# The ratio of traditional to digital artworks.



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2012)

It's difficult to miss, the amount of digital furry art abounds but refined drawings in traditional media, which aren't outlines or preparatory sketches, is slim in comparrison- and even many of these are more often described as fantasy or anthro rather than as part of the fandom. 

Whilst this might be because of a variety of reasons[ it's easier to distribute digital images on the web, they're easier to store secretly, their production rate differs because manipulation is more practical in digital etcetera ], do you think this ratio is a good or bad thing? 

It personally frustrates me because digital art isn't something I find so accessible to the eye. In a traditional media drawing the methodology and construction are evident and therefore provide criteria for judgement of skill, whereas digital art can be composed with computer-aided elements that make it more difficult to judge what the merits of an artist are in comparrison to the merits of the program they're using. 
A very simple example would be that a rigorous monotone is difficult to achieve in pen or graphite because dislocations are easy to spot, whereas a handy bucket-filler tool exists on most programs.


----------



## Zoetrope (Jul 12, 2012)

I paint sometimes. I enjoy it to a degree, but there is a certain ease to painting/colouring digitally. I don't have to mix or prime, wait for things to dry. Digital is just more convenient for me. Also my scanner sucks balls. While I bring my sketchbooks around to doodle in while I'm away from home, no one is ever going to see what is in there.

You might find this interesting. I certainly did.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2714309/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2900484/


----------



## mapdark (Jul 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> It's difficult to miss, the amount of digital furry art abounds but refined drawings in traditional media, which aren't outlines or preparatory sketches, is slim in comparrison- and even many of these are more often described as fantasy or anthro rather than as part of the fandom.
> 
> Whilst this might be because of a variety of reasons[ it's easier to distribute digital images on the web, they're easier to store secretly, their production rate differs because manipulation is more practical in digital etcetera ], do you think this ratio is a good or bad thing?
> 
> ...



I have TWO things to say about it:

1-  Traditional mediums =









2- I do not like your argument that seems to suggest that making art through computers is in any way easier.
It's different and your work flow is greatly altered from what you would do with traditional medium.
BUT YOU STILL need to have some experience and technique behind it to make it work. 

No computer will replace colour theory , knowledge of anatomy and basics of image composition that you still have to work into a digital picture.

And in some aspect it might actually be HARDER to produce digital stuff in some ways. Giving someone a graphics tablet for example when they've never touched one and telling them to draw with it WILL most of the time produce disasters.

You also have to work with he knowledge that what you see on your monitor will not necessarily be the same for everybody because of how every computer screen doesn't necessarily have the same colour profile. 

Then you have to adapt your material to how it's going to be presented. 
(Personal Website , blog , gallery type website , etc.)

So yeah , some of the digital stuff CAN make some of the workflow much faster and easier . But not all of it.


----------



## gewitter (Jul 12, 2012)

I think the ratio is fine.  Digital art still requires an understanding of the medium and other basics skills used in traditional art.  I don't really have the problem where I can't determine the merits of an artist with digital art, filling in areas with a bucket tool is just utilizing part of the medium that they are working with.  But some people really like the charm and feeling of seeing something on a piece of paper or canvas or whatever.  And on the other hand digital art is very convenient among other things.

Zoetrope - The apples are interesting by the way


----------



## Zoetrope (Jul 12, 2012)

gewitter said:


> Zoetrope - The apples are interesting by the way



Yeah. I basically see the 'program' as a different tool, a different brush etc. There are no shortcuts, filters or photomanipulations there and the type of program you use has little bearing on a person's skill. At least that is my opinion.


----------



## Kailombax (Jul 13, 2012)

Back then, I used to do nothing but traditional pictures. I wasn't like super amazing but I'd like to think I was okay. It was very fun but digital coloring is more accessible to me. I still do draw traditionally however.  I can't draw digitally at all, at least not yet as it feels to awkward so I just stick to drawing on paper with pencil, then scan in my work and ink and color it digitally. The main reason why I pretty much do digital coloring these days is because my markers have dried up and I have no money to buy a new set so yeah, that's why digital is more convenient for me because I really do want to finish my pictures.


----------



## darkartist (Jul 13, 2012)

Ive noticed the shift towards the digital... its cool, but i love the feel of paper in my hands and the experiance of drawing... though ive always found my eraser to be my greatest tool


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 13, 2012)

For me, I'll always remain somewhere in the middle till they improve digital being portable. I do observational studies so I'm not relying on the web and books too much for reference. Don't get me wrong, photographic reference is highly useful - but you can kinda tell when some artists just went to google and got the quickest reference





http://dustypeterson.squarespace.com/storage/shameonyou_larroca.jpg


It's still more natural to work on paper, move around and work somewhere else if I want to - computer equipment...not so easy. 

I feel the computer is limiting when you need to work on location, so I still use watercolors, markers etc... for painting. The other thing is I really don't use the shortcuts/paint bucket and I found that I'm using less and less undo-redo because as I practice more and more, the less I need it because I know where my strokes should go/or know how to correct them. I mostly work in a single layer vs "gotta have a layer for shading of the hair, and then one for the eyes" or if I do, I collapse them once I get to a certain point. I do this mostly because having too many layers just gets confusing and I'm likely to draw on the wrong layer.

There is also this http://natasha2808.deviantart.com/art/Tutorial-Common-Digital-Painting-Mistakes-306838986 though I don't know why it has to be 300 dpi. Unless you're printing you can do fine with 72 dpi as long as you have a big canvas and zoom out instead of painting zoomed in. One reason I suggest this, is if you're just gonna post it online you need a big canvas like 2000pix but have it less taxing on your PC - 300 DPI doesn't make some real difference on the screen. This way your computer doesn't scream foul.

You also need to learn how to work zoomed out because people keep focusing too much on details in one area and not on the image as a whole. You don't sit where your eyeball is nearly on the paper to draw so don't be silly zoomed in with a PC or at the very least keep a second window open so you can see the image zoomed out (or increase your navigator size)

I dunno if digital is easier than traditional. It's easier to learn traditional to polish your skills because you have restrictions where digital doesn't. However, there's still quite a bit of adjusting to do and you do have to work harder at making it look more natural too. 

Which are digital (without looking it up online ie googling) which are traditional?

http://gorillaartfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/finalsm-620x841.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9Lo3nvBGN7Y/TNisWF80CNI/AAAAAAAAAIw/K8a36yldp58/s640/full_dragon393.jpg

http://cghub.com/files/Image/051001-052000/51799/951_large.jpg


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks for such an in-depth comment, very useful. Looking at the last 3 images I'm pretty convinced that number 2 is digital and number 1 is traditional, but I'm guessing there is a twist and they might all be digital?


----------



## mapdark (Jul 13, 2012)

I'd be tempted to say 1 and 3 are digital and number 2 is traditional. But I can't say for sure.


----------



## Saeto15 (Jul 13, 2012)

If you know what you're doing, people will have a difficult time telling your digital work from your traditional work.  If you don't know how to sketch or do gesture drawings or mix colours with a brush and real paints, you're not going to be a very successful artist in any medium.

I used to do traditional stuff all the time because I didn't have a good computer.  Now, I rarely do traditional stuff, because I don't have the space for it, and honestly I just prefer digital.  And, for those people who are trying to make art their full-time job, many companies prefer that you work in a digital format anyway.


----------

