http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687 Copyright 2000-2008 GFXartist network / Brothersinart http://www.gfxartist.com http://images.gfxartist.com/gfx/GFXartist_64.png support@gfxartist.com en-us GFXartist Engine 1.0 60 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:52:25 EST http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#228782 I agree. Just look at my critque !!! And flame away if you like but you will have to vote hehe... I agree anyway Almost-Human http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#215843 I think it also depends on what is counted as flaming. Since I was flamed two years ago I can say that what I saw here so far has NOTHING to do with flaming for me. Because telling somebody that cheating is not fair is like writing a critique... who says that critiques always have to be like "Oh nice!" ? reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#214821 Well, the techniques of cheating at a painting isn't really an issue here...the issue is public posting. Flaming creates animosity between artists and can divide many people's opinions and that is bad for the community. We have to remember that the reason you're here is primarily to view artworks and critique on them or to showcase your own art. Whether you feel that an artwork is a copy or a photo or such is not your choice. If you feel that it may be a just report it, I'm sure martin and the rest know how to handle it with more subtlety. Sorry, I know the debate has sort of wound down...but I just felt like giving my opinion. adamax http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#214392 Using photos for "reference" is like having a model in the room and drawing the subject. It's just frozen. "Paintovers" to me are just fucking lame (pardon my language). But they are. It's helped ruined my view of digital painting in many ways. I've become distrustful of artists on the net. I have to rummage through their galleries or other pieces to settle with myself that they are not cheating. I always found it somewhat funny that a person who can paint realistically amazingly enough also has a very hard time drawing on his own? It doesnt add up to me. Either way, i think people should learn not to trace all the time and work developing their own grounding. Reference is one thing but copying is another, you dont learn anything when all the work is done for you already. - Oscar! oguzman http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211951 R: ARENHAUS 11/ 14/ 04 @569 I did not ask for its opinion with regard to Boris Valejo! You it is always bad in its comentarios! Of its opinion only with relation the Rules not for artists! ARTYESTILO http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211837 you're right man i agree ^^ pAinto http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211808 Arenhaus, I have nothing against members who question the nature of an artwork. Make sure you ask questions though, and not make accusations. Unauthorized reproductions are absolutely not allowed. However in some cases the 'reproduction' differs in such a way from the original that it's hard to say wether it can be classified as a reproduction. I'm still trying to figure out what the deal is with derivative works. The issue of Artyestilo for instance is a tricky one. What is most important in the end is that the artist in question clearly indicates that the artwork has been drawn or painted from a photo. Or when reference is used, mention the reference. With this knowledge no one is fooled and members can simply indicate they aren't impressed by the process or whatever their opinion is and move on. At some point works based on photos, wether other peoples photos with permission or your simply own, are an artform that you appreciate or don't. No point trying to boycot the artform. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211734 emarts , didn't Martin say copying a photo is NOT the same thing as using a photo as a reference? "using reference material is absolutely no problem, however some people think that reproducing a complete photograph is the same as 'using reference'." I gather 'reproducing a complete photograph' counts as a rule violation... keiiii http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211615 Boris Vallejo the great master, yeah. A real role model. Let's all copy photos since that's what the great master does. arenhaus http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211507 They listen! Great masters as Luis Royo, Boris Valejo, Hajime Sorayma, Paolo Eleuteri Serpieri... had always used refencia of photos of models and personalities, without prevía authorization! They had been never processed by violation of rights! But yes adimirados for all, personalities, celebrities and fotografos! They produce a good work! Who would not like to be drawn or to have a photo its, produced by a Good artist? All ! I myself already received, compliments, of the personalities that I painted, and even though of the fotografos, that I used as refencia works its! We do not have to criticize the good artists, but yes the cheaters who paint over photos and say that it is Drawing or Painting! All would have to add to information or process of its work! Here in community GFX, it has many Good Artists in all the areas and many are professional, live of this as its work! We must in helping them, growing together, and not to destroy the community to the few! All truth always appears!!! PS. I to the few will go to change my works and to place only with my models! To prevent maldosos comentarios at least here! Thank you all Friends, sorry for the bad ingles! ARTYESTILO http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211505 R: emarts 11/13/04 @915 I agree to you! We must stop the publicos conflicts! They are creating a bad image for new people who come here! ARTYESTILO http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211326 I don't think you need to point out every copy of a photograph since that is not specifically against the rules. If you see a rule violation, I believe what Martin is suggesting is to first privately contact the artist in question. Then, if necessary, contact the admins. I think if you have a question as to whether a painting is a copy of a photo, you could politely ask and make a constructive comment (like you always do) about how you feel it does not help the artist to copy from photos. To me that is constructive criticism, which is what we all want. emarts http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211259 Johanflood, I have unpublished the piece because I do not want a flamefest on my artwork. Perhaps when this calms down I will put it back up. rgyoung777 http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211194 I have a question. If I see something that has telltale signs of being a copied photo and no information regarding reference given, can I ask the artist about it in a comment? Or is that forbidden and I should write them in private? Or should I outright apply to the administration? arenhaus http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211167 But then be glad about those who say theyr honest opinion with their OWN account. Those who at elast have the courage to be honest I mean. That's a good thing, too. reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211148 it's a little bit like a prep school playground. and a lot of false faces (easier on the internet than anywhere else) to cover bitchy intentions. stoderifik http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211145 *lol* Hehe. As I said I'll think about it. And I know how it feels when an Admin contacts you and asks you if you overpainted or not. But at least it shows that Im am interested to know how they pictures are made *is proud* reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211128 I know, it's just that one trick of the eye produces one pretty insulted artist. I have no problem against posting url's of the reference material the artist 'forgot' to post nor do I have problems with a little sarcasm and questions that question the creation of the artwork. However unfounded public accusations are just one step to far. Use some tact, because wrongfully accusing an artist is like an act of violence. * wow you get pretty weird discussions if we both post so frequently that the chronology gets all screwed up Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211127 @ Martin's 2end post: Yeah right I will inform you personally the next time I see something weird sothat the public freedom of gfx will be safed more reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211125 I understand why people react so fiercely on these issues. However it has come to a point where a lot of damage is done, more damage than justice. That's why I need people to report it to us, give artists the benefit of the doubt and hold the public scalding if there's no solid proof. The neighbourhood watch has turned into a club of raging headhunters. And this is not just a discussion between me and reilanchan, this goes for anyone who frequently posts public accusations. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211126 It seems to be the order every year or so cause last year it already was, too. o_O I am not perfect you know? In most cases my eye doesn't trick me but in this case it did. So I appologize. Which of course doesn't mean that generally nobody cares how the pictures are made reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211124 Read rgyoung777's last comment again, these things are completely unnecessary, but right now they seems to be the order of the day. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211123 I myself already was acused to do overpaintings last year Martin so I know how it feels and that my be the reason why I since that time look in another way at pictures done by others :/ PS: I have private contact with him now or how you call it... pm's and I asked him bout it and said I will apologize when I am wrong. I just don't understand this pic. Why there are a few lines over nice structures. reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211122 My point is that you shoved words in his mouth, instead of an innocent 'did you use 3D elements?' you give hime a '*sigh* nice overpainted 3D' comment. I need people to focus more on the content of the artwork and just a little less on how it was put together. This is turning into a witchhunt. How would you feel if my opinion is that all your works are done using poser models and I take the time to defend that opinion in the comments of all your artworks. Accusations without proof are offensive comments, they hurt the artist and are not allowed here. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211121 But no photos like that XD Whatever! I never said it contains photo parts in my critique that's why I said READ the critique. I simply asked about a 3d program XD And as already said that's why we should write good descriptions to our pictures :S reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211118 seems like your not up to date... first photos of the mars ground exist since the russian phobos probes landed there uncle-xeN http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211116 Heh one second. I asked the guy who made the mars pic if he used 3d software as well I never said he obverpainted a photo! As I know there doesn't exist any photo of the Mars yet o_O So it may also come to flaming when people don't read other coments right. reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211115 well we shouldnt forget that there were some cases of so called paintings who were puzzled together with several photoparts.and i dont talk about small textures ... much more than 50% of the pic were just photomaterial and no one cared here. and dont tell me that no one proved it... i still can remember a posting here at the forum. so whatever you say there is still a problem uncle-xeN http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211113 reilanchan, this is exactly the behavior I'm putting a stop to. I don't mean to insult you, but there is not a trace of photo or 3D material in Mars by Stoderifik... Do not start accusing people if you don't have solid (preferebly visual) proof, otherwise you're just insulting perfectly good artists. So let's take this path: Publicly accusing a member of using photo material (or other material) in paintings/illustrations without clear proof is not tolerated. In all cases report the issue so that the admin's can resolve it. As for enforcing the rules. We will first need solid proof. We can't start removing work because people have hunches. I'm afraid everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Second, we will confront the member and unpublish the artwork in question. Depending of the nature of the 'crime' member account can also be suspended. To indicate how serious this is: new members are fleeing as soon as they come across the accusations. Everyone feels eyeballed. Photorealists aren't safe anymore because half of the viewers can't resist bluntly accusating them of painting over a photo with any further proof. This overly suspicious and self-righteous behavior destroys the comfortable and professional atmosphere. Nothing good comes of unfounded accusations and it has got to stop. Give people the benefit of the doubt until reliable proof as been offered. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211054 Personally I think it is ok to use reference and combine it together to something new in a painting. If only one photo is used for reference and you copy it straight off that is quite easy to do and you get composition ligthing etc. for free. Good for training but it does take MUCH more time to paint something new. reilanchan: Ask the artist first in a message " do you have work in progress on this one ?" . If he does not have it for that single painting he maybe have it for another one and after seing that I think you can judge more clearly. That it "looks 3d" does not prove anything. spryoteknik: I had a look on the mars painting and it looks good to me and I have no doubt in believing capt fred is a respected painter rgyoung777: As you linked to the reference photo I cannot see anything wrong with your artwork post ! I went to your page but could not see the painting you mentioned Welcome to gfxartist and I look forward to see more artwork by you johanflood http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211013 err, reilanchan, i think you've proven gfx's case and point, stoderific (capt.fred) is a respected painter, who does things the right way, your critique was misplaced, and possibly damaging to a reputation, 'mars' is a painting, by a good artist, his work is well known around sijun spyroteknik http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211001 One more question is: How shall the rules be inforced? reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#211000 Martin and Linus, thank you for the responses. I think I understand now. I still don't understand why the member took it upon himself to be so rude to a new member of this site, and I guess I will just have to be more careful with what I post here. I was hoping for constructive feeback, which I've received a great deal of, but the accusation in one user's comment has soured things a bit for me. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to thicken up my skin a bit, eh? I'm surprised that people don't understand the seriousness of openly accusing someone of copying versus reporting their suspicions in private to a moderator. Being unfairly accused of copying is damaging to one's credibility. This is a first for me, and has made me think that perhaps this community is not the right place for a small artist like me. Thanks again for the help. rgyoung777 http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#210996 Take this work as an example. Read my coment, look at the full version. I don't think that I am flaming him with my critique. I just don't like to see stuff like this here which looks as if we, the community are seen as dumb people who are not able to see if something is a painting or not. -> My thoughts that right, which may not everyone like, I know this but at least I am honest. EDIT AND PS: I never said or thought he overpainted a photo the full version just looks so weird that I asked him if he used 3d software, too. Cause there are some simple lines and on the other hand perfect structures. K? reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#210983 The point is, let us enforce the rules. As weird as I feel saying it, we do have the authority to handle rule violations smoothly. When members jump in and point out that something was painted over a photo, it's their word against the artist's. As we are unable to keep track of all artworks and their comments, things turn into flames instead of just being solved. If we are approached first we simply take the appropriate action. Rgyoung777, using reference material is absolutely no problem, however some people think that reproducing a complete photograph is the same as 'using reference'. Martin http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#210971 well rgyoung777, you didn't any copyright violation because you were given the photograph (from its owner) with the purpose to paint it. Linus http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#210935 Nah... I have to say that I wrote a comment yesterday. The pic was obviously overpainted and the original photo was easy to find. As the two pieces where put above each other it was easy to see that it was exactly overpainted + that not all parts of the photo were overpainted cause you still saw some original skin and stuff in the full version! So I don't wonder that a so called "flame" started because I wonder what this artist thought. Did he think the members of this community are that retarded that they're not able to see a half overpainted photo? Ask yourself: Is this what you gfx wanna be? When a reference is used at least more than 50% of the pic should be painted by oneself. reilanchan http://www.gfxartist.com/general/general_news/67687#210929 Being a complete newcomer to GFX, this article actually raises many questions for me. The artwork quality guidelines are also very unclear in this respect. I have a piece in my gallery that I was commissioned to draw by an accquaintance. The drawing in question is a portrait of a family pet, and I used a photograph to make sure I got his likeness correct. I've received a critique from one user here that states that he believes that I "copied" this photograph in creating my drawing. I don't believe this to be the case, but if this piece is in violation of your rules I will take it down. Are traditional media portraits, created with the use of a photographic reference (when the original reference is linked, per the Artwork Quality Guidelines) allowed on GFX or not? I would respectfully request, however, that the rules be clarified further in this regard. I included a link to the reference used, as stated in the rules, but now I'm being accused of "copying," and I don't want to anger anyone or be in violation of your rules. I believe the drawing is artwork in it's own right, and that I should be able to display it here, but perhaps I'm wrong. If a staff member/moderator could help me out, that would be wonderful. rgyoung777