RE: Fishin With Ma | Digital Painting by AJ Brockman
Quite the swift backlash there. I just want to throw my two cents in as a digital painter to say that @abrockman is correct that using photo reference is indeed very common. Just about all art is using photo reference in one way or another.
As someone who's been following @abrockman for a while now I assumed people knew that the images he used to show the paintings on a wall were Photoshopped, as this is also common to show what the pictures will look like in the context of an environment. It would be easy to find royalty free pictures of rooms to do this.
So if that's what you were upset about I'd say there's nothing to see here.
BUT...
I have to ask, are you using Studio Artist at any point in your process @abrockman?
https://synthetik.com/auto-assisted-manual-painting-feature/
I have to admit when I first saw your work about a month ago I immediately assumed you were using SA because it has a certain "look" to it. For those that don't know Studio Artist is a piece of software that allows for Artificial Intelligence assisted painting. It is not a one click solution or a filter, it's much more sophisticated than that, but it's not the same thing as hand painting and drawing either.
When I watched your video process I was further convinced that it was a part of your workflow because when the paintings of details parts show up, we don't see any of the painter interface and the way the paint appears is exactly how Studio Artist looks as it's auto-painting. So from that I assumed your workflow in reality looks more like
- Block out the idea in Painter
- Gather all photos and run them through either auto or assisted painter in SA
- Comp the elements together in Photoshop to get lighting and values correct
- Painter for further combining and unifying the elements
So to be honest, I have no beef with this process IF it's what you're doing. It would still be a lot of work and not easy by any stretch. It still requires the initial concept, the composition, you still need to apply color and value understanding to get everything to be unified. As far as my personal opinion goes, it's a legit approach. It's similar to the techniques used by a lot of matte painters and concept artists simply with a different output intention.
I guess the only problem would be you not being upfront about the process. I'd like anyone reading this to also know that this is pure speculation, I don't have any proof that this is what @abrockman is doing, just what it looks like from my perspective.
I'm not particularly fond of internet witch hunts and if I've added to this one I apologize, that wasn't my intention. Mostly to inform people so they can gauge this level headedly. If @abrockman is painting everything manually by hand, great! If not, a slight frown for being misleading, but not worth a crucifixion IMHO.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Being honest isn't a form of witch hunting. People do not deserve to be mislead. I felt misled, explained why and that's that. Nothing more. When we look at the post; how it's worded, the structure, visuals; then compare that to what we've pointed out in our comments; look how much information was left out. It's misleading, there's no way around that.
Every artist, no matter how they produce their work, has a place here. There's no need to mislead people. Every artist here can and will eventually find their viewers and there's nothing wrong with being upfront, open and honest. That's actually the best approach... to anything.
Hello @midlet, I really appreciate you adding to the discussion. Especially someone knowledgeable in the field and how these processes come to life. To answer some of your questions :
I too was under the impression everyone assumed my mockups of the painting on the wall was Photoshop. I never claimed that that was digitally painted (doesn't even make sense) and again is a widely common practice as long as you are using royalty-free images or images you have bought the rights to (All of which I have done).
I DO NOT use Studio Artist or any filter/automation for that matter. I take the exact process those programs apply and do them on my own. By doing that, I feel like it demonstrates my commitment and allows me to get as detailed as I do. Even the best-automated programs cannot accomplish a certain amount of fine detail from what I have found. The reason my video appears the way it does is because it takes me 60+ hours per painting and I have had to Record that process separately, at a high rate of speed, To be able to demonstrate what the process looks like. I have gone the extra mile in creating these tutorials because I know it can come across as confusing, even to people that are knowledgeable on the process.
Like you said, it is a similar process to What concept artists do and you are 100% correct in all of your other assumptions. I just apply it to the fine art world because of my physical limitations as anyone can find out by actually doing some research into who I am. My resume includes many accolades including creating a family portrait for president Obama. I'm not going to let the Internet drama get to me, I know that this work is not plagiarized and my own, I have done nothing wrong here but I will take whatever is being thrown at me.
Appreciate your time and look forward to chatting more.
This should not be written off as "internet drama." Like it or not, and regardless of your credentials, there's no reason to look down on us.
There were a few problems, questions and concerns. All of this can be remedied, I'm sure. It's only a few downvotes. I've been flagged before, I'm still here. It's not the end of the world, man. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide it.
I had a look at a few of your other posts and I found many similar instances of the same thing that made me feel misled here while attempting to enjoy this post.
You're using the 'photography' tag. Where's the photo? If you're talking about that image with the art on the wall, technically, that's not a photo. It's an edited photo that should come with a source so people know the art doesn't exist on that wall. Nearly every post of yours comes with an image of the art hanging on a wall and I found many instances where you edited the photo and placed your digital image on a photograph of a wall. The elevator, the three fish with a plant beside, nearly everything I checked was an edited photo and you did not mention how the art doesn't actually exist on those walls, nor did you offer sources for the photo, and that is standard procedure here on Steemit.
Also, this line again:
That's not accurate. I found many instances online where your work exists. It is not exclusive to Steemit. That line makes me feel misled after finding this out.
All of this can be remedied and you should be able to carry on. There's no reason to pretend these issues don't exist and act like you've done nothing wrong. We all make mistakes, you're still learning here, and that's fine.
Please consider taking a different approach, following standard procedures, and making things clear to your followers.
That's all. Have a nice day.
Being a painter myself I had a sketchy (no pun intended) feeling from day one with the paintings by him. My eyes are well trained I would say and Brockmans pictures always gave away a feeling of PS filters. They are too perfect, too electronic. Either it's his style that he accomplished or an actual filter application. In the video tutorial it also looks like scaling down on an effect rather than painting the actual thing.
But I am open to be wrong. Time will tell I guess.
Hi there. They're calling the photo I found a reference photo. Have you compared the photo and the "digital painting"? Would a reference photo be a precise match in your opinion? I've seen how other artists work, especially on this platform. Usually their reference photos are similar but never identical. I'm seeing a blurry version of the photo I found here. Even the smallest detail seems to be there but blurred. What are you seeing?
I watched the process video, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same process was used in this image here.
Yeah, I have noticed that too that every shadow and light area shape is exactly the same as in the 'reference'.
Like I said his 'paintings' always gave away a photo feeling (which I am convinced they are). Browsing through his gallery on his website, it looks like a photo slide show and some are merely a crop job.
What made me doubt is the sheer influence he has had over the years even to the point where he 'did a painting' for the president and no one pointed out this fakery up until that point. That just creates cognitive dissonance in me as I can hardly believe in a scam up such a scope and magnitude. Would a really 'differently abled' person go to such lengths and sell photos as paintings tying the creation process to a heartfelt story of hard work with one finger? Cause that's what we are ultimately looking at, are we not, if this is true? This reality is hard to process and sad for me. It's that supposed massive lie behind that made me give him the benefit of doubt.
I really don't know what to say at this point. My issue was with this post and this post only. I'll admit, finding that photograph of the river was quite the shock after how this post was originally presented. Noticing the striking similarities had to be brought up and I followed standard procedures. I had no idea this would lead to so many more unanswered questions. I think I'll just leave it at that.
Probably not a bad idea to leave it there. Things will be dealt with...