@864
Members: 61960
Elites: 218
 |
|
Category:
|
ALL MEMBERS: AnnouncementSince not everyone reads posts of length, let me quickly sum up the content of this message. With the recent disqualified elite winner, paint-overs have yet again become a hot item. Do not, in any circumstances, start a witch hunt. Though you might feel it's easy to spot a work painted over a photo, you could very well be wrong. If you suspect that a member breaks the rules, notify the admins or file a report. Imagine if someone questioned your work and publically states he or she thinks your work is painted over a photo. Large groups of people are like lemmings and before you know it everyone considers you the photo-paintover king and all that just because of one stupid accusation. We rather use discretion and we want you to do that too. The originality of the work submitted to GFXartist is important, but very hard to check. When it comes to using photo reference and photo's as base of your image, copyright comes looking around the corner. Wether you're drawing over or from a photo, be carefull not to replicate it. The original author still owns the rights over the image and by creating a near duplicate you're violating the authors copyright, even if it are all your brush strokes. Since proving an artwork is painted over a photo or a replica of a photo is very, very hard we use as much discretion as possible. We can't go about and question the work of people everytime we have a hunch. You can't either, because what might sound like a simple question can lead to misunderstandings, have an impact on someones credibility and overall destroy ones reputation within the site. Once an artwork has proven to violate our rules, we try to take care of it as delicately as possible. Now I'm not saying you are harsh and can't handle things delicately. The thing is simply that we set the rules and it's also us who will enforce them. So please do report any suspected rulebreaking, but let us handle the rest so we can control the amount of damage that is caused. Thank you. Team GFXartist |
Inside GFXartist
Martin
14
To write a comment you need to be logged in
If you're not a registered member, click here to sign up.Copyright © 2000-2008 All rights reserved
Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .
Jane
02/11/04 @063
02/11/04 @205
02/11/04 @320
is at an artist point of view painting over your own photo is counted as cheap work?
02/11/04 @443
edit: don't expect people to be very excited about works painted over a photo though, the majority of our public doesn't attach much value to photo painterovers...
Someone would feel stupid saying you have a great feeling for anatomy, if you simply planted brush strokes on a photograph. People want to make a fair judgement about the difficulty and needed skills. Since there are artists who can draw photorealistic imagery from scratch (http://bbs.popv.net/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=26&id=257280). And people who are good at making a photo-paintover look very painted. You can imagine the world of difference between the skills of the two artists. For the audience this is not always important, but fellow artists need to know.
02/11/04 @773
If I see a photography from, let's say some celebrity on the net, and I want to make a painting basing on that picture, could this become dangerous ?
how much needs to be changed ?
I am not talking about paint-over to clear things up
.. so many questions (^___^)
02/12/04 @021
For celebrities it's a little different. The celebrity has to be have been dead over 50-60 years to do an exact photorealism paiting/drawing of the person. This is usually more of an issue if you plan to sell the work or plan to turn into a portfolio to someone. So if you plan to do Elvis or Marylin Manroe, forget it...lol.
This is all info I found out from my Studio Art Advance Placement teacher...so if I'm wrong blame her...lol
02/12/04 @710
Well the warning is in the FAQ if I remember currectly and I think it shouldn't have come down to the need of it to apear in the news as well.
02/13/04 @014
the irony is, unless i'm greatly mistaken -- which i definitely am not as i've seen it elsewhere -- this image [http://pop.pcpop.com/upimg/200312221595206215.jpg] is based on a photo of some japanese pop singer lol
so... great feel for anatomy or good reproduction skills?
02/13/04 @155
02/16/04 @044
====
It's a beautiful image, but these series of images are actually ripped from a tutorial teaching you how to reproduce a photograph using only a mouse with the aid of lasso tool in photoshp.
There's a photograph used somewhere, probably on the artist desktop, or probably under the background layer. Anyway, it's a practice of photo-reproduction.
The original tutorial site (in Chinese of course):
http://www.chen-i.com/hutong/cangjinge/ps/girl.asp
Thanks for sharing the link, but before forwarding things it's always good to do a quick check for the origin of the information if you are not sure what these things are actually for. Partial facts with misleading comments are just as reliable as all other forms of internet rumors. Sorry for breaking the magic, but I just feel the obligation to demystify certian things such as this one.
02/25/04 @687
The one comment ballooned into many more and it was like a virus.
That was all over a year ago and things have calmed down. Mainly my work speaks for itself and people have figured out that it's all original and that one instance was simply a misunderstanding. But this could have all been avoided if the offending poster had simply paused, taken a deep breath, and said "I won't write this comment, until I know for sure."
So I take my hat off to the GFX Team. WTG
02/26/04 @095
03/03/04 @269
03/03/04 @272