digital illustrations in dino books

[sauroid]

what are your opinions regarding publishers using digital illustrations in their palaeo books?
they look striking at first glance but seem very "sterile/inorganic" for my taste.

[tyrantqueen]

Do you mean stuff that has been created using photoshop or other digital imaging software, as opposed to stuff painted or drawn by hand? 

I think it depends on the artist and their individual style. Some artists I like (for example John Conway) and some I think are better suited to traditional (Luis Rey and his overuse of photoshop textures comes to mind...)

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I dislike digital illustration altogether. Most digital 'paintings' and such I've seen are nowhere near as good as actual paintings. Luis Rey's work comes to mind, though only the newer ones, where he does all the obvious photoshopping, namely in the gigantoraptor among others. This is not to attack Rey's work or fans of digital illustration in general, simply my opinion.

[Gwangi]

I generally don't like the digital illustrations either. One exception that comes to mind though is Julius Csotonyi, his work is pretty good.

[Takama]

I don't mind digital illustrations in a Book(Even if there sometimes  horrible)  just as long as the information given is reliable and not Dino poop

For instance

I would go for this. Many people say that the Spinosaurus is two Jurassic Parky, but I read some of the pages in a store, and the info seemed good.

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Steve-Brusatte/dp/1847242685/ref=sr_1_99?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396736860&sr=1-99&keywords=dinosaurs


But I would not Go for this one for obvious reasons(Im not trying to start something im just giving a very easy example to follow)

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Kids-Ken-Ham/dp/0890515557/ref=sr_1_58?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396736769&sr=1-58&keywords=dinosaurs

[tyrantqueen]

But we're not talking about the written content of a book. It's illustrations that are the topic of this thread, if you haven't noticed.

Although technology is getting better and better, there is a visual difference between the two mediums of traditional and digital. Some people like digital because it's very convenient, others don't. Both of them have their learning curves.

[tyrantqueen]

By the way, for some great examples of digital artwork, see Andrey Atuchin, John Conway, Sergey Krasovskiy, Damir Martin and Julio Lacerda. As long as the art looks good, I don't care about the medium.

[HD-man]

I would go for this. Many people say that the Spinosaurus is two Jurassic Parky, but I read some of the pages in a store, and the info seemed good.

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Steve-Brusatte/dp/1847242685/ref=sr_1_99?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396736860&sr=1-99&keywords=dinosaurs

1stly, I just thought you should know that the links don't work.

2ndly, I don't know how much of Brusatte/Benton's Dinosaurs you read, but it wasn't enough (no offense). While their technical work is consistently good, their popular work is consistently not-so-good. Said book is a good example of that. Naish put it best when he said, "When a dinosaur book published in 2011 features scaly-skinned, completely un-feathered dromaeosaurs with down-facing palms, and yet was supposedly checked by one of the world's most famous and respected vertebrate palaeontologists, we know we have a problem" (See "There are good consultants, but there are downright useless consultants": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/05/great-dinosaur-art-event-of-2012/ ).

[HD-man]

As long as the art looks good, I don't care about the medium.

When you say "looks good", do you mean in terms being both aesthetically pleasing & scientifically accurate? If so, then I concur. DK's a good example b/c their CG dinos used to be terrible, but have gradually gotten better (E.g. Compare the following Archaeopteryx pics).

[Takama]

I would go for this. Many people say that the Spinosaurus is two Jurassic Parky, but I read some of the pages in a store, and the info seemed good.

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Steve-Brusatte/dp/1847242685/ref=sr_1_99?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396736860&sr=1-99&keywords=dinosaurs

1stly, I just thought you should know that the links don't work.

2ndly, I don't know how much of Brusatte/Benton's "Dinosaurs" you read, but it wasn't enough (no offense). While their technical work is consistently good, their popular work is consistently not-so-good. Said book is a good example of that. Naish put it best when he said, "When a dinosaur book published in 2011 features scaly-skinned, completely un-feathered dromaeosaurs with down-facing palms, and yet was supposedly checked by one of the world's most famous and respected vertebrate palaeontologists, we know we have a problem" (See "There are good consultants, but there are downright useless consultants": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/05/great-dinosaur-art-event-of-2012/ ).

I admit, I only read three paragraphs of that book before I had to leave it behind (I could not buy it, because it was in a Club store, and I did not have a membership card).


But still. I don't really care about how accurate Digital Dinosaurs are if there used in a book.  Im more interested in the info that's given.

[tyrantqueen]

When you say "looks good", do you mean in terms being both aesthetically pleasing & scientifically accurate? If so, then I concur. DK's a good example b/c their CG dinos used to be terrible, but have gradually gotten better (E.g. Compare the following Archaeopteryx pics).

Yes. Although I am a bit more lenient towards art that is very dated. For example, I like Charles Knight's artwork a lot, but to modern eyes it's not accurate (although most of Knight's work is exemplary for its time). So I usually take into account the time at which the artwork was made. If there are artists today that are making artwork of Tyrannosaurus with dragging tails and claiming it to be accurate, I would have a problem with that. In other words, artists should always be striving to make the most of the information available to them if they want their art to be considered accurate.

Btw, there's a difference between a digitally painted dinosaur and a CG one. CG ones tend be created with the use of a programme such as blender, and the creation process is a little different.

But still. I don't really care about how accurate Digital Dinosaurs are if there used in a book.  Im more interested in the info that's given.

No offense, but I'm glad you're not a writer, if that is the case. If people didn't care about artwork being accurate, then why bother to make new artwork at all? Why not just keep recycling old Knight artworks but update the info? What about young children who can't read huge paragraphs of text, or people who don't have the attention span to do so? They'll end up being mislead by inaccurate artwork. Imo, in today's society, images have more power than written word.

[HD-man]

I admit, I only read three paragraphs of that book before I had to leave it behind (I could not buy it, because it was in a Club store, and I did not have a membership card).


But still. I don't really care about how accurate Digital Dinosaurs are if there used in a book.  Im more interested in the info that's given.

1stly, no offense, but I don't think you quite realize how important paleoart is to popular dino books. Naish's "The Great Dinosaur Art Event of 2012" (in my 1st post) & Holtz's "A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ) sum up what I mean. In reference to my 1st post, Holtz put it best when he said, "Another indicator that a work on dinosaurs is reliable and modern is the way it treats the question of scaly skin...Depicting a Troodon or a Velociraptor without feathers, therefore, would simply be antiscientific."

2ndly, the text isn't much better. For instance, on page 130 of Brusatte's Field Guide to Dinosaurs (I don't have Dinosaurs on hand, but this is basically the same book w/the same info in a field guide format), Protoceratops is described as being "about the size of a sheep and just as meek". Also, on page 131, it's claimed that "if cornered, Protoceratops can swipe at a predator with its cheek horns, but otherwise lacks specific weapons." When I 1st read that, all I could think was "BS": For 1, some herbivores (E.g. Suids) are both sheep-sized & aggressive; For another, even if the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen hadn't already proven it, the parrot-like beak is still an obvious weapon (How any dino paleontologist could forget about said specimen, though, is beyond me).

[Takama]

When you say "looks good", do you mean in terms being both aesthetically pleasing & scientifically accurate? If so, then I concur. DK's a good example b/c their CG dinos used to be terrible, but have gradually gotten better (E.g. Compare the following Archaeopteryx pics).

Yes. Although I am a bit more lenient towards art that is very dated. For example, I like Charles Knight's artwork a lot, but to modern eyes it's not accurate (although most of Knight's work is exemplary for its time). So I usually take into account the time at which the artwork was made. If there are artists today that are making artwork of Tyrannosaurus with dragging tails and claiming it to be accurate, I would have a problem with that. In other words, artists should always be striving to make the most of the information available to them if they want their art to be considered accurate.

Btw, there's a difference between a digitally painted dinosaur and a CG one. CG ones tend be created with the use of a programme such as blender, and the creation process is a little different.

But still. I don't really care about how accurate Digital Dinosaurs are if there used in a book.  Im more interested in the info that's given.

No offense, but I'm glad you're not a writer, if that is the case. If people didn't care about artwork being accurate, then why bother to make new artwork at all? Why not just keep recycling old Knight artworks but update the info? What about young children who can't read huge paragraphs of text, or people who don't have the attention span to do so? They'll end up being mislead by inaccurate artwork. Imo, in today's society, images have more power than written word.

I admit, I only read three paragraphs of that book before I had to leave it behind (I could not buy it, because it was in a Club store, and I did not have a membership card).


But still. I don't really care about how accurate Digital Dinosaurs are if there used in a book.  Im more interested in the info that's given.

1stly, no offense, but I don't think you quite realize how important paleoart is to popular dino books. Besides reading Naish's "The Great Dinosaur Art Event of 2012" (in my 1st post) in its entirety, you should read Holtz's "A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ). In reference to my 1st post, Holtz put it best when he said, "Another indicator that a work on dinosaurs is reliable and modern is the way it treats the question of scaly skin...Depicting a Troodon or a Velociraptor without feathers, therefore, would simply be antiscientific."

2ndly, the text isn't much better. For instance, on page 130 of Brusatte's Field Guide to Dinosaurs (I don't have Dinosaurs on hand, but this is basically the same book w/the same info in a field guide format), Protoceratops is described as being "about the size of a sheep and just as meek". Also, on page 131, it's claimed that "if cornered, Protoceratops can swipe at a predator with its cheek horns, but otherwise lacks specific weapons." When I 1st read that, all I could think was "BS": For 1, suids are both sheep-sized & aggressive; For another, even if the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen hadn't already proven it, the parrot-like beak is still a pretty obvious weapon (How any dino paleontologist could forget about said specimen, though, is beyond me).

I never got this far, That book is now off my want list.

I will admit, I was a little self centered when I stated my views.  I am not a Official writer(I want to be some day, but that wont happen anytime soon) but if I did make a book, I would try to get accurate pictures in it from someone that's talented in the field. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Just a simple point to interject here please....people learn and utilize information differently. Some learn best by reading, others by hearing for instance. We all absorb things differently and using different tools and methods. In this context, I can understand why for his own purposes he could care less about the art, as he is stating quite clearly for him at least, the written material is how he derives his ideas and understandings.
In that context , not sure that it is necessary to attack him for stating that. I have a friend who does not care about lyrics in songs, and follows the beat and the instruments, while to me it is incomprehensible how someone could like music without knowing the words and having meaning to them. That does not mean he does not understand the music or is somehow lacking, but just that he appreciates a part of it that I do not place as much emphasis on.
  That final paragraph seems to me at least, the splitting of a very fine hair.The quoted author stated the dinosaur lacked "specific weapons" not obvious weapons.....in combat or a life or death struggle, just about any part of the body can be used for fighting. Wether that would be a beak, or frill, or knees, or hooves, or any other part of the body it might use to fight with. A horse can use a foot to make a well aimed kick , but I would hardly state that its feet are weapons....unless the animal is placed in a defensive posture and at that point many parts of its body might become a weapon...even its bite. I would not consider a horse's mouth an obvious weapon however. Having been bitten by a horse I can tell you that it does cause a serious injury as the animal drags its teeth, rather than biting and releasing , which rips and shreds whatever it gets in its mouth. There is a line between obvious weapons and specific weapons here that I think was lost

[HD-man]

In that context , not sure that it is necessary to attack him for stating that.

No 1's attacking anyone in this thread. Both Tyrantqueen & I worded our posts very carefully so as to make it clear what our intentions were.

A horse can use a foot to make a well aimed kick , but I would hardly state that its feet are weapons

& yet, as indicated by the following quotes (among others), that's what the scientists who study them do.

"Hard hooves and feet, designed for running fast, also make excellent blunt weapons with which to kick a predator, or even a rival in the case of zebras": http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Life-Secrets-Revealed-American/dp/075667221X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396915662&sr=1-1

"Giraffes and zebras use their hooves as defensive weapons": http://www.amazon.com/Creatures-Habit-Understanding-African-Behavior/dp/1868724336/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396915788&sr=1-10

"Most animals rely on "weapons" from their own anatomy: zebras use their hard hooves to defend themselves against rivals as well as for locomotion": http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Behavior-Timothy-Halliday/dp/0806126477/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396917279&sr=1-1

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I guess I do not see your point there, it looks to me like you are stating that feet can indeed be used as weapons, and yet this is not their primary function. They are not specific weapons but can be used as such similar to our protoceratops and its beak , for which the primary function would appear to be nipping and cutting plant material to get inside its mouth. Not sure how that helps your case here...feet are not specific weapons either, but can be used as such , just like a beak right?Just because scientists today realize horse feet can be used for defensive purposes if required does not make them a specific weapon...nor does it mean a protoceratops primarily utilized its beak to hold raptors in a death grip until sand could cover them....

[0onarcissisto0]

Anyway...I'm gonna completely ignore the heated discussion and just say that I do miss the "warmth" and imperfections of hand-painted art. It's like how I appreciate the little imperfections in Charlie McGrady's kits (e.g. Fingerprints here and there). There's just more personality in my opinion.

[tyrantqueen]

Anyway...I'm gonna completely ignore the heated discussion and just say that I do miss the "warmth" and imperfections of hand-painted art. It's like how I appreciate the little imperfections in Charlie McGrady's kits (e.g. Fingerprints here and there). There's just more personality in my opinion.

I love Charlie McGrady's stuff too, and I wish he would release some new kits. Although, I purchased a Kronosaurus from him (and plan to purchase more in future) and I have to say that judging from the quality of the casting, the mold is definitely showing its age. Is he still casting from the same molds? I thought they would have deteriorated by now.

Still, I'm not complaining because I love my 1/25 Krono

[HD-man]

I guess I do not see your point there,

You said you "would hardly state that [a horse's] feet are weapons" despite the fact that they're referred to as such by the scientists who study them. Besides that, the difference btwn "specific" & "obvious" weapons is a moot point, given that said terms are synonymous ( http://thesaurus.com/browse/clear-cut ). Point is, Protoceratops is just 1 of many examples of misleading &/or wrong info in Brusatte/Benton's popular dino books.

[HD-man]

Yes. Although I am a bit more lenient towards art that is very dated.

No worries, I know what you're saying. I figured that was given.

Btw, there's a difference between a digitally painted dinosaur and a CG one. CG ones tend be created with the use of a programme such as blender, and the creation process is a little different.

My bad. I knew they were different, but for some reason I thought of CG dinos. Maybe b/c of how both digital artists & CG artists incorporate photographic background material.