| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
Double Screen Compo Voting
Okay - all entries are in and it is time for voting.
Take your time and check the pictures properly. If you like to check it on a C64, I'd recommend to turn off the volume, because music tends to alter atmosphere. Now here come the rules:
---
CHOOSE 3 FAVORITES - NO MORE - NO LESS
SEND YOUR CHOICE VIA PM TO ENTHUSI OR ME
OR BY MAIL TO << COMPO[AT SPAMSUCKS]C64PIXELS[DOT]COM >>
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET YOUR HANDLE/GROUP OR NAME
---
Deadline for voting is June 7th 2011 (know it is a long term but c64pixels-visitors are watching random)
Good luck to all contestants !
---
Looking Outward by Celtic, code by Zielok
Additional content according compo rules: Music
Format: MultiColor
---
Monroe 6569 by Diggr
Format: Charmode
---
Asteroidmine by Grass, code by Cruzer
Format: MultiColor
---
The Raven by Dane
Additional content according compo rules: Dark red and dark grey are laced
Format: MultiColor
---
CARGO by Twoflower, code by Cruzer
Additional content according compo rules: Music
Picture format: MultiColor, 4-colors, Colorscheme is matching Charmode
---
A Kind of Magic by Yazoo, code by Axis
Additional content according compo rules: Music, scrolltext (can be disabled by pressing spacebar)
Picture format: MultiColor
 |
|
... 195 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Alias Medron
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 39 |
I ve read the above comments and oppinions..
so here are my 2 cents..
Putting a copy in a compo is fine with me as long as you copy it by hand
(remember all those Boris Valejo pics in compos in the late 80's and 90's?)
BUT, just converting a nice picture and repixeling it isn't enough (for me anyway)
to enter a compo. Even worse if you don't mention your source and don't give credit to
the original artist.
I made a couple of copies that way too but never for a compo and one will see from
a mile away that it's not pure handpixeling if he takes a look at my other pics..
I mean.. 100% perfect match is almost impossible without wiring (ok.. except if your
name is STE or Joe).
Some time ago i criticised Joe for his almost perfect pictures and called them wired
until i found out that he's not from this planet and analyses things (shapes, forms,
light etc)in a different way than most people do. And even if they were partly converted
the source was original (his own photos, sketches etc) and that's a completely
different thing. I bet though he never just "repixeled" a wired image, at least not a compo
entry..
To summ it up..
Is wiring and converting ok?
Yes if you mention the source and the process and the compo allows non original and
non handpixeled pictures.
Will i vote for a converted picture?
maybe.. but if there is another not so great pic in the compo that is pure handpixeling
i will give it a better vote just for the effort.
and now i'll go back in my cave.. |
| |
FATFrost
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 211 |
There was once a saying ' the best artists, are the best thieves'
Competitions are meant to be a test of skills, to prove the sceners power...
Converting a pic to show your skills and win a compo is like tracing a picture when you were a kid and telling everyone you drew it.
Sometimes you get found out, sometimes you get away with it.
But you have to keep living the lie, and one day you will be tested to reproduce the same due to your previous efforts, can you produce the goods then?
The secret is in the small details...... you are as strong as your weakest point and in some pictures the smallest pixel skills shows the secret of the true artist.
but whatever.... the governments are still corrupt and so is this 'SCENE'....
/FF |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 269 |
http://www.google.no/search?q=andy+warhole&hl=no&client=opera&h..
One of my fav artist in all times... he used wires to the max! I never felt less of him because of that... I just admire him huge... But there is a difference... he did what he copied into something greater than the originals in a way... Not just a lame convert to a really bad graphics card on a pc from 1982... he were smart, using less to be greater or at least different... |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
100% perfect placement of elements is available to all c64 artists using any app with layer support.
using the "rotoscoping" technique and either a "draw over" or "draw under" method.
in the draw over method you simply, as the name suggests, size your source image and place where required on one layer and the overdraw that image on a layer above to create the required element.
the draw under method is slightly harder to get used to where u trace the element to a layer below the source image which you cant see. harder to master at first but it does have the advantage that you aren't obliterating the image you are reproducing as you work.
in zoom mode VERY accurate pixel placement can be obtained.
It has to be said that this method does not do all the work for you, but it does take out alot of the donkey work and free up the artists time to concentrate on shading and form, rather than trying to figure out "what the bloody hell is wrong with that eye"
rotoscoping used by the animation industry as a vaild tool can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
and another variation used by artists called epidiascoping can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidiascope
doing this stuff "back in the day" purely by eye was much harder work i assure you. but i can also assure you that had we had this ability we would have damned well used it.
I see rotoscoping as a modern variation on the old "grid tracing" technique just a hell of a lot faster.
I know many of the pixel purists are horrified by such words of "heresy" but in my experience, those who act like that have never done their art "for real" against a real life deadline. to me and i would guess most of the "old guys", anything goes except machine/application conversion and "digital" reproduction.
Steve
edit: one more thing, suspect any artist who says they don't use techniques like this and whose images match their sources at more than 80%. they are lying to you :) |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 269 |
example... If one can just alter the contrast to get a good shape I would do that instead of sitting and handpainting the shape... today, 2011 I will do that much faster... and then work from what I lay out in photoshop and get a nice base to be creative on... I will not go back to squared paper and a lighttable and then putting it in by hand on the c64... that is just too lame... but as I said in my earlier post... a stright convert is lame, a worked art inspired by another one is for me ok... not all are mermaids with their own style and their own arsenal of characters and so on... not all do work that way.
In film it is always done from some ref images of film... you film something and then work from that in order to do it greater...
BUT... the lame one to one convert with thimantes or so is just boring to me...
STE... yes you are all right my man... |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1989 |
@PAL,STE: Agree with you that one should use all available tools etc. but you're missing one crucial point about this thread and that is if one should be allowed to submit such picture to a compo or not. |
| |
Alias Medron
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 39 |
I'm with Jackasser here..
I don't care if a picture in a demo is retraced/repixeled converted etc as long as it looks good.
Ofcourse the handpixeled one has an extra WOW factor but in a demo whan we talk about still images it just has to look good in my opinion.
The gfx competitions are a completely different thing though..
and by the way.. i guess we're in a loop here.. this conversation goes on for years in the scene and comes up again and again. And in the end it's not about converting or not.. it's about honesty. It's about giving credit to original artists.. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 335 |
Quote:you're missing one crucial point about this thread and that is if one should be allowed to submit such picture to a compo or not.
This. While I *always* care if a picture is traced/copied/a retouched scan/original/whatever, the point of this whole thing as I stated several times is not about making copies in general, this is about entering them in a competition.
Quote:Yes, by all means go ahead and copy (and I mean *copy*, not retouch scans) great artists, that is a great way to get better at drawing and learning about anatomy and such. I have no problem with that, it'd be nice to see the original pics though. But is it really necessary to submit those (practice) copies to a competition and possibly beat people who came up with their own motives from scratch? Why not come up with something yourself? |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 335 |
Quote:in my experience, those who act like that have never done their art "for real" against a real life deadline. to me and i would guess most of the "old guys", anything goes except machine/application conversion and "digital" reproduction.
This "old girl" has done "art" for a living too, you know, "for real", without tracing or rotoscoping, against very real deadlines. And I'm hardly the only one. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
MANY compo winners have been copies over the years haven't they?
some subjects were known, some slipped under the radar.
this:
http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=4650&show=review
I have no doubt is actress Theresa Russell.
Copy? yes, because its unlikely that that artist got Theresa Russell to sit for him :) probably from a publicity shot.
Hand drawn? definitely.
Valid art? why not? He's drawn it and it's obviously technically acceptable because i can see it's Ms. Russell.
Now lets take another Russell:
recognised in the artworld as classic film poster art. original copies of this regularly change hands at auction for several thousands of pounds...
yet...
is one of the many publicity shots from the film.
see what i am getting at here?
kneejerk reactions to "no copies" simply do not recognise the fact that actually transferring a recognisable image from another medium to the c64 BY HAND in 16 fixed colours at 160x200 in 4 colours per 8x8 is an artform in itself and indeed one that the original artist MIGHT NOT be able to accomplish himself/herself.
Steve |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 21 | 22 - Next |
