Patrick Groove - you are my hero!
category: general [glöplog]
I saw this nice pic from Jenny by you on OJuice:
http://ojuice.net/2108/viewpic.htm
That was so thumping I had to ask Jenny to pose for a photo:
http://celebrities.nice.ru/i/full/Jennifer_Aniston/12534300.jpg
http://ojuice.net/2108/viewpic.htm
That was so thumping I had to ask Jenny to pose for a photo:
http://celebrities.nice.ru/i/full/Jennifer_Aniston/12534300.jpg
Yo! To create my next song, I will do the following:
1) Take chart-breaking hit
2) Put some bland effects on it, equalizer and some reverb will do
3) Sell it as my own creation
1) Take chart-breaking hit
2) Put some bland effects on it, equalizer and some reverb will do
3) Sell it as my own creation
dissing smudgers is soooo 1997
the pic don't exactly claim to be no-copy, though. most gfx-artists use references in some way or another. this is however a bad copy.
And I was wondering how he improved so fast. ;)
(the oj pic admin (kenet?) sucks btw.)
(the oj pic admin (kenet?) sucks btw.)
I suppose if he'd copied a picture from his photo album instead of from a poster he'd be a great artist, right?
As a foundation, I personally think this shows promise and could be developed into a very good picture with some more shading. Providing it wasn't scanned and painted over, he has captured a good likeness, good colours and accurate proportion, and - despite what anti-copy protestors claim - this takes a lot of doing.
As a foundation, I personally think this shows promise and could be developed into a very good picture with some more shading. Providing it wasn't scanned and painted over, he has captured a good likeness, good colours and accurate proportion, and - despite what anti-copy protestors claim - this takes a lot of doing.
Info says Pixel painting of Jennifer Aniston but it is not true! I see no pixel and no painting this is clear clarified made as a Ripper Work Of Art!
well it doesnt exactly look same but dunno. HUMAN
SCANNERISM R0CKS!
wade: id like to argue with you but i guess you are
guy who respects market painters who paints ppl
pictures from photos. its like "opinions are like assholes
everyone has 'em" and its retarded to argue at
internet, because you seem to respect old scene
values like gfx technic is more important that subject,
idea, talent etc etc.
wowow. okay. i stop. but guys remember this:
EVERYTIME YOU COPY PICTURE GOD KILLS A KITTEN, SO PLEASE STOP!
SCANNERISM R0CKS!
wade: id like to argue with you but i guess you are
guy who respects market painters who paints ppl
pictures from photos. its like "opinions are like assholes
everyone has 'em" and its retarded to argue at
internet, because you seem to respect old scene
values like gfx technic is more important that subject,
idea, talent etc etc.
wowow. okay. i stop. but guys remember this:
EVERYTIME YOU COPY PICTURE GOD KILLS A KITTEN, SO PLEASE STOP!
about kenet <-> ojuice pic admin. to be honest, it was me approving this pic.. i was so fucking annoyed by all those pic submissions from this guys (him and his friends grinning to the camera wherever they were) that i thought i should approve one of his submissions in the hope he will stop it. you want me to remove the thing from ojuice?
its so direct copy and it doesnt really respect copyright so... i dont want to be judge but if id be you i would remove it;D
MadenMann:
The most disturbing thing is that you actually found the real image. I mean.. there is no search engine for that. That means that you spend hours daily watching images of aged b-class celebreties? arg..
The most disturbing thing is that you actually found the real image. I mean.. there is no search engine for that. That means that you spend hours daily watching images of aged b-class celebreties? arg..
P.s.: Yeah, the copying is really lame. Looks like three photoshop filters + spraycan..
I don't have any argument against this point of view as I'll praise anyone who can paint original motifs providing they are good. But at the same time I won't praise a poor painting just because it's original.
I just think it's funny when I hear people say that copying from a personal photographs takes a lot more talent than copying from a commercial photographs.
I just think it's funny when I hear people say that copying from a personal photographs takes a lot more talent than copying from a commercial photographs.
it not just "looks like" three photoshop filters... if it was a pixel copy, what would be the chances of having exactly the same pixel dimensions? just put those two pictures into two (half-)transparent layers...
do you really have nothing better to do than ranting about this? tsts
I suppose if he'd copied a picture from his photo album instead of from a poster he'd be a great artist, right?
No. I never got the point of copying pictures anyway.
No. I never got the point of copying pictures anyway.
luckily for us, as stated on scenerep, he considers himself to be a fairly good gfx artist. oh the wonderfull things about the scene that the newbies can learn from this man.
not just the newbies, pretty much anyone.
stelthz: Ever heard from google's image-search? ;)
Quote:
he has captured a good likeness, good colours and accurate proportion
.
the only one who has captured something was the photograph.
you can say what you want... copying something is ultralame coz of several reasons:
1.even the lames noob can copy photos without the slightest abillity to paint something on his own with a acceptable quality. its just a matter of time how perfect your copy is.
you dont need to know anything that a real artist has to think about... the light, the colours, the shape... coz as copycat all what you have to do is to look at the source and repeat everything like a kid.
2.its useless
where is the sense?
who wants to see a copy of something who still exists?
i can download the original pornpics or voguecovers
if i want to see such stuff.
copying other ppls work is lame and just shows that you have a serious lack of skills.
its not tolerated that songs are copied... so why should it be better to copy a pic?
anyway its quite a useless thread here as there are enough copycats around since years which are tolerated and sometimes even glorified... so why dissing PG?
he just goes the way that all the others go
goodlooking ripoffs or poor autonomous art, that's the question
Quote:
I'm not really a Friends fan but tonight when I watched the last episode I felt a little knot in my stomach. I have no idea what the plot was previous to the episode, why the heck Monica and... Joey? no... um. What's him name have twins...
Anyways I think maybe women are an ok reason to do things for yourself. I've been starving artistically for the last couple of months because of the teaching job, getting my business off the ground, and graduating. It's been a nightmare and a dream at the same time.
Obviously from the details you can see I used photo reference. I think the original was of her being quite a bit younger. Probably for a teen mag shoot. When I pixel paint a photo I generally do a cutout effect so I get the main blocks and color then go at it for a while with the smudge tool. Then when when it starts to form like paint I define the edges a bit more. The hair was a real problem and I usually just leave it as a big blured mess. Instead with this I found a way to give it some real texture. Basically use the burn tool with a really thin stroke, have really nice lines that fit the contour, then lightly smudge it back in.
... Anyhoo, if you feel like leaving a comment that's cool, but what I really needed was a semi-mindless distraction.
Chandler!!! His name is Chandler!
Patrick Groove's big thing is manipulating photos. That's what he does. That's what he claims to do. So, I'm not really surprised to see this picture. Whether or not this type of shallow photo manipulation is a good thing or a bad thing remains to be discussed.
you scold the guy like nobody in the scene has ever copied a pic before. hel-lo?
copying has been around since the days of c64 and boris vallejo. it's just this "smudging" technique that's a bit different, and that he identified the subject - most artists have hidden the identity and added little touches (tattoos on the boobs, anyone?) to pass the subjects off as their own.
and no, copying wasn't accepted anywhere near this level in the tracking scene, but you can't compare them.
copying has been around since the days of c64 and boris vallejo. it's just this "smudging" technique that's a bit different, and that he identified the subject - most artists have hidden the identity and added little touches (tattoos on the boobs, anyone?) to pass the subjects off as their own.
and no, copying wasn't accepted anywhere near this level in the tracking scene, but you can't compare them.
and just to clarify, i never watched friends (aka "pretty white people with problems") and i'm proud of it. :) (she was good in office space tho, heh)