The merits of tracing a discussion started by Arenhaus and AkunaStyle
Raphael | 01/30/2005 @508 | edit post

Ladies and gentlemen, within the post: Apnea Valentine by  AkunaStyle a very valid discussion has begun, I felt that it would be better carried on here where discussion is encouraged rather than in the critique section of that image. Having obtained the permission of Arenhaus and AkunaStyle I now start this thread. This is NOT a slanging match about what's 'right' or 'wrong' or a means to make personal attacks. It is an interesting and valid discussion weighing up the merits of tracing images in your work, whether digital or traditional, whether tracing sketch or photograph, whether said source material is your own or others. This subject is one that stretches far beyond the two instigating artists. So, here is the discussion so far: Arenhaus: "Just as I thought - a perfectly traced photo, down to the detail and overall red-black color scheme. Can you, please, oh please, draw something on your own? Without tracing? It is so much more rewarding, I am sure you'll like it if you try." AkunaStyle: "arenhaus: I've been a commercial artist for 20+ years. In almost all areas of the industry. Do you really think I have never drawn anything from just looking at it or out of my head? I'm willing to bet we all have. Haven't you ever heard th old cliche' "work smarter not harder" You know any of us here "could" redraw a photo acurately without "tracing" ... but how long would that take? Most of the time I do my own photography and work from there. When you use Painter ... do you start with a blank window or do you scan in a sketch to work from? Sketch or photo, whats the difference? Either way ... does this image take any less skill? It's not like some filter in photoshop created this image with a push of a button. I still had to draw it. Did you know every pin-up artist in the industry does it the same way I created this illustration? I know this for fact. Weather they hire a photographer or do it themselves. The illustration was still created by the artist. In case you didn't understand that, the bottom line is ... I still had to draw it, it still took my skills and talent to create the illustration, it's still a reflection of my own personal style ... and I wasn't infringing on the photographers copyright. And your comment about "Can you, please, oh please, draw something on your own? Without tracing?" Get the hell off your high horse ... most of the work I have posted here I drew without "tracing" So I have tried it, and I do like! Every illustration I have posted here was rewarding to me. Whats also rewarding to me is that I make a damn good living "tracing". LOL!! Maybe you should try "tracing' ... it's pretty rewarding ... you might even like it." Arenhaus: ""AkunaStyle: "Sketch or photo, whats the difference?" An abyss of difference. I don't know whether you are actually unaware of it, or feigning it for sake of argument, but I'll play along. You see, all the most important decisions that define what the picture will become are done on the planning stage, not in the execution. Composition and framing, color scheme, subject matter and light, these all are infinitely more important than the finish you give the picture. So if you start with a sketch, it's all yours - all the 90% of the creative decisions are up to you. And if you start with a photo someone else took, you just let them make these 90% and take up the comfortable mechanical task of finishing. At which point I am really inclined to give most of the artistic credit to the photographer, not the tracer." Next!?!

no diferences
bellas | 01/30/2005 @549 | edit post

personaly about discussion--- if you know technique and you know to paint, isn't different to use model, photo or your memory for your paints n___n by the way... if you not able for paint from photo if somebody orders a portrait or landscape for comission to you (from a photo), is possible you're bad painter although you paint fantasy single of your head. As always, is different fantasy pics and realism pic and in this times, camera is another instrument like the rules or brushes, if you want to use is not problem. The difference of your paintings are from your head, your eyes and your brushes. if you're good, nobody be able to repeat your works 'n_________n'

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Crow | 01/30/2005 @550 | edit post

I bet the question here is: Should one post traced images in GFX. "Work smarter, not harder" sounds like an excellent idea when talking about paid projects - something where you have to work fast, and only finished image counts. I see nothing wrong with that, unless you violate copyrights. But here in GFX, why to post something like it here? Isn't this place for the best of your works - not for photographer's best works? Posting such things here is not allowed anyways: "Works based directly on photos are not allowed, they are reproductions or derivative works and violate copyright. Photos can be used as reference for an artwork, provided that you post a link to the original reference material" Wether or not you should do tracing at all: do not make tracing a habit. If you ever go commercial, you're in trouble if tracing is the only thing that gives very good results. What if you have to draw something that you cannot trace? If you however are an excellent drawer, and you have a tight deadline and tons of work to be done, then it's perfectly ok to trace if it speeds you up - providing that you don't violate any copyrights.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
tetbautista | 01/30/2005 @565 | edit post

okay... I think Arenhaus has a point there. Well there's this kind of photo-illustrations, tracing pictures and converting to vector. It's not really your idea or even your own style once u traced the picture its the photographer's and i agree to that. It's easy to trace, anyone here i guess can do that. Anyway, i think there should be a section for that before u upload your vector "Photo Illustration". [Message edited on 01/30 @566]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
bellas | 01/30/2005 @565 | edit post

yes, if you use ref. you need provided a link to the original ref. for we decided and to cast our votes and watch (or not) your works n___n and very important you need permissions when you use photos from other people.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Raphael | 01/30/2005 @611 | edit post

OK, but what if we are talking about taking your own photos, in the poses etc you need, montage them together and trace/paintover the result. There is then no question about it being all your own work and ideas...

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
arenhaus | 01/30/2005 @612 | edit post

In fact, the posting guidelines explicitly state that if you absolutely must post something traced off a photo, you have to put it in the "Photo manipulation" category. (Note that "reference" normally refers to looking at a photo to analyze it and use that knowledge in a picture, not to directly copying something.) Not that it seems to make much difference, because enough people do not care to read the rules anyway. I repeat - yes, a skilled artist can work off a photo, off anything at all, off a piece of trash picked up in the street if need or fancy be. (Chris Goodwin once made a lovely crest for a Greek helmet out of half a rusty bucket bottom, but I digress.) But there are no solid artistic reasons to exactly trace a photograph you did not take. Yes, you can be pressed for time or you might want to reference a photo instead of employing a model. But surrendering one's creative choices to someone else - the photographer in this case - is not equal, in my system of values, to making those choices yourself. I would prefer to not trace anything, commercial work or not, anytime I can. (And yes, on occasion I did produce work closely based on a photo, but it was always a photo taken by myself or the client, not downloaded of the net. No, there is no such work of mine on GFXartist. There is one in the Design section of my web page.) Tracing a photo you did not take, you did not compose, frame and invent is just... lame, you know. Like paint-by numbers or Poser. Not difficult, mostly mechanical... someone really creative could do wonders with tracing, PBN or Poser alike, but most don't bother because they need no crutches, and they don't need it to get a bit of "Look Ma, I'm an artist!" self-delusion either. Throwing out the creative part for sake of the mechanical part... people, why do you do this to yourselves, dangit? Why crawl when you can fly? Why settle for lukewarm piss instead of relentless burning? Argh. [Message edited on 01/30 @618]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Fooxoo | 01/30/2005 @698 | edit post

arenhaus and  AkunaStyle I agree to both of what you say. But in reality you trace everything, nothing is totally just your imagination. It would be only if you put it up when you first drew your breath when born. Only then you wouldn't have any impressions of the outer world! Cmon we read books, look at movies, look at people, photos, world (e.g. you sit in your garden, woods... and see this really weird branch and think, yeah this is perfect for my new character, I'll paint it!!!) It still is ALL based on impressions of something. Maybe you don't even consciously see that. Maybe your mom read you a book when you were 3 years old, and some little spark of that becomes your master piece! [Message edited on 01/30 @774]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
BaronImpossible | 01/30/2005 @754 | edit post

"Why settle for lukewarm piss instead of relentless burning?" If you have relentless burning instead of lukewarm piss I'd recommend a trip to the clinic I've no real opinion on tracing, other than if you do it, state it in the blurb below your image. The fact that most people don't suggests that they're embarrassed about doing it in the first place, which makes you wonder if they think of it as somehow being wrong. As far as the artwork in question goes, it's a lovely piece and IMO it has taken great skill to produce. It would just have been nicer if we had been told that it had been traced in the first place. [Message edited on 01/30 @755]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Kaduflyer | 01/30/2005 @760 | edit post

Man!...some of you guys are OBSESSED with this argument of how something was created and the whole concept of whether it’s ‘cheating’ or not (cheating in art???...what a totally absurd notion!). You’re like people who listen to music and argue all through it as to whether it’s a piccolo or a flute playing and miss the beauty of it all! Here you have a unique forum in which artists from all over the world can display work, the opportunities for learning, for multi cultural viewpoints, for growing as artists are almost limitless and yet time and again you come back to this silly bickering….what a waste! Art is not about proving to the world how clever you are through technical virtuosity it’s about communicating ideas…if a painting (or any other art form for that matter) ‘speaks’ to you then who gives a damn how it was created. Whether you like what it says is irrelevant so long as it says SOMETHING and is not just self congratulatory posturing.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Crow | 01/30/2005 @768 | edit post

(double post...) [Message edited on 01/30 @769]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Crow | 01/30/2005 @768 | edit post

which artwork we are talking about? Something that was traced I take it.. ?

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
AkunaStyle | 01/30/2005 @776 | edit post

Wow ... Raphael ... this is great! Good morning fellow artist ... Well ... Arenhaus I have to say ... I just read through all your comments after your origianl postings on Apnea. You have much respect from me now. Your comments are professional and valid. KADUFLYER, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! BRAVO ... but yet i feed into this shit. Arenhaus: ""AkunaStyle: "Sketch or photo, whats the difference?" You see, all the most important decisions that define what the picture will become are done on the planning stage, not in the execution. Composition and framing, color scheme, subject matter and light, these all are infinitely more important than the finish you give the picture. So if you start with a sketch, it's all yours - all the 90% of the creative decisions are up to you. And if you start with a photo someone else took, you just let them make these 90% and take up the comfortable mechanical task of finishing. At which point I am really inclined to give most of the artistic credit to the photographer, not the tracer." You are 100% correct based on the above. In the case of Apnea ALL the creative credit should go to the photographer. I had 0% input on the photo. My purpose was to show off my own creative and technical style using vector graphics as a medium. So, in that respect it cannot be compared to your own sketch. Now, If I were to shoot the photograph myself ... deal with the model, lighting, make-up ... etc ... and then "trace" as you say the photo, I feel thre is no difference between the sketch or the photo. As far as the rule ... "Works based directly on photos are not allowed" like the bible ... it's how you inturpret it. However if I'm supposed to take it word for word. Then I'd have to take down every image I have ... And NO, not all of my illustrations were traced ... LOL. I use photos or pictures as reference for most everything I do. And I have always handled the photography myself. And for that very purpose of what Arenhaus pointed out ... I wanted the art to be 100% mine from start to finish. I was very anal about that for a long time. Just recently, in fact about the time I joined GFX I came to terms with using outside resourses for several reasons. 1) I live in the Joplin, MO ie... a piss ass town in the midwest. Have you seen the women out here! Finding models is like pulling teeth. 2) I'm not that great of a photographer. 3) And having talked with some fairly famous pin-up artist they say let the photographer do what they do best and you do what you do best. Now ... there have been cases that I have acted as "Art Director" and was directly involved with the photography. So a large percentage of the creative end was mine, but the photographer gets the credit for capturing what I invision. Obviously this is really the happy medium using this option. So ... in closing ... my personal view: * Arenhaus is correct in this spacific case about "creative decisions" * The illustration is still my creative and technical style using vector graphics as a medium. *The GFX Rule ... I have read it several times ... it needs to be more spacific if you want to get anal about it ... but I think GFX puts the ruls here as guidelines for quality control not to be etched in stone ... chill out with policing everyones work ... back to Kaduflyer's comment. *The comment "Can you, please, oh please, draw something on your own? Without tracing?" I didn't take it too personally and I'm a sarcastic wise ass myself, but a lot of peope here are ver offended by it. Be diplomatic with your words. * AND ... the word "trace" funny how we all look at it so badly. How about I use a nicer word like "template" or 'reference" or "guide' . Geez!!! LOL it's like "having sex" or "F#@king" it's still the same thing. I'm just goofin' off now.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
arenhaus | 01/30/2005 @797 | edit post

Yeah, let's name it "reference" instead of "trace", and it will suddenly be all right. Of course, then we;ll have no word to call reference by... You cannot change something by giving it a good name. Calling them "casualties" instead of "dead people" does not make them less dead. Let's not add to the murk by mudding the words' meaning.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
AkunaStyle | 01/30/2005 @808 | edit post

LOL ... I don't use the word "reference" ... I use the word "eyeballin'" Example: When I was "dupin'" this photo I was "eyeballin'' it so's I can gets the flava flowin' in my art.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
ARTOONATOR | 01/30/2005 @814 | edit post

Hey! I also have a statement to make: Blablabla. Sorry guys, It's the mood i'm in....but in a very short way it about covers my opinion on the subject.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Raphael | 01/30/2005 @823 | edit post

So let's get this straight. I can't take good photos to save my life. So I hire a photographer and brief them in great detail how I want some shots taken, they just set up and shoot. I montage them together in Photoshop and then trace over the whole thing in Illustrator. The artistic credit and copyright still belong to the shooter? I don't think so. Arenhaus, tell me, out of interest...do you have any vector experience? I'm not being confrontational with this question, I would just like to know your take on Vector work in general and know where you are coming from on this. As as far as I'm concerned good vector illustration is about what you DON'T draw as much as what you do. Artoonator, this is a tricky thread as it is, can we please try to keep as sane as possible

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
ARTOONATOR | 01/30/2005 @839 | edit post

HUH Sane? o_right, sane. Ok, here it is: Speaking of sanity: To me art isn't about sanity. Espescially gfx-art, it's about what the image does eventually. Besides that, we have the rules concerning copyright in this commercial business. And AFTER that, we have old-masterly values, that go with the crafts of the business. Now if I get this right, this is a discussion about Arenhaus on that last part, and AkunaStyle on the bizz-side (sort of). Ofcourse, both people are artists. But both from a subjective perspective. I think, when I read it all, they both agree with eachother. I feel that this debate leads to nickpicking on irrelevant issues. In my opinion, both are right. They are both out to achieve that result they personally are after, using the ways they can relate to. A commercial artist (there are hardly any non-communicative artists on gfx) has his/her own craftsmanship, values, education, standards, etc. There is one holy rule concidering creating art in this business, which is: -Respect and don't violate copyrights. Allways get permission for using someone elses work. All other 'rules' are subjective. (invented, but stupid )The path that leads to a new artwork is open for everyone to decorate freely. When we start talking about techniques amongst eachother, no individual path should be considered holy. I also have my ways of creating art. All I care about is the copyrights, the path of creating that gives me the greatest satisfaction, the best ways for me to achieve what i am after, and a matching between the final result and the result that I was after. And for me personally, it is important to know that I am at a level that I can draw anything I put my mind to without having to trace. So that I can trace with a clear consciousness when that's the practical thing to do.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
AkunaStyle | 01/30/2005 @841 | edit post

No ...the copyright of the original photo take belongs to the photographer ... unless he gives or sells the rights to you. Once you manipulate, trace, redraw, in whatever artistic way you do ... That image belongs to you. In my case the copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer and the copyright of the illustration belongs to me. However ... because we both have obvious involvement in my illustration. I cannot use it commercially without some sort of agreement between the photographer and myself. But there are cases where the photo used as reference is so minimal in the design that permission is not needed.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Raphael | 01/30/2005 @856 | edit post

Well said Artoonator. I think it's clear that Arenhaus and AkunaStyle DO agree on the kind of levels we're talking about here. As I said there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer here. This debate isn't about arguement it's about bringing opinions to the attention of all so that we might cogitate and formulate/elaborate our own take on the subject. The point is that we all learn something new about ourselves and our opinions, not just try to debunk others. Hopefully we are all mature enough on GFX to not devolve this sharing of views into a base level bickering. As yet I have only seen some fantastically well thought out reasoning on the subject, including your own. Keep it up folks.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Kurlowski | 01/30/2005 @867 | edit post

If it were me as the photographer, I would not want any one converting my photos without permission. Of course if someone asked me and promised to include my photo, I would reconsider. Not doing this would be unfair the to photographer. And I think tet is right, there would need to be a seperate catagory for these because they would not belong in any of the other sections.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
kittyKat | 01/30/2005 @872 | edit post

*edit* [Message edited on 02/01 @925]

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Cinnamon | 01/30/2005 @884 | edit post

Tracing a photo taken by someone else skips much of the creative work which makes someone an artist. It is great as an exercise and shows your mastership of the tools but if ALL of your work is produced this way, it does not make you an accomplished artist. A photo should be used as a reference for one aspect of an artwork (ie, pose, muscle placement, or face detailing). When you trace a photo and use the same lighting, pose, colours, framing etc, it is not your own creative work. It is a rendering of someone else's creative work (the photographer) Creating an artwork means to study life and explore your imagination. A great artist puts much effort into the planning of a picture, the composition, the subject, the lighting, the angle, pose, colours, the expression and the message. However, it takes a long time to develop the skills to be a great artist, and this is a community for both beginners and advanced. If those who trace are also developing their drawing skills so that in the future they can create their own compositions and poses, then I am happy to endure a few traced photos while they are learning and progressing their skills I do believe that to be an elite member you should be able to create work at a high standard where all of the creative imput is your own.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
ARTOONATOR | 01/30/2005 @893 | edit post

ok, Pam, you know i like you, but I have to defend eugene here. He can be blunt, but the intention of the provocing way of speaking has a different background than you might think. It's a way of reading through the lines which helped me more than once. So blunt, yes. A fool? Definitely not.

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
Andy--Jones | 01/30/2005 @897 | edit post

Cor Blimey!

Re: The merits of tracing a discussion started by
CodeHead | 01/31/2005 @082 | edit post

[Note: This was moved from other vector thread where arenhaus had posted. Please don't view as a singling out of arenhaus, he was just the one making comments on the other thread, and this is far too long of a response for me to edit at the moment. I still stand by my comments though.] Hasn't this argument become a little bit silly. To listen to many of the comments from  arenhaus and others in threads as well as on member's posts, one would think that an image's merit is to be found only within the techniques used to construct it. There are technically spectacular drawings where everything is done by the ever elusive 'book' and yet have no more excitement than a blueprint from an architecture firm. On the other hand there are pictures that seemingly do everything against good art practices, yet in the end possess some intangible quality that binds it to the hearts and minds of the majority of viewers. Surely then the beauty or value of a piece doesn't lie solely in the way it was created; it also lies in the feel and style that the artist adds to it during the process of creation. True, anyone can trace a picture, but then again, even at a most basic level, some tracings are good, and some come out pure crap. If your argument,  arenhaus, is that people are basing their work off of photos that they don't have the copyright to or permission from the original photographer to use, then I'm in complete agreement with you (animal fetish or not). If however your argument is that tracing of any type is just unacceptable, then I'd say come down out of the ivory tower, and take a deep breath of down to earth reality. "These vector people" as you call them who have had predominant posts lately,  AkunaStyle and  kittyKat to name two, haven't broken any rules as far as I can tell, yet are subjected to pompous sounding bullocks from those who seem to think that their way of doing art is the only right way. Akuna by his own admission traces some things when he does his vectors. Looking at his work, it's pretty easy to tell that there is far more skill and work put into his creations than a simple trace over. Does it really make a final piece so much better if the artist sits at his or her desk and redraws a certain line or curve over and over until it's right as opposed to tracing a few key reference lines and saving a lot of time. A picture afterall is more than just a stroke. It's how the artist combines those strokes and how well they're able to convey an intended emotion or idea. As for  kittyKat she has stated herself, and gone above and beyond to provide evidence, that she doesn't trace when creating her vectors. I've known her personally for quite a while now, and watched her make vectors since she first got into it. I can state without a doubt that she indeed does her work the so called 'correct' way using photos as references and not tracing. She's been doing art for quite some time as she's stated, and the only time she has a 'stumbling' period is when she is adapting to new software (as many artists seem to). Her skills are far more advanced than the 'trace over' crowd would like to admit, and the art that's been based on copyrighted photos have been done so by the rules, with the original photographers permission. Check out Lithium Picnic's Fan Art Page sometime. The photographer seemed to appreciate both Akuna's and KittyKat's work well enough to add it to his site. "These vector people" as a group have been showing a lot of talent and injecting some fresh blood into this site recently. I think this makes some of the older users a bit nervous. Change is scary, fear is natural, harassment of other artists and public witch hunts however are unacceptable. If you think a rule of the site has been violated, contact one of the mods, but needlessly mucking up the message boards, and users posts with this crap is getting pretty old and ultimately turns off more people to the GfxArtist community as a whole than it draws to either side of the ongoing debate. Would you really want to be a member of a site (much less a paying member with GfxPlus in mind) where a certain group of people always went around accusing others of cheating in some way? Didn't think so. To add some intelligent thought back into this thread, has anyone ever looked into or have an opinion on David Hockney's theories that the 'old masters' used lenses to project images onto their canvases as an aid to getting complex perspectives, and the spontaneity of poses correct? Short article. Lengthy, but interesting article on Hockney. Definitely some food for thought.