[Probustion]

so now we should all start tracing to be great artists?

if these people trace - i say "if" because i haven't seen any hard proof, these people use it as a timesaver - and thus moneysaver. i refuse to believe that a big part of f.e. boris' artwork was traced or copied from a photograph. but no matter how it's done, he knows how to make a great picture - just that. there are no amazing stories about how these artists are pioneers or anything.
the dilemma we're facing here is that the beginner who doesn't know how to make a great picture HARMS himself by tracing photographs. and besides that it doesn't even seem like fun to trace, but whatever suits you.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[bearsclover]

Boris doesn't have to trace. I've seen examples of his sketches (I'm sure a lot of us have). The ones I saw were lively, beautiful, full of fluid line and life. They were great drawings. The guy knows how to draw.

In fact, I thought his "preliminary sketches" (to plan out how he'd do the finished work) were much more interesting than the traced final works. They had more animation and life.

Not that I'm saying that the final works weren't fabulous. They absolutely were. But that "inner life" that his freehand, loose little sketches had was not there.

If Boris or many of these other artists trace, it's just to meet the deadline. It's not because they have no choice.

In a lot of cases (I won't say all, because we know there are notable exceptions) it's just sad to see an artist who must trace because they can't draw. It must be so limiting to many of them. Simply put, not being able to draw is NOT something that newbie artists should aspire to.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Snakebyte]

I think we are just beating a dead horse at this point..... Having just read through the last 10 replies...hell we are just repeating ourselves.

The picture is in the book and nothing can be done about it, let�s move on and hope we have learned a lesson about tracing...

I'm in the book I didnt trace and thats all that matters to me..(same page as the pic in question, how about that!)
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com

[Probustion]

yeah snakebite i think you're right, i can hear my own echo in this thread.. let's find another dead horse to beat
_________________
talent is overrated.

[Space Monkey]

From my experience, a piece always turns out better when reference is used - that's obvious. You should use reference whenever possible. But use it as REFERENCE if it's not your own. Copying a photo is a good exercise, but don't seek recognition for it, as if it's your own, original work - it's not. Norman Rockwell used photos, but he took them himself - he also used live models. The artists discussed in this post have blatently ripped off published photos. Photography is art too - and it takes a lot of work. Why don't I just copy da Vinci's "Last Supper", but give everyone bionic arms and elf ears? Or is that too obvious? Maybe I'll copy a less famous piece and hope I don't get caught...
_________________
Uhh... yeah, what I just said.

[kohse]

Got my copy of Expose on Saturday.
As long as the artist owns/took the photo I dont see a problem with it. I dont feel this piece should have been included into the book. It is not of the same caliber as most of the work in Expose. This is not the only example of a paintover in Expose. I know of at least one more pinup that is. I wont identify it but the artist still posts to Sijun and has been dimed out for tracing before. Does the other artist belong in the book because his/her trace is better? Or did he/she add enough of themselves to the piece that nobody noticed? Do you think the problem lies in the call for entries? How did Ballistic solicite for entries?

The fine line is between inspiration and plagerism. Most of the examples posted of Royo are just pose references. Royo has added enough of his own imagination and changed the faces enough that only the pose (the inspiration) is recognizable. This is not the case with the Angelina Jolie piece.
_________________
Lee Kohse
artist
www.kohse.com
www.bloodfire.com

[Impaler]

This guy ripped off a commercial photo for a commercial piece of art. This violates all sorts of intellectual property and copyright laws, and though we can't "do anything about it", we can send the message that frauds won't get away with it in the future.

We shouldn't just let this issue die from some imaginary geek social graces.

RAISE HELL! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR EFFIGY! ETC!
_________________
QED, sort of.

[amichaels]

A lot of artists like Boris and Alex Ross, who are shooting for realism in their anatomy, will take pictures of friends/wives etc to use as refference in specific poses when they are working things out in the composition stage.

[iBlue]

tracing aside, i think you can agree too much of the picture was taken from other things (i.e photos and other artists styles) to really be allowed in the book. Even if he did paint it and all, it is, im sure, much much less original then a picture that would have been in tyhe book if it wasnt submitted.