[eyewoo]

jOnnywedge...

tracing is a tool...end of story

(addendum to story) jOnny... Myself and a number of other forum members have tried to articulate their point of view. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point of view. I would like to hear it, evaluate it and respond to it...

[jr]

phil, what part of WORD, didn't you get? come on man!

anywho, people who don't know how difficult creating artwork is think that tracing is easy, it is not. tracing is only a small part of making a complete piece of artwork. someone who is unexperienced thinks that once the outline is made the drawing is done. try it alittle and see how difficult it is. have you seen the hockney book? look at those monstrosities the dude made when trying to emulate ingres with the cameria lucinda. (no offence to hockney who is a fine draftsmen).

[eyewoo]

jr... what part didn't I get? I didn't get any reasoning behind the statement... just a blunt statement. Certainly it carries plenty of emotion and impact, but leaves no room for response. Apparently the author feels very strongly about the issue... I would be very interested in the reasoning behind the statement.

[edraket]

The word tracing in itself implies a competition of some sort. Where there are preset rules and a preset goal.
None of these things apply to art.
So I don't see how anything could be cheating.

That said I have to say that tracing is really boring. I'm sorry. I can see why you might want to trace something to save time or make it look better. But just tracing for the sake of tracing?
I just don't see how that can be entertaining nor usefull.

[Gort]

Tracing is a tool, and I further agree with Fleabrain in that claims cannot be successfully satisfied by a common single, slanged phrase of the present day (which by the way, I use frequently but more as an affirmation - not a point).

There is nothing wrong with me going out and taking a slide - which I staged and shot with my equipment - of a Sopwith Camel, blowing it up on a 46" x 72" by projection, roughly outlining it (oops...sorry..tracing) and then using the slide as a reference for contrast, values, etc for painting. Artist (yes...artists) have been doing it for years and years, and in the case of maximizing your work and income, it is totally exceptable. I've never heard of any art director wanting a detailed explanation on process - all they've ever cared about was that it's on time and it looks the way they want it to look.

Now do I do it? Not really...most if not all of the illustrations I've done were not rooted the ramifications of proper geometric proportions; it was mainly cartooning stuff, character development and stylized illustration.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Carter ]

[gekitsu]

flea, i agree to you. tracing is a tool one can use or don't use. like filters. there are occasions where the final product could not be better if you handpainted one layer instead of filtering it. why should i handpaint if a filter can do exactly the same in 1 second of work where i had to paint little randomly formed areas in greyscales for half a day?
as someone very inteligent once said:

it's not the tools you use, it's the way you use them

and here is one of my traced artwork:
shana
and here is ref pic:
reference

oh yes, i could have constructed her head and just use the photo as a reference... the final result would not have been better in any way (probably even worse) and i had wasted a lot of time constructing her head etc...
so i decided to trace rough positions and form (no, not every detail) and paint from these traces.

[jOnnywedge]

tracing is a tool.

a dildo is a tool also.

sure, it can get get you an orgasim, but in the end, it's just the self-satisfation of getting off. there is no honest emotion invested in the act.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: jOnnywedge ]

[eyewoo]

OK jOnnywedge... now you're really demonstrating the narrow perspective from which you view things...

[gekitsu]

jOhnnywedge:
i honestly think that this comparison is ridiculous...

if you want to compare to sex, you'd have to see different techniques as tools. which tool you and your compadre use is up to you. do it whereever and however you like (note the last two words!) as long as you get what you want.
see, tracing is a tool in a game without rules, so cheating can't be done in creating art. also, there is no cheating in sex when trying a special technique.
a different thing is:
do you feel like you have cheated yourself when tracing a reference pic or wearing pink fluffy rabbit-ears while having sex?
well, if you feel cheated, you should not use this tool. no one is bound to use special tools.
it's just leading into intolerance between the users that have different favorite tools. no one keeps you away from saying: "i constructed everything and i am proud of it" as long as you accept tracing as an existent method that you just don't like to use because you like being proud of your self-constructed composition.

[eyewoo]

Been out'a town and unconnected for a few days...

Well said, gekitsu...

...wearing pink fluffy rabbit ears.. WOW... gotta check that out...

[eyewoo]

On the other hand, if you start off by taking you own photos around an idea you have, like Norman Rockwell did, then it's a bit different... though the tracing still remains boring, but the results justify the bordem... You know, unless you are very spontaneous and abstract, a lot of the painting process can be pretty boring. I think that's what keeps some people from really excelling -- they just can't hack the time it takes to do it.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[gekitsu]

and no one said that one shall use tracing for all and everything.
ever tried to trace an alien? nah sorry, i didn't get the camera deep enough into my head to take a good picture.

as filters and nearly every tool: it is best used when it is time using this tool.
given the point:
you have good reference material displaying what you want to paint.
you are going for a quite realistic style at least (so that tracing form actually has a use)

then tracing is a good tool as your drawing of the reference material couldn't be closer to the reference as the trace. tracing saves a lot of time and it is easy to do (okay... boring...).

why tracing when there is no reference material or you want to exaggerate so far that the closest trace wouldn't have any use anyway?

just like the question:
pencil or brush?
oils, acrylics, gouache, graphite or ink?
paper, canvas, wood, metal or harddisk?
hyper-realism or total caricature?
etc...

[Joachim]

Hehe, it seems like these type of discussions will never go away, they will always come back in one form or another....-Maybe it is becuse we artists actually are feeling a bit of guilty when we have done a bit of too much photo tracing, ...so then we need to come out and discuss to convince ourselves that it is all "ok", hehe -just joking.
My personal opinion is that tracing isn't cheating but a way to get a job done quicker. And, if you are analyzing what you are doing in the process there is infact a lot to learn as well. So, in a job situation, if you have the opotunity to do so, hell, do it. But, in my opinion it's something I also want to stay away from if I can, because I'm afraid of being dependent on it and I also think there is a looong way for an artist to go before he actually is able to exploit from tracing. See Drew Strezan, not many can do what he can do, and I don't think he suddenly discovered tracing and became a famous artist....people would have seen through that instantly since his work would by far have hold the same quality.
But, personally I'm very happy that I'm not one of those that has to take a LOT of photos and trace to be able to create my art. Then, all the fun aspects of doing art would have been reduced to a minimum for me...-I love picking inside my brain trying to create something, and also to be able to hit the right lines from my head or what I see (something that does fade without keeping it intact), without "cheating lines" ....but ofc. I think using photo reference for ideas, etc..is a totally different thing.. So for me, nobody are cheaters, but I feel sorry for those who are dependent on taking the short cut, they don't know what they are missing -and what they can do will also be very limited....-and tracing is usually pretty easy to spot unless the artist actually knows what they are doing in the first place.

burgh, I don't like being part of such discussions like this. I'm lousy explaining my points But, this are just my opnion.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

LOL getting funny now.
But seriously, to me tracing has always been harder work than 'winging' it.

To explain: I have an Idea. So I start sketching, then decide to cheat and trace it.
To 'trace' it I must put down my pencil or brush or stylus, switch out of 'creative art' mode, and go on an often long and boring search for reference, flipping through magazines, browsing websites, sifting through tons of crap to find a gem. Often several different pieces of reference are needed.
Since a single photo can hide a thousand different references, some of them extremely well hidden or masked, you must use intense concentration in order not to miss anything. A moment of un-focusing from the boredom, or getting sidetracked, might mean you miss a perfect reference.

Then you must merge the references together, flipping, stretching, scaling, copying and pasting...
then - mentally - change the lighting or color or some details on the references.

Then comes the tracing itself, another source of incredible boredom.

...as opposed to just staying in the 'Zone', sketching, painting, creating, until something looks cool, or you snap out of it from hunger or thirst.
Which sounds more like actual work? So how can you say that's cheating?

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[BooMSticK]

thank you Joachim for putting down in words what I feel to. Every exact word!
,Boom

[Robert Ashley]

Tracing is a tool unless its a crutch. I have traced in the past and gotten the comment "Wow, thats a great pic...the proportions are *ucking AWSOME!!!" but then I feel bad and I have to say, yeah...I traced it.

Now that I have went to college for animation and have learned to draw loosly to get my proportions...I dont even really use the outside lines to paint (I think more it terms of shapes for the highlights and shadows...I think of the lines just to express the actual pose in itself...geting motion and a statement)

Other than that the outline is nothing....things in life have no line...its the rendering (as far a technical side of an image) that counts.

I am now just babbling...basically tracing can be a tool, but it can be a crutch as well. I dont really think of it cheating unless the artist who does it does.

[eyewoo]

Robert... I think you've really put forward a definition -- if you feel guilty tracing, then you're cheating. If you're comfortable with it, then you're not... and, of course, the final judge is whether your piece takes on a life of its own... no matter what process you used to create it.

What does that mean - a life of its own. Let's say an alien lands on the Earth and sees one of Vincent van Gogh's paintings... With absolutely no idea who van Gogh is, the alien is awed by the painting. That's a painting that has a life of its own.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[fuel_99]

I agree that tracing in itself is not cheating.

but what you do, fleabrain, is you create the impression you drew it all by yourself.
when you post pictures you don't say openly: "outlines are traced." why so? because you get less attention and praise if you do.
(the fact that you are attention-starved, sorry if this sounds offending, is obvious by the number of forums that you post every single picture in that you make)

and that is what bothers me with all the tracers: they don't state they do.

also i would not call someone who traces the outlines and colors them a full fledged painter.. its more of a colorists job isnt it -especially considering that you barely change anything in your pictures except the colors- even in your portrait of a friend you posted lately all you did was you changed the colors- same light direction, exactly the same folds on the shirt.

I am aware that there IS skill involved in coloring, and that you have that skill, but if you trace then be honest enough to announce it when you post because THAT is where the cheating begins.

[all this is not personal, its purely related to drawing and art- I don't know you but I am sure you are a nice person.]

[fuel_99]

small excerpt on Thomas Eakins:

"Swimming" (formerly known as "The Swimming Hole") offers another fine subject for intense examination, embodying as it does many of Eakins' basic beliefs about the beauty of the human body and the importance of scientific study of the human form by artists, as well as his allegiance to the classical tradition and his use of photography as an aid to painting.
Helping explain the centerpiece canvas and place it in context are some 40 works by Eakins, including oil paintings, preliminary oil sketches, sculpture, photography and three-dimensional objects. They demonstrate how he utilized both the traditional technique of oil sketching and the experimental method of photography in
crafting his complex composition."

isnt it a bit pathetic to compare the digital tracing and copying of a photo in photoshop to probably months of reference picture shooting, real life studies and drawings for a single painting on canvas?

[roundeye]

fuel_99, youre one of them retardeds, arent you? "i would not call someone who traces the outlines and colors them a full fledged painter.. its more of a colorists job" BAHAHAHA yer an idiot.


a more believable insult MIGHT have been "illustrator" hehe

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: roundeye ]

[fuel_99]

roundeye: very mature comment

[eyewoo]

fuel... uh... let's get a little perspective here. Eakins didn't have a computer... hmmmm.... what do you think he might have done if he had one... hmmm... Do you think it might have helped him a bit... hmmmm....

...but, to the credit of your argument... Eakins never really admitted to tracing projected images. In fact it appears that he thought people would think less of him if he admitted to it... Oh well... gotta start somehwere, eh!

Incidentally, I love posts like yours because it gives this "attention starved" artist the opportunity to display his stuff... Boy, guys like you just keep asking me to prove myself... love it!!!

Here's a quick self portrait... I used a photo reference, but NO tracing... NO overpainting... Keep at me, fuel... you keep me honest



[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[el scoono]

fuel_99, i find it curious that you would join a digital art forum, and then criticize fleabrain for using digital techniques. i don't think fleabrain was comparing himself to eakins, he's just pointing out that the idea of tracing ain't new and some highly regarded artists have used it.

[roundeye]

word, el scoono. and that burger looks too bloody tasty. howd you hold that pose so long?

[cptoonz]

I remember in a Sijun Forum, long locked away, from alias' now unused, this thread which close hauled me, for the first time, to this very subject. Looking back now, I see some of my mistakes, and I feel my postion has changed. I understand the initial "purest", newbie "shock" of realizing those once reveared as Gods are, in a fact, "tracing"...OH! the horror...j/k There is a hell of a lot of criticism on this forum about artists that trace...but I think its for the wrong reasons. The debate will always go on, here, and elsewhere...and always...it isn't really good or bad...it is what it is.

peace

[eyewoo]

fuel,

I understand its not personal, so when I say your rather misinformed about my motivations, don't take it personally.

I have never hidden the fact that I trace images to set up an initial composition. In fact my first tutorial on my website is based on that system of initial tracing. So, I'm not sure where you're coming from or whether you're just ignorant - nothing personal.

...and I post on so many forums, because I make a living with my artwork and it's a great way to promote... duh! -- nothing personal

...and thanks for letting me know that Thomas Eakins, probably Vermeer and a whole bunch of other professional artists are just colorists. I can sleep better now...

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[fuel_99]

el scoono: tracing is not really a digital technique per se.. it started out as a traditional technique (camera obscura, projection onto canvas)
even michelangelo experimented with ways to project something onto canvas- i think it was with glass plates that he painted on if i remember right.

fleabrain: i believe that you didnt trace that one

if you look closely at the nose there is something slightly wrong with the perspective.
the planes around the nose and the planes around the eyes are not drawn correctly or left out alltogether.
also there would probably be skinfolds or structure changes near your nostrils if your mouth is opened like that.

you see what I mean now? tracing is one thing but understanding structure, color, light and shadow AND then tracing is another.

In my opinion the quality of an artist is defined by what he can achieve with just a pencil and a piece of paper (metaphorically speaking).

But you might do whatever you want, if you like to trace then do so- I just saw your post on this forum and wanted to add some comments. After all YOU wanted to talk about it.

[digitalmarker]

Hi,

This topic really caught my attention, since I never really thought of tracing as a startpoint when drawing. I tried it out (see attached pic) and I find that it really cuts out the time I don't really like spending doing correct anatomy from a correct perspective, correct poses, correct hand placement....etc. I realize this is not the most productive from an artist knowledge/ability standpoint, but in terms of drawing as a pleasurable activity, it allows me to be more direct in what I want to convey, given time constraints. Additionally, even with tracing, I think that there is skill involved in choosing what to outline/trace, and what to leave out.

At the very least, there is learning of what looks correct in a realistic way (photograph), and what may better serve a drawing. Let me know what you think of the pic-post as well. Thanks!

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: digitalmarker ]

Forgot: The Photo is from Sport Illustrated. Model is Josie Maran.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: digitalmarker ]

[eyewoo]

fuel... Not trying to get the last word in, let me just say it was a quick sketch done in about 40 minutes... If I'd chosen to carry on with it, you can bet the perspective on the nose and every little nose hair would be in place...

For your viewing pleasure, here's the ref photo I used... I also forgaot to mention that I only used 1 layer ... all drawn on a single layer... no merging



... nuff said... However, if you make a living with your artwork and graphics, as I do, you should give the technique of tracing some slack in your thinking... Don't want to reiterate what has been said over and over, but it does save a whole bunch of time i.e. $$$.

...oh, and BTW fuel, I do understand structure, color, light and shadow. You just can't seem to write something without being insulting.. A little tact would help your point of view...

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[el scoono]

fuel_99: i wasn't saying that tracing is solely a digital technique at all. i think you misunderstood me. in your message there seemed to be a bias against a piece of art painted in photoshop, at least that's how i read it.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: el scoono ]