/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3958330
no rules just tools

>>3958334
All fools use tools.

>>3958330
I fucking hate this. First of all she's hot as fuck. I just want to get that out of the way. But what I hate is yea I'm not impressed by copying. You could literally recreate that by putting a filter on the photo to make it look like a painting. It genuinely makes me fucking angry.


Maybe it's not literally traced but it may as well be. You can use the dropper tool to get the right colors and then basically you're making a vermeer which isn't art of you've seen the documentary. It's cheating.

>>3958330
If it's the artist's picture yes if not, no.
A photographer hires model, spend money on gear, learn lighting and composition, spend a day for the photoshoot. If some punk takes his image, paints on top of it and calls it his own, it's obvious theft.

>>3958330
Well can you do it?
Could you make a painting in this quality with a good reference?
Could you make a painting this good literally painting on top of your reference?
If it's such a copout tool you could easily do it too right?
Well what are you waiting for op, show us.

>>3958330
As a study, yes.
IT IS NOT OKAY OTHERWISE FUCKKK

>>3958348
I don't think it's theirs, the girl looks like some type of insta model.

As per the unspoken laws of human nature: it's perfectly fine if you don't get caught doing it.

If you do get caught, you deserve every hateful, disappointed comment from all of the people who used to be your fans.

>>3958330
There is a difference between tracing/photobashing and using reference. Please note the fucking difference. 99% of artists paint from reference. There other 1%are enterainment art guys who are cursed to invent figures.

For this painting the shapes are the same but the colors are different and the edges are different. It is honestly hard to tell if the shapes are traced or he layered on top of a photo but either way it is well done.
If you then look at his other art it is obvious he doesnt need to trace or photobash though. Imagined environments and stylised figures.

>>3958348
To add to this, it's not painting on photos that's the problem it's stealing other person's photo. As long as you created the original image who the fuck cares. People should stop acting like school children and realize what matters is the end product.

>>3958349
Ah yes, the retarded /beg/ that thinks he knows everything, fuck off you waste of oxygen

it's a study for practice, they're not claiming it as an original piece

>>3958330
isn't this wangjie or someone similar? It's literally a photo study anon, this isn't some beta chink shit where they sell prints of traced fagart

judging by his portfolio hes obviously capable artists, its ok to trace and photobash when you are that good

>>3958330

Those are three different things and three different discussions.

>>3958330
It's a fucking photo study you fucking idiot. Every. Single. Great. Artist has done this.

>>3958372
So you can't do it?
If you could then you wouldn't complain about it
You are some faggot crab that is so insecure about his work when his views are challenged he screams that everyone else is beg
Actual NGMI right there

>>3958430
/Thread

>>3958334
no brain just tools

Retard

>>3958330
You absolute moron, you mental midget, goat-fucking paint huffing mud eating buffoon Jesus H nigger Christ you triple retard do you even fucking DRAW how in the cock is this even a thread how are there people on an art board so completely clueless look at this retarded fucking post >>3958344 this absolute amoeba doesn't even know what a study is, are you going to tell this same shit to all the hundreds of thousands of art students across the ages that painted endless statues and photos and made copies of work by masters to sharpen their skills? Lord help me save me from these demons

>>3958438
>>3958349
Not him but I want to understand your logic, do you think just because you can't do something you can't complain about it?

>>3958472
No but if he actually tried to draw he would know what a photo study is.

>>3958330
Of course it's ok, but it's also pretty boring and not creative at all. Sadly such copies are still very impressive to the average retard.

>>3958471
It’s just Chinese envy.
They want to find a reason why they are so skilled that they make up fake shit to downplay their genetic talent

>>3958330
why did you give her a lazy eye

>>3958471
If you were a fish I'd already be eating you right now. It's this your first day? That was quite tirade.

>>3958334
no tools only rules

>>3958330
This was made by the same artist. It should be easy for you crabs to do it too since the artist just "traces".

>>3958330
and of course that slant eye didn't say it was from ref.
anyway, where's the original pic? she cute

>>3958516
Fuck i would kill for some hard and fast rules at this point.

>>3958374
Ok I take back >>3958616
my bad brothers

>>3958621
I was going to insult you but then you posted that
You people need to lay off the racism against Asians and respect them for being great safeguards of naturalistic painting into the digital era. I hate being white/Western when you fuckers post that shit, shame on you.

>>3958481
This
well said

>>3958430
tracing and photobashing isnt what great artists do though

This fucking board, anon questions if its moral to learn how to paint by doing it the only way it is even possible.

>>3958330
Does your tiny brain know what tracing means

>>3958330
Just look at the painting by itself
Look at it as if the photo never existed
Is it still good? Sort of interesting? Or no?
Or maybe its not even good at all, despite closely following a photographed model. When a painting, despite being totally anatomically correct and all that shit, still sucks, then you can think about it a lot
Learn to think around simple "original vs not"
But people here just dont think at all

>>3958330
Sure, whatever.
I would strongly advise at least using your own photos or IRL models if you're going to, though, so at least you won't get caught.

>>3958330
>chines guy: makes a generic study
>OP: b-b-but studies are not art. I bet my buddies on /ic/ will back me up!
>OP: pic related is OP

>>3958512
>It's this your first day?
Man you are a fucking retard.

>>3958471
Don't let it bother you too much. Most people are hypocrites when it comes to stuff like this. Just call them out like the retards they are and honestly, no matter what they say, the fact is that they're delusional. Keep at it, anon. You're already one step ahead by not being mentally retarded.

But also soul vs soulless is real. OP is some top tier soul. Wish the Chai-Knees artists did it more often.

>>3960425
OP picture is neither tracing nor photobashing. Takes a complete beginner and moron to not see it

>>3958330
https://youtu.be/fl6suix32Q8

>>3958330
>>3960696
Great stuff, thanks anon

Anyone got more demos from artists with great brushwork?

>>3958330
What should I trace as a beginner(to improve)?

>>3958349
Not an argument : if some engineers build a bridge and it crumbles after a day of use, you can't tell them to build a more solid one because you don't have their expertise?

>>3960648
Shhh, don't upset the herd. They think if a painting looks like the reference, the artist cheated, because they can't do that.

>>3958330
If they had any balls they'd use that reference and try to draw it at a different angle.

But pussies will be pussies.

>>3958330
>check comments
>bunch of chinese shit
>one of the replies from the artist is literally the name of the girl he reffed, if you look her up you find her exact photo
You didn't even put the effort in.

It's fine as long as you're not presenting it like oh look at this thing I painted. I understand what a study is. But personally I would be embarrassed to show a study of a photo and be like yea I made this. It's just like people at the gym showing themselves working out online. Idk to me that's cringe. But obviously it's a necessary or at least productive exercise. But keep that shit to yourself. If you're posting it here asking for critique that's fine. We can look for mistakes and give advice. But if you posted that like it was a finished original piece I would cringe out of my fucking Edgar suit. You're just painting someone's photo? You spent time doing that? Again if it's as an exercise fine. If that was a piece for your portfolio to be like hey guys I'm an artist and my thing is painting photos that already exist when really I could just run the photo through a filter to make it look like this, that would be fucking cringe.

>>3958330
this thread is seriously comical. I remember why I left this shithole now.

NGMI. Every single one of you.

>>3958330
Yeah yeah, who cares. Sauce on the girl?

>>3963207
Nevermind, found her
https://www.instagram.com/taaarannn/

muh dick

>>3962052
oof yikes, this is some cringe right here

I use photographs for study because I don't know any females who are willing to take off their clothes and pose for me.

>>3958616
Lol stupid fucking racist stay mad that you’ll never git gud.

I hate to burst your delusional bubbles, but every artist uses reference at some point and tons do photo studies for mileage/to improve. You’re all so fucking stupid for automatically assuming anything referenced is hurr durr traced, photo bashed, or painted over. Shut the fuck up and quit complaining because your autistic brain can’t even draw a decent image from reference.

>>3963249
>Lol stupid fucking racist stay mad that you’ll never git gud.
there's no correlation between racism and getting good

>>3958430
the thing is i think it looks more like a photo thats been put through software and photoshop to make it look like a painting.

if it's not, then it doesnt matter
if it is, then its somewhat dishonest.

>>3963255
Did I say there was???

>>3963249
>seething and projecting
aw someone's mad

>>3963249
chink detected lmao, post work

>>3958330
>he doesn't know painting over 3D is industry standard already
If you think copying colors/textures is bad you're like 10 years behind the curve my dudes.

>>3958330

If the Chinese jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?

>>3958471
>that dialectic style
Where even do they still talk like this? I want Tumblr to go, and stay gone.

>>3963249

kek go out and plough the rice fields boy

>>3965184
>>3963316
He's right though, you people are total idiots and you'll never reach any kind of peak in terms of naturalistic painting if you don't do studies like those. The guy he quoted is a cocksucker and you are too.

>>3958330
Reminder that every pro artist uses or has used references.

ITT: Retarded Americans that can't get gud.

I'm glad I'm not one of those but I wish more of my kind that actually tries to get gud was the majority of Americans instead of making shit threads like this one 24/7 on /ic/.

>>3958330
It doesn't matter what the product is. What matters is if you are actually doing art and improving. It just so happens that when you do this well the product also looks great. If you mindlessly trace something, you're not learning or training, you're producing a product on a factory line from a template. This is clearly just a study. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it's key to being an artist.

>>3958363
>If you then look at his other art it is obvious he doesnt need to trace or photobash though. Imagined environments and stylised figures.
it looks like photo studies or ruan jia imitation

>>3958330
>title of the work is 照片练习
>photograph study

can you dumb niggers just congregate somewhere away from civilization

Anyone saying this isn’t okay has zero industry experience.

>>3958330
>no rules, only tools
this is especially true if you're a commercial artist

>>3966778
>>3966745
Don’t even try comparing Asian chads to (((commercial artists)))

Anything’s ok as long as you give credit and don’t try to claim i for things you didn’t do.

Copying can be a nice way to learn, paint 20 photo copies, and I’d think your understanding of light and color would improve.

>>3966779
lol chinese artists are the most thirsty for commercial success and will do anything to get it, that means taking whatever shortcuts they have to to get ahead. dont be naive

Is what okay? Painting? Yes. You dont need an excuse to paint what you want for whatever reason. Is it a magnificent piece of art? No, its not a creative vision. If thats how that artist wants to spend his time, its probably better than watching porn like you do.

>>3958341
all geeks use techniques. (i can rhyme too)

>>3958330
Yes, its okay to further your skill.
In fact it is literally how you learn realistic.

But later on, you have to create your own pieces. Otherwise you're a one trick pony who can only copy.

>>3966778
I agree with this but don't be a retard and heavily copy a photo you don't own the rights to for a comercial work either. I know normal people don't need to be told this, but 4chan autists might.

>>3958330
the only thing that matter is the result.the client doesnt give a shit how you it.

>>3958330
I don't get it. There is no difference between referencing or tracing if you're going to end up with the same image. You're just wasting time.

>>3958344
>>3958348
Both of you are too fucking retarded.

>>3958367
It's idiots like you that prove /ic/ is a containment board.

>>3967668
The client will give a shit if they get sued, if they try to publish it, when the photographer finds out. Using copywritten photos is fine for student work that will never be published, but if you use it for professional work, you're playing with fire.

>>3960425

Bre he clearly isn't tracing, you can criticize him for having very little technical drawing in his portfolio but unless he directly states "these are from imagination and no reference was used" you can't say without a shadow of a doubt that he is tracing. Basically ur gey post your WERK.

>>3958330
should have just put an anime face on her.

>>3958618
Turn 360 degrees before every pen and brush stroke

>>3963260
>caring more about the process than the final product
lmao