I've been fighting moving over to some digital creation with part of the problem not being able to get used to the slick iPad pro cover and the Apple Pencil basically sliding over the screen.

I've tried a number of screen protectors but they were all just as slick.

After a number of months I finally found a screen protector that has a little bit of tooth to it, not quite pencil on paper feel but pretty close.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016B12TSW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For $10 (2-pack) it may be worth a try for anyone that does not like the slick drawing surface.

@Jake-Parker

I appreciate the critique a great deal! Also, no problem with the "tough-love". A creative person is laying everything out there and has to accept the feedback given.

Since none were available commercially I created a set of Prismacolor pencil swatch color libraries for Procreate on iPad.

These are based on pencil rubbings of each color and converted to RGB. Unfortunately, there is no way to label the specific swatch with the pencil #.

There were a number of colors that simply do not exist in the RGB color gamut and are therefore unable to be reproduce. In total there are 137 pencil colors (I believe. I might be off a couple).

If you have a need for these you can download them from here

Download Here

I’ll keep the link active for as long as I can.

Also, for a project that size a kill fee would not be unheard of.

Buy a copy of the society of Illustrators Pricing Guidelines. That will give you pointers on what limitations are on the pricing (number of proofs, changes requested, ownership of original artwork, rights purchased, etc).

Here is a link for the book

https://www.amazon.com/Artists-Guild-Graphic/e/B07MFZLN9N?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1559575607&sr=1-1

First Day of School

@Matt-Soson Why hide that you are looking for free work? That should have been spelled out in the original post. What's next, telling artists their work for you would make great portfolio pieces?

Artists deserve to be paid for their work and if "donations" are being asked for it should be spelled out and upfront otherwise it is disingenuous at best.

The

@Ben-Migliore said in How to draw everyday:

Dose anyone here have any advice on what to do now? How do you draw everyday? What do you do to improve?

The way you draw every day is to simply grab your pencil and draw. If you don;t know what to draw simply start moving the pencil around and see what happens.

A while ago I realized I had become lazy and had not been drawing much at all. I set a goal of 100 days of drawing every day. Then it became 200, a year, two years. I made it to 1987 days in a row and then ended up in the hospital where I couldn't draw for a week! It crushed me because I really wanted to get to 2000 days in a row.

Since then I have taken a small break and will resume starting from Day 1 on April 1st.

You get better at anything by doing it over and over.

Don't do work on spec or for hire. If you see those terms, run.

Do not give up all rights to your work. Sell first publication rights.

Require cover credit for the artwork.

Retain the copyright.

Good work demands good pay.

Put the website up - having a low number of pieces initially is of benefit. It allows you to build the website the way you wish right from the start without having to juggle dozens of image files. Content and image management done incorrectly can be overwhelming.

Get the foundation of what you want in a website correct from the start will save you hours of work later one.

Years ago when I was creating a lot of work for a publishing company it was specified that I had to include x number whites, x number black, x number asian, etc. It was so ridiculous that they even specified hair and eye color for the various characters. My belief then (and now) if that is what the client wants it is my job to deliver it and deliver it to the best of my abilities since that is what I was hired for.

That's a different perspective from the "Own Voices" idea. Own Voices is simply a form of racism and bigotry as it segregates, separates and compartmentalize people (the artists) by race. While popular with "educators" it is wrong for the real world.

If a person is a good artist (written or drawn) their audience will recognize a white person. They will recognize a black person and they will recognize an asian, a hispanic, etc, etc, etc.

The same goes for authors. Guess what, Rowlings was never a 10 year old boy wizard yet she wrote Harry Potter. Twain was not a black slave yet "Jim" from Huck Finn is a well rounded and believable character that is from the best piece of American fiction that was ever written

What I tell my kids when they are confronted with this in school is to substitute "white or caucasian" with whatever other race you are being told and if the person telling you would have a problem with the statement using white, it is racist.

You can agree or disagree and I am fine with that.

Quality art (written or drawn) is simply quality art. It does not matter what color the person who created it is and for that to matter and make a difference is bigoted.

The blog post is a bit technical - but - if you have a Wacom, it may be worth reading if for no other reason than to turn this off.

Wacom reporting user data

Since none were available commercially I created a set of Prismacolor pencil swatch color libraries for Procreate on iPad.

These are based on pencil rubbings of each color and converted to RGB. Unfortunately, there is no way to label the specific swatch with the pencil #.

There were a number of colors that simply do not exist in the RGB color gamut and are therefore unable to be reproduce. In total there are 137 pencil colors (I believe. I might be off a couple).

If you have a need for these you can download them from here

Download Here

I’ll keep the link active for as long as I can.

By the numbers shown for 2015 & 2018, whites are vastly under represented. If an artist or AD is calling for more accurate diversity, are they really?

@Coreyartus

I don't have a side in this as I have never participated in Inktober. You may not like what I am saying and I am not trying to dump on Jake nor trying to have a flame war. But let's not be naive either. Some here will jump to defend Jake because they are his students.

Were artists encouraged to use the logo and phrase for a decade or so prior to registering the trademark? That is simply a yes or a no answer. I'm not saying it was wrong to do so or wrong to register the trademark. However, once you set something loose and encourage it's use with no oversight and then try and enforce legalities/rules/etc., you are going to get hammered.

If someone had an extra $600 or so laying around, they can trademark slowvember and find a use to trademark Inktober in another classification.

@Aleksey said in Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker:

Jake Parker wanting to make an extra profit from a property he created that he didn’t expect would grow into something so gigantic, is totally 100% valid.

We all DREAM of creating an idea that would get so huge.

People being upset that something that’s been free to use, had no guidelines, and open for everyone (including the official logo) in order to help them make extra cash no longer is and must be altered in order to fit certain rules, also very valid. I’m of the opinion that People are allowed to be upset about a change that’s affecting their ability to sell certain things.

Could there have been some preliminary work done to let the public know of these changes, sure. Did Jake expect this mess would happen? Probably not. I respect Jake for taking the time to apologize and do PR to make sure his own brand can stay marketable and other artists can still sell their art.

You can't blame anyone for wanting to make a buck. My position is the trademark could have been contested as being in the public domain on the grounds that the term was encouraged and allowed to be used freely for a decade without any claim or enforcement of rights.

To happily and willingly give something away and then claiming after 10 years that you own it and in fact are taking it back under threat of penalty in order to now cash in simply does not speak well of a person. I don't know Jake, I don't participate in inktober. But I find the situation fascinating since I honestly don't see how this trademark was approved.

If what I'm reading is true (and again, I don't know the details), Jake copyrighted "Inktober" as a word. His intentions on his blog make it appear that he's only interested in protecting the logo for the sponsors. But since there are lawyers involved, they may be interpreting it literally and now they're sinking their teeth into everything they get their hands on.

Copyright and trademark are vastly different things.

Another entity CAN trademark "Inktober" in addition to Jake but they can't use it in the same classification category as Jake (and of course it would have to valid and be accepted).

A trademark has to be actively enforced in order to remain valid and that will mean people being served C&D letters.

While I feel bad for the blowback Jake is receiving, he brought it on himself. When inktober was something newer, the term was thrown about and used freely. People were encouraged to use the "official" logo on their work. I dont ever remember seeing a trademark bug on it.

The term began use in 2009 and the registration not filed until 2017. It could be argued that the trademark should have been refused due to the encouragement of free use and generic application of the term.

I doubt this is to protect the term from being used by "racists" (do artists really want to start being offended by art they disagree with?) but has everything to do with cashing in.

Who is going to trademark "slowvember"?

This will not go well for Jake. Once it reaches the frenzied and reactionary twitterverse, it does it matter what's factual or not. Whatever book he will be selling in the near future will have its sales harmed incredibly.

If I remember at one time artists were encouraged to use the logo with their work, in Jake's statement it is now reserved for "sponsors".

My standard reply is "I would be happy to illustrate your project. It will be $xxxx total with 1/3 due up front, 1/3 at proof acceptance, balance upon delivery of final art. additionally there is $xx percent of sales, $xxx kill fee and I would like $xxxx advance. The rights you are purchasing are XYZ.

I never hear from them again.

There is always someone who is wanting to have an artist work for free.

This is simply a self-publisher using an app instead of a printer. I always ask myself "why did they ask me?", is my work so amazing or unique that is would make the project stand out or am I the next one he came across as he tries to find anyone?

if he is looking to create a AR app, He should have a development app that you can see.

It comes down to are you willing to do a great amount of work for no return? That's your decision. If you do decide to pursue this make sure you have a contract that spells out the reproduction rights, ownership if the project actually happens but also if half way through it is killed.