| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 5096 |
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.... |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021 Posts: 285 |
Dear God. I bet your mom’s real proud of you. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 39 |
Quoting LManHowever I strongly reject the way it is fought out above Talent's Vangelis picture.
TBH, this specific Vangelis portrait is not the only image in the demo taken from internet. It seems that the previous fast made animation raised so much bad blood that I'd rather ask you all to google it by yourselves.
Oswald, I do not quite get it with what you mean with 'fake original'? Talent wrote himself he has used several shots for the final image reference. The fast dummy used for the gif was built out of just two that I got hold of easily – the whole dude and a close-up of his face with just the eyes, nose +++. I put these together without any effort and it is very close to the actual pixeled work already. I indeed received similar drafts from two people privately, both making the same conclusion as I. I stated very clearly along the gif that it used two images. As somebody said here, due it's a model you can create the angle you want but indeed these two seem to be enough already. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002 Posts: 1337 |
What's the actual accusation point then?! Converting without handmade effort or reference use and ethics? Be precise, ffs, because you're constantly mixing up things, please. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 5096 |
Quote: Quoting LManHowever I strongly reject the way it is fought out above Talent's Vangelis picture.
TBH, this specific Vangelis portrait is not the only image in the demo taken from internet. It seems that the previous fast made animation raised so much bad blood that I'd rather ask you all to google it by yourselves.
Oswald, I do not quite get it with what you mean with 'fake original'? Talent wrote himself he has used several shots for the final image reference. The fast dummy used for the gif was built out of just two that I got hold of easily – the whole dude and a close-up of his face with just the eyes, nose +++. I put these together without any effort and it is very close to the actual pixeled work already. I indeed received similar drafts from two people privately, both making the same conclusion as I. I stated very clearly along the gif that it used two images. As somebody said here, due it's a model you can create the angle you want but indeed these two seem to be enough already.
@Electric, simply its not what Talent have used.
Also it was openly admitted he have used references from day 0 so what is your point exactly? He shouldnt do it while you and Sarge is allowed ?
Edit: oh and the guy demanding respect while talking about waving dicks. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004 Posts: 954 |
I'm really starting to think this is a structural campaign from the competition. ;) |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 39 |
Quoting OswaldAlso it was openly admitted he have used references from day 0 so what is your point exactly? He shouldnt do it while you and Sarge is allowed ?
I have never said anywhere in this discussion that references could not be used. The question is if they're straight retouched copies (read: you google a photo, retouch it a bit or make a collage to hide your tracks + convert / pipeline it for C64) or used as Vermeer did it: to learn how to draw it by looking at it.
An example: if you need to draw a hand, look at it and draw it – it won't be exactly what the hand you looked at is but it will most likely be something with five fingers (if not AI used). Shortcut here would be to google a hand in certain position, retouch, scale to C64 res and handle the colours & dithering. In the latter case (with the new norms I've been proposing and what this discussion is partly about) the original image should be presented as a reference, either as an image or shortly noted as text.
In Zoo pixel graphics compo rules use of references is allowed, handmade remakes too:
“… Converting is not accepted at any stage of the image. This concerns scans or googled images or collages out of these. However, you may use a reference image such as a photo taken by you or sketch you have drawn. Handmade remakes are accepted but in such case please provide all necessary information on the original art (author, title etc.) – this information will be shown along the image. However, we encourage you to focus on your own handmade unique art and ideas.”
This is from '22 edition rules and we'll prolly need to update it. Just want to point out how we treated this issue two years ago. In the end it is the jury that will decide on what is in and what is out.
What comes to the specificly chosen example of Sarge's work I would rather recommend to image search for Talent's work from 2023 and do the same with Sarge. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 5096 |
@Electric I still dont know whats your point here. If you think its a "little bit retouched" convert, then you can prove it easily, do a similar picture tommorow. Convert and retouch a bit. Make a better one.
I could show more examples from Sarge, even you. The question is have you converted the Coltraine picture and then retouched it a bit, or you did it like Vermeer? do you have the workstages?
edit: Nah Vermeer traced outlines with pinhole camera so its not even true he just looked at it. But then even Van Gogh is guilty, he looked at Nature and copied. Oh my god! |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 39 |
Quoting JammerWhat's the actual accusation point then?! Converting without handmade effort or reference use and ethics? Be precise, ffs, because you're constantly mixing up things, please.
I know it's prolly painful to follow this staggering talk but it's all been said few times already. This is a complicated issue of course.
What has been discussed has emphasized artist's rights and general ethics that most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least. This does not take away anything from anyone.
In addition there has been doubts if the dithering in Talent's case is made by hand (as stated) or automized. This relates with all the conversion discussion that you can prolly read more in the Ninja-gate. Significant similarity with the original and the pixeled work is often a sign of some sort of conversion just due we humans tend to do mistakes. I hope we can see (at least in the future) workstages from Talent too so these doubts can be flushed down the toilet. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 5096 |
"most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least"
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... |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004 Posts: 954 |
Quoting Oswald"most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least"
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...
Some try to better themselves, which is not always on a technical level. Though everyone can ofcourse choose what moral ethics or visual aesthetics they want to uphold. :) |
Previous - 1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 21 - Next |