem to scan the same way (gee, wonder why). Ink scans the best, while things like chalk and colored ballpoint pen just get killed, in my experience. Lol, none of my artwork, even if in the same medium, scan the same. For some weird reason. Mine magnifies the little dustmites. D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
