[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 471 KB, 3400x2000, ompare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4314708 No.4314708 [Reply] [Original]

How close to a ref is the minimum closeness before you can claim its an original drawing?

sketch related. Can I say I made it? (just added rough colors for the pallet)

>> No.4314712

Only /beg/s would do this, and nobody would care because you're a /beg/. Condense your stupid question threads.

>> No.4314713

Tracing is not referencing

>> No.4314715

>shoulders, some of the arms, and half the neck have overlapping lines

>> No.4314735

Nigger, you traced the entire fucking figure, doing it badly does not negate the fact.

>> No.4314737

Stop blackwashing my cartoons you talentless hack.

>> No.4314752

isn't the second image a screenshot of the tracing? or are you saying you eye-balled it and some of the lines happen to overlap? not trying to argue like the other posters, just wondering.

anyways, people use paintings/photos for reference, but they're not copying the exact composition -- which in this case would be the size of the girl, her overall gesture and stance, etc

when you use a reference, you're using it to help you solve problems like how you are going to light your scene. studying the lighting of another scene and applying it to your work is not copying. it's not copying to study nature and replicate it. but what you've done here surpasses just a basic study. you've straight-up copied someone else's work.

>> No.4314765

Anon, please don't do this, you're not learning how to draw this way. I would question whether you want to say you drew something or you want people to praise you for doing so.

While its okay to build wireframes and study an artist's approach to gain insight, but what you have done is a blatant copy of another persons work.

Re-evaluate why you would want to draw and seek developing your long term knowledge over short term results.

>> No.4314767

It is blatant tracing, only the hair and a tiny bit of the clothes weren't traced.

>> No.4314777
File: 492 KB, 3000x2000, traces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

pics my framework to get the proportions.

the head was done separately except for the width and the eye position (eyes will probably change to another shape if I do real lines, I dont see the point of doing eyes in a sketch stage so I just copied the pics).

breasts are entirely different, stomach is smaller, and hips are tilted differently.

I did trace the hands. I hate hands.

clothes were then drawn afterwards from a real life pic.


>> No.4314784

that kind of framework is popular for copying from real life.

you *do not* use it to get the "proportions" of someone else's work. the "proportions" you think you're getting are of someone else's **figure** drawing. trying to work out the proportions of a female from a photograph so you can do your own figure drawing is OK. what you're doing is here is NOT OK.

>> No.4314791

It doesn't matter because "girl in orange dress with arms to the sides" is hardly super unique work. It's fine, you are fine it's inconsequential.

But i mean look at you, here you are nitpicking like a motherfucker to try and defend your shit.

Here's my answer to your question :

> How close to a ref is the minimum closeness before you can claim its an original drawing?

How close ? As soon as you posit the fucking question, it's that simple think about it.

>> No.4314797

>I put in some effort into it, therefore stealing it justifiable

>> No.4314812

its anime. there is no real life equivalent. how would you learn anime proportions, if not from someone else's anime pics?

>> No.4314819

> As soon as you posit the fucking question, it's that simple think about it.
This is the worst advice I've ever heard. So some deviantard that thinks tracing is fine with a color swap isn't stealing any art because he doesn't think he is?

>> No.4314823

looks to have went a little beyond just simple proportions though. like there's no lines between or around the eyes. you'd think someone studying anime would want to try to reason about what those ratios might be. i'm not seeing that here. just point-to-point copying

>> No.4314831

see >>4314777
>(eyes will probably change to another shape if I do real lines, I dont see the point of doing eyes in a sketch stage so I just copied the pics).

>> No.4314837

It doesn't matter because you have such a low skill that you don't trace well enough to get a resemblance even to a drawing as generic as that one

>> No.4314845

a picture generally consists of:
>composition (point of view,placement of objects)
>construction (proportions,sizes of objects)
>rendering (lineart,shading,lighting)
if you copy 1 thing then it's okay. if you copy more than 1 thing then it starts to become obvious. just stick to 1.
in your 2nd picture you show how you just traced over the original art. others have said that it's a simple pose so it's no biggie to reference it but there's a difference between tracing and referencing. you pretty much completely copied the composition and construction. even if it's a simple image you should still respect the original artist enough to not resort to tracing. (unless you give credit, in which case copy as much as you want)

>> No.4314863
File: 6 KB, 250x196, 1446145756349s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>This thread
The amount of people that would wish they could have this many trying to help them. The worst part is OP isn't even going to care.

You're being blessed right now, OP. I hope you can even see that...

>> No.4314869

If I take that pic, and change the proportions, would that pass? by change I mean fatter ass, longer, change arm position a bit, make forearm shorter and upper arm longer and not trace the hands. the breasts and head as already different.

>> No.4314881

yes. at that point it would be your own character and your own lines

>> No.4314924
File: 163 KB, 1020x2000, ompare2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So this is now original?

>> No.4314932
File: 2.26 MB, 2880x1088, hey guys I referenced 1:1 is it mine now.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

When can we stop having this conversation?

>> No.4314942

so changing the colors, and number of beams makes it original?

>> No.4314944

until people can decide on the same point where you can devide the 2

>> No.4314946
File: 15 KB, 234x230, (You).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.4314953

o, right, im sorry, you also fucking flipped it horizontally.

>> No.4314961

sums it up nicely

>> No.4314964

it doesnt, it just doesnt.

>> No.4314973

you're in denial.

>> No.4314982

can you at least explain why not? it makes sense to me.

>> No.4314984

Sums up what? Using reference properly instead of straight up tracing?

>> No.4314989
File: 16 KB, 400x400, Orange-Chinese-Umbrella.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here's another oriental umbrella. Did the artist trace this one, or the one in my picture?
They have a different amount of beams and are a different color. Only the rotation is different. I'm sure that if you looked into it you'd discover that the similarities are only because, well, they're all umbrellas.

>> No.4314995


>> No.4314999

And OPs all cartoons. Going by the other post, the color and some proportions are changed, so does that count as the same thing as changing the number of beams? Using an oval and a line to try and represent a concept this subtle is retarded. If you want to show what tracing and what isnt,m then take something complex, like a human or animal, and show the traced images along with a minimal not traced image. For example, if the means in the referenced pic was the same thickness as the original, the umbrela is still different enough to not be traced, so its unnecessarily different for the comparison.

see above

>> No.4315007

It's pretty simple.
Would you be ok crediting the artist that you used as reference when posting to social media?
If not, then you are probably a hack and your brain knows it.

>> No.4315042


>> No.4315046
File: 195 KB, 1564x1030, ref ex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

SO according to you guys, this is a trace and you cant claim its your work.

Its fine

>> No.4315050

No rules only tools. Change it enough that the copyright laws can't get you and that's all it takes :^)

>> No.4315054


>> No.4315069

You copied the fucked up clavicles and wide man neck. You shouldn't be so worried about taking credit or not when the work is mediocre anyway. You should sit down with a fucking anatomy book and do imagination figures with it, as well as quickpose sketches referenced from life. If you're gonna do what you did in OP you should pick actually strong anime drawings, like popular stuff on Pixiv/boorus, stuff from top animators and illustrators etc

>Can I say I made it?
Get your priorities straight or you'll be forced to create a new online handle when you've become an adult and realize what you've done anyway

>> No.4315072

Anime proportions really, really aren’t that different from basic real life proportions if you follow basic rules like fingertips reaching midway down the thigh, elbows aligning with waists etc. the biggest difference is usually the head to height ratio where anime often has bigger heads than you’d see in real life. In most cases simply shrinking the head will give you a more realistic looking figure. What you’re saying makes far more sense for western style cartooning where proportions are highly abstracted and stylized but anime figures stylize the head and face far more than the body compared to western toons. You’re advocating ultra beg tier advice.

>> No.4315088
File: 93 KB, 1261x199, neck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>You copied the fucked up clavicles and wide man neck
Jesus Christ this place is blind, especially for a board that's supposed to be full of artists.

I'm not even going to respond to anything else in this post, I cant be bothered to list responses for everything when you cant even be bothered to look at the pic before leaving a retarded comment.

>> No.4315092

If you don't want to credit an artist for referencing them and instead want to try to pass it off as your own invention then don't heavily reference another artists work in the first place.
Otherwise, credit the artist and embrace the fact that people won't like your work as much if you just copy other artists.

>> No.4315094

Are you implying that it still isn't a wide man neck?

>> No.4315096

If the photo isn't yours then yes. You can't just use other peoples photos and copy it 1-for-1 unless you are just doing non-commerical studies.

>> No.4315097

no, im saying it directly.

>> No.4315101

It looks like a study.
And if you've put in the work it is your work. It might be derivative or original, but the problem arises when you claim derivative work as original.
Like how when you'd want to call something your work, so does the original artist upon whose work your derivative work is based on.
"traced" doesn't mean just the technique in this context.

The neck is too wide.
Reference an anatomy book.
If you use references right you will never need a pose reference.

>> No.4315103

Guess you're one of the blind people. Just in case you're OP: You should sit down with a fucking anatomy book and do imagination figures with it, as well as quickpose sketches referenced from life. If you're gonna do what you did in OP you should pick actually strong anime drawings, like popular stuff on Pixiv/boorus, stuff from top animators and illustrators etc

>> No.4315104

You totally can. Copy paste that face make them a video game character and put a "any likeness is unintentional etc" disclaimer on it. Safe and EZ

>> No.4315110

>If you use references right you will never need a pose reference.
This is the worst post in this thread.

>> No.4315126

Reference isnt cheating and is fine as long as you change a couple things, pros use tons of reference at once to draw something new from it
like reference the pose from this drawing, the color scheme of another and maybe a photo of your hand to get it right and bam you got something new
You already did that by referencing some clothing and making it another character and I dont think anyone would care in this case

>> No.4315143
File: 182 KB, 2098x1094, tracing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

threadly reminder

>> No.4315147

That’s a study. You use it to study, not post it online and call it “your work”, “I made this”, “original drawing”, which is what OP is talking about.
This is literally Ilya/Kron faggotry

>> No.4315152

What? What does tracing have to do with street art? Do you think street artists are ok with some /beg/ tier retard copying their work and calling it original?

>> No.4315153

I don't get this, seems like drivel justified with an image of a thinking woman. You mean we would see all possible art if the Jews didn't decide we're not allowed to trace? Have you ever had an IQ test?

>> No.4315163

I knew that'd be the line you'd take issue with the most because it's what people like you do.
If you were to draw a cube from many different points of view you wouldn't need to have a separate reference for each of them. You still wouldn't need individual references if you were stretching or twisting the cube around. And you wouldn't need separate references for every permutation of every every viewing angle of every basic shape.
So for people who are composed of permutations of viewing angles of basic shapes you should not need separate references for each and every position of every body type of every viewing angle. You need one good reference for the shapes and their interactions.

Your homework is to find yourself a copy of Anatomy for Sculptors, pick your favorite anime artist, and then draw muscles and shapes over the drawings of your artist until you start to understand.

>> No.4315173

>I did trace the hands. I hate hands
absolutely ngmi

>> No.4315179

>Implying anyone likes drawing hands.
Hand are shit. If humans didn't have hands, no one would ever draw hands.

>> No.4315188
File: 139 KB, 333x323, 123.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And just to be extra clear for OP: this is what I mean with using anatomy books and actual good anime refs. You'll know what to actually do with your necks and how the shoulder girdle works

>> No.4315189

angel ganev LOL

>> No.4315198

Both are things that are looked down on in the art community.

It's the woman who said it. And not Jews, but elitist artists.

>> No.4315201

What's wrong with him?

>> No.4315202

What if low collar bones are a stylistic choice?

>> No.4315206

Tracing is looked down on literally everywhere, including street art, digital and abstract art. The quote makes 0 (zero) sense.
It’s like the inktober guy saying he trademarked inktober and DMCA’d people because racism is bad, it’s fucking senseless demagogy that no one one with an IQ over 20 would find grounded in anything.

>> No.4315208

I just looked through the entire book. If I match these pics to mine and make sure my anatomy makes sense, like in >>4315188, is it then diffirent enough to be an original?

>> No.4315209

Disney movies were traced back when it was done by hand. Gantz, an extremely popular manga is 99% traced.

>> No.4315212

>Can I say I made it?
You absolutely can say you made it. But others also reserve the right to call you a hack and deride your efforts as meaningless, the level of skill on display as trivial, and your honesty and integrity as a human being questionable.

The right question isn't whether you can do this, but whether you should.

>> No.4315213

Rotoscoping isn’t tracing, retard. They didn’t copy other people’s work, they shot the scenes and animated over them, it’s 100% original.

>> No.4315215

Next you’ll argue using light tables to ink your own sketches is tracing.

>> No.4315217

Clavicles can be placed lower than in my example, it doesn't have to be super exact. But they always must point up toward the acromion process (in OP's example they don't). That's just how it works. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Clavicle_3d_Model.gif

That anon is correct if he means to say that OP's neck is thinner (it's true and it is a good thing), but it's still too thick/misshapen and he ignored the clavicles issue. My point still stands: use anatomy books and copy actual skilled people like key animators and high tier illustrators if you're gonna do what OP does. Unless you're ok with so-so work and weak progress

>> No.4315234

The chance that the person doing the tracing is the same as the guy who took the photo is very low, so you admit tracing is fine, except when it infringes on someone elses copywrite? So tracing public domain images isn't tracing?

>> No.4315275

Disney didn't really trace in the way an untrained layman would trace. They were trained enough in fundamentals that they could think through the fundamentals of art and the 12 principles of animation and turn what would normally be a stiff and unconvincing rotoscope into believable animation.
I personally think tracing is just a tool and is fine if you have the training to not have to rely on it.
It is just a huge slippery slope of dependence and generally preferable to avoid unless you want to be like norman rockwell and die feeling like you were a fraud, with an unfinished painting in your studio of a piece you wanted to avoid using tracing on but couldnt even attempt.

It's like abstract art. If you can't even draw the subject matter as you see it then how can you break it down into its core elements to abstract it in an interesting or meaningful way?

>> No.4315279

just stop drawing bro

>> No.4315300
File: 134 KB, 356x410, 1574335269672.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>its anime. there is no real life equivalent.
Stop right fucking now. Do not draw until you've dispelled this absolutely retarded idea.
ALL stylization is born from reality. Anime has no basis in reality? Look at "cute" things and understand what makes them cute. Big eyes, round cheeks, small noses, soft pale skin. The main thing that looks anime look bad, or any stylization, is when the artist has a poor understanding of what the style is trying to portray. This applies to everything in art, by the way, so the mindset that "oh this has no basis in reality so I guess I'll just copy" can and will cripple your progress. You NEED to think critically about your and other's art, or you will hit a wall and won't be able to move past it until you start to think critically.

>> No.4315312


>> No.4315315

he's got a point
it really does need to be something other than an umbrella. it would greatly improve the point trying to be made. otherwise, it's perfect.

>> No.4315319

likeness isn't the same as a still frame painting.
the composition, lighting, coloring, everything has been copied from the original photographer

>> No.4315928

Based doobz

>> No.4315930

I don't know if this thread is bait or real anymore

>> No.4315949

From which side?

>> No.4317815

You all realise that 90% of artists, from old masters to young ones on Instagram, trace more than OP right?

>> No.4317849

At least trace a better drawing dude. The art you "referenced" is still beg

>> No.4317853

But not from OTHER ART. Its one thing to trace from photographs you made and own, or if you have a goddamn camera obscura you can use to trace someone onto the canvas like the good old bastards did. Tracing over some shitty beg anime drawing is an insult.

>> No.4317944

I can't believe how obsessed people are with calling the pic /beg/art just because the clavicle is a bit low.

>> No.4317982
File: 1.37 MB, 2868x3534, IMG_20200119_142034~2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm away from home so could t do it digital, but i did this, when I get home, and make a digital trace of this image and color it in like in the OP, is it then an original?

>> No.4318057

OP is trolling like crazy

>> No.4318060

>durr the inker is tracing the pencil artist’s work!
No, you stupid faggot, they both work on the same original product and contribute to different stages of production. That is not what tracing means and it’s certainly not what op wants, which is to trace someone’s work and call it original and claim it as his own.

>> No.4318063

So where does tracing stop? If you have really good hand eye coordination is looking at something and drawing it also now Tracing?

>> No.4318065

You’re the one calling things that aren’t tracing as such, why the fuck are you asking me if not tracing is tracing? Are you clinically retarded?
And no, copying someone’s work doesn’t make your work original, you utter retard, regardless of the copying method.

>> No.4318067

Oh, so your one of those 'hur nothing is original' fags. What does the distinction then matter?

>> No.4318071

>things that are literally copied aren’t original
>durr nothing is original
Yeah, go kill yourself, nigger. I don’t know if you’re actually mentally handicapped or trolling on fucking /ic/ of all places, but you’re retarded either way. Go find a noose and make your family’s day.

>> No.4318077
File: 82 KB, 832x584, trashit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is officially the worst thread of the year so far, why are you still talking to that tard.

>> No.4318078

lmfao jesus christ

>> No.4318079

What's this bullshit. I just want to know where original work starts.

>> No.4318082

Mind explaining what part you find so funny.

>> No.4319157

If you can tell what the reference image was by comparing them you're too close

>> No.4319175

We need to go deeper

>> No.4319208
File: 146 KB, 249x249, 1436427182924.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>literally drawing over someone else's drawing
>"but I added different clothing, some new lines and new colors! it's not tracing!"

this is a level beyond /beg/, also if you reply seriously to the guy you are as dumb as him.

>> No.4319213

lol, cope harder

>> No.4321884

Nice job not reading the thread.

>> No.4321915

What is the difference between copying and tracing?

>> No.4321925

It's the same, copying is just harder so more imperfections sneek in, but the better you get at it the more it's the same as tracing.

>> No.4321927

Tracing is the act of literally tracing. Don't be a retarded nigger

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.