| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Release id #237162 : Tribute to Vangelis
@4gent,
1) feels you took those quotes out of context
2) I even said to 2 girls on the schoolyard when I was 9 that I'm never gonna have sex because its disgusting
3) Talent added so much of his own, that I consider it an original work, Vermeer traced outlines with pinhole camera, Talent used another work for reference I couldnt care less. |
|
... 192 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Quote:Most of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
Please forgive me man, please don’t get mad. I’m aware that you already told me not to tell you what to say (wow that sounded convoluted). But what you said here, again (to my understanding at least) implies that Talent pixels over converted gfx. Now, I’m not a native English speaker mind you, so forgive me if I’m reading this wrong.
you are reading wrong. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting OswaldMost of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
This would apply to everyone of course.
Many gfxers have agreed here already. It's not a new proposal either. Some have done this kind of referring already for years. This discussion has proposed that these productional infos could be attached to older releases too. I will try to do that with my pics that lack 'em in the cases where references are used. Prolly too much to ask with demos but at least with single images additional production notes would be welcomed. This should apply to PETSCII too as the current tools make it possible to convert at least somewhat decently.
Talent's case is such that big portion of his '23 images seem to be 1:1 with art made by other people, with a signature of his in. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
"In addition there has been doubts if the dithering in Talent's case is made by hand (as stated) or automized."
and again accusing without any profs. well, go ahead, eletric. i am wondering whats wrong with you. just because you are not able to do such masterful dithering, does not mean it must be automized. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote: you are reading wrong.
Oh, OK. Sorry then. Again I ask Oswald, Peacemaker responds. You guys make my poor head spin.
So, you (both I guess) are sticking to ‘no conversion whatsoever involved’ schtick? |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Quoting OswaldMost of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
This would apply to everyone of course.
Many gfxers have agreed here already. It's not a new proposal either. Some have done this kind of referring already for years. This discussion has proposed that these productional infos could be attached to older releases too. I will try to do that with my pics that lack 'em in the cases where references are used. Prolly too much to ask with demos but at least with single images additional production notes would be welcomed. This should apply to PETSCII too as the current tools make it possible to convert at least somewhat decently.
Talent's case is such that big portion of his '23 images seem to be 1:1 with art made by other people, with a signature of his in.
This discussion is not about what you try to make it look.
as lman already pointed out if you want to set new standards it shouldnt be discussed over someone's picture, and the new rules should be only applied to pictures done after that. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Oswaldas lman already pointed out if you want to set new standards it shouldnt be discussed over someone's picture, and the new rules should be only applied to pictures done after that.
Yes, and in any case copy is a copy and a conv is a conv. Both no-nos in gfx compos. It was that '87 and it's that today. Nothing changed here.
Refs have been optional but shown good manners when credited. Workstages have been mandatory for bigger party gfx compos. The discussion proposes slight changes with these both.
Indeed I don't see much changing but just hope to see us all paying attention to these - gfxers, coders, musicians, party orgs, moderators +++ |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
"Yes, and in any case copy is a copy and a conv is a conv. Both no-nos in gfx compos. It was that '87 and it's that today. Nothing changed here."
This looks like a straight convert, congrats for your 2nd place.
Love Lisa |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real. |
| |
Nim
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 27 |
Quote: You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real.
See that's the problem, you're dead wrong. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real.
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 14 December 2023
@Electric, I've seen this picture months before release and it was obvious from day -90 that this is based on something from the net.
also Electric suggested countless times already that Talent's dither style is result of conversion, and he ignored countless time to prove it and make a similar picture by conversion. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 21 - Next |
