Improved Realism!

[piichinu]

this is either a heavy reference or a trace, and neither is okay lmao

 

[That Zephyr Guy]

What's wrong with a heavy reference? That's in the same vein as a still life. It's fine to do occasionally but it shouldn't be 100% of your art.

 

[piichinu]

still life = stuff that doesn't move/objects, not copying a picture of someone and not even providing the image that was referenced

 

[That Zephyr Guy]

-Shrug- I disagree but I guess that's just my opinion, that's aight.

 

[noizora]

this is either a heavy reference or a trace, and neither is okay lmao

Heavy reference is actually a great way for artists to improve - after all you can't draw something you haven't seen and studied before, right?
Tonnes of artists use heavy references from things such as photographs (dubbed photo studies) and real life objects (still life). Heck, you could argue that some of the most famous and well-received paintings in the world are 'not okay' because they rely heavily on references. Say, for example Girl with a Pearl Earring would in this case be 'not okay'.

 

[Veggiesaurus]

Yeah, referencing or even copying is a good way to learn. Now that said, whatever you are copying generally will have a copyright (unless it's just from observation in real life). If it's a photo someone took (besides you) they have a copyright. So while it's certainly ok to practice by copying or tracing it (same way people are often assigned or do on their own masterwork studies of famous paintings), it would not be ok to sell that art, because you would then be profiting off someone else's work. But to do it for personal use to help you understand proportions, or to have a reference to try to color match exactly to help you with shading/color usage, etc is fine. I would never give away or sell a copied piece of art though.

 

[biibii]

i

Yeah, referencing or even copying is a good way to learn. Now that said, whatever you are copying generally will have a copyright (unless it's just from observation in real life). If it's a photo someone took (besides you) they have a copyright. So while it's certainly ok to practice by copying or tracing it (same way people are often assigned or do on their own masterwork studies of famous paintings), it would not be ok to sell that art, because you would then be profiting off someone else's work. But to do it for personal use to help you understand proportions, or to have a reference to try to color match exactly to help you with shading/color usage, etc is fine. I would never give away or sell a copied piece of art though.

the picture is from a korean fansite and i asked for permission and also it was referenced but people here are always saying to use references lmao??

 

[Veggiesaurus]

i the picture is from a korean fansite and i asked for permission and also it was referenced but people here are always saying to use references lmao??

I did say you should use references to learn. But if you wanted to sell that piece, you would need to get the permission of the actual person who took the photo you copied. Otherwise,at least in the United States, they would possibly have grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[biibii]

I did say you should use references to learn. But if you wanted to sell that piece, you would need to get the permission of the actual person who took the photo you copied. Otherwise,at least in the United States, they would possibly have grounds for a lawsuit.

ahh nono i dont think im ever selling my art, so it shouldnt be a problem. asides from that i ahd asked for permission I was also not calling you out im sory if you felt that way :,(

 

[piichinu]

Heavy reference is actually a great way for artists to improve - after all you can't draw something you haven't seen and studied before, right?
Tonnes of artists use heavy references from things such as photographs (dubbed photo studies) and real life objects (still life). Heck, you could argue that some of the most famous and well-received paintings in the world are 'not okay' because they rely heavily on references. Say, for example Girl with a Pearl Earring would in this case be 'not okay'.

at the very least she could credit the photos she used??
i already addressed still life in another post. there's a difference between copying something in front of you rather than someone else's photograph.
so in 1665 that artist somehow managed to get someone else's photograph of a girl and copied it exactly? alright.
honestly I've never even heard of that painting i only checked the year so it'd be helpful if you explained why you used it as an example.

 

[Veggiesaurus]

ahh nono i dont think im ever selling my art, so it shouldnt be a problem. asides from that i ahd asked for permission I was also not calling you out im sory if you felt that way :,(

no, its ok i apologize if that came across as blunt. I was just trying to help

 

[pickle inkii.]

Meh, anyway I guess we should turn this back into a critique thread instead of an arguement over whether or not this was traced and whether or not it would be okay if it were to be traced.