Melon. sucks
category: general [glöplog]
havoc: he didn't had time for that because he started sending same day hehe, unless he was already waiting for being flamed and prepare 12 (twelve) full floppies with those steps which would be sick...
I saw him drawing and I rest my case, he didn't need scanners at that time :D
I saw him drawing and I rest my case, he didn't need scanners at that time :D
Who gives a shit how it's done. Stealing ideas without adding anything original to it just sucks.
![[self-ban]](https://content.pouet.net/avatars/intro.gif)
If a musician (put aside remixes) or a coder copies almost bit for bit other people's work, he gets flamed.
I don't see why there should be an exception with graphics. Scene has grown used to that shit and I will never understand why.
Those people are to the original graphics authors what copy machines are to book writers. No creativity, no idea, no vibe, only stolen material made by pixel monkeys good at copying stuff.
I don't see why there should be an exception with graphics. Scene has grown used to that shit and I will never understand why.
Those people are to the original graphics authors what copy machines are to book writers. No creativity, no idea, no vibe, only stolen material made by pixel monkeys good at copying stuff.
ONLY AMIGA MAKES IT POSSIBLE
All true, all true...
However, after all is said and done, I'd rather see a 1:1 Boris ripoff than an ugly self painted picture. Call me a heretic if you like... :-)
However, after all is said and done, I'd rather see a 1:1 Boris ripoff than an ugly self painted picture. Call me a heretic if you like... :-)
I think it's kind of lame to just copy a picture without giving proper credit, even if you do it by hand, but I'd guess it wasn't lame in 1994. IMO it's still quite an achivement to copy something by hand so well people start questioning you.
/me starts scanning the latest playboy for the gfx compo at the next outline! ;)
Comparing with greyscale version of original:
Comparing green channel of original:
Interesting that the green channel is a better fit. Didn't 1994-era mono scanners used to scan based on green levels?
(for the benefit of anybody who feels like doing more image processing shit: crop robert_williams.jpg at (30,44 - 331,366) and 400.gif at (37,0 - 277,255) )
Comparing green channel of original:
Interesting that the green channel is a better fit. Didn't 1994-era mono scanners used to scan based on green levels?
(for the benefit of anybody who feels like doing more image processing shit: crop robert_williams.jpg at (30,44 - 331,366) and 400.gif at (37,0 - 277,255) )
Science have spoken.
"has", stupid keyboard.
This debate has been brought up over and over, but every time, people confuse two unrelated things:
1) Is it lame to copy?
2) Is it lame to not specify the original source?
And the argument goes around and around as people give arguments for #2 and other people counter with arguments against #1.
The thing is, of course there is a lot of work and skill involved in taking a vibrant multicolor image and putting it into a low resolution and limited colors. But there is also a lot of work and skill in imagining what to draw in the first place (certainly in the case of the image here) and a lot of work and skill in figuring out what exactly it should look like. If you don't credit the source, everyone who hasn't yet grown cynical and distrustful of scene artists will assume you did the latter too, so you're (by implication) taking credit for doing that. And that is just plagiarism.
So why doesn't anyone give credit to the source? The only reason I can think if is that they also think that the answer to #1 is "yes". ie. that copying is lame.
The problem is that in art compos, you just can't compete if you make a copy and declare your source. You'll get slammed in the votings because people will be comparing your work to other copies that do not declare their sources (and are assumed to be originals). It's like being an honest sports player and staying steroid free, while the other team is entirely comprised of clones of this guy:
So someone invented writing "nocopy" on the image. I assume that, at this point, we are expected to presume that every image is a copy unless "nocopy" is written on it. And even then we can't be sure.
1) Is it lame to copy?
2) Is it lame to not specify the original source?
And the argument goes around and around as people give arguments for #2 and other people counter with arguments against #1.
The thing is, of course there is a lot of work and skill involved in taking a vibrant multicolor image and putting it into a low resolution and limited colors. But there is also a lot of work and skill in imagining what to draw in the first place (certainly in the case of the image here) and a lot of work and skill in figuring out what exactly it should look like. If you don't credit the source, everyone who hasn't yet grown cynical and distrustful of scene artists will assume you did the latter too, so you're (by implication) taking credit for doing that. And that is just plagiarism.
So why doesn't anyone give credit to the source? The only reason I can think if is that they also think that the answer to #1 is "yes". ie. that copying is lame.
The problem is that in art compos, you just can't compete if you make a copy and declare your source. You'll get slammed in the votings because people will be comparing your work to other copies that do not declare their sources (and are assumed to be originals). It's like being an honest sports player and staying steroid free, while the other team is entirely comprised of clones of this guy:
So someone invented writing "nocopy" on the image. I assume that, at this point, we are expected to presume that every image is a copy unless "nocopy" is written on it. And even then we can't be sure.
A question: why is Boris Vallejo so copied between demosceners?
IMHO he is kitsch... does it is maybe a "tradition" of "pixelation people"?
IMHO he is kitsch... does it is maybe a "tradition" of "pixelation people"?
The eyelids looks identical, and those are really fine details to draw.
This "no copy" site and this picture are a real pain in the a**. I don't discover things but some parts are really obvious that the scanner was the tool of choice.
However, I've worked and have seen some of the mentioned artists at work and it makes no doubt for me that some of them were (and still are) very talented graphicians despite those lame rip.
In many cases, I think that scanner was used to scan the outlines of the copied material after it has been traced with tracing paper.
I remember of artists filling and pixelling shapes. It was an insane amount of work...
But again, this is really disapointing especially for some of the latest pics of one of my prefered graphician ever...
However, I've worked and have seen some of the mentioned artists at work and it makes no doubt for me that some of them were (and still are) very talented graphicians despite those lame rip.
In many cases, I think that scanner was used to scan the outlines of the copied material after it has been traced with tracing paper.
I remember of artists filling and pixelling shapes. It was an insane amount of work...
But again, this is really disapointing especially for some of the latest pics of one of my prefered graphician ever...
the colorful objects in the background of the original looks exactly like a pile of shit in the conversion.
OK, so copying is sometimes awesome.
oh noes :( it was wade's favourite picture :(((( too bad those guys are now well known graphic designers etc. they moved on from copying, hehe =)
Simplified history lesson open for debate:
1990-1992 - copying Boris = way to go!
1993 - copying Boris = a bit yesteryear, copy something else.
1994 - copying Boris or anything else for that matter. Not very cool, but still widespread. Start of the no copy era with Devilstar and Ra as spearheads.
2007 - copying = totally unaccepted and I guess almost non-existent.
If you view the amiga days with 2007-glasses you'll find that everybody were cheating, mother-selling bastards. At the time, however, people like Walt and Mack were pushing new ground even by the choice of subject in their pictures. So even if this has a scanned foundation, its still original in some way.
1990-1992 - copying Boris = way to go!
1993 - copying Boris = a bit yesteryear, copy something else.
1994 - copying Boris or anything else for that matter. Not very cool, but still widespread. Start of the no copy era with Devilstar and Ra as spearheads.
2007 - copying = totally unaccepted and I guess almost non-existent.
If you view the amiga days with 2007-glasses you'll find that everybody were cheating, mother-selling bastards. At the time, however, people like Walt and Mack were pushing new ground even by the choice of subject in their pictures. So even if this has a scanned foundation, its still original in some way.
yesso: thx for the link. That was impressive.
2007 - copying = totally unaccepted and I guess almost non-existent.
the last border was taken down since some time.
now its officially allowed to use photos and retouch them in the 2d compos and ppl are doing it (and others are voting for it, obviously thinking that its painted :))
you can read it at the evoke/breakpoint compo pages.
the last border was taken down since some time.
now its officially allowed to use photos and retouch them in the 2d compos and ppl are doing it (and others are voting for it, obviously thinking that its painted :))
you can read it at the evoke/breakpoint compo pages.
xeN: Yes. And it sucks. The rules for the gfx-compo should be much more limited, especially since there is a stand alone photo-compo as well. My guess is that this is partially the reason why the 2d scene has gone down the drain, whereas the organisers have probably been thinking: "hey, this way we'll get more entries!". The retouched winnerphoto in the Evoke-compo is a fucking outrage and a damn shame, but, hey, what can you do? Just keep on painting.
Speaking of copying in music, I noticed a lot of old Jogeir Liljedahl mods are just copies of other songs. With no indication anywhere in them what the originals were. I thought some of them sounded familiar, and was able to track down some of them with web searches, but others I wasn't able to. I'm sure I've heard A_Magic_Touch.mod somewhere before, but I can't find the original.
Quote:
"... or otherwise we'll have to cancel that competition in the next year."whereas the organisers have probably been thinking: "hey, this way we'll get more entries!"
what can you do?
nothing, just dont waste your time on compos.
nothing, just dont waste your time on compos.
guys, you've misunderstood the breakpoint comporulez! its NOT allowed to take a picture from somewhere and just retouch it. you may only do so if you made the source yourself. your picture MUST be free of third party rights. in that sense most of the classic scene-artists-pictures from the past 10 years would be disqualified, think about it.
