You want to see something amazing? Take a look at THIS

THIS

Warning: danbooru site, meaning NSFW ads. Don't forget to open the full size in a new tab.

According to the information online: took half a year to draw, 2 months to color.

"The site is down for maintenance" took half a year to draw?

Try this link.

I don't even really know how to react to this. It's just...insane.

It's certainly professional quality. But I'm not impressed, since I have a strong feeling that this is someone who's already in the animation field and just posts stuff on pixiv as a hobby, which is probably why it takes so long.

How does the fact that they studied drawing until they were good enough to do it for a living make it less impressive?

edited 16th Jan '12 5:19:46 PM by Wheezy

Because it's their job. It's what they're trained to do, and moreover what they are supposed to do. One doesn't laud a person for making a few more toilets than needed, no matter how awesome those toilets are. Now, if they released some behind the scenes video or concept art or did it all by hand and scanned it into the computer rather than doing it all digitally, then I'd be impressed.

The fact that there isn't a single person are only silhouetted people far, far away from the camera in all but one of these elaborate architectural drawings makes me think that this is a background artist for one of the big studios.

I'm not saying that this isn't very technically well done, or that I can do better. I'm just not impressed.

edited 16th Jan '12 7:18:38 PM by Leradny

So you're not impressed because of some assumptions you made?

Ok.

Anywho, I like that bird. It is a pretty birdy wall.

Okay, I apologize if I've rained on anyone's fangasming parade. I've had a bad day week month timespan of a month and a couple of weeks.

Also, I just don't like architecture. Can you blame me for having a lukewarm response due to lack of humans/animals to identify with in a swarm of buildings?

Digital painting is doing it by hand.

People seem to think you can just wave a tablet pen around, recite some incantations, and make a computer magic up some art, but digital painting is actually far harder than pen work in my experience.

edited 16th Jan '12 9:52:42 PM by Wheezy

But see, there's an undo button for digital painting while actual painting allows you pretty much one chance.

Anyway I'm off.

That's so completely ignorant on so many levels.

Anyway, I'm off.

If you're going to mock me, do it before I leave.

Look, I admit that I could have phrased things better. But I don't particularly care for threads whose sole purpose is to pimp the work of someone, instead of posting in this thread. I don't like it when people are pissed off just because I gave a noncommittal "I don't particularly think this is the second coming of Michelangelo but it's technically brilliant". I don't like explaining how my reaction is not wrong for being different from everyone else's reactions. I definitely don't like it when people call me ignorant just for stating the fact that digital art is way easier than traditional art.

I have dabbled in both. They each have their drawbacks, but when comparing the two, physical painting is much more difficult than digital painting. Because digital painting was designed to be easier than traditional art.

With physical painting you have to learn how to work with different brushes, palette knives, pastels, pencils, charcoal, whatever, which can take years to get up to professional quality. Digital painting has pretty much one brush which transforms into the idealized and dry version of any other brush strokes and techniques at the touch of a button, and you even have the failsafe of pressure and sensitivity settings. I'm not even getting into paper vs. canvas vs. wood.

With physical art, you have to wait till the paint/pastels/whatever are dried and fixed before you go showing it off, and even then you have to protect it from weathering. Digital art doesn't need protection because it is not subject to the elements at all.

With physical art, once you start putting on another layer, the under layer is effectively locked forever and cannot be changed unless you are incredibly lucky, while with digital art you can continue to work with them separately until the painting is completed.

Digital painting takes less time than physical painting. The fastest turnout of a master in the 1800s was one painting every two years. Dante Gabriel Rosetti took an average of five years to complete his paintings and spent over a decade on this one◊.

Digital painting costs less money than physical painting. You have to pay for materials constantly in physical art, from canvas to brushes to paint. With digital art there is effectively one lump sum at the beginning for a reusable, resizable canvas and transforming brush, with however much electricity you use for the rest, and it costs nothing to make duplicates while you would have to go through the same process again to make another copy of a physical painting.

These are facts. I'm not saying that there's no skill whatsoever involved in digital art. I am not a hoity-toity art snob who only sees merit in physical painting. I like digital art. I do not expect to stop using it myself anytime soon. I'm just saying that, objectively, there are far less disadvantages compared to physical painting, which is why I would be more impressed.

Am I still ignorant?

Lerandy, while what you're saying is incredibly shallow, I actually kind of agree with your end decision. Though for different reasons.

You're saying digital painting is "easier" than traditional painting (although it requires the same amount of skill, it's quicker to do). You are thereof not impressed with a labor of love done on the computer.

I'm not impressed with labors of love in general. I don't care if you spent fifteen years scratching it out of marble with a toothpick, it's just a waste of time if the end result isn't cool. I'd be far more impressed with a better drawing done in thirty seconds with soy sauce on a napkin. I don't care about effort, including time spend and medium used (be it digital or traditional) but about results, in other words.

The picture is fine, but I don't see anything that amazing, technically, storytelling-ly, or otherwise-ly, that really grabs me. To be perfectly honest, I feel sorry for the artist for having spent so long on something like that. What's the merit of details? If it had a message worth dressing up so much, maybe, but even then I don't think more time and nuances added to a picture make it any better.

Lerandy is unimpressed (as far as I understand) because it didn't "take that much effort." I'm unimpressed because, regardless of how much effort, time or skill it took, I think the end result is kind of underwhelming.

Old thread, but... I think it's pretty cool.

And yeah, digital drawing is easier than traditional, at least for me. Part of why everything I do is digital now.

Started another thread for this.

To be honest digital painting allows for so many things and so much more versatility than traditional drawing that believing there's no advantage is plain delusional.

I'm not questioning the validity of anything treated in this thread, just saying that digital makes the process infinitely easier and faster.

A wild NECRO appears!

Willbyr uses LOCK!

It's super effective!