Hmph...I didn't see that thumbnail when I read the draft. Cute.

Nobody read the rules??? All membres must read all, but all members just wait to see the others members works. Draw, Photo or Manipulations, we just wait to see it.

I like Wallace art, photo manipulation or painting, photo or drawing, its good art, I'm here to see other people's arts, to show my art.
There was the GFXartist of old, when we don't have so much rules and we all where happy.
There are regulations, rules, guidelines, all have to be respected, but for me, the spirit of GFX is that this is the biggest art gallery in the world and people come from every corner of the world to show their art, and thats what matters to me.

@Hybridos

The guidelines were created because people couldn't just be open and honest.

GFX of old:
2002 - you even commented here Glad you stuck around this long.
Moderating the GFXartist galleries

2003
To all: Copyright violation policy
What has been going on below the surface of GFXartist

2004
ALL MEMBERS: Announcement
Ei-en's Departure (this guy got banned twice for the same thing )

2005
Nomination Turmoil

Thanks for all the hard work on GFXArtist. This seems to be a very fragile issue, however. I can imagine that changes to site policies, on which art goes where, rules, and such, might actually cause an artist to be more dishonest about his or her methodology rather than be more honest about it. Hoping that doesn't happen though ^^;

Much luck, and I hope things turn out well.

A good point lyn, it comes natural for most artists to let the result speak for itself. Like magicians they tend to want to reveal only as much about the process as necessary. However, at the same time they ask us to shield them from insinuations made by viewers. Ultimately artists displaying work at a site like GFXartist profit from being transparent, no matter how much they dread to do so. Eventually people will come along and raise questions, if you keep viewers in the dark they will stick to what they believe to be true.

I intend to address rules that are easily bent to what is accepted, especially when it comes to reference.

Honesty about technique is definitely something you should focus on and expect from the members.
I like GFX artists a lot, but I have problems posting my pieces here because I also have to post my photo references. In theory this is no big deal, but it's not always cool when the photo references are pictures of your gf not wearing too much clothes, hehe. Still, as long as you show the progress steps, you still prove that you made it, I would guess, so this is what have been a bit confusing to me as I always include this as well...
Anyways, I'm crossing my fingers that this is one of the points that might change so that I can go back to posting my art here, still if not, I'll just post my less questionable art works only ;-)

I'm sure you guys will come up with some good updates to the rules, good luck!

I know it's me again and I will keep myself short don't worry.

I have had a long talk with Wysiwig and I must say that he is right about the fact, that GFX is very open towards its members. That honors you, and is a reason why I have been following this site since 2003. In this sense I have to thank you.

And I also want to clear up a misunderstanding about the mod/ money thing I mentioned. My whole intention just was to ask if a gossip was true in order to get it solved. That is all. I would not like myself to be seen as somebody who is desperatly wanting to see a negative gossip being true for whatever reason.

Last but not least, it seems like I am always jolly on the spot as soon as I seem to "sniff" something going on. In fact, some members have been hiding behind my back, linking me certain threads constantly, together with the note "I feel so unhappy/insulted", while in public, they either stated nothing (eventhough they wanted to after I had left a message first) or wrote that they felt amused with the way it was fighted for or against them.

My original, only problem has been a moderator being unpolite towards me and towards a friend of mine, but I am not willing to hold my head out for people anymore, while they just sit and watch.
(And trust me, I received such complaints a lot enough to make me move -__-)
I am nothing like a lawyer who is supposed to speak for somebody who is too afraid to speak for himself.
That's why I will take another break from GFX and I will think twice next time to follow a thread that was linked over to me or not. :/

Sincerely, Azu

PS: (Sorry I forgot something ~.~) When it comes to overpaintings done in early days when you didin't "know" better it's like 99% of all artists, including me, are guilty, wether they admit it or not.
But does this mean they have to be blamed forever even when years have passed and they meanwhile have grown up and learned different?

I think the mods should be more educated in what's a manip/paintover, etc. I can easily spot what's purely painted, and what's not. And I'm not even a mod. There's no excuse why a mod shouldn't be able to. If they can't, then they should never have been promoted to mod in the first place...

Slickgreekgeo considering mods aren't the only ones that are debating that exact same issue perhaps you shouldn't be so derogatory. There is probably a reason you aren't a mod.

i dont see how this changes anything.

Something slightly off topic, but relating to rules...

• I've seen recent drawings and paintings that are clearly [100%] referenced from photographs [and do not mention the sources] that have not been moderated with this much force.

• I've seen photo manipulations that do not cite their sources, personal or public, that have not been moderated with this much force.

Like some have said in the past and now, some members/elites receive special treatment from mods regarding the two points I brought up. Why so much hypocrisy? I would say more, but I could get a stick up my rear end like last time.

[Added some info in brackets.]

 purplerose we deal with artworks as we see them, and seeing as there is a small number of active moderators, things are of course going to slip through unnoticed every now and then.

Any items that we see that are "[100%] referenced from photographs" and do not supply the source, we request it generally via PM. It doesn't always get done instantly as you could well understand, so you may be seeing the down time between messages as well.

I actually have a bookmark folder that is for moderations regarding reference posting etc so i can regularly check back to see if they've updated etc.

So it isn't as grave as you are suggesting, things take time and we go as fast as we can.

ALthough I have been lurking here since around 2003, it wasn't until earlier this year that I have managed to gather up courage to sign up. It was only last month that I managed to gather up courage to actually post something,
Being relatively newly active in this community, it is slightly disheartening for me to see some members unpublish their works after certain moderation actions, even though I am not directly involved with it myself.

You have made many good and valid points, Martin. I truly hope(and trust) that you and your team will review this and come up with a more amicable solution.

As I have said before in the forum, I am looking forward to the return of Wallace(and others who has also unpublished their galleries). Their artworks are great assets to this community.

@Slick: go read my forum post in the topic "save Wallace foundation", second page.

double post

@Martin, any chance of you adding some photographers for "mod" positions !!
Photographers and photo-manipulators hold a high enough % of membership, please keep them in mind also.. Maybe one from each section !

I would have to say reading 5.3, Wallace followed the guidelines to a "T"...

It was merely placed in the wrong category by the mods into the photomanip section. This is discrediting to Vincent as an artist! It makes him seem like he was hiding something when he wasn’t! The reproduction of the photo could maybe, at best, be called a paintover, but in seeing the process that he CLEARLY showed in many links, it is easy to tell that it was neither a tracing nor a paintover due to small imperfections in the reproductions, for one, and the means of which he got to his final piece.

Being an artist, I could understand the anger and betrayal one would feel if a moderator took it into their own hands to move a work that I created by hand into a category SUCH as photomanip. It, to me, is a shot in the gut! It, to me, is like being accused of a crime i did not commit!

These are just my thoughts on the most recent matters.

_quote:

---

It was merely placed in the wrong category by the mods into the photomanip section. This is discrediting to Vincent as an artist! It makes him seem like he was hiding something when he wasn’t!

---

Vincent posted a reproduction. Something of which we state clearly that we reject them, read 5.3 again it's all there, we reject reproductions. Vincent was expected to have read that guideline and should have been prepared to have a mod look into it. You seem to forget that we explain to you to our best ability what we will reject and still you call it a mistake when we do so?

I know that there seems to be a problem in accepting rules that aren't a direct extension of the law. But at least have the decency to tell us you see no reason to have those rules.

No matter how easy it is to roll over and play the victim role, every moderator action starts with a member disregarding one of our rules. Period.

"Links to the original material will have to be provided and permission must be granted by the original artist. You are allowed to post recreations in the forum, including links to the original material if you want others judge / recognize your technical skill."

Maybe, then, there should be a category for recreations under the drawing and painting section.

Posts in the forum get, otherwise, lost. I dont see the problem, if the permission is given to the artist from the photographer, posting in the gallery for recognition.

Is this a possibility? Rejection seems a little harsh IMO.

Well there you raise a very good point. Most of the friction and our drive to restrict reproductions comes from the fact that they are mixed with works created from scratch or with moderate reference and plenty of added value.

The important decision to make is if GFXartist should welcome reproductions and paintovers of material owned by the artist. I wonder if that is what we want. Mind you, with those few good reproductions will come a lot of crap when copies are no longer subject to moderation.

All this is very confusing.  bigkate has a point about MAYBE creating a new category in painting and drawing. I read all of the posts, and really don't know what to say.
I am glad rules are given a re-arrangement. It needs to be done from time to time.

I just wonder what kind of an impact will the new guidelines and rules have.

I am not concerned over me and my works, but all those people who use references for the best.I hope you (GFX) don't lose artists to those new R&G...

I am not familiar with the Wallace issue, and I will not comment on that. I myself had no issues with mods, only one time when my artwork link was broken , and the mod was very polite.

Good luck

In my opinion, TRUST in moderators and rules will be earned when those rules are enforced on and followed by EVERYONE and EVERY WORK on GFX, old AND new, regular members AND elite members.

If an artist submitted an image and it was rejected, with an explanation, I don't see a big deal. What I object to is a 100% painting being moved to photo manip, regardless of creation method. It's the difference between saying "Great artwork, but this site doesn't accept copies of photos" and "You cheated and did a paintover and now everybody will know it."

And pleeeeease can we draw a distinction between a copy and a paintover. Copying a photo to produce results like Wallace (Vincent - I'm starting to think he's called Wallace ) requires a high degree of skill and a great deal of time. A paintover is cheating and can be done in 5 seconds by pressing a button, or in 5 minutes by a monkey with Photoshop.

this is excellent...

Thanks Martin thanks Wysiwyg

..although I do understand there sometimes might be some difficulties to differ between a 'paintover' and a 'copy' I must agree with the Baron. What Vincent did, imo, was simply using a reference. References has always been a necessity in arthistory and nowadays, not everyone has the possibility to a living model. And I agree, copying (using a photo as reference) might not always be the best choice, using a photo-reference needs a lot of skill, due to lens distortions among other things...

The only issue here is copyright (in Vincent's case it was a comissioned work) which may cause a lot of doubtful publications out of moderators control.

Baron makes a good point. One of the troublesome areas in our guidelines are those involving reference. We extended our copyright rules by rejecting reproductions and paintovers. Two practices that often involve copyright violation. Often but not always. It are also those exact rules that had moderators not only chase based on suspicion of copyright violation, but also based on how heavily work seemed referenced.

Right now that is an area in most need of clarity so it can be enforced consistently.

Let me add that every mod can state from experience that--despite popular belief--singlehandedly determining if a work is a copy or paintover is very inaccurate. My suspicions regarding paintovers have more than once proven wrong, no matter the amount of 'test' you throw at it.

"2.2 Exact recreations/copies of other works,
unless clearly a personal interpretation, with clear links to the original material. If work of someone other than you is involved supply sufficient details about the original artist.

Detail: Although you may have put in effort and even if all lines and brush strokes are yours, if the work is an exact recreation/copy of another work it is rejected. Interpretations of other works are allowed, but only if the original artwork is linked and the original artist is given proper credit / has given permission."

4.2 and 5.3 in the "Artwork Submission Guidelines" state the same as well.

This says that exact recreations of original works are not allowed... So, regardless if the person links to the original photos, they shouldn't be allowed in the first place. Still noticing hypocrisy and mods not enforcing the rules to everyone.

I highly agree with furitsu:

"TRUST in moderators and rules will be earned when those rules are enforced on and followed by EVERYONE and EVERY WORK on GFX, old AND new, regular members AND elite members."

In past cases when I pointed out works that broke 2.2, 4.2, 5.3 and 6.2 of the guidelines, I was politely told to mind my own business. I think the situation is grave when trust and hypocrisy are thrown into the mix in an art community that does not enforce its own rules fairly and justly to everyone.

I'm probably talking to a brick wall right now, but I don't care. I'll feel worse about myself if I don't say anything.

hey everyone I have GREAT NEWS I resigned from being a moderator here so now you can calm down and go make some art and stop worrying about what's being posted and what cant be posted....
just go make some art have a ball with your self's.
yah dats de ticket.

I do admit, I always hated how the term "reference" is used at GFX. Here speaking of reference actually means "copy source". Why don't you just say so?

And let's be honest for a second: the GFX community always will evaluate a copy of an Aragon LOTR promotion shot higher then the most precise copy of a badly cropped out-of-focus shot of Aunt Petulia. Just take a look at the usual comments, when a copy is posted:
"Great lighting, dude!"
"Oh, you do so greatly with anatomy!"
"You truely can handle this clothing, man."
Ahem, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Copying just means to make a dark spot at the same place where it can be found on the original work. It really has nothing to do with lighting or with anatomy. That was someone else's responsibility. So after all it is all about the original. And that was done by someone else.

And if this is really just about the technique, I can even hear by now, how the difficulty level will rise:
"I did every pixel just with my bare hands!" - "Hey, I did it without a grid!" - "Look at me! I dit it hanging from the ceiling upside down, hands cuffed and just with my mouth!" Is that the future of GFX? Does not sound very attractive to me, sorry.

And one word to Martin:
I intend to address rules that are easily bent to what is accepted, especially when it comes to reference.

Rules that are easily bent? If you plan such a thing, you actually don't need rules at all. Such rules can and will be bent in absolutely any direction, just to please the crowd. With such rules it is best to stay main stream. Is it that what you want? I wonder when those rules will bent against me, when the crowd is not pleased with my big cigar nose anymore. Brave new world.

A final word to kittyKat:
You did a tremendous work to support this page, and this is appriciated. Thanks.
It may sound odd for you to hear these words from me, but even so I thought you went off track from time to time, I'm well aware that a mod's job is far from easy.

Not even 1% of members of forums and communities read the rules. But I think it's simply common sense to behave and don't steal or (ab)use other people's work. If people fail to understand that, I believe they will be delt with accordingly.

I haven't followed the threads/posts of people that were supposedly out of line, but I do know that this community (most artcommunities actually) are usually very social and open minded.

For what it's worth: good job

Thorsten, you misinterpreted my weird sentence there. What I meant is that we have to get rid of rules that are so flexible that neither the moderators nor the members can get a firm grasp on them.

Now we have been 'through the motions'

I think another news item should be made thanking Pam for her substantial contributions of time and energy to the site, even though she may not have seen eye to eye with all members (and lets be honest, not many active members here do, myself included at one stage!) all of the time her intentions for the further development of this site were always noble. From where I'm standing, it's a loss to the site to see her resign as an active mod.

Just a thought.

Let me just say that tensions ran high among the moderators and me, far higher than anything 'out here'. We are far from the stage where this needs public announcement, at least as far as I am considered.

i´m really sad for Kitty, she´s a great member of this comunity. THANKS FOR ALL!!! .. it sounds saying to her little, but really thanks Pam.

This news certainly made my day.

I'd like to add that there's no excuse for something that's purely painted to go under a photomanipulation. NO excuse, no matter how much it looks like the reference; It's up to the artist to decide how much his/her work resembled a photo. The shouldn't be punished for achieving that.

slickgreekgeo, lets see if I scroll up I see you said the same thing yah I think you made your POINT but the deal is I was told by the group this is where exact recreations go OK don't twist things around and make it look like it was MY choice to put it there. like this is what I wanted OR I am not qualified to tell what is a digital painting and what is a photo manip OK
I know the difference. you can trust me on that go take all your anger and go paint something.

Oh, oh, this could be so bad.

Not so fast slick. I do still firmly believe that authors should never be allowed to post works at GFXartist that violate the copyright of others. We will still have rules that reject reproductions of images not owned or provided with permission. It's not just up to the artist to decide how perfect a copy he/she makes of a copyright protected work when its published online here.

However, I no longer see the point of having mods chase the use of reference to provide the clarity that viewers can request themselves. Reference, not the original of a reproduction.

The new rules are being shaped to specifically uphold copyright, reject poorly presented work, reject work solely suitable for adults and to reject reproductions that aren't presented as such. That, within the boundaries that find ourselves in online and to the extend that we can be as consistent as possible.

And to address the issue that Pam raises, let's not confuse the now with the new. We stated the rules we had quite clearly, expected you to follow them and had moderators making inquiries when it appeared you didn't.

In other words, the fact that I feel the rules should change now, doesn't change that fact that I expected the moderators to uphold the rules we had.

but it doesn´t cancel the Pam account, please!!!
She´s a great artist too.

kittyKat: First off, I'm not angry at all with the current situation. If anything, I'm overjoyed. As for the rule you're mentioning, I'm fully aware you didn't create it (in fact that comment wasen't directed to you. Only the first sentence was ) I don't know why you think I have animosity towards you. I don't. Really. In fact, I think you're an amazing vector artist.

Martin: If you're talking about copying a reference 1:1 that's copyrighted, then yea, I definitely agree. With what I posted, it was assuming the artist was referencing his/her own photos (or obtained permission from the proper parties). At any rate, nothing that is purely painted should ever be moved to photomanipulation. I don't want to sound like an ass, but photomanipulation=manipulation of PHOTOS. There's nothing really complicated about that.

You're right there, reproductions should be presented as reproductions, not stuffed into another category for lack of a better solution.

That's exactly my point, I'm glad you agree.

Edit: How about a Painting > Reproduction category? I think that's a simple way to fix this situation. I expect full credit and a briefcase full of money in return for my suggestion.

hey i posted a reproduction, Its in pencil, it is pretty realistic looking. Why not put that in photo manip, In fact, If I do something from life, is that not a reproduction of life? Even if you make a reproduction section, you are going to have the same arguments over whats a reproduction and what isnt. Things like this would be a million times better left alone. With all the reference material given, all progress shots, you can see that a huge amount of work was put into it. Nobody had a problem with it because there was no problem. And then you guys created one. But you cant just go and pick on somebody like this, and then just say you moderate what you see. I know you guys are all working on new rules and stuff, but I cannot help feeling a bit angry here still.

 Sharkh20 i roughly see where you are coming from, however in no way would i justify putting a drawing by say (for example) Bobby Chiu (just for creativities sake) into the same category as (seeing as everyone likes to keep referring back to him) Milla Jovovich by  Grafiker. Although the medium is the same, the approach is completely different. Also not saying that one particular method is better just too different to be thrown in the same group - which is much like the issue being sorted now with things being put into photomanipulation - hence why the guidelines etc are being changed.

Seeing as martin is looking into solutions to this, and the suggestion of a new category has been thrown in the mix, you will see what the final product will be from all of this. It may be that a new section (for example "reproduction) will be placed into each medium type (for example drawing > reproduction), but i can't say for certain because i don't know.

Regardless, i'm sure whatever martin introduces to the site, it will be both beneficial and problem solving, so just give it time.

Looking at the collection of news issues in one of the first comments I am not sure if I have seen an artsite with so much guideline debates as here.
Maybe i am not too well informed.
But it is good that that is so, because it has been a pretty common way for many digital artists to be dishonest about their work because it is so easy to trace and overpaint with Photoshop but there is just like 1% who would really write "Here is the ref; I traced from it!"

And once you point this dishonesty out you get evil messages of hate. Then a community tries to encourage members to be honest and receives messages of frustration. Is that because those atists just don't want to be honest? (Result is all, making of is nothing?) Or is there some other problem what some people here have spoken about?

 nightbird you are making it sound like you're implying that everyone who paints anything even remotely close to realism in Photoshop trace and overpaint. this is not true for many of the case, and really much of the time you have nothing to base that claim on apart from your own suspicions. Of course the artists will be upset about it; nobody likes to be accused of being a paintover-artist, and it is especially infuriating if they really didn't and especially embarassing for you if you are wrong. Unless you have solid proofs indicating otherwise, give people the benefit of doubt

I´m agree with MePhIstoZoR

Martin, you wrote: "The new rules are being shaped to specifically uphold copyright, reject poorly presented work, reject work solely suitable for adults and to reject reproductions that aren't presented as such. That, within the boundaries that find ourselves in online and to the extend that we can be as consistent as possible."

I really hope you will be indeed consistent for the reasons I stated earlier in this topic. What's the use of having a set of reasonable and well thought out rules if they aren't enforced fairly?

I think making a Copy/Reproduction section will add further confusion. Also, considering the number of artists that have been run from this site in the past because of the "Exact copy" guidelines and false accusations, it will cause even more problems.

Suggestions:

• Have more trustworthy mods who can be online more. Having one unfair, active (ex-)mod, leaves a lot of cracks and holes in the fiber of this community and stunts its growth.
• Make it known that exact copies are not wanted; not everyone clicks that little submission guidelines link.

Solution: Make me a mod

 purplerose saying that we had an untrustworthy mod on the team is both ignorant and rude. Don't assume things just from what you pick and choose from the forums. And as for stunting the growth of the community... well i could go on a rant on that which involves none of the mods or admin, but i won't because it would be counterproductive.

And as for "not everyone clicks that little submission guidelines link." - that's their problem not ours. The tickbox is there for the members benefit, so they know what will and will not be accepted. If and when they read the guidelines (soon to be updated) then they will have no excuse to say "i didnt know" or anything along those lines. Saying not everyone clicks the link is all fine and dandy but they shouldn't be submitting unless they have read it.

@ slickgreekgeo........ uh huh.

It is fair for me to call Pam untrustworthy, because she is. I have the right to an opinion based on what I have seen and encountered. This is not a "witch hunt" for me; I am calling it like I see it. My statement is not based on assumptions, but interactions on and off the forums of this site and other sites. I would agree with you if all I left were flaming replies and whatnot, but I have not. I am not even focused on the Wallace issue, but the specific guideline as a whole.

Growth stunting trickles down from admins and the rules they choose to or not to enforce, to the mods they choose, to those who are or are not moderated. It is all a matter of everyone making correct, just and well-informed choices. We see it in politics and ruling bodies around the world today and in the past. If the rules would have been properly enforced from the beginning, then maybe this problem would not be so severe.

People not clicking the the link is inevitably your problem. You are in fact a moderator who has to go and correct the ignorance that comes from not clicking the link. The more time it takes to correct the problem, the more other problems arise from the "monkey-see, monkey-do" syndrome. If others see something done incorrectly and it goes unchecked, they will do the same thing. This is not the case for everyone, but considering the vastness and severity of this problem, it seems like it's the majority. In the end, you are left with a few more wrinkles, a bit more stress and perhaps a few more flames added to the fire.

"...but they shouldn't be submitting unless they have read it...," yet they have and still do, even while this Wallace fiasco was slowly unfolding; I was watching and shaking my head in disbelief... Such a popular artist being told that recreations are not allowed and people are still not noticing that they need to read the rules?? You can not say with a sound mind that this is just a little problem that only the members have to deal with.

*Sigh* Adressing your points  purplerose

In regard to the Pam issue, that's fine, you seem pretty sure in your "statement" but that doesn't mean you are correct.

Growth stunting cannot ever only be caused by the "ruling body". It would be ludicrous to say a government is the only factor in the development of a nation, and the same applies here. True, it is a (and possibly the most) major factor, however it's not hands down the only contributor. I'm not sure whether your choice of "enforced" was the correct word, as in 99% of situations, the guidelines were followed as the rules were laid out, the 1% being the gray area now under review.

Also, I never once said that this was "a little problem that only the members have to deal with". I was saying that was PART of the problem. There is a big difference.

Regardless, what i stated earlier still applies :
"I'm sure whatever martin introduces to the site, it will be both beneficial and problem solving, so just give it time."

I am not going to go back and forth with someone who can not read with an open mind, it is not healthy and we will go in circles. So, I will counter your points and conclude in dealing with this exchange of thoughts with you.

• "In regard to the Pam issue, that's fine, you seem pretty sure in your "statement" but that doesn't mean you are correct. "

There is something that is called being "two-faced" or fake. You can be nice and "goody-goody" in the public, but behind closed doors or through private communications, the real personality appears. Back in 2005 when I first joined, I would have spoken highly of Pam, but the truth eventually came out and I'll leave it at that.

• "cannot ever only be caused by the 'ruling body'"

I actually included everyone in stunting growth. It only trickles down because without the admins, none of us would be here discussing anything. You have to admit when you have someone breaking the rules or "guidelines" you have to enforce them and ultimately unpublish the questioned works or ban the artist, depending on the situation. With barely anyone speaking up, we are adding to the problem. I am glad more people are choosing to speak up now, regardless of how insane some comments may appear.

• "Also, I never once said that this was 'a little problem that only the members have to deal with'. I was saying that was PART of the problem. There is a big difference."

You are contradicting yourself a bit here. You stated: "And as for 'not everyone clicks that little submission guidelines link.' - that's their problem not ours." Based on that you absolve yourself from the problem completely and brush it off barely hinting that you care, yet you come back to say that it's only "PART of the problem." I have to say that I am a bit confused here... which is it? Is it big, little or not a problem at all?

This is not a personal attack of any kind. I am just astonished at the level of confusion that surrounds a part of the guidelines and the length of time it has taken to attempt to tackle it equally.

Have a nice day/night!

Maybe i was a little unclear, by the statement ""Also, I never once said that this was 'a little problem that only the members have to deal with'. I was saying that was PART of the problem. There is a big difference." i meant clicking the guidelines was part of the overall problem. The action of clicking it is undoubtedly the members, i'm not in your house whispering in your ear "click the button click the button click the button".....

or are you... lol. >_> Everything's cool man, hope you don't think I'm mad. I like a healthy debate every now and then.

Lol yeah no dramas, i've said the exact same thing (healthy debate) to a couple of the more philosophical members here on some of there "debates" lol.

kayness:
"you are making it sound like you're implying that everyone who paints anything even remotely close to realism in Photoshop trace and overpaint."

No. I am strict and I see such artwork with critical eyes but I do not mean to accuse everyone

"Of course the artists will be upset about it; nobody likes to be accused of being a paintover-artist, and it is especially infuriating if they really didn't and especially embarassing for you if you are wrong."

I think that there is nothing bad in ask if tracing was used as a help or not. If the artist feels offended about that I cannot do anything about it. I am a bit upset that some people react so aggressive just because I am interested in their way of working and if there is something that was not mentioned, that I'd like them to be honest. I am a beginner, but I am not stupid, I can well guess if some information was forgotten - so I would love to know how this or that was created, and I am upset when I feel that people lie at me.

edited post: I had a bad day< Im sorry.

Here are real people too. And real artist.

I agree with you Daykan.This is only about "confusion" and "honesty" , I love people too.

Whew...I take 5 days off from the comp (unwillingly) and it takes forever to play catch up.

@Everyone...keep the healthy discussion going, but don't let it distract you from your sketch pad

I've read the concerns here, read the mod threads and my inbox and will address everything as needed asap.

Edit: Inbox done.