At 3/27/10 07:18 AM, J-qb wrote: Heyall!

art from your fellow art forumers: Altrian, Hyptosis, Renaenae, TheCupCakeArmy and Moi.

Wow, I've only heard of two of those artists, but I'll probably check it out.

At 3/27/10 09:39 AM, gmanthesandwhichking wrote:

At 3/27/10 07:18 AM, J-qb wrote: Heyall!

art from your fellow art forumers: Altrian, Hyptosis, Renaenae, TheCupCakeArmy and Moi.

Wow, I've only heard of two of those artists, but I'll probably check it out.

gman, get around more, the art forum is a vast place and youve only explored a fraction of it

At 3/27/10 09:39 AM, gmanthesandwhichking wrote:

At 3/27/10 07:18 AM, J-qb wrote:

art from your fellow art forumers: Altrian, Hyptosis, Renaenae, TheCupCakeArmy and Moi.
Wow, I've only heard of two of those artists, but I'll probably check it out.

Well, I've heard of all of them except for this Moi person *wink*

they don't seem to have done much, lol

At 3/27/10 09:23 PM, CloudEater wrote: Well, I've heard of all of them except for this Moi person *wink*

they don't seem to have done much, lol

that actually made me lol, well done cloudy

At 3/27/10 10:13 AM, Ashman wrote:

gman, get around more, the art forum is a vast place and youve only explored a fraction of it

True, true. I should probably also spend more time in the art portal.

forum has been somewhat lively today.....

Haven't posted this here, and I think it's somewhat relevant:

27b/6
An Australian bloke's blog.
The ones where he's being a righteous arsehole to acquaintances are hilarious.

My favourites are the image based ones:
Paying for an overdue account,
Reply to an appartment damages form
and Response to a logo design request.

At 3/29/10 03:54 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Haven't posted this here, and I think it's somewhat relevant:

Holy shit.. That is hillarious..

The Photoshop 'content aware fill'.

Going through the comments I can see that a lot people are freaking out about this and saying that theyll be 'out of the job'.To be honest Im not worried because Im aiming for a better design job than just photoshopping out unwanted scenery all day.

At 3/29/10 07:47 AM, FullFistMaria wrote: The Photoshop 'content aware fill'.

Going through the comments I can see that a lot people are freaking out about this and saying that theyll be 'out of the job'.To be honest Im not worried because Im aiming for a better design job than just photoshopping out unwanted scenery all day.

That is pretty amazing. I just can't wrap my head around how the program knows how to make that last panorama picture look so good..

At 3/29/10 07:58 AM, Lundsfryd wrote: That is pretty amazing. I just can't wrap my head around how the program knows how to make that last panorama picture look so good..

Yeah its pretty impressive.I checked to see if it was april fools day after watching a bit of it.

At 3/29/10 08:11 AM, FullFistMaria wrote:

At 3/29/10 07:58 AM, Lundsfryd wrote: That is pretty amazing. I just can't wrap my head around how the program knows how to make that last panorama picture look so good..

Yeah its pretty impressive.I checked to see if it was april fools day after watching a bit of it.

Me too.. It just seems impossible. How does it know! It's a bit scary really :P

Wow, that content-aware fill is crazy! The amount of necessary computing power to recognize background elements and transfer them is just insane.

thats crazy, i'd love to see what kind of effect this content aware has on drawings and art

At 3/29/10 09:54 AM, Weenog wrote: thats crazy, i'd love to see what kind of effect this content aware has on drawings and art

Yeah would be downright hilarious to test out on some of my pieces where the figure vanishes or was fully complete.

Content Aware Fill

That's a neat trick. But doesn't it bug anyone else that it's fine and dandy to print manipulated photos in the first place without some kind of disclaimer? Why is it peoples jobs to edit photos for commercial consumption? Seriously, are we so fragile that anything less than a perfect photograph will shatter our conceptions of reality? Boo! I want reality not some fakey bullshit world! >=[

/rant

At 3/29/10 11:11 AM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: Boo! I want reality not some fakey bullshit world! >=[

I agree with you there Kraig. Unfortunately, people are stupid and fickle and materialistic, and overall prefer to imagine themselves in an unachievable imagination than live in an imperfect world.

At 3/29/10 11:11 AM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: Content Aware Fill

That's a neat trick. But doesn't it bug anyone else that it's fine and dandy to print manipulated photos in the first place without some kind of disclaimer? Why is it peoples jobs to edit photos for commercial consumption? Seriously, are we so fragile that anything less than a perfect photograph will shatter our conceptions of reality? Boo! I want reality not some fakey bullshit world! >=[

/rant

I'm wondering how well it would work with handdrawn material. like more 'cartoony' graphics or 'painterly' graphics.

I think it's cool too but it will mostly be used for advertising. But still, i'm interested in how it copes with more handdrawn stuff. That would make people EXTREMELY lazy. ie. drawing a ton of detail and then basically filling that calculated, random detail into another area (waves, fish, trees, etc). Then it would look like you drew all those details when really you didn't.

I can't wait to test it out but i do agree. with photographs it can really alter one's view. With handdrawn artwork it could make people lazy. I still want to try it out to see what it can do though.

At 3/29/10 03:54 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Haven't posted this here, and I think it's somewhat relevant:

Thats the funny as hell, oh how we laughed.

just a quick question... what do we do to people who make noob threads who know the rules but yet break them... annnddd... happen to be a mod?... *cough*Rucklo*cough*

should we redirect them to the art request thread?... or just mock them... :P

seen as no one else has stepped up to the challenge... il though il encourage someone to do something about it... :3

and hope not to get the wrath of the ban hammer

At 3/29/10 11:11 AM, BlackmarketKraig wrote:

Why is it peoples jobs to edit photos for commercial consumption?
I think its more an afront to photography in general that they can now be even more lazy. Ive never had much respect for photography after the invention of digital photographs and photoshop because you can take a piss poor image and make it look stellar, which is more a testament of your digital manipulation skills than your photography skills.

At 3/29/10 11:59 AM, Starogre wrote: I can't wait to test it out but i do agree. with photographs it can really alter one's view. With handdrawn artwork it could make people lazy. I still want to try it out to see what it can do though.

Well a lot of artists who you respect for their supreme amount of detail you will find have lazy ways around it. Take Escher for example. All those badass tessellations and crazy perspective pieces with a million objects receding in space he has... yeah those are prints. This means that he would take a plate or stone or whatever, do the detail in a tiny section of it, then just stamp the rest of the page with it to fill the space.

At 3/29/10 01:38 PM, LegolaSS wrote: just a quick question... what do we do to people who make noob threads who know the rules but yet break them... annnddd... happen to be a mod?... *cough*Rucklo*cough*
should we redirect them to the art request thread?... or just mock them... :P

Both, although he is aware of the thread anyway. He didnt post in there because he isnt paying and more just came to the art forum because thats where the artists are. I would throw the rules at him and the thread, but do it nicely, then comply with his request anyway. I mean he should have at least had some sorry attempt at a starting pic to not break all the rules :P

AND ON THE SUBJECT OF PHOTOSHOP STUFF
I came across this balls to the wall retarded tutorial.
White Tattoo, Black Hand

At 3/29/10 01:50 PM, ornery wrote: Well a lot of artists who you respect for their supreme amount of detail you will find have lazy ways around it. Take Escher for example. All those badass tessellations and crazy perspective pieces with a million objects receding in space he has... yeah those are prints. This means that he would take a plate or stone or whatever, do the detail in a tiny section of it, then just stamp the rest of the page with it to fill the space.

Ah wow, didn't know that. Lots of detail takes time and it's wonderful when someone can get the lighting and focus correct across a large piece of scenery or texture. I realize detail can only go so far and by that point it's just how much time is willing to be put into it, maybe not necessarily skill, but there are fair amounts of both. I'm just thinking about paintings, cityscapes, landscapes, etc. If you painted only a few buildings in detail and then had photoshop randomly fill in other ones along a path, that would just be fas;dkfj;sdjf!!

AND ON THE SUBJECT OF PHOTOSHOP STUFF
I came across this balls to the wall retarded tutorial.
White Tattoo, Black Hand

hmm could you find a tan native american hand with a blue tattoo instead? i'm not very interested in white on black...

At 3/29/10 01:50 PM, ornery wrote:

At 3/29/10 11:11 AM, BlackmarketKraig wrote:

Why is it peoples jobs to edit photos for commercial consumption?
I think its more an afront to photography in general that they can now be even more lazy. Ive never had much respect for photography after the invention of digital photographs and photoshop because you can take a piss poor image and make it look stellar, which is more a testament of your digital manipulation skills than your photography skills.

I think it's more up to the photographer to make sure they take the perfect photo to use for an advert.
When checking out PhotoshopDisasters.com, there's a few pics where the photographer has taken several different photographic poses
... but somebody didn't like them, so the guy doing the photoshops has to chew two of them together and spit something out.

Two examples are this and this, where two photos have been meshed together to get the "perfect pose", but looks shit due to anatomy errors - which you wouldn't get from a decent initial photo.

At 3/29/10 02:47 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
I think it's more up to the photographer to make sure they take the perfect photo to use for an advert.
When checking out PhotoshopDisasters.com, there's a few pics where the photographer has taken several different photographic poses
... but somebody didn't like them, so the guy doing the photoshops has to chew two of them together and spit something out.

Two examples are this and this, where two photos have been meshed together to get the "perfect pose", but looks shit due to anatomy errors - which you wouldn't get from a decent initial photo.

It should definitely be up to the photographer to take a nice photo, it is, after all, their art and job to do so, but there are limitations, and that needs to be fine with the editors who decide what gets published. It's annoying to me that every time I look at a photograph I'm not going to have any idea how much of it is, in fact, a photograph and how much of it is edited hodgepodge. And publications that have the moral fiber not to publish edited photos are going to have to be the ones to suffer for not having the "perfect" pictures.

At 3/29/10 05:33 PM, BlackmarketKraig wrote:

It's annoying to me that every time I look at a photograph I'm not going to have any idea how much of it is, in fact, a photograph and how much of it is edited hodgepodge.

I still think those Sandals beaches are fake places

Well damn the leader boards have been taken down
oh well...
and I was only a day behind jonny.... I was sure I could have overtaken him by lat fall early winter :P

Read for your selves..... o.0.....

I know there is a big market for custom dildos, and artists certainly shouldn't shy away from that lucrative niche, but this is just wwwwoooooowwwwww

At 3/29/10 10:17 PM, ornery wrote: I know there is a big market for custom dildos, and artists certainly shouldn't shy away from that lucrative niche, but this is just wwwwoooooowwwwww

And how, pray tell, did you stumble upon this?

At 3/29/10 10:17 PM, ornery wrote: but this is just wwwwoooooowwwwww

that...... is an understatement......

o.0.....

Well heres the thing, you can use those "stickers" and just use those for clouds, or you could take the long and hard (snicker) way and learn to draw those types of clouds.