|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 10:46:53 GMT -5
You're such a drama queen. Just admit what we all know in that you know nothing about art or the process. You're just embarrassing yourself when you talk out of your ass. Why don't you just admit you are some kind of elitist pig that thinks that only an artist can know anything about a subject. Go f**k yourself. I'm not an elitist, I just think you should learn about the printmaking process first before you shoot it down. I don't want to argue this. My whole point was a print is the final art for a digital artist and the quality can be just as good as what you see on screen. I'm not saying it's better or worse than a painting, that's all subjective.
|
|
|
Post by UKRob on Jan 8, 2009 10:52:33 GMT -5
Very interesting thread, with a lot of good points made by both sides.
I chose to sit on the fence... I can see the argument from both sides.
I think a valuable point that hasnt been mentioned (appologies if it already has) is the art collector. I think Cory made a comment about someone not paying as much for a print as a painting and this is absolutely true.
I cant see the famous art collectors of our time paying millions of dollars for a computer print out....
Jays comment on hand written books is also interesting, suggesting perhaps (but not necessarily) that the hand written book is a thing of the past, or is now somehow undesirable or obselete. Im sure some of you will have heard of J.K.Rowling (Harry Potter Author) hand writing 7 editions of her latest book. One sold at auction for $3.98Million. I wouldnt imagine many books to come off a printing press would sell for that ammount.
I guess what im getting at is that there always has and always will be a great appreciation for hand carfted artwork.
I am fully aware that a computer is just another medium, just another tool for creating art which cannot be used by everyone to the same level of skill(On a personal level, i wouldnt know where to start with the latest editions of photshop, but am pretty handy with a pencil and pastels). But somehow computer art distances the artist from their work of art. Does that make any sense?
It is my oppinion, rightly or wrongly, that technology somehow takes some of the humanity and creativity out of art. I speak from personal experience. My last career was as an architectural modelmaker in London. I made scale models of buildings and developments. Equipment that started out as time saving tools such as CNC, laser cutters, and 3d printing are now slowly, but surely destroying the industry. Changing the modelmakers role from one of creative craftsmen to little more than a person putting together and possibly painting what are basically air-fix kits. And there is certainly not the same level or creativity envolved in prepairing the 2d and 3d CAD models to produce the 3D print outs, as the skill involved in shaping solid blocks of material into detailed and intricate scale models by hand.
I am not for a second trying to say that the art shown in this thread which has been created in photoshop and other programs is of a lesser quality, or requires less skill than a piece of art made with paints and brushes. But it IS different. And the fact that there is no unique final piece, which the artist has physically shaped and touched, does in my oppinion make a difference.
I guess what i conclude is that it is the hand crafted uniqueness of a piece of non-computer art that is the Key. Opposed to the computer screen image or print out which is not unique and has likely not been touched by the artist.
In terms of artwork for GPK cards, i guess it doesnt make a great deal of difference, as long as the artwork is GOOD! Unless of course you are a GPK art collector, in which case it makes all the difference in the world....
But hey, it only my oppinion, and i am kind of old fashioned in many ways! ;D
P.S. maybe this discussion (ARGUMENT!) should be moved to its own "Computer Art Vs. ...... Art" thread? Seems to have drifted a little off topic....
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 11:30:27 GMT -5
Why don't you just admit you are some kind of elitist pig that thinks that only an artist can know anything about a subject. Go f**k yourself. I'm not an elitist, I just think you should learn about the printmaking process first before you shoot it down. I don't want to argue this. My whole point was a print is the final art for a digital artist and the quality can be just as good as what you see on screen. I'm not saying it's better or worse than a painting, that's all subjective. We are talking about two different things then. I still think something will be lost in the transition from screen to paper/board/etc., no matter how small, because nothing is perfect. You could click the print button 10 times and get almost the exact same thing except for possible printing flaws or paper flaws. That print may be considered the final art but when it's compared to a real piece of art it's not the same. You can easily see the best quality piece online, you can't do that with physical art. The physical handmade art will always be the 100% best option for the viewer, unless of course it gets damaged like in the situation Jay described. But still just seeing the effects of time on a piece would be pretty fuggin interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 11:35:12 GMT -5
Very interesting thread, with a lot of good points made by both sides. I chose to sit on the fence... I can see the argument from both sides. I think a valuable point that hasnt been mentioned (appologies if it already has) is the art collector. I think Cory made a comment about someone not paying as much for a print as a painting and this is absolutely true. I cant see the famous art collectors of our time paying millions of dollars for a computer print out.... Jays comment on hand written books is also interesting, suggesting perhaps (but not necessarily) that the hand written book is a thing of the past, or is now somehow undesirable or obselete. Im sure some of you will have heard of J.K.Rowling (Harry Potter Author) hand writing 7 editions of her latest book. One sold at auction for $3.98Million. I wouldnt imagine many books to come off a printing press would sell for that ammount. I guess what im getting at is that there always has and always will be a great appreciation for hand carfted artwork. I am fully aware that a computer is just another medium, just another tool for creating art which cannot be used by everyone to the same level of skill(On a personal level, i wouldnt know where to start with the latest editions of photshop, but am pretty handy with a pencil and pastels). But somehow computer art distances the artist from their work of art. Does that make any sense? It is my oppinion, rightly or wrongly, that technology somehow takes some of the humanity and creativity out of art. I speak from personal experience. My last career was as an architectural modelmaker in London. I made scale models of buildings and developments. Equipment that started out as time saving tools such as CNC, laser cutters, and 3d printing are now slowly, but surely destroying the industry. Changing the modelmakers role from one of creative craftsmen to little more than a person putting together and possibly painting what are basically air-fix kits. And there is certainly not the same level or creativity envolved in prepairing the 2d and 3d CAD models to produce the 3D print outs, as the skill involved in shaping solid blocks of material into detailed and intricate scale models by hand. I am not for a second trying to say that the art shown in this thread which has been created in photoshop and other programs is of a lesser quality, or requires less skill than a piece of art made with paints and brushes. But it IS different. And the fact that there is no unique final piece, which the artist has physically shaped and touched, does in my oppinion make a difference. I guess what i conclude is that it is the hand crafted uniqueness of a piece of non-computer art that is the Key. Opposed to the computer screen image or print out which is not unique and has likely not been touched by the artist. In terms of artwork for GPK cards, i guess it doesnt make a great deal of difference, as long as the artwork is GOOD! Unless of course you are a GPK art collector, in which case it makes all the difference in the world.... But hey, it only my oppinion, and i am kind of old fashioned in many ways! ;D P.S. maybe this discussion (ARGUMENT!) should be moved to its own "Computer Art Vs. ...... Art" thread? Seems to have drifted a little off topic.... $4 million for a handwritten book that isn't decades old?
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 11:57:14 GMT -5
I'm not an elitist, I just think you should learn about the printmaking process first before you shoot it down. I don't want to argue this. My whole point was a print is the final art for a digital artist and the quality can be just as good as what you see on screen. I'm not saying it's better or worse than a painting, that's all subjective. We are talking about two different things then. I still think something will be lost in the transition from screen to paper/board/etc., no matter how small, because nothing is perfect. You could click the print button 10 times and get almost the exact same thing except for possible printing flaws or paper flaws. That print may be considered the final art but when it's compared to a real piece of art it's not the same. You can easily see the best quality piece online, you can't do that with physical art. The physical handmade art will always be the 100% best option for the viewer, unless of course it gets damaged like in the situation Jay described. But still just seeing the effects of time on a piece would be pretty fuggin interesting. If you are talking about printing off a home computer then yes a hell of a lot of things can be lost but, a professional print can produce the same quality that is on the screen. Remember I'm talking about prints of digitally made artwork and not prints of paintings. Having the actual painting over the print is obviously the best way to view the piece. Also having a professionally produced print of a digital piece is just as good as whats on the screen, maybe better. There is a lot to say over ink vs pixels. I just believe that digital prints are a legitimate art medium too. Cool?
|
|
|
Post by UKRob on Jan 8, 2009 12:07:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 12:27:09 GMT -5
We are talking about two different things then. I still think something will be lost in the transition from screen to paper/board/etc., no matter how small, because nothing is perfect. You could click the print button 10 times and get almost the exact same thing except for possible printing flaws or paper flaws. That print may be considered the final art but when it's compared to a real piece of art it's not the same. You can easily see the best quality piece online, you can't do that with physical art. The physical handmade art will always be the 100% best option for the viewer, unless of course it gets damaged like in the situation Jay described. But still just seeing the effects of time on a piece would be pretty fuggin interesting. If you are talking about printing off a home computer then yes a hell of a lot of things can be lost but, a professional print can produce the same quality that is on the screen. Remember I'm talking about prints of digitally made artwork and not prints of paintings. Having the actual painting over the print is obviously the best way to view the piece. Also having a professionally produced print of a digital piece is just as good as whats on the screen, maybe better. There is a lot to say over ink vs pixels. I just believe that digital prints are a legitimate art medium too. Cool? I think that digital, prints or otherwise, is a legit medium too. You'd never see me say that it wasn't art just because it was digital. I don't think any printer is perfect no matter how expensive it is but I do understand your point. Lets say a print is an exact replica in every single way no flaws in the ink or the surface and it nails the colors. You can still see the same thing digitally less a signature provided your monitor doesn't suck and is set up right. There is really no reason to see the actual print if you have the image on your PC because there is nothing beyond it. Essentially there are no characteristics you'll see on that print that aren't on the digital image. No texture, no difference in color, no difference in clarity. Those are the things that go beyond the image to me. Anyway, it looks like we are on the same page for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 8, 2009 12:59:11 GMT -5
You can easily see the best quality piece online, you can't do that with physical art. That's why you don't post high quality images online of prints you want to sell. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 13:25:41 GMT -5
You can easily see the best quality piece online, you can't do that with physical art. That's why you don't post high quality images online of prints you want to sell. ;D Just print it and scan the print too keep everyone in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 13:30:09 GMT -5
I think that digital, prints or otherwise, is a legit medium too. You'd never see me say that it wasn't art just because it was digital. I don't think any printer is perfect no matter how expensive it is but I do understand your point. Lets say a print is an exact replica in every single way no flaws in the ink or the surface and it nails the colors. You can still see the same thing digitally less a signature provided your monitor doesn't suck and is set up right. There is really no reason to see the actual print if you have the image on your PC because there is nothing beyond it. Essentially there are no characteristics you'll see on that print that aren't on the digital image. No texture, no difference in color, no difference in clarity. Those are the things that go beyond the image to me. Anyway, it looks like we are on the same page for the most part. The whole point to a print is to frame them and hang them on a wall. You can't frame a monitor. I get it, you don't like prints but, I bet you have framed photographs in your home. Why not just look at the pics on your computer? Why display them? They are just as flat and textureless as a digital print. You keep comparing prints to paintings, of course a print doesn't have texture because there wasn't any in the first place because it's a different medium. I think we'll just keep going around and around on this.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 14:10:46 GMT -5
I think that digital, prints or otherwise, is a legit medium too. You'd never see me say that it wasn't art just because it was digital. I don't think any printer is perfect no matter how expensive it is but I do understand your point. Lets say a print is an exact replica in every single way no flaws in the ink or the surface and it nails the colors. You can still see the same thing digitally less a signature provided your monitor doesn't suck and is set up right. There is really no reason to see the actual print if you have the image on your PC because there is nothing beyond it. Essentially there are no characteristics you'll see on that print that aren't on the digital image. No texture, no difference in color, no difference in clarity. Those are the things that go beyond the image to me. Anyway, it looks like we are on the same page for the most part. The whole point to a print is to frame them and hang them on a wall. You can't frame a monitor. I get it, you don't like prints but, I bet you have framed photographs in your home. Why not just look at the pics on your computer? Why display them? They are just as flat and textureless as a digital print. You keep comparing prints to paintings, of course a print doesn't have texture because there wasn't any in the first place because it's a different medium. I think we'll just keep going around and around on this. I don't frame pictures. I am content with PC images. My wife isn't but that's a chick thing to have family photos. In fact she demanded that I take some 5X7 frames to my office. Do you think digital frames (monitor frames) will destroy the print market when they become the same price as a regular frame+print and have the quality of a monitor? Digital frames of all sizes 4X6 to 11X17 or bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 14:32:07 GMT -5
I don't frame pictures. I am content with PC images. My wife isn't but that's a chick thing to have family photos. In fact she demanded that I take some 5X7 frames to my office. Do you think digital frames (monitor frames) will destroy the print market when they become the same price as a regular frame+print and have the quality of a monitor? Digital frames of all sizes 4X6 to 11X17 or bigger. Do you at least have a pic of your kid(s) in your wallet? I don't think digital frames will destroy the print market in any way. Digital work hasn't destroyed paintings and nothing has hurt books.
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 8, 2009 14:39:58 GMT -5
I don't frame pictures. I am content with PC images. My wife isn't but that's a chick thing to have family photos. In fact she demanded that I take some 5X7 frames to my office. Do you think digital frames (monitor frames) will destroy the print market when they become the same price as a regular frame+print and have the quality of a monitor? Digital frames of all sizes 4X6 to 11X17 or bigger. Do you at least have a pic of your kid(s) in your wallet? I don't think digital frames will destroy the print market in any way. Digital work hasn't destroyed paintings and nothing has hurt books. Wallet pictures = I haven't had a picture in my wallet since Senior Year High School. And I'll be damned if this isn't the biggest rogue of a thread I've ever seen. Sorry Brent - looks like it's time to start a new one.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 14:44:45 GMT -5
I don't frame pictures. I am content with PC images. My wife isn't but that's a chick thing to have family photos. In fact she demanded that I take some 5X7 frames to my office. Do you think digital frames (monitor frames) will destroy the print market when they become the same price as a regular frame+print and have the quality of a monitor? Digital frames of all sizes 4X6 to 11X17 or bigger. Do you at least have a pic of your kid(s) in your wallet? I don't think digital frames will destroy the print market in any way. Digital work hasn't destroyed paintings and nothing has hurt books. Yeah my wife stuffed one in my wallet. I'm not a photo guy. I hate taking pics and being in pics. I'll do both for special occasions but it's rare. I've even taken a photography class where I had to develop my own film and everything. It just not for me I guess. Anyway, I'd love to have an 11X17 digital frame that I could program mats and pictures into. That s**t would be sweet. I could have the image rotate every half hour or so. One frame 10 pieces of art or photos. I've actually contemplated scanning in all of my GPK cards (front and back) and just keeping them on a memory stick. I could just view them on my PSP or something. I have to physically own something though so I've postponed it.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 14:47:38 GMT -5
Do you at least have a pic of your kid(s) in your wallet? I don't think digital frames will destroy the print market in any way. Digital work hasn't destroyed paintings and nothing has hurt books. Wallet pictures = I haven't had a picture in my wallet since Senior Year High School. And I'll be damned if this isn't the biggest rogue of a thread I've ever seen. Sorry Brent - looks like it's time to start a new one. Yeah they get all nasty and are a terrible to look at. My wife insists though. Maybe it's because I don't wear a wedding ring. I hate fuggin jewelry. I don't even wear a watch.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 8, 2009 14:50:57 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 14:55:18 GMT -5
Well I agree with you there I hate wearing watches too. I think these post should be moved to a new thread or deleted. Sorry Brent.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 14:56:52 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. Funny you posted this right after I said I hate jewelry. Let me clarify that. I hate wearing jewelry.
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 8, 2009 15:07:49 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. Funny you posted this right after I said I hate jewelry. Let me clarify that. I hate wearing jewelry. Do you hate wearing jewelry made by machines? Or jewelry made by humans. Because I think jewelry made by machines is actually inferior to jewelry made by humans. But both actually pale in comparison to jewelry made by primates. And anyone who has negative views on primate-crafted jewelry is a moron and I hope you die.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 15:10:14 GMT -5
Well I agree with you there I hate wearing watches too. I think these post should be moved to a new thread or deleted. Sorry Brent. What? We are so close to talking about the menstrual cycle and sculptures of aborted children.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 15:13:23 GMT -5
Funny you posted this right after I said I hate jewelry. Let me clarify that. I hate wearing jewelry. Do you hate wearing jewelry made by machines? Or jewelry made by humans. Because I think jewelry made by machines is actually inferior to jewelry made by humans. But both actually pale in comparison to jewelry made by primates. And anyone who has negative views on primate-crafted jewelry is a moron and I hope you die. DIE
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 8, 2009 15:22:05 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. Funny you posted this right after I said I hate jewelry. Let me clarify that. I hate wearing jewelry. I don't wear jewelry either, not even a watch. I didn't say you guys were fruit's that wear a bunch of jewels I said you appreciate handmade.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 15:24:20 GMT -5
Funny you posted this right after I said I hate jewelry. Let me clarify that. I hate wearing jewelry. I don't wear jewelry either, not even a watch. I didn't say you guys were fruit's that wear a bunch of jewels I said you appreciate handmade. I know, I was just fuggin with ya. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 8, 2009 15:34:10 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. I'm not sure if you are still comparing these programs to Photoshop. It's not like I just type in a GPK idea and Photoshop paints it for me. It is layers of built up colors just like a real painting. It's not any easier then an actual painting to me. I have an idea. I could sell the Photoshop file on a disk with all the layers. You'd be able to hide layers and see all the way down to the original pencil drawing if you wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 15:37:43 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. I'm not sure if you are still comparing these programs to Photoshop. It's not like I just type in a GPK idea and Photoshop paints it for me. It is layers of built up colors just like a real painting. It's not any easier then an actual painting to me. I have an idea. I could sell the Photoshop file on a disk with all the layers. You'd be able to hide layers and see all the way down to the original pencil drawing if you wanted to. Hey Brent have you ever thought about doing something like this when you do a digital painting?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 8, 2009 15:39:12 GMT -5
I under stand that you need allot of skill and great equipment to print Digital art , So who gets the credit for the final print, the printer that can hold what he has produced or the artist that only has a digital file I know on some sculptures the foundry would put their mark on it to grab some of the glory, does this happen with prints. I'm not trying to be smart with this post , I just want to know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 8, 2009 15:55:12 GMT -5
Hey Brent have you ever thought about doing something like this when you do a digital painting?
I have thought about it. I like watching those time-lapse paintings on Youtube. I guess I just need the program that records it and learn how to use it.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 16:05:16 GMT -5
Hey Brent have you ever thought about doing something like this when you do a digital painting? I have thought about it. I like watching those time-lapse paintings on Youtube. I guess I just need the program that records it and learn how to use it. It's cool watching those. Speaking of watching paintings come to life. I used to love to watch Bob Ross when I was younger. He didn't do anything complicated but it was cool to see. Plus his dialogue was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 8, 2009 16:15:46 GMT -5
Hey Brent have you ever thought about doing something like this when you do a digital painting? I have thought about it. I like watching those time-lapse paintings on Youtube. I guess I just need the program that records it and learn how to use it. It's cool watching those. Speaking of watching paintings come to life. I used to love to watch Bob Ross when I was younger. He didn't do anything complicated but it was cool to see. Plus his dialogue was awesome. Bob Ross Rocks Loved when he would paint a whispering forest.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 8, 2009 17:42:03 GMT -5
Those same machines UKRob talked about are killing the Jewelry industry also, people with no skill or experience in jewelry are now able to pretend they know what they are talking about because of these CAD programs. Auckland is a small city but i know of three family jewelry business that have sold out recently to I.T. people, it was getting really difficult for them to make money in the middle market cause they all had the same programs. All you have to do is take you part A & put it with part B. The only way left to compete is on price or how cheap you can sell it for. We have survived by targeting people like Me, Rus ,Cory & you that want something handmade. With jewelry the cad produced stuff at the moment is still really sharp robotic looking crap so its really easy to spot the difference. I'm not sure if you are still comparing these programs to Photoshop. It's not like I just type in a GPK idea and Photoshop paints it for me. It is layers of built up colors just like a real painting. It's not any easier then an actual painting to me. I have an idea. I could sell the Photoshop file on a disk with all the layers. You'd be able to hide layers and see all the way down to the original pencil drawing if you wanted to. No I'm not comparing it at all I was just commenting on how computers have affected my industry , like Rob did. I know nothing about photoshop, so I have been carefull to only coment on want I think I know. Don't get me wrong I love your work, I just appreciate stuff handmade more,because I can understand more whats gone into it. your sketch cards a great.
|
|