@sara-glennon That's an interesting thought. I've started dabbling with more watercolor recently and there's a lot of room for happy accidents there. I kind of like that you're not absolutely in control and that not everything is in some manner of speaking mathematically determined or some kind of simulation of another thing.
@andy-gray I think if I were doing client work I'd definitely lean towards digital because like you mentioned, it's a lot faster. For personal projects though, I'm increasingly inclined towards physical. I love digital for concept work and the like, and possibly for some coloring, but I think there's a philosophical dimension to this for me where the accumulation of abstractions from reality just gets to be too much. And I'm speaking more broadly than just art here. I just find myself wanting things more grounded in human imperfection.
@smceccarelli When you talk about mediums being "better" doesn't that somewhat depend on your objectives? I'm not talking about the most exemplary results achieved by any given medium, I'm talking about the personal artistic journey of the individual artist. Meaning of course that there's going to be variation.
You may operate the same with digital as you do physical for instance, but I struggle to do that. The work that I do traditionally reinforces for me habits which digital has not inclined me towards. I wonder if your background as an oil painter helped develop those habits in you in a way that might have been otherwise if your progression had taken a different path. Is that an unreasonable observation?
@marsha-kay-ottum-owen That makes a lot of sense. I'm with you that I really like the "human" look. I look at Miyazaki's watercolors for example and it's difficult finding a digital equivalent that strikes me in quite the same way. Like I mentioned in another post though, if I was doing client work, I'd lean heavily towards digital too.
@jazeps-tenis At the art school I attended (AAU in SF) they insisted on working traditionally for at least 6 semester before allowing you to touch digital tools. Even later, I had teachers who only allowed you to work digitally if you demonstrated that you could work traditionally - so they would allow digital on a case-by-case basis and only after the first 6-8 assignments. So you may have a point there. Yet, there are digital artists who have never worked traditionally and make fantastic work nonetheless - so I would not say that it is absolutely necessary.
As for “better”, I do not think you can compare mediums in any way based on these terms. I meet many artists who thing they “have to” move to digital. That is like saying that you “have to” do watercolor - it does not make any sense. If you like working traditionally and you feel more growth and accomplishment in that, there is no pressure whatsoever to do otherwise. The only element I have to say is a real pain in the neck with traditional work is the digitalization step (that is by today standards unavoidable if you work for clients). Probably 50% of the reason I moved to digital is to get out of the pain of scanning, photographic or otherwise digitalizing analog work - it is a constant struggle. Thinking of having to do that and have a sharp deadline for delivery in my back is reason enough to kill all impulse to go back to traditional media....
@smceccarelli That does make a lot of sense. I've never done paid work, so I don't know anything about the practicalities or digitizing and dealing with tight deadlines and what not. I'm not sure that I'd want to deal with that either.
At any rate, I've been working exclusively traditional for all of Inktober so far and for me at least, it seems to be helping. I'm definitely more focused on my work which I know is more a function of personal discipline rather than anything inherent in the medium, but it seems to be just what I needed at this point in my development as an artist.
I’ve just realised I’ve reached an interesting point. I need a new computer and monitor. New computer is easy....it has to crunch big numbers. Sometimes I’m designing and the other day I actually got lag...couldn’t believe it. And for refs I’m starting to create and use 3D much more. But I was also deciding new graphics tablet and colour accurate monitor. All software has moved to viewing best widescreen, so my current monitor Wacom pairing is getting tricky. So I kinda decided to go for the cintiq. But recent commissions are solidly in the real world and there’s no way of going digital (coloured pencil.....and you thought watercolour was hard to match!). So trying to decide if the extra £750 on a cintiq rather than tablet and monitor combo is worth it for me...
@andyg Yeah, digital can be pretty pricey to keep up with. Even if the hardware lasts beyond the usual 5-7 years, the software moves on. I started with a 13" inch Cintiq but I never liked it very much on account of a weird aspect ratio and parallax mainly. I sold it to get an iPad Pro 12.9". Procreate keeps getting better with each update and I prefer it to Photoshop because of the more intuitive interface, but I'm not a working artist either.
If you're considering one of the larger Cintiqs though, you might want to hold off just a bit if you can. They announced the new 4K ones in August or September and I think they're going to be available early next year.
@jazeps-tenis full size cintiqs are hella expensive and even as a working artist its hard to justify. i had one for several years and then sold it in favour of a surface which i have loved ever since. im not saying cintiqs arent good just very pricey when there are comparable hardware options for less.
would i ever consider getting one again? sure. the 4k option is kinda cool but seems kinda fad like haha
Yeah, they definitely are! Even if I could afford one, I'm not sure if I'd go for it. Then again, I'm all about the traditional art lately, so I need a nice scanner more than I need a big Cintiq. At least those are only hundreds instead of thousands.
The Surface looks great. I'd definitely consider that in the future, but it depends on what I'm doing.