![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ratcreature) wrote2010-12-13 03:17 pm
payoff for your time effort
Of course you can always mix both to take advantage, e.g. do a sketch in pencil, scan it, resize and rearrange stuff digitally, then base the drawing on that, or do an initial rough color sketch digitally, mess around with color sliders until you like the mood, then do the painting traditionally, then scan it and do a touch up digitally etc. But still, a poll about when you don't mix the two.
for initial sketching (whether a study or the base of later picture), what is faster for you?
traditional media (i.e. physical pigments applied to surfaces in some manner)
3 (60.0%)
digital (i.e. whatever software you like best for a task: GIMP, Photoshop, Painter, ArtRage...)
1 (20.0%)
no difference
1 (20.0%)
don't know/can't say (b/c you never keep track of time, have only ever used one method for this, always mix both...)
0 (0.0%)
for a fully rendered drawing, what is faster for you? (presuming about equally detailed/skilled results are the goal)
for inking line art, what is faster for you?
for coloring line art, what is faster for you?
for a fully rendered painting, what is faster for you?
how important is such time/effort efficiency on average when choosing your medium for an artwork? 10 meaning "most important", 0 meaning "not important" compared to other consideration (e.g. wanting to have a physical object, not wanting to have a mess with paints everywhere, having some effect you can only get digitally etc.)
Mean: 3.20 Median: 3 Std. Dev 1.33
| 0 | 0 (0.0%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 (20.0%) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 3 | 2 (40.0%) | |
| 4 | 1 (20.0%) | |
| 5 | 1 (20.0%) | |
| 6 | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 7 | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 8 | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 9 | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 10 | 0 (0.0%) |
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sometimes I clean up the basic sketches with white-out and eraser to save that one step but that usually takes longer than just tracing the whole thing, and the result doesn't quite look like an actual inked lineart.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But yeah, I've never even tried digital inking because it always looked like an unpleasant, time-consuming pain in the ass. The only situation in which I can see digital inking being worth it (for me anyway) would be on a piece that was going to be scaled up really big -- if it was intended to be made into a poster or something.
But I know artists who do all their inking digitally, and not only am I boggled that they have the patience for it, but I often find the results less pleasing to the eye (but then, aesthetically, I prefer a looser, sketchier, hatching-intensive style of inking as opposed to the slicker and more polished sort).
Having said that, I do use the computer throughout a lot of the process -- like the example you used of scanning and resizing/rearranging pencils; I don't know what I'd do with myself if I couldn't do that. :D And I letter comics on the computer and do a lot of my coloring that way. So maybe digital inking would not actually be as time-consuming and annoying as it always seemed to me. But generally, I do not like working with vector-based programs like Illustrator, whereas I like pixel-editing programs like Photoshop; I assume that in order to enjoy digital inking, you'd need a certain amount of enjoyment for using Illustrator (or various equivalents), but I'm not really fond of them.
no subject
And I'm glad someone liked that doodle *g*, there was a somewhat disheartening dearth of comments (i.e. zero) so far, though two people fav'ed it on dA.