The amazing application Drawshield

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 December 2011 14:31
 

David Pritchard;90543 wrote:

By the way, below are posted two images of an English Coalport porcelain cup and saucer from the 19th century bearing three beautiful crests, perhaps you will know the armiger off the top of your head since few people bear three crests.


Lovely work, but Google makes it too easy these days to answer the challenge and pretend to expertise one doesn’t really possess!

 
Terry
 
Avatar
 
 
Terry
Total Posts:  419
Joined  07-01-2008
 
 
 
13 December 2011 16:07
 

lol…doesn’t like my blazon either.  But it does create a nice variation of Arms for the Riddler

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
13 December 2011 17:37
 

It seems that my response was misunderstood, although I’m not sure how even my initial post could have been assumed to show antipathy towards digital art. In any event what I meant was that there was a substantial difference between someone rendering, via graphic editors, graphic tablets, mathematical formula, etc., and someone cutting and pasting a few component pieces. And even with clip-art I would agree that there is room for artistic expression. I quite like the embellished version of my arms done by David Wooten which mostly consists of him adding in color gradients and shading.

Perhaps part of the confusion is that when I use the word render I’m usually referring to and thinking of computer graphics, even though I suppose the word is equally applicable to traditional pen/brush based mediums.


Kathy McClurg;90527 wrote:

There are many digital artists that do "actual renderings" and are not cutting and pasting a few metafile components.  There are some who do use some clip art as a base and put a great deal of effort making it something more personal with their own unique style and then there are some who just slap together clip art.

Just as there are levels of capability in "hard copy" artwork - there are in digital artists….  Lumping them all together or making allusions that there is somehow less effort involved for those practicing artwork digitally is just wrong.

 

There is room for both and both should be shown equal respect.  A particular emblazon may be preferred over another, but a medium shouldn’t be the target..

 

<Jumping off soapbox now - at least for this post>

 

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 December 2011 18:47
 

To illustrate the point, here’s an emblazonment of Carl Pritchett’s arms by Anthony Maxwell.  Is it paint, or is it digital?

http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/p/pritchitt.jpg

 
Snyder
 
Avatar
 
 
Snyder
Total Posts:  322
Joined  25-11-2007
 
 
 
13 December 2011 23:03
 

Going off of the image, it looks as if it’s digital. The curves are blocky/pixelated, which is a sign of non-vectorized line work (or just low-res image file). I’d almost venture a guess and say that it looks as if the line work was done digitally and then painted in by hand. If this is all digital, kudos to Mr. Maxwell for a wonderful job at digitally painting with such detail.

I think there is plenty of room for both digital and traditional methods. I use both. I sketch a lot, but use the computer to compile (aka cut and paste) from a thought to reality. It’s generic and lacks personality, but it’s a great stepping stone for me to learn the ‘art’ and structure, as I’m a visual learner) The next step for me (soon hopefully) is working arms by hand and creating wonderful creations like I see throughout the site, because I believe that tradition methods should be maintained in traditional practices. There is plenty of room for all the mediums and each can aide in the other. My two cents anyways.

 


Joseph McMillan;90556 wrote:

To illustrate the point, here’s an emblazonment of Carl Pritchett’s arms by Anthony Maxwell.  Is it paint, or is it digital?

http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/p/pritchitt.jpg

 

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 14:26
 

I agree here - depending on the skill level of the digital artist and types of hardware and software being used, I think you may be able to reproduce very closely (not perfectly mind you) a very good and unique multi-dimensional rendering. However, there is no comparison to a hand-painted rendition in terms of "one of a kind" art.

There will always be a place for fine art renditions that are hand-painted by talented artisans. For those of us who may not be able to afford to commission a "one of a kind" fine art piece, then a good reproduceable digital composition by someone equally talented in the digital medium is a way to get something of comparable quality without the extra cost for the distinct talent, time, and manual dexterity required to produce a grand one-of-kind piece.

 

It really depends on the individual - some people just absolutely need to have a fine art piece and can afford it, and others don’t necessarily need, want, or can’t afford that level of prestigious work for themselves. To each his own. :D

 

I’m just glad there are some good options available nowadays for most personal financial levels so that people who want to can enjoy the heraldry art form.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2011 16:47
 

Umm… methinks those who think digital art is just using copy & past hacks in Microsoft Paint don’t have a clue what it really is.

Examples:

http://www.heraldicarts.net/site/index-en.php?page=galleries

http://www.ljubodraggrujic.com/Ljubodrag Grujic - Gallery.htm

 

And on the comment regarding "time", "skill" and "cost"...  It’s equal regardless of medium.

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:04
 

kimon;90864 wrote:

Umm… methinks those who think digital art is just using copy & past hacks in Microsoft Paint don’t have a clue what it really is.

Examples:

http://www.heraldicarts.net/site/index-en.php?page=galleries

http://www.ljubodraggrujic.com/Ljubodrag Grujic - Gallery.htm

 

And on the comment regarding "time", "skill" and "cost"... It’s equal regardless of medium.


Agreed - I didn’t mean to arbitrarily lift one medium’s artists above the others…

 

Those links showcase some great work…thanks for sharing!

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:07
 

OK, I vote we get a like button!

As in all things there are a variety of levels of accomplishment and a variety of quality - whether digital or painted or drawn.

 

It’s interesting how historically the old surpresses the new primarily by saying they are somehow "less"...

 
Terry
 
Avatar
 
 
Terry
Total Posts:  419
Joined  07-01-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:15
 

David Fofanoff;90852 wrote:

For those of us who may not be able to afford to commission a "one of a kind" fine art piece, then a good reproduceable digital composition by someone equally talented in the digital medium is a way to get something of comparable quality without the extra cost for the distinct talent, time, and manual dexterity required to produce a grand one-of-kind piece.


I have to disagree here.  Everyone of my pieces is a distinct one-of-kind work.  It takes me weeks to produce just one and yes, I am using a digital medium.  I draw every section of the arms from the base shield line to the final highlight.  As an example, here is a piece I recently completed for Fr. Guy.  The shield shading alone took me close to 9 hours…the tassels about 6.

 

http://thov.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Guy.png

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:16
 

David Fofanoff;90867 wrote:

Agreed - I didn’t mean to arbitrarily lift one medium’s artists above the others…


I disagree. Quoting your post from above shows you do indeed consider digital art to be of lesser value.


David Fofanoff;90852 wrote:

I agree here - depending on the skill level of the digital artist and types of hardware and software being used, I think you may be able to reproduce very closely (not perfectly mind you) a very good and unique multi-dimensional rendering. However, there is no comparison to a hand-painted rendition in terms of "one of a kind" art.

There will always be a place for fine art renditions that are hand-painted by talented artisans. For those of us who may not be able to afford to commission a "one of a kind" fine art piece, then a good reproduceable digital composition by someone equally talented in the digital medium is a way to get something of comparable quality without the extra cost for the distinct talent, time, and manual dexterity required to produce a grand one-of-kind piece.

 

It really depends on the individual - some people just absolutely need to have a fine art piece and can afford it, and others don’t necessarily need, want, or can’t afford that level of prestigious work for themselves. To each his own.

See the parts in bold above.

You are clearly saying the hand painted art is the only high quality art that is "fine art" and "one of kind", that incurs "extra cost for the distinct talent, time, and manual dexterity". This means that you see digital art as low quality, cookie cutter that any moron can do with a computer.

Obviously, all digital artists do is say "Computer, paint this blazon for me: xxxx" and the computer magically does it.

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:28
 

kimon;90873 wrote:

I disagree. Quoting your post from above shows you do indeed consider digital art to be of lesser value.

 

See the parts in bold above.

You are clearly saying the hand painted art is the only high quality art that is "fine art" and "one of kind", that incurs "extra cost for the distinct talent, time, and manual dexterity". This means that you see digital art as low quality, cookie cutter that any moron can do with a computer.

 

Obviously, all digital artists do is say "Computer, paint this blazon for me: xxxx" and the computer magically does it.


Ok, not to result to "wordsmithing" here and to nip this "controversy" in the bud - I believe that the difference I am alluding to here between the different mediums is in rendering the final printed product.

 

For the digital artist, the printed rendering quality is directly related to the hardware, software, ink, and paper chosen for the print job - up to that point, I think all artists of any medium can be equal in artistic talents.

 

The only difference is in the manual application of the colors to the paper as it were. Once the design process is completed, the rendering to paper of the design is more complex and requires a certain manual skill for the painter that the digital artist does not need to possess.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2011 17:32
 

David Fofanoff;90875 wrote:

For the digital artist, the printed rendering quality is directly related to the hardware, software, ink, and paper chosen for the print job - up to that point, I think all artists of any medium can be equal in artistic talents.

The only difference is in the manual application of the colors to the paper as it were. Once the design process is completed, the rendering to paper of the design is more complex and requires a certain manual skill that the digital artist does not need to possess.


Here I would agree. If the final product desired is a specific hard-copy type, then yes, it does take a very specialized machine to reproduce the same (and these machines do exist).

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
21 December 2011 14:03
 

David Fofanoff;90875 wrote:

The only difference is in the manual application of the colors to the paper as it were. Once the design process is completed, the rendering to paper of the design is more complex and requires a certain manual skill for the painter that the digital artist does not need to possess.


Write your name with a pencil. Now write your name with your mouse.

 

Different skill set. That’s all.

 
 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
21 December 2011 15:25
 

I’m going to disagree somewhat. Digital tools are very powerful and while not removing the need for certain skills, certainly make the job easier. I’ve tried my hand as a painter at various times using traditional brush and paint, and have never had all that much luck. When I’ve tried with digital paining software, graphics tablets with styluses, etc.  I’ve had far better luck. Although I’m still certainly not an artist, I was able to get much better results and was even somewhat happy with a few of my paintings. The ability to undo mistaken brush strokes, employ multiple layers, alter colors, employ filters, etc., all act as powerful force multipliers for the artist.

I would contend that the digital medium allows for superior results to what the artist might have been able to achieve with traditional mediums. This doesn’t of course mean that a digital artist lacks skill, merely that the tool set allows for quicker and easier results than they might have obtained with the much less flexible and unforgiving physical mediums.


Kenneth Mansfield;90927 wrote:

Write your name with a pencil. Now write your name with your mouse.

Different skill set. That’s all.