Graphic Tablet Paintings

Remus

Remus

Companion Cube
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
7,919
Reaction score
45
I've had this graphic tablet for quite some time now but haven't really used it that much so I decided to correct that. The first 2 I've probably already posted in the image dump, but I've also added a new one I've made a few days ago.

The landscapes are made with Artrage, and the one with the creature is made with Corel Painter.

Widescreen Wallpaper size
magma.jpg


nomadm.jpg


nightride.jpg

I will add more to this thread as I make them.
 
try using wider brushes, everything looks same when you look from close to it. I like the third image.
 
Not a fan of the first one, but the second two are awesome. Makes me feel like I'm putting my tablet to waste.
 
hang out a bit at sijun and learn some things
 
Those are really cool, especially the third.
 
xcellerate said:
did you model that car off an e30 m3?
Click to expand...

Well I used as reference a photo of a BMW so good catch there, but I'm not sure what model it is. The photo doesn't say, but it looks like an older 80's or early 90's model.
 
I like them, maybe I should try and make a start with making some kind of art.
Never got any further than trying to draw a cat and it ending up looking like a cow.
 
a nice smudgy oil painting look... though i can only wonder as to why you don't just use oil paints instead, unless you weren't aiming to imitate that sort of effect.
 
knut said:
a nice smudgy oil painting look... though i can only wonder as to why you don't just use oil paints instead, unless you weren't aiming to imitate that sort of effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes the effect is intentional. I was trying to do an impressionist style, like Mone or Pissaro.

As for oil paints, I assume you mean doing it for real?

I tried it once in high school art class... and never again. I found it extremely difficult cumbersome and messy, not to mention expensive.
 
Very nice, I really like the last two. You have a good sense of atmospherics and light, and your brush work seems to be improving a lot. My only critique is that they both lack a defined focal point, though the compositions are very nice.
 
Remus said:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes the effect is intentional. I was trying to do an impressionist style, like Mone or Pissaro.

As for oil paints, I assume you mean doing it for real?

I tried it once in high school art class... and never again. I found it extremely difficult cumbersome and messy, not to mention expensive.
Click to expand...

yeah, traditional painting. i guess it's the art jerk inside of me that doesn't like seeing a beautifully expressive painting style translated to the cold, sterile confines of digital art, but that's just me. if you tried it before though that's cool, was just saying really.
 
knut said:
yeah, traditional painting. i guess it's the art jerk inside of me that doesn't like seeing a beautifully expressive painting style translated to the cold, sterile confines of digital art, but that's just me. if you tried it before though that's cool, was just saying really.
Click to expand...
You must be looking at the wrong digital art if you think it's all cold and sterile.
 
i didn't say digital art was cold and sterile, more that the practice and physical techniques used when compared to traditional art - eraser tools, undo, colour palettes on demand, editing, resizing on the fly... etc. don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of digital art - i scour through my art of halo 3, raising the bar and books alike all the time for inspiration and at one point during my life i wanted to go into digital matte painting and concept design.
 
I would say working digitally is anything but sterile. You work quicker, can take more risks and don't have to spend 2 hours mixing colours and washing brushes. At the end of the day a dash of paint put down on the canvas by Monet is exactly the same movement of the wrist when put down on a wacom.
 
i disagree entirely, traditional painting is anything but working quickly or finding colours easily which is why i don't think it works to be replicated in a digital environment. obviously those things are great for matte painters working up on a deadline, but that wasn't monet.

... but then this is obviously two different minds who enjoy two different styles clashing and this isn't really the thread for it.
 
knut said:
... but then this is obviously two different minds who enjoy two different styles clashing and this isn't really the thread for it.
Click to expand...

True enough.

However since this subject was brought up, my philosophy is that the means or the amount of work put forth don't matter, only the result matters. If I can finish an artwork in just a few seconds, and be satisfied with it, all the better.

Whenever this subject is brought up what bothers me is this idea that just because I don't get my hands dirty or put my art on paper or canvas it's somehow cheap or unworthy to be called art.

And yes I've had this argument a lot in recent years. It's like "oh you used to draw and paint a lot before, what happened?", my answer :simple I went digital...

/rant
 
Remus said:
True enough.

However since this subject was brought up, my philosophy is that the means or the amount of work put forth don't matter, only the result matters. If I can finish an artwork in just a few seconds, and be satisfied with it, all the better.

Whenever this subject is brought up what bothers me is this idea that just because I don't get my hands dirty or put my art on paper or canvas it's somehow cheap or unworthy to be called art.

And yes I've had this argument a lot in recent years. It's like "oh you used to draw and paint a lot before, what happened?", my answer :simple I went digital...

/rant
Click to expand...

Well put. Having been on both sides of the argument as a fine artist and a digital artist, and been told the same things, I totally agree that it's only the end result and your efficiency with your process that matter.
 
heh, i'm not saying that time spent = masterpiece nor am i saying vice versa and i'm definitely not saying that you have to get your hands dirty to create ''true'' art - i finish up all of my physical art in photoshop so i'm just as much a digital person as the next guy and personally i'm not even a traditional painter, i was merely asking about your methods towards replicating a certain style and that i don't think it translates very well digitally, is all.

i'm all for whatever suits and whatever works best, but as we were on the subject of monet and traditionalists, i didn't think it was the appropriate reasoning to compare.
 
knut said:
i'm all for whatever suits and whatever works best, but as we were on the subject of monet and traditionalists, i didn't think it was the appropriate reasoning to compare.
Click to expand...

Interesting to note that many of the entertainment industry's leading concept artists, from Craig Mullins to Sparth, have looked to "traditionalist" impressionist painters like John Singer Sergent and Monet for inspiration and use of technique for conveying ideas quickly and clearly, with strong lighting and selective detail.
 
probably

i just don't think smudgy oil look done digitally looks very nice. i should of just said that to begin with really.
 
knut said:
probably

i just don't think smudgy oil look done digitally looks very nice. i should of just said that to begin with really.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Oh and, Kaptain H, I also like Craig Mullins' work.
 
Remus said:
True enough.

However since this subject was brought up, my philosophy is that the means or the amount of work put forth don't matter, only the result matters. If I can finish an artwork in just a few seconds, and be satisfied with it, all the better.

Whenever this subject is brought up what bothers me is this idea that just because I don't get my hands dirty or put my art on paper or canvas it's somehow cheap or unworthy to be called art.

And yes I've had this argument a lot in recent years. It's like "oh you used to draw and paint a lot before, what happened?", my answer :simple I went digital...

/rant
Click to expand...
Bang on. Digital is just more convenient, it doesn't magically grant you the ability to draw or paint but just lets you work faster if you can. I'm sure people got flak for using off the shelf paint instead of grinding their own way back in the day.

Also in the last person on earth who cares how you did a painting is an art director, the guy who will be paying you. Find a way to work even quicker and they will write you love poetry.

Kaptain H said:
Interesting to note that many of the entertainment industry's leading concept artists, from Craig Mullins to Sparth, have looked to "traditionalist" impressionist painters like John Singer Sergent and Monet for inspiration and use of technique for conveying ideas quickly and clearly, with strong lighting and selective detail.
Click to expand...

I shit bricks when i found out his work was done in photoshop. I only just found out that most of Jon Foster's work was done in photoshop and painter too (bricks were shit again).
 
i think wires have been seriously crossed in this thread between my original discussion re: traditional styles that were done so well because of time spent, colours used, mistakes made and new developments being born from them with some new discussion regarding why digital art is convenient or the right medium for certain situations re: art directors wanting work on the fly. that's quite a jump, both stylistically and over the course of history. how did we even get to that argument? monet or any traditionalist painters didn't even work for art directors, the classical painting style done traditionally doesn't even go into the same industry headed or commonly associated with art directors - development studios, magazines, editorials, covers, etc - even today.

all i'm saying is that i don't dig the oil painting replication or style because to me, it's almost like a tacky filter; it's using other, perhaps easier and quicker means to cut a corner that was difficult in an other manner. i am not saying to anyone that they HAVE to go and do that replication exactly as it was done hundreds of years ago and i am not saying that should be the standard, if they want to paint oily landscapes in the style of monet using photoshop go ahead, more power to them and all that malarky, it is merely my opinion and critique and that is a essential element of displaying art. am i looking too much into the original pictures and the artists intent? yes, definitely, but i feel the need to explain myself.

i don't like how i might look to be saying digital art is bad or what is the right way to paint, etc, as that's really not what i'm saying at all. of course i know that having an undo button and a unlimited on the fly colour palette is good for time - my old studio space last year was surrounded by digital artists and as i said, at one point in my life it was where i aspired to be, but my original point was simply my opinion regarding a traditionalist style in digital.

i feel like i've been a right jerk to remus now
 
knut said:
all I'm saying is that i don't dig the oil painting replication or style because to me, it's almost like a tacky filter
Click to expand...

Well I do know where your coming from. My best friend is pursuing oil paining as his primary source of income. Over the years he's gotten quite good at it, and whenever I show him digital paintings I've done in either artrage or painter, he's like oh this again... it's OK I guess, have you done any more 3d renders lately? :|



knut said:
i feel like i've been a right jerk to remus now
Click to expand...

Nah, we just have a difference of opinion. If I made it look like I couldn't take criticism I apologise.
 
RidleyRockets said:
Bang on. Digital is just more convenient, it doesn't magically grant you the ability to draw or paint but just lets you work faster if you can. I'm sure people got flak for using off the shelf paint instead of grinding their own way back in the day.

Also in the last person on earth who cares how you did a painting is an art director, the guy who will be paying you. Find a way to work even quicker and they will write you love poetry.



I shit bricks when i found out his work was done in photoshop. I only just found out that most of Jon Foster's work was done in photoshop and painter too (bricks were shit again).
Click to expand...

Do you not get sick of shitting bricks?
 
^Really nice.

I recently bought a small Wacom tablet myself to have better control when editing photos but also to try a bit of digital painting. I've always wished I could draw, but never really had any talent for it or enough determination to get the skills. I think it is easier to get into drawing/painting when you can easily undo your actions, change contrasts/hues on he fly etc. - more time before you get frustrated when something's not going right :p

Post more if you got it.
 
Bumping this thread since it's already on the subject matter.

Just finished this sci-fi character painting, with inspiration from Tron, Mass Effect etc.

big_cyanecho.jpg
 
Didn't even notice the first time I looked, but jesus is this her boob?


w1UzV.jpg



Nice work regardless of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
20K
Evo
Evo
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top