fchan

discussion

Referencing art is NOT tracing

Pages:1
1Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 09:03

You know what i'm tired of? I'm tired of all the armchair art critics out there who have no idea how the industry works and constantly make ignorant comments regarding referencing and even tracing which are STANDARD practice. Let's say you are an animator and you are on a tight budget but you need to do this cool fight scene...well, you decide to trace a famous fight from a kungfu movie. Then some armchair critic on the net finds out and makes a huge deal over it knowing nothing of the industry, the complexity or the fact that tracing is WIDELY accepted. Disney rotoscopes(form of tracing), redraws over scenes from past movies and reuses all kinds of animation. What matters is the final product.

Then you have traditional art and referencing. Just because you use a reference for your pose suddenly people are under the impression you didn't work your ass off. You still had to think of the composition, the shading and interpreting the linework. Just because I used a pose reference doesn't mean I had an easier time with the picture. Even with references it can still take some artists over 40 hours to finish a picture yet the critics pretend like it's the end of the fucking world. You know what a problem is? When someone erases a signature, doesn't work at all then claims they drew a picture they had nothing to do with. Even tracing has a place in the art world as it helps teach technique. So long as someone admits to the fact they used a reference and credits the original artist what's the god damn problem here?

Tracing and referencing are standard practice, get over it. The art community has been doing this kind of thing for a long time and it's not about stealing credit, it's about improving ones abilities. I'm tired of all the idiots out there not realizing how difficult it is to do art making ignorant comments about something they know nothing of.

2Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 12:28

Tracing or referencing art to improve your skills or save time is one thing. (It's even better to give credit to the original artist.) However, blatantly copying someone's work and passing it off as your own is morally wrong.

Your snobby artist "better-than-thou" attitude isn't doing much to support your argument, either.

3Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 12:36

>>2
I can't help the fact that I know more than the armchair art critics who don't know wtf they are talking about. That's like trying to call a rocket scientist a 'better-than-thou' snob when he tries to explain how rocket science works to some morons who were claiming they knew everything there was to know about it when in reality they knew jack shit.

4Report (sage)
at 17 Apr 2008: 13:22

>>1
Referencing a work is one thing. Tracing/copying without acknowledgement/permission is another. The former is drawing inspiration from another's work. The latter is plagarizing it. Know the difference.

5Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 13:56

Tracing is not cool in any way, shape, or form unless it's how you ink your own art (light box or Vellum). It's using someone else's hard work and lazily passing it off as your own. If you reference a pose or how someone draws something like wings, eyes, fur, ect. it can be used as a learning experience (so long as you don't try to become a carbon copy of them). It's polite to give credit if you do this.

Disney can rotoscope/copy their own movies because, well... it's already their own movie. It just looks sort of cheap and lazy on their part.

6Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 14:06

>>3
Heh. Way to counter that argument there, chief.

7Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 15:39

>>3
You've just met the Rocket Scientist (thought only with very small rockets) and certainly no armchair critic.

You're quite right in that tracing is used as a tool in the industry and in the studio. However, there's a difference between grabbing something off the net and tracing it, slapping ears and a tail on it an calling it 'MY VREY ONE FUREY ARTZ!!!!" and carefully picking your model from a stock photo for use in setting up your own image. There's also a world of difference between grabbing some person's art and tracing it for your "Ode To My Character VERY Original Art (by ME!)" after you've labeled it a dragon and used some consummate 'V's to add spinities and angry eyebrows to the original kitty. You might "get away" with it, but declaring it your very own work is, at best, only a hollow, partial triumph.

Tracing a photo or other image for an in-house comp is one thing- though it makes art directors nervous- while trying to ship that tracing out into the world for publication as a final is asking for some guy that's passed the bar exam to rub his hands together in glee as he calls in his secretary to dictate a letter you don't want to receive. You can use stock images or photos and trace them to your heart's content and deadline's satisfaction, but you had better have paid Clipper or some equivalent for the right to do so before you let it set foot outside your door. Bakshi had to get permission to rotoscope those "Zulu" orcs, y'know (Though, considering the quality of the work, he probably got the discount package).

Unless there's a substantially transformative alteration, it's a copy. If you trace off a photo of some centerfold's photo, thinking that your line art version is somehow transforming the image enough to keep the cries of plagiarism  and that guy with the law degree at bay, you're in for a sad surprise. Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons  which is perhaps one of the more celebrated cases. A transformation in media isn't enough. Something more than changing a figure's breast size, color or giving it slit-pupiled eyes- or even species characteristics- is needed to make it your art and not a copy of someone else's.

The good part is that you +can+ trace a photo as a guide for your own art- though it's not considered good form by the purists- provided you only use that as a guide and not a  substantial basis for your image. However, something more than changing a figure's breast size, color or head is needed, and simply adding a tail and claws doesn't cut it at all if you're going to use someone else's work for that tracing (except in the case of parody, which is chancy at best: see Millet/Dali and the brouhaha over "Angelus").

For instance, the Brothers Hildebrandt, Frank Thorne and even Boris Vallejo are well known for using  photographs and tracings for compositing  and as reference in their work. However, they use or trace photographs they've made or had made for them, using models whose permission they've obtained (They also don't slavishly copy the photo's every detail when the paint starts going down- and if you ever see the photos, you'd know why). They use them for reference. They can do so without any qualms as, even if they did qualify as copies, they not only had permission, they're the ones that created them for that purpose in the first place.

They +might+ say, "Oh! I love the way he handled that- especially the lighting and color- and that's a wonderful pose... I think I'll set my subject up like that," when getting ready to have at it. What they +don't+ do is trace each other's art- or photos- or anybody else's and try to pass it off as their own creation. The first is referencing someone's work; the second is a hack copy of it. Therein lies the difference- if you can see it, that is.

8Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 20:41

>>7 here again. I stumbled over the up-welling Wookie dramafest stirring elsewhere, and assume that's the causative factor of the OP. INstead of the standard YES! NO! YES! NO! nonsense, cut to the chase.

Do this: load both images into Photoshop, each one in a separate layer. Reduce transparency of the top layer so you can see each image. Move the top one around, scaling and rotating if necessary. See if you can match the lines of both close to absolute perfection. Don't cheat because you know it's gotta be/can't be. Be honest.

If you can make them most of the major lines match close to perfection, allowing for differing detail lines or minor alterations, you've probably got a tracing. If they just look a lot like each other or only match up in spots, you have someone that just referenced the image, but was good enough to be able to match it pretty closely.

Even if you do have evidence of a near perfect trace-off, if permission was obtained from the original artist or the owner of the original, and  the client knew or requested that is was to be a copy, no harm done. If it's just very close, you probably only have a very good artist. In either case, permission is the key factor, not whether the artist took a shortcut.

9Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 21:03

>>8
You forgot to talk about artists who trace only to improve their talent and don't try to pass off the work as their own but rightfully give credit to the original artist.

10Report (sage)
at 17 Apr 2008: 21:03

>>8
Link to Wookiee drama plz!

11Report (sage)
at 17 Apr 2008: 21:34

>>9
Tracing is not a great way to learn how to draw. It's a tool, not a lesson.You use it to clean up work, transfer it or to save the time you'd have to spend trying to re-do something  when you're only altering part of it. It's for compositing elements and giving you a guide for later work. It's for saving time and effort.

It's also sometimes a way of getting an annoying client off your back or giving them exactly what they want. It's cheating, but it's honest cheating when used properly.

If you're trying to learn, it's better to do you best to copy it on your own and then compare to the original.

12Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 21:41

>>11
It can be used to learn how to draw when you are first starting up or if you really can't grasp a certain thing. Tracing it helps your mind visually and muscle memory wise understand the concept better than just trying to reference it by eye. Is it the end all technique? No. But it's useful.

13Report
sibeara at 18 Apr 2008: 18:42

there are limits and besides if you haven't the skil that's no excuse for sponging from others, personally i'd be pissed off if some one stole (sorry i mean 'refferenced') my work and called it there own. don't think me a nazi i just don't like the idea of people shamelessly pillaging my folios

14Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 21:01

>>13
Once again, I am not saying it's normal to trace or reference then remove all credit. I am saying it's perfectly ok to trace or reference while giving full credit to the original creator of the image as a means to improve ones artistic ability.

15Report
anon at 15 Apr 2009: 00:35

" I'm tired of all the idiots out there not realizing how difficult it is to do art making ignorant comments about something they know nothing of."

That's interesting. . .because, as a professional artist *I* am tired of all of the people who don't realize how difficult it is to do art that TRACE things as a shortcut rather than learn to do it themselves.

16Report
Skunkworks at 15 Apr 2009: 01:17

I have to agree with both >>7 and >>15's posts.  I've seen a fair amount of traced pictures, and I've a lot of pictures that were traced off my own artwork!  Using another image as a reference is certainly more acceptable, but again, copying another person's work may result in unknowingly copying their faults and/or mistakes.

Want to do it right?  Study anatomy.  Human, animal, whatever.  Learn about and understand your subject matter.  When an understanding of the subject is grasped, then you can focus on developing style.  Too many artists pass off poor anatomy/coloring/compositions as "style", when in reality, it reflects a lack of understanding of the subject they are drawing.

Once you've got a good understanding of anatomy, you won't need to reference photos or other artwork anymore because you'll have sufficient knowledge of the subject to render any pose you can think of.

In the past 14 years, I've only referenced two photos.  Both were commission requests, and the commissioner had sent the photos to me, stating "I want the picture to look just like this".  Obviously, in such an example, one has little choice but to reference the photos included.  But in nearly every case, I just draw the pictures I see in mt head, sometimes several times, playing with camera angles and what-not.

Study your intended subject and understand it.  Then you'll never be blamed for "copying" or "tracing" another's work, as the work you do will be completely your own.

17Report
Sen at 15 Apr 2009: 08:13

>>1
I'm confused.

Your title, "Referencing art is NOT tracing" implies that there is something wrong with tracing. Then you go on to laud the use of tracing?

Make up your mind, or your argument's going to fall apart.

18Report(capped)
Xenofur at 15 Apr 2009: 16:21

>>16
Thanks for demonstrating why you are one of the best artists around here. :)

19Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage