| |
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....
|
| |
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: 5096 |
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. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
This looks like a dead end.
I honestly cannot believe that someone who is not Oswald or Peacemaker (talking to you Nim), someone who understands graphics, after so many signs, after even the pixels of the ‘phantom’ hand seen through the beard can say that there was no conversion whatsoever. But, I said it before, maybe I’m in my ‘bubble’ and the reality is something completely different from what seems obvious to me.
What I don’t understand is this amount of backlash.
Graphicians produce their masterpieces these days with a whole arsenal of tools. Conversion being only one of them. Conversion is not a swear word. We’re not talking about lazy worthless converts here. Conversion being deployed as only one element of many does not reduce the value of Talents exquisite work (speaking strictly for myself here).
Peace. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Oswald"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.
So you had to dig +26 years into the past to the 21-yo me to find my Lisa Bonet? … this by avoiding the close 100 images done during 2000s you did not find much about?
You can find lots more from the 90s if you want - these are no secrets as told. Let me know about the converters of that era too as I did not have any. There were rumours some had but looking at the works released those days I think most of it came bit later. I can send you my Donald Duck drawings too from when I was 7.
I already wrote here that my 80s and 90s pics - like most of the era's - are almost all based on references. Called it and call it sort of 'technical period' on all the scenes indeed – the most iconic scene pics like the 'Hair of the Dog' from Cougar (that I traced into PETSCII) are hand-pixeled own versions of the original references.
Our “history” part of the Pixeled Years -exhibition presenting demoscene had ONE original Finnish C64 fullscreen pixel image from 80s-90s. Rest used references fully or partially. There’s lots to dig into.
I think the main problem in the beginning was to outline / sketch something. It was really tricky as free pen drawing was not really practical at least in any of the software I was using – most lacked it completely. This is a good example of bad own try (1993): Compopic
Took some studying and practising to learn to work on my own stuff. New tools helped.
FYI: this one (like all the 90s) pics was done by:
a) photocopying the original into the size or my 15" telly
b) by tracing outlines on transparent sheet with a pen
c) sheet bluetagged on the telly and then traced the outlines from there to the software. Colouring then done by trying to imitate the image, with better or worse results.
(d) dreaming of a scanner)
A pic like Talent’s Vangelis would’ve been wizardry back then, like it is now. |
| |
Nim
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 27 |
Quote: This looks like a dead end.
I honestly cannot believe that someone who is not Oswald or Peacemaker (talking to you Nim), someone who understands graphics, after so many signs, after even the pixels of the ‘phantom’ hand seen through the beard can say that there was no conversion whatsoever. But, I said it before, maybe I’m in my ‘bubble’ and the reality is something completely different from what seems obvious to me.
What I don’t understand is this amount of backlash.
Graphicians produce their masterpieces these days with a whole arsenal of tools. Conversion being only one of them. Conversion is not a swear word. We’re not talking about lazy worthless converts here. Conversion being deployed as only one element of many does not reduce the value of Talents exquisite work (speaking strictly for myself here).
Peace.
Talent uses Photoshop CC 2015 and a tool written by Edhellon (or was it Oswald?) to check for colour clashes, that is all. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting NimTalent uses Photoshop CC 2015 and a tool written by Edhellon (or was it Oswald?) to check for colour clashes, that is all.
Thanks! I think (or how I would prolly try it) the dithering is then done via layers – having the same image with multiple dark / light / toned versions split on at least two layers presented then as odd/even pixel via masking… with additional brushing on the image and masks. Needs prolly lots of tuning though to make it into a pipeline. I'm assumingly wrong here but can't resist betting. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 275 |
 |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 49 |
Just imagine how much confusion and trolling we could have avoided if Talent could have answered a simple question himself. We could also have saved a lot of time.
I met him at X and he seems like a decent normal man that could talk.
So I don't get this at all. It's pretty normal wanting to know more. Especially in the field you work in. I use to go to seminars where real talents show their complete process. Nothing wrong with that.
Sharing is caring. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5096 |
"Just imagine how much confusion and trolling we could have avoided if Talent could have answered a simple question himself. "
Zero. Electric still goes on about how its an automated process.
"So I don't get this at all. It's pretty normal wanting to know more."
Thats not what have happened here. You have came with accusations of cheating and copying. You have blamed Talent for not giving credit to the original artist while you practice the same thing yourselves. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 49 |
Alright. The answer I expected. I was probably foolishly thinking that maybe, just maybe Talent would join this merry bunch of people discussing this.
I guess we have to live in doubt forever if its converted or not or whatever.
The clouds will never lift.
You can't always get what you want I guess. :) |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 21 - Next |
