Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Something about Digital
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
Message
Posted
I think it's fair to say that in some of the forum threads digital is viewed with suspicion by some POL members. Mostly when they think a photograph is being passed off as a 'painting.' (IF that happens, it's wrong and does a disservice to Digital Art.) I'm a big fan of digital art, some fabulous work is being produced...for me it's just another medium. This is for those who don't use it...I hope it will be of interest.
First of all, apologies to all Digital artists out there...these are the ramblings of a rank beginner...it's not for you. I have Photoshop Elements 5, an elderly version, yet I use maybe 20% of it's capabilities.
In the image below I've shown a few variations available almost at the touch of a button. I think the artistic opportunities in Digital Art are wonderful...even though my attempts aren't.
What I've done here is start with a watercolour painting...the top left picture. I used a photo of Einstein as a ref pic...I made no attempt to get a likeness, I was using the photo as a reference for light, shade, hair, wrinkles, etc...it's meant to be an elderly bloke not Einstein. I started with a pencil drawing and then painted it in watercolour...the background, such as it is, is made up. This painting was photographed and put into photoshop. I've used various filters to produce different effects. The name of the effect is given on each version of the painting. Mostly these were achieved by clicking on the filter and accepting the default setting of the filter. Literally a couple of clicks with the mouse. All these effects can be adjusted.
I think some of the results are great, or at least interesting. Some I think, are better than the original painting. Curiously, I used the 'watercolour' filter on my watercolour, and prefer it to the original. (The bottom right picture). My first love is illustration, so maybe all this will be of more interest to me than someone who is a 'fine art' devotee. (That's a can of worms I'm not going to open.)
I especially like the TWIRL (it gives a surreal effect),the Fresco, Poster edges and the watercolour. The forum system reduces the size of images, I hope you'll still get some idea of the effects...these are just a few. Most people have Tablets, Phones and PCs that come with digital editing suites, there are several free 'photoshop' style programmes available on the net. Give it a try...it's fun.
I hope this has been of interest, and hasn't confirmed anybodies worst fears. I say embrace Digital art if you can.
Sermon over...I'm just chatting about art.
Lew.
I especially like the TWIRL (it gives a surreal effect),the Fresco, Poster edges and the watercolour. The forum system reduces the size of images, I hope you'll still get some idea of the effects...these are just a few. Most people have Tablets, Phones and PCs that come with digital editing suites, there are several free 'photoshop' style programmes available on the net. Give it a try...it's fun.
I hope this has been of interest, and hasn't confirmed anybodies worst fears. I say embrace Digital art if you can.
Sermon over...I'm just chatting about art.
Lew. 
Posted
Thanks Lew. Ive tried, and posted, a few digital pics but Im still unsure. The twirl, for exampe, in my mind is simply awful. What you've done is not clever or skillful (which you are). The blue face isn't particularly demonstrative of anything other than that you've clicked and filled.
Now, had you done these things by eye, especially the twirl like they used to do portraits of king charles (i think) around silver cylinders...then I'd be impressed because I'd see that as manual art.
I look at stuff that Dennis Roberts does and it leaves me cold, I see it as nothing more than running an algorithm .
Im not against digital art per se, i really like some 3d graphics. At work i used to pick up discarded newspapers jyst to look at the comic strip 'Striker' which was or is excellent artwork. I also used to read Viz and i really appreciated the artwork, which I'm sure was heavily digitally supported .
I suppose Im simply old fashioned and I appreciate manual dexterity far more than electrons .
I also struggle with digital art because nothing really exists as a created piece. The few bits I have done I quite like, but I cant keep them...they dont exist. I enjoy creating, and they arent created. They simply apparently exist.
I appreciate your post, I sincerely hope you dont mind my frank reply
Atb
David
Posted
Several good points. David, you've given it a go and don't like it much....fine, I've tried pastels, didn't like them, won't use them again. That's all digital is to me, another medium. Fair point that I've done nothing with the variations but press a few buttons, but the original creation was mine. It wasn't a great painting, I haven't posted it, I think a couple of the 'variations' actually improve the look. If I can use tools to improve my work, that's fair enough. (Whether it has improved them is all down to opinion.) Many of the variations I've tried I wouldn't use, I just did it out of interest. As you say, they only exist as a digital file, as Marjorie says they can be printed.
I don't expect people to agree with me, and differences form the nature of conversation. I just posted this because I thought it might be of interest to anyone who hasn't used digital. Some things, like these variations can be done with a few clicks, actual digital painting takes me just as long as normal painting. One of its great attractions is the ability to try stuff and to change things.
So, I like my drawing, my pen and ink, my watercolour and my digital. That's all it is.
Posted
No problem with digital art, so long as we know it is digital art.
I hope that it doesn't eclipse manual painting (searching for a word there, but 'manual' will have to do) but in the long run I don't believe it will. If we have to have competition, at least we need a level playing field; but I'm with Alan on competition - I know it serves a purpose, gets people known, promotes painting, but - I don't want to compete with people! I left all that stuff behind with compulsory games, over 50 years ago.
My sole effort at competing these days is to be first to get to the fish and chip van every Friday...........
Posted
Thanks for that, Sylvia. I've looked up Sketcherman...absolutely marvelous. It was worth posting this thread to find him. Another less contentious side of digital is that I've built a gallery of my favourite artists, from the masters to digital art. Rob will be added to the list. His work is superb, so crisp and stylish. I said that my digital prog is old, it's stone-age stuff in the digital world. I'm quite sure Sketcherman uses all the tools available to him to make his wonderful work look at it's best. Like Robert, I can't see digital art ever completely taking over traditional art. There's so much fun in the physical act of producing work with a brush and pen. I don't do much digital now...if I use it in any way on stuff I post, I say so. I just think most digital art is every bit as creative as paint and pencil. It's there to be enjoyed. Also, I'm with Alan on his 'forget competing', just enjoy it.
Sometimes I use digital because it's the easiest way to get the effect you want. Here's a pic I did to represent 'cloned cops'...it's a sci-fi picture done for fun. It's clear the cop is done in pen and wash, all I've done is copy him in photoshop and resize him to get the effect. It would have been very boring to draw the same figure five times. Done just for my enjoyment (as all my stuff is), it exists as a digital file...it also exists in a book I've had printed of my pics (again for myself and family)...it looks just great.
Posted
Digital does have its place but will never take over from traditional painting, it doesn't offer the same degree of satisfaction some how - and I can and did use the full version of Photoshop in my work as editorial artist, so am fully up to speed with the programme.
It was great fun initially, experimenting with the different filters, manipulation and so on, but then the novelty wore off very quickly for me. A fabulous industry standard tool of course for producing high-end publishing, which is primarily what it was designed for. Small elements of the programme have been made available to download on our PC's as we know. This has opened the door to a glut of so-called 'wannabe' artist's who think it's a great and easy alternative to traditional art. I don't include anyone on this thread by the way, all of which I have high regard for.
As for entering competitions, I love the whole process, and have had a fair amount of success over the year's, as some of you will know. I have always been very competitive in my art, so I will continue entering for the time being at least.
As we have mentioned before on numerous occasions, and Robert has brought it up again in this thread, if you post a digital piece of work, then TELL US it's digital. It doesn't fool me because I can tell at a glance, but clearly many can't. I saw a digital work on the gallery yesterday which had a fair few comments but mentioned no medium - most of them read 'what a fabulous painting'. It's not a painting, but they were never corrected by the poster of this piece. I'm not referring to Dennis by the way.
Posted
Yes Margaret it is, but on looking back at the work in question, he does, in his replies, acknowledge it as a painting, but gives us no other clue.
He does state Artrage Oils (which is digital) on some work, but on this one, and others, gives us no clue so we have to guess. I must have this one wrong - but why can't posters be open and clear about the medium. It's an important aspect of appreciating a work for me, it takes seconds to add this info, and I do wish that POL would make it mandatory.
It doesn't matter one iota to me what medium artist's use, just tell us, that's all I ask. Pretty well all of us who post on the forum do add this information, but a large percentage can't be bothered or just don't consider it important enough!
Edited
by alanbickley