| |
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....
|
| |
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. :) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
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. |
| |
El Jefe
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 81 |
Quoting Jammer
... especially you were one of the first commenters hopping on 'let's prove he's a cheating lamer' wagon.
@Jammer: Lets try to understand why at some point everyone hopped on the "let's prove he's a cheating lamer" wagon. So far we have only two statements from Talent:
1) "I can assure everybody that I do not use any programs or converters, but only photoshop in indexed color mode c64 palette (CD inhouse, something between pepto and colodore; makes no difference at endresult) with 2:1 aspect ratio (brick pixel) and my eyes $ right hand pixeling."
2) "Just for the record, making a portrait basicly means, that a person sits for you while you paint (or photo) the subject of the portrait (copy him/her as lifelikely as possible). In case the subject can't be present for obvious reasons to sit for a painting, the painter can use photographs or other reproductions of the person. The artist's goal to add the own style and fill the work with spirit and emotions. In case of a C64 as media even to make the large amount of mental work and design to create a vision against the strong limitations by using the poor possibilities in terms of palette and resolution.
BTW I used about 5-6 photos from net to create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul to express my appreciation to Vangelis."
In my understanding, in 1) Talent expresses, that he does not convert pictures from anywhere and creates all his gfx in Photoshop (with a certain palette) using his eyes/vision/brain to turn that what he sees into pixels from scratch by mere hand pixeling. This is crucial for me in the whole discussion!
My understanding of his second comment is that he emphazizes again, that he worked on it like a portrait artist, observing the motiv (in this case, as he mentions, 5-6 photos from the internet) and turned it into pixels. I also understood his mentioning of "the large amount of mental work and design to create a vision against the strong limitations by using the poor possibilities in terms of palette and resolution." and "create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul" as a renewed emphasis on the fact that he created everything himself by hand.
I guess im not alone with this understanding and I think it makes it comprehensible that when the mentions of VAHIDAHMADIZB2016's work surfaced on here, and the guys that defend Talent, started the argumentation with explaining that there was no conversion involved, some guys got mad.
If im not mistaken, in the meantime it was admitted that conversion was involved (please correct me if i am wrong).
I guess the whole fuzz is due to the combination of Talent`s initial (and only) statements and how the the discussion later developed regarding the statements about how the pic was created. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 21 - Next |
