This is why I hate digital art.

[Hedji]

I miss the look of old illustration. In everything from children's books to movie posters to toy packaging. Nothing is more painterly than... paint.

"Making Of" books for movies have gone from engrossing to blah as digital artists whip off sloppy looking concept art these days.

If rejecting digital painting makes me old, then save me a spot at the Home and warm my tapioca.

[enyawd72]

If rejecting digital painting makes me old, then save me a spot at the Home and warm my tapioca.

LOL...I can just see my biography 50 years from now. "He did some of his best work during his "brown period", when he finger painted using the contents of his diaper."

[Hector]

I mingle in both traditional freehand and digital...I love both mediums.

[Hector]

^I've played with a Wacom tablet, but I really need to give it a good try. Not a lot of use for it on the work I do at my day job, but for fun and freelance stuff, I need to get on that train.

Chris

I'm still trying to get used to my Wacom...been doing everything with the mouse for years now...to me...mouse is just more precise. But I can already see that you get sort of a more "organic" feel and look to illustrations done via tablet.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^That's what I've found just playing with it. If you get one of the really nice ones, you get far more precision than the cheapie one.

Chris

[samurainoir]

Jason Edmiston has proven that you can have a wildly successful career as a traditional painter given how he's blown up big in the past couple of years. Although he does possess digital skills as part of his toolbox that supplements his traditional abilities.

http://jasonedmiston.com

[kerowack]

I'm an art teacher and feel like everybody should have a background in the area before using digital manipulation. The photo kids should understand the process before using every filter in the book. Both techniques have a place in the world. Your batman painting is a light boxed drawing, right? There's no shame in that, but I'm sure some would frown upon that as well.

Btw, love your work, enyawad!

[enyawd72]

I'm an art teacher and feel like everybody should have a background in the area before using digital manipulation. The photo kids should understand the process before using every filter in the book. Both techniques have a place in the world. Your batman painting is a light boxed drawing, right? There's no shame in that, but I'm sure some would frown upon that as well.

Btw, love your work, enyawad!

Thanks for the compliment Kerowack, but no, I do not use any light box. Everything I draw and paint is freehand at the kitchen table. I do use photos for reference, but I try to enhance them with added detail. See the photo I used for Batman vs. the final work. I added a lot of folds in the satin, and details to the cowl, around the eyes, etc.

[kerowack]

Thanks for the compliment Kerowack, but no, I do not use any light box. Everything I draw and paint is freehand at the kitchen table. I do use photos for reference, but I try to enhance them with added detail. See the photo I used for Batman vs. the final work. I added a lot of folds in the satin, and details to the cowl, around the eyes, etc.

Awesome stuff. I always assumed you used a light box because your paintings have so closely mirrored the reference (when it's been shown). I worked in animation and still use the chalkboard in my classroom. My favorite tool is a sharpie marker, so you won't gets an argument on me defending technology over old fashioned ways, but the future is a mix of both I think....

[fallensaviour]

Great looking stuff as always.
I see the benefits of both mediums but am an old school pencil to paper kind of guy or brush to canvas.
Speaking of light boxes and or "mirrors" have you watched the documentary "tims vermeer" ?
I found it absolutely riveting.
I feel it to be a must watch for any artist or anyone interested in art.

[kingdom warrior]

I love traditional art, and the use of paints and drawing by hand no argument there. Every young artist should learn the traditional methods first. I also see the need for digital art now and the speed it gives the TRAINED artist for projects with tight deadlines. I finally gave in and started slowly coloring some of my line work digitally...still not a big fan of it but I'm enjoying it and want to continue to improve in it.

Only real problem I have with digital art over traditional is collectibility. Most art collectors want the real hard copy art on canvas or art board. Collectors do not want a copy of a print. A collector wants the original to hang on a wall and show it off. If you only do all your art in the computer where's the real value of the work? is it, oh wait let me print you out a copy or you buy an expensive print. If I go to buy comic book artwork it's to own the original, not a copy of a print.

[enyawd72]

^THIS. I've said this also several times before. Digital art is just a file on a computer. It doesn't physically exist.

[megoscott]

This is such a tired conversation I am reluctant to participate in it.

You have great skills with your tools of choice. But that's all they are is tools.

Tracing over photos, using projectors and optics, it's as old as the renaissance. For the final product no one cares whether it was produced fully without optical aids. Your Batman painting is phenomenal, and your mastery of your technique is fantastic. But it's also a parlor trick in a way. You have good eye-hand coordination. The ARTISTRY in what you do is the interpretive choices your make for composition and color design, for what you leave in and what you leave out. I appreciate the technique you use, but it can be done digitally as well with great results.

I'd say the same for the artist your cited in your original post. You both are reinterpreting a photograph, I don't really care how you got there. His technique is very accomplished.

And by the way, creating that look digitally takes a LOT Of knowledge and mastery of the digital tool, especially if you are trying to mimic traditional materials, it's actually quite hard to do. Faster to paint it physically if you really need a certain look, but it's just a choice. I mix color way better in Photoshop than I do with paint--it's easier, faster, cleaner and more precise. My knowledge of color theory and my taste level are where the artistry is. Everything else is skilled manipulation of a medium. If your medium is colored macaroni you need to be really good with that material.

There is no "AWESOME ADAM WEST" button in Photoshop.

[megoscott]

And as far as value, yeah, that's a mess. No one wants to pay artists what they are worth and worth is totally based on values that have nothing to do with skill or technique. It's who you are and what the size of your audience is that creates your market value. You do that painting and maybe you can sell it for $500 and in my opinion someone got a deal, because that's probably like $12 an hour. Alex Ross does it and it sells for $12,000.

Original art is nice, but you'd do financially better to sell digital prints of it on etsy. Until Warners comes after you, of course.