digital illustrations in dino books

[0onarcissisto0]

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

I was thinking the same thing. I just picked up his Lambeosaurus pair and it was supposedly released in the early 1990s. I can't say the quality's bad though. I mean it has the usual crazy amount of putty work needed lol, but otherwise, the details are still coming through, I find. Unless the latter was a lot better when the moulds were still new. Quite possible, I guess.

[alexeratops]

What about Raul Martin?



He's my favorite paleoartist. I am fine with digital painting, honestly, I think it looks better.

[tyrantqueen]

Raul Martin's really good. Apart from when he is naughty and copies other artist's stuff without acknowledging them or apologising for it...

[Gwangi]

Raul Martin's really good. Apart from when he is naughty and copies other artist's stuff without acknowledging them or apologising for it...

Do you have an example to share of that? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm honestly curious. I've never noticed.

[0onarcissisto0]

Raul Martin definitely does some decent work, but still...just not enough of that human touch in digital illustration imho.

[tyrantqueen]

Raul Martin's really good. Apart from when he is naughty and copies other artist's stuff without acknowledging them or apologising for it...

Do you have an example to share of that? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm honestly curious. I've never noticed.

Oh no, it's fine. I wouldn't have made such a statement if I didn't have any evidence to back it up in the first place.

Here you go:







I'm far from the first person to notice it. In any case, I think he is more than talented enough to not need to copy other artists stuff, and it's a blemish on an otherwise excellent artist.

[sauroid]

he is indeed talented. i just dont know why he had to stoop down and blatantly copy other people's work.

by the way, is DK the only publisher who does not acknowledge their digital artists?

[alexeratops]

OH, how heroes fall!

[HD-man]

Raul Martin's really good. Apart from when he is naughty and copies other artist's stuff without acknowledging them or apologising for it...

Do you have an example to share of that? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm honestly curious. I've never noticed.

Oh no, it's fine. I wouldn't have made such a statement if I didn't have any evidence to back it up in the first place.

Here you go:

Don't forget the most recent example.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I thing that most of the time the cg art looks fake. it just dosnt have the same "feel" as drawn art.

[leidy]

It's the artist that matters.

A good artist with solid fundamentals can produce digital paintings that are as naturalistic as physical media. 

It goes without saying that there's a lot of digital hackwork out there, but there were hack artists before, they've just swapped bad airbrush skills for bad photoshop.

The computer allows for a lot of shortcuts to doing stuff that would be very time consuming to paint traditionally, but cheap tricks tend to look cheap.

I'm pretty shocked with those Raul Martin examples.  I could always see that he reconstructed things a bit too close to Greg Paul, but I thought that just came from being accurate to the proportions.  Seeing what he did in those examples calls his whole approach into question.  I've more respect for artists that work rougher but explore ideas and do their own homework.  The glossy photorealism stuff doesn't really impress me anymore.

[Ultimatedinoking]

It's the artist that matters.

A good artist with solid fundamentals can produce digital paintings that are as naturalistic as physical media. 

It goes without saying that there's a lot of digital hackwork out there, but there were hack artists before, they've just swapped bad airbrush skills for bad photoshop.

The computer allows for a lot of shortcuts to doing stuff that would be very time consuming to paint traditionally, but cheap tricks tend to look cheap.

I'm pretty shocked with those Raul Martin examples.  I could always see that he reconstructed things a bit too close to Greg Paul, but I thought that just came from being accurate to the proportions.  Seeing what he did in those examples calls his whole approach into question.  I've more respect for artists that work rougher but explore ideas and do their own homework.  The glossy photorealism stuff doesn't really impress me anymore.

What's with artists copying other artists poses? It's it really hard to make up your own? I draw dinosaurs and I've come up with some unique color patters and poses, and I just do it for fun. Surly people who make a living from it can do the same.

[Trisdino]

I really do not mind digital art if it is done well, same with CGI in general.


People  say that all this digital art is just terrible, and takes the place of proper, physical, art, but I do not think so. Before cheap digital images, we had cheap physical images, there have always been bad drawings, and always will be.

I also do not hugely mind luis rey. Yeah, it sometimes gets a bit messy, but his stuff is also vibrant and colourful.

[Mamasaurus]

As others have said, it all depends on the artist.

The computer is just another medium, just like paintbrushes, clay, or film.  An artist can't paint on the computer and try to recreate the same texture as oil, any more than an artist can make colored pencil appear like watercolor.  You can get close, but ultimately it will look like you tried and failed to get that "oil look".  What bugs me is when people hear "digital" and instantly stick their noses up in the air.  Many times these people are not artists, and if they are, they're often traditional purists who think that digital art is cheating. 

It takes just as much work and skill to paint with a digital brush as it does to paint with a real brush.  Certain things like layers and the undue button certainly make life easier, but should an artist not take advantage of a tool that makes life easier?  Master artists like Vermeer and DaVinci used "cheats" to make their work easier and more lifelike, so why not use the tools that we have today?

Classic artists used projections with a camera obscura to trace their subjects onto the canvas, and other geniuses found even more incredible methods to paint the "photographs" of their day.  Just look up the documentary "Tim's Vermeer".  It is nothing short of awes-inspiring.   

Ultimately, what is the whole point of paleo-art?  To inspire in the viewer the beauty of the artist's subject, a small snapshot into the life of the animal and inspire wonder in that small piece of God's creation.  It may not be photorealistic, perhaps not even accurate due to unknowns and speculation, but it inspires a love and wonder for the natural world.  That is ultimately what matters, and it doesn't matter what medium is used to achieve that.