Gaussian

http://basangpanaginip.blogspot.com/...ector-art.html

I really need to spend more time with Illustrator or Xara X.?

ronmatt

mindboggling!!! where do these people get that degree of talant. Thanks, I bookmarked the site for inspiration [righton]

ladyfinger007

In several fora, it has been noted that those are traced pictures.
Many artists frown when they hear the word talent, when it is a case of patience, and technical knowledge.

There is only one that I'd put apart in the group pictured there, and it would be Bert Monroy, first, because he does not trace on top of the image, then use the gradient mesh function, but he creates each element, using and developping his own techniques, second because he is adding insane levels of details that might not even be visible in the final piece (I remember that once, he created the vue of a virtual future city, and one one window, there was a desk, on this desk were some CD's... he had in fact created the text on the CD's in Illustrator, even if the Cd was a few pixels wide on the final image.

Personnaly, I find that those are nice renderings, but I'd really like to see personnal pieces that come from the imagination of those illustrators...

Gaussian

I agree with you Pierre; nothing what these guys show convinces me that they have talent, but also nothing convinces me that Bert Monroy has talent. The only thing that I?m 100% sure of is that all these people have a huge interest in super realism and are willing to spend days, weeks or months on a single image.

That?s why images like these http://homepage3.nifty.com/highside/pict/rawlings-l.jpg have caused quite a stir on many forums, even more than anything Bert Monroy has ever made, except for his last ?Train Station? image, but that one was clearly traced and he mentions on his web site that it took him 11 months or about 2,000 hours to finish, an average 7 hours per day?.go figure...and that also makes you wonder whether he was paid to do this.

Nevertheless most people, including me, can still be amazed by the patience and skills of these guys, even when they lack originality. I listened to Ella Fitzgerald this week, she was singing the works of others, yet I still enjoyed every moment of it. Lack of originality doesn't always have to be a bad thing and a good example is our Canadian singer Michael Buble who is very popular all over the world, although he hardly sings anything original (and he's not the only one).

Unlike you I don't consider images like that baseball glove just a nice rendering or just a trace. It requires a lot of skills and patience to achieve those results Pierre.?? ?

ladyfinger007

I was maybe harsh in my comments, indeed, the first time I saw the works of that chinese illustrator, my jaw dropped... Sure there is patience, skills and dedication behind those images, and let's not forget that illustration can also be the recreation of reality, like the "cut views" of photo cameras that were done so well with airbrushes in the 80'ies...

What prompted me to write that post was the fact that some people do not realize that most of them started as tracing of existing pictures.

Silky

Wow, I understand that many of these are 'traced' but still....11months - 2,000 hrs to complete a work....I don't have that kind of patience. Maybe if I had 7 hours of free time, and IF I was being paid...maybe. All I can say is WOW!? :cry:

ronmatt

Thinking in terms 'working for food and lodging' and not for the sake of 'personal satisfaction' B7 can you see going to the client with a quote on a job that includes 2000 hours to create an image and an 11 month delivery date? [innocent] I considered myself fortunate when I got a week. However, I've been struggling with a music style for 20 some years
( jazz, Ahmed Jamal ) so I totally understand the time spent. Why wouldn't you consider the ability these people have to create these works in Illustrator a talant? Because if the technical skill required? Anyone who surpasses the average and ordinary in any endeavor is employing talant. That's what talant implies. A natural or learned ability. We ( I ) don't hesitate to look at something poorly done and comment ( to ourselves? ) 'Jeez, this guy just doesn't have any talant'. C'mon, I know you do. So kudos to those who can do. Unless, of course, you can guarantee that given 11 months, you could do as well ( or better, if you're more talanted [bustagut] ).

Gaussian

Talent has nothing to do with learning, talent is a natural skill. That often a learning process is needed to discover that talent in golf, Photoshop, dancing, writing, physics, etc doesn't change the fact that it's still a natural skill. The only problem is; when do we consider something a learned skill or a talent? Sometimes it's very obvious, but sometimes it's not. I don't consider their work talent, but I also know that I can be totally wrong.

Also people shouldn?t confuse ?obsession? with ?talent?. Few people can be really obsessed with super realism to create realistic balls, cell phones and cars and once they show their stuff you often hear ?You got talent!?. Do they? Just because someone uses Photoshop mainly for photo retouching and has little interest to make realistic objects doesn?t make this person less talented.
On the other hand it?s also easy to impress anyone who has never touched Photoshop and who has no interest in art and design. Quite often you will hear these people saying ?Wow, you really have talent!?. The big mistake you can make as an artist is to dwell on these comments.

Is working 330 days, every day 7 hours to create an image like the one Bert Monroy made talent? One could say ?try it yourself!?. Even that is not a strong argument, since lots of people who do have the skills simply don?t have the interest to work on the same image for 2,000 hours and the whole thing would be for them like running up the hill, like one big torture, whereas others like Bert Monroy see it as a ?great journey? and can be super focused to achieve maximum results.

Mind you,? I don't have all the answers, just throwing in my 2 Canadian pennies.?

ronmatt

Gaussian.. I curious about your take on 'obsession' Isn't the very nature of creativity, obsession? Artists are ( usually ) quite prolific. All that I've known, be them musicians, fine artists, poets etc. are constantly studying, practicing and learning their craft. I think it's that obsession that drives their innate abilities ( talent ). A talented painter that doesn't paint equals what? talented musicians don't pick up a violin for the first time and Flight of the Bumblebees rolls off the strings. Talent alone, without developed , learned skillsets is virtually useless. Conversely, developed, learned skillsets, sans talent, is the same.
I'm not much of an artist. I've tried all mediums and I'm mediocre at best. I'm not much of a Photoshopper either. I read some of these posts ( like the recent one on frequency ) and I'm blown away. I'm lucky to know 20% of what most of you guys know. I don't know much about computers. But I'm able to crank out images that a large number of people question how. I'm certainly not talented, (I've seen talent on CGtalk). I'm obsessed. And I'm in awe of those guys and their obsessions.

Silky

I think it depends on what you mean by 'obsession'. Passionate I think is the proper word. I think working on something to the point of obsession may be a good thing or it might not. An artists concealed in his closet for 11 months on end, creating something amazing just to show off his talent would be considered obsessed by most. But, on the other hand, that may just be his job - working 7hrs a day on an illustration for a client. I just don't know. But, I do think it's obvious that he is passionate about his work, because I don't think people get that degree of skill do something they don't like.