Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Clint Eastwood sketch
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
When I first saw the digital version and the original yesterday, I did wonder why anyone would want to copy and produce an absolute identical image of Clint Eastwood, right down to the hairs in his nostril almost. If it's for a technical challenge all well and good, but this isn't creative art - it's pure copying!
Posted
I kind of agree Alan and another thing I wonder is about process because it is one thing to copy with hand movements trying to observe and recreate in a physical medium but I wonder if digitally this is more like tracing the image (I mean was it on a different layer and worked on top of?) to get so exact I would suppose this has to be the technique, in which case it is purely the technical challenge to get the colours and shading right in my humble opinion.
Posted
I think that it is a really good exercise to lear how to use Photoshop to copy photos. If you can do that then you have completed mastered the tool. Portraits are the most difficult as the slightest error of a well known face is usually very obvious to the viewer. I think we all associate Clint Eastwood with thin expressionless lips as Keora says. The lips look like an exact copy to me, but the area above the mouth and below the nose could be a bit closer to the original if you really want to be pedantic.
Another area, where you cold be a bit closer is the area between the bridge of the nose and the eye. You have the light area under his eye bags going too high. but you really have to look close to see these discrepancies.
You should not have to mix Crimson, just buy a tube of crimson paint, which will frequently be useful.
Hope this helps.
Posted
I certainly do not trace my art but I will take the assumptions that I do as a huge compliment thanks! =)
How I draw them on the pc is with a wacom art pad, which has a perfect paper texture & 8192 levels of pressure sensitivity.
I paint them looking at them on a laptop like they were in-front of me.
Edited
by aya
Posted
Hi Sylvia nice to meet you, I agree with you regarding the copy issue, thats just the basic definition of the word copy I think.
I also paint from my imagination in fact most of my artwork is from my mind.
It's just I don't think the kind of art I do create would be allowed on here as it's nudity, like this 1
I'd love to repaint this on a canvas with acrylic but I'm not sure it's even possible to get an oil look with the acrylics.
EDIT:
SylviaEvans"If YOU had taken the original photograph and then copied from that it is then your own creation."
Wouldn't that be a copy of the original too though?
Or may be a certified copy, or something.
EDIT:
SylviaEvans"If YOU had taken the original photograph and then copied from that it is then your own creation."
Wouldn't that be a copy of the original too though?
Or may be a certified copy, or something.Edited
by aya
Posted
We are open to nudes - not to pornography of the hard or soft sort, but certainly to nudes. And Sylvia, I'm increasingly unhappy with using solvents too - so have (almost) stopped using them, and just use Linseed oil/stand oil. I don't have full trust in water miscibles, but could be persuaded if the colour was a touch more intense - there are several brands now to try, though.
Posted
I don't mind porn in its place - after all I can just shut it down - but here? Not on yer life. There's erotic art, there's plain obscenity, and whatever people say, it's really not too hard to tell them apart. But children look at this site too - just let's not, if anyone is inclined to do so - I have no control over the gallery but then it's never showed extreme porn, and I'm sure it never will. If you're inclined to posit, just don't. Not needed here.
Posted
Hi aya, a general point. Working from photos is what we all do, we have to for figurative work. The issue is perspective and focal length. Clint's left forearm is correct to the photo I'm sure but the foreshortening, while look fine in a photo isn't the same thing in a painting/drawing. It helps to reduce it to a more natural size...as we would see it if we were stood say a metre or so away. Also the focal length used by the camera is not the same as the human eye.
On the point about copying, you are in the realms of 'derivative' work. The law says, you cannot create any piece of artwork that is, in essence, based on someone else's work...photographs in particular. The commonly held urban myth that if you change it a bit...colour, clothes you are ok. Nope it isn't true. If it is obvious you used that photo you are in breach of the photographer's/subjects copyright. Pop stars are a particular source of litigation...and they will stop you or prosecute. I do a lot on this topic for artists.
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2