Robert Blackard;95752 wrote:
I think going digital now would be best and then traditional media later.
I agree Robert. Neither can replace the other, however a digital version in a high resolution is very adaptable for a variety of purposes.
I would think (but being computer-dyslexic, whadda I know?) that digital art would have one very big advantage in the initial design & "early days" of new arms—if some relatively minor correction needed to be made (tinctures, minor additions or deletions etc), or perhaps some simple differencing to avoid infringing on other arms that didn’t come to light earlier on, I would think the digital artist could make those corrections more easily than a paint & brush artist—no need to start over from scratch.
Rather like a word processor vs. an old-fashioned Remington & a bottle of white-out (or a quill pen & india ink).
Michael F. McCartney;95768 wrote:
I would think (but being computer-dyslexic, whadda I know?) that digital art would have one very big advantage in the initial design & "early days" of new arms—if some relatively minor correction needed to be made (tinctures, minor additions or deletions etc), or perhaps some simple differencing to avoid infringing on other arms that didn’t come to light earlier on, I would think the digital artist could make those corrections more easily than a paint & brush artist—no need to start over from scratch.
Rather like a word processor vs. an old-fashioned Remington & a bottle of white-out (or a quill pen & india ink).
Ah Michael, I had one of those, a Remington, followed me around for years. The white-out bottle was a godsend when it came out. :rolleyes: When the ‘puter’ came along, I never looked back.
Q: "How can you can always tell when a __[fill in the blank]__ has been using your computer?"
A: "From the white-out on the screen…"
Out of curiosity, how much could one expect to pay for a shield-only digital version of their arms?
That depends on the artist.
And if they are a career artist, or a hobby artist. Most people who do it just as a hobby grossly under charge.
J. Stolarz;95975 wrote:
And if they are a career artist, or a hobby artist. Most people who do it just as a hobby grossly under charge.
Grossly is such a strong word Josh.
:whistle:
lol
And frankly, it’s just gross 
J. Stolarz;95975 wrote:
And if they are a career artist, or a hobby artist. Most people who do it just as a hobby grossly under charge.
Grossly guilty of that myself
And really who’s to blame them. If they’re just doing it as a hobby, then it doesn’t matter to them. The problem is it’s cutting into the professionals market to a certain extent (Though if you’re a big name it matters less). It really comes down to, who’s image are you paying for, and how much is THEIR work worth. Yes you can get an emblazon for free, but no matter how good it is, it will never be a Jamieson (Example), or any other artist because it may all be heraldry, but every artist is different.
I would prefer to say "nobly" or "generously" etc.
Dcgb7f;95980 wrote:
Grossly guilty of that myself
I’ll confirm that comment (Hard Copy in my case)—But the family LOVED them!
J. Stolarz;95984 wrote:
And really who’s to blame them. If they’re just doing it as a hobby, then it doesn’t matter to them. The problem is it’s cutting into the professionals market to a certain extent (Though if you’re a big name it matters less). It really comes down to, who’s image are you paying for, and how much is THEIR work worth. Yes you can get an emblazon for free, but no matter how good it is, it will never be a Jamieson (Example), or any other artist because it may all be heraldry, but every artist is different.
I disagree that it’s cutting into professionals. If you can’t afford a professional - you just can’t afford it. Folks who aren’t art followers nor know what the going rates are are often shocked at where they start depending on the "name" of the artist.
I was very fortunate early on to have several "hobby" artists help me better visualize my arms through digital and non-digital renderings. Others provided "reasonable" pricing so I could give my family their arms. I genuinely love the art for it’s diversity in being able to render the "same thing" in a wide variety of styles. And my home proves it!
Professional and hobby artists both have a "place" in heraldry—and many other art forms. But only a Jamieson is a Jamieson, only a Gill is a Gill, only an Anderson is an Anderson, only a Gruijic is a Guijic, only a Mansfield is a Mansfield, only a Burr is a Burr, etc, etc, etc… professional or hobby is a choice of career, not necessarily a value of the artwork.. IMHO
I wholeheartedly concur, Kathy. I can’t imagine that any amount of work Sandy Turnbull, for instance, does is going to affect who commissions Marie Lynskey or Neil Bromley. And there are other heraldic artists that some of the folks on this forum have never heard of. And most folks outside of this and a few other forums will have absolutely no idea who the hobby artists are.
I personally want a piece by Denis Brown. I doubt seriously that any of you will have ever heard of him. He is an Irish calligrapher and mixed media artist. But he has a few pieces that include coats of arms which aren’t just passable, but brilliant. I want him for his calligraphy because I’d like my motto to be the focal piece of the artwork.
There are many professional calligraphers and artists who can create coats of arms at or near the level of Andy Jamieson. You just have to know where to look for them. They aren’t lurking around here.