# digital vs traditional media



## Emberli_Blackfox (Jan 10, 2012)

Hi out there. Been lurking around a number of furry art sites for a while now and I feel like there is a large discrepancy between quality digital art and quality traditional art available. Is this just me/am I not looking in the right places? As a traditional artist I'm beginning to feel a bit lonely and out of date. Sometimes I consider doing commission work but get wildly discouraged from even posting work for examples as I would want to do physical commissions as opposed to digital transfers and feel like I'd get trampled by the flashy digital competition. Am I outdated? Are there still traditional art commissioners? Should I just get with the program and start trying to learn Photoshop?
Feeling left out...
~Emberli


----------



## RustChic (Jan 10, 2012)

Just a headsup. This topic has been hashed out many times and usually doesn't end well. Since your question is more personal though, I will say you should do what you think is best: if you feel you will be able to get more commission work by working digitally, give it a try (I might recommend painttool SAI over photoshop, for monetary reasons). Your background in traditional art may help you. Good art is good art


----------



## Zenia (Jan 10, 2012)

As Rust says, this topic is really overdone.

However, don't be discouraged about commissions. I would still try to do them and offer to mail the original to the buyer. Buyers like having the picture in their hands. Also, if you can scan in a traditional piece and tweak the colors to look as best as you can, you won't have a shortage of customers so long as your art is appealing. Check out Kacey for example. She does traditional art (some digital too) and her stuff looks fantastic. If I had the cash, I would totally commission her a lot. XD


----------



## mapdark (Jan 13, 2012)

Like the others have said , good art is good art. 
If your art is good , it shouldn't matter HOW it was made.

One of the reasons so many people do everything digital these days is that there are a few things you can do with digital media that is hard or nearly impossible to do with traditional when ti comes to colouring or general rendering. 

but MOSTLY , it's a money reason. 

Digital art is VERY CHEAP to produce compared to traditional. Because let's be honest , markers , colouring pencils and paper cost a LOT of money
if you produce a lot of art. Digital in comparison is virtually free (apart from the cost related to buying the programs you'll use , and then again some are free)
So that's why traditional has sorta died. 

You're not outdated at all , you just choose to keep doing things the good ol' way and there's nothing wrong about it.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 13, 2012)

If you're feeling outdated then yes, move on. Art is a creative process, and you ought to only stick to the same thing if you gotta get paid, or if you feel you have a lot left to develop and experiment with it. Besides that, learning new tools is a very healthy artistic path to take.

There will always be valuable application for tradition art, and an unending supply of traditional tools and methods to learn, but if you're not feeling it, you're not feeling it. Stick with it, or don't; figure out what you stand to benefit most from.

Traditional is awesome, and very impressive done well. It will never be "out-dated".
(hmm... Unless your works fall more under "illustration" than "Art", in which case you are out-dated, and should go pick up a tablet or something pronto!)


----------



## Dreaming (Jan 13, 2012)

As far as I know, quite a few commissions are still done using the traditional methods. Stick to whatever methods you're best at, there's no point in moving onto digital arts if the quality of you digital art isn't as good as your traditional art. Still having said that, practice makes perfect.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Jan 13, 2012)

Invest in a good scanner. There's a lot of successful artists who exclusively use traditional media, here are a few examples:

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/blotch/
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/kenket/
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/foxfeather/
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/tush/
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/ruaidri/

Some of those contain copious amounts of porn, so fair warning


----------



## FireFeathers (Jan 14, 2012)

We had to work for nearly 3 years in traditional medium only in my illustration classes; the skill transfers decently, and it's the preferred method of learning how to color/paint/draw.  Traditional first, then digital. 

That said, it doesn't really matter what you do. No one likes lens flare, and that's damn near the only thing digital artwork would do over traditional, stupid flashy filters that no one likes anyways. Hell, most really good digital art is supposed to look like traditional.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 16, 2012)

FireFeathers said:


> We had to work for nearly 3 years in traditional medium only in my illustration classes; the skill transfers decently, and it's the preferred method of learning how to color/paint/draw.  Traditional first, then digital.
> 
> That said, it doesn't really matter what you do. No one likes lens flare, and that's damn near the only thing digital artwork would do over traditional, stupid flashy filters that no one likes anyways. Hell, most really good digital art is supposed to look like traditional.



Well there's the magic of undo 

And flat colours are SO much easier to do in digital.
I mean , you can use acrylics for that. but even then you might make spots by accident.

The rest of what you said is true though. Someone who knows how to use digital well will be able to reproduce what traditional tools do.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 16, 2012)

mapdark said:


> The rest of what you said is true though. Someone who knows how to use digital well will be able to reproduce what traditional tools do.



Actually I usually see the opposite. I rarely ever see someone translating their digital skills to traditional. It's the other way around. Mostly because color mixing in traditional is different than digital. RGB != regular paints. It's not like you learn things like "lean over fat" or how to gesso a canvas etc...


----------



## mapdark (Jan 16, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Actually I usually see the opposite. I rarely ever see someone translating their digital skills to traditional. It's the other way around. Mostly because color mixing in traditional is different than digital. RGB != regular paints. It's not like you learn things like "lean over fat" or how to gesso a canvas etc...



Well no , of course not , not that literally.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 16, 2012)

mapdark said:


> Well no , of course not , not that literally.



Right but because digital is a different medium, there's still too many factors. Now I also never heard of a person that started digital that hasn't used pencil paper before they used a tablet to be honest. That's not discounting the possibility someone can be a good digital artist later on, but....because of different methods of media...the opposite again is more likely because it's not to say digital is entirely easier, but less factors for color mixing and so forth. It also takes a lot of work based on traditional experience to get a good brush going. 

This is overlooking just flat cel, and obvious digital is obvious look that others may use - especially in this fandom.

I remember how Whit Brachna had created a lot of brushes based on his experience with not just canvas painting but house painting to get certain looks. It was kind of sad when you hear him narrate one one of his videos "all these brushes are gone"

He's using M@'s and Bumskee's brushes iirc, and I noticed those with a traditional background seem to use their set a lot - others I haven't seen know how to use it who lack foundations.  http://www.pandemoniumart.net/brushes/

Now are there exceptions? Well I'm not sure. I've seen Simon Dominic state he was in his thirties when he started getting more serious. He uses digital. http://www.painterly.co.uk/

However, I've also seen him state while entirely possible, he does see why traditional to digital have a lot of merits and wishes (I'm sure this mainly due to time/career taking up the time) he had learned more traditional techniques.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Jan 16, 2012)

FireFeathers said:


> Hell, most really good digital art is supposed to look like traditional.



So much this.
Except maybe cell shading. Well you can get pretty close with screenprinting. I saw a screenprint at a museum that LITERALLY looked like it was done on a computer. Hell it pretty much looked like a photograph almost.


----------



## kobuzero (Jan 16, 2012)

I personally feel that Traditional art is the best thing ever. There is something about a pencil and paper that just feels right, and I personally prefer it to the " I want to color this art, but that will take an extra 3 layers of crap. I feel that there is too much technical stuff involved in Digital Art. But I do it anyway because unfortunatly traditional art is dying out slowly.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 17, 2012)

kobuzero said:


> I personally feel that Traditional art is the best thing ever. There is something about a pencil and paper that just feels right, and I personally prefer it to the " I want to color this art, but that will take an extra 3 layers of crap. I feel that there is too much technical stuff involved in Digital Art. But I do it anyway because unfortunatly traditional art is dying out slowly.



I think each form has its own difficulties. 

Pencils are easier to pick up and draw with . But colouring with pencils is hard if you want things to look very good. 
You need a very good control on the level of pressure and the way to glide the pencil on the paper so that it doesn't look god-awful.

A tablet is harder to work with because you need to get used to synchronising your hand and what you see on the screen in front of you,
but once past that stage of getting used to it , it's much easier (depending on what programs you use) to neatly colour a drawing.

However it's much harder to get rid of the artificial look of computer generated images , takes a LOT of work.
Texture are MUCH easier to simulate with traditional media. Though I personally feel that paint in all shapes and form is my personal enemy 

Also with a tablet comes the lack of friction that you get with real paper or canvases. 
But at least , you are freed from accidental spills and messes that comes with traditional media.

I guess in the end it all comes down to preference.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Jan 17, 2012)

I had once brought this up long ago as well. But was asking a bit more about the buyer markets for digital/traditional and what buyers look for and feel, which makes digital so much more prevalent. But yes, as previously said from others, this issue pops up every so often. 

Majorly a traditional artist myself, with a few dabbles in digital (Luckily own a tablet) I do mostly just line work and the very rare digital piece or coloring. But as far as what I actually sell is traditional stuff. Somehow Digital takes me even longer than traditional, even though they _say_ digital is faster. 

But don't be discouraged, I was almost discouraged myself being a traditional artist, but over time I have gotten more of a following and increasing buyers. Even have a couple regulars now. Just have to keep putting things out and maybe find your own flare or style that stands out. My own niche is pastel on black paper. Not a common style. 

Also, traditional never goes out-dated. It ages much better. Like movies. Practical sets and effects age better than special digital effects that look so fake only a few years later when looking back on.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Jan 17, 2012)

You know you could mix the two, a lot of people do a sketch on paper, scan it, and trace lineart and color over it on the computer
OR physical inking and digital coloring


----------



## clicketyclack (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm a traditional artist myself, and I definitely feel that more people would be interested in my commissions if I did digital work. There are various reasons for this not the least of which that I often work in pencil. To me, it looks pretty good but pencil work is never going to "pop" on a computer screen, even if I shade it and what have you. I think everyone else is totally right though, it all depends. As for me, I'm just going to keep drawing and offering commissions and eventually I may build up a base of people who want to buy them. Others have in the past so I don't think it's an impossible dream. I refuse to go digital. I play with digital art occasionally but I don't like it and I doubt I will ever switch over. It's just not personal enough for me. I want to touch my art and feel that everything I did with it was with my own hands. I don't have an undo button, if I screw up I have to be clever about how I fix it. It's a challenge that I enjoy. (Which is not to say that it's "easier" to do digital, but man oh man an undo button would be nice sometimes)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 18, 2012)

clicketyclack said:


> I'm a traditional artist myself, and I definitely feel that more people would be interested in my commissions if I did digital work. There are various reasons for this not the least of which that I often work in pencil. To me, it looks pretty good but pencil work is never going to "pop" on a computer screen, even if I shade it and what have you.



You're right. This is bland...






http://www.webdesignburn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pencil_drawing_sketch_art_30.jpg

So are these





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3189599895_893faf1f12.jpg





http://www.audrey-kawasaki.com/paintings/handcut20.jpg





http://www.jamesjean.com/sketch_images/A03B55_thumb.JPG





http://www.linesandcolors.com/images/2005-12/lockwood_450.jpg


I guess people wanna see art with cheap filters more than just...good art. The only advantages digital art has are the following:
Discretion - because there are people who want some messed up stuff or naughty stuff they can stash
"Quickness" if the person can't scan the original the person has to wait for it to be mailed

Otherwise I honestly find it really doesn't matter. There is as much bad digital art as there is bad traditional art from people who don't know what they're doing but enter the community as a quick buck. They like to quickly blame other things than realizing "hey buddy, you're just not THAT good yet"


----------



## clicketyclack (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that no one can get pencil work to look good on a computer, just that when you put pencil work next to full-color digital it often gets lost in the shuffle. (And that I personally haven't really worked it out yet. I could have sworn that I typed that, but apparently I just thought about it and didn't actually write it.) I'm not saying that the art is "bland" just that bright colors catch the eye.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 18, 2012)

Sorry, but I'll gravitate to a well done picture, not a horrible one no matter what media.

If the pencil drawing is better than the digital, I look at that first. Just because our eyes may see the color first doesn't mean it's something I'll end up clicking on first.

On another note, I'm removing the prefix. If you're not going to provide sketches for a "Sketchbook" thread do not use this prefix.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 19, 2012)

clicketyclack said:


> I'm a traditional artist myself, and I definitely feel that more people would be interested in my commissions if I did digital work. There are various reasons for this not the least of which that I often work in pencil. To me, it looks pretty good but pencil work is never going to "pop" on a computer screen, even if I shade it and what have you. I think everyone else is totally right though, it all depends. As for me, I'm just going to keep drawing and offering commissions and eventually I may build up a base of people who want to buy them. Others have in the past so I don't think it's an impossible dream. I refuse to go digital. I play with digital art occasionally but I don't like it and I doubt I will ever switch over. It's just not personal enough for me. I want to touch my art and feel that everything I did with it was with my own hands. I don't have an undo button, if I screw up I have to be clever about how I fix it. It's a challenge that I enjoy. (Which is not to say that it's "easier" to do digital, but man oh man an undo button would be nice sometimes)



You have no idea what you're talking about there... -_-;;

Unless by pop you mean "eyebleed inducing fluorescent colours" , then yes , it's easier to do these by computer. Doesn't make it better in any way though.

And while a super colourful My little pony rainbow coloured extravaganza might be easier to catch the eye next to , lessay , a Van Gogh painting , it's hard to argue the Van Gogh is less interesting.

And by the way , an artist in general should experiment , by WILLINGLY refusing to TRY digital work you're being ridiculous and immature. Or in other words , you're being a hipster.


----------



## Abbi Normal (Jan 26, 2012)

I use ink and watercolours because I don't know how to tablet. I don't think I've even seen one before, and certainly couldn't afford one. I would if I could, for sure.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 27, 2012)

Abbi Normal said:


> I use ink and watercolours because I don't know how to tablet. I don't think I've even seen one before, and certainly couldn't afford one. I would if I could, for sure.



you can get a bamboo for 60 bucks. They're really not that expensive


----------

