On tracing
Feb. 1st, 2009 02:57 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
jazaaboo.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
artists_bewareHey all. I occasionally read this community, but only recently decided to join. Hopefully I'm doing this correctly.
This particular post is about a specific artist who is very prone to tracing. I actually held off on saying anything about this, so some of the images in question have been taken down from their original hosts, but I did save some screenshots. The reason I bring it up now is that she still traces.
Naryu/Narumi has been known for her vector work lately. However, if you check on her archive, you'll see that her vector characters have much more structure and stability than her other work. The reason for this became readily apparent to me about a year ago.
She posted this image and talked about how proud she was of it, but two people (including me) pointed out that she traced a photo.
She responded by deleting/hiding the post and complaining about "snark" on her journal. However, up until very recently, she was selling this traced artwork on Artspots and DeviantArt. She was told that this was wrong, yet she did it anyway.
Now, by that point she had already been doing this for some time,. However, she is still doing this, as evidenced here. Please note the general shape of the mouth, the placement of the eye, and the contour of the farthest cheek ruff. Yes, the shapes are a tad off, but the reason for this is that this higher-resolution photo was found through searching for "coyote snarl" on Google image search. Searching for "wolf snarl" (as she did) pulls up a blurrier, smaller version of the image that when traced, produces the aforementioned result.
When she does not completely copy a photo, she will mostly trace it and change a few details, but will still try to pass it off as entirely her own work if she can. For example, note the similarities between this image and one of the first images found when you search for "Japanese crane." I see that only now does her DevArt description say "refs used," but this was only after someone called her on it. Had they not done so, she would have once again tried to claim this work as her own.
When she is not tracing, she will very heavily lift from other artists, as seen here. Please note the general shape of the ears and mouth, the cheek ruffs, the eyebrows, and antlers. Also please note the small lines she put onto the orb in an attempt to mimic the smoke inside the original artist's orb. The most telling detail is the arm; in the original artwork, the dragon's body is partially obscured by clouds, and without this information, she seemed uncertain as to where and how the arm of her dragon should attach to the body.
And a relatively minor quibble, but part of the description for her Earth Rat is directly copy-pasted from here. Again, she makes no mention of this, preferring that people assume she wrote it herself.
Various individuals have confronted her about this. However, she always responds with extreme hostility and takes it very personally. She seems to think there is nothing wrong with what she's doing.
In short, I would reccommend not buying from her. She doesn't see a problem with her actions, and as such buying from her could very well get you some traced/lifted work from something she found on Google. I actually feel kind of bad about bringing this up, but I feel that it needs to be said.
This particular post is about a specific artist who is very prone to tracing. I actually held off on saying anything about this, so some of the images in question have been taken down from their original hosts, but I did save some screenshots. The reason I bring it up now is that she still traces.
Naryu/Narumi has been known for her vector work lately. However, if you check on her archive, you'll see that her vector characters have much more structure and stability than her other work. The reason for this became readily apparent to me about a year ago.
She posted this image and talked about how proud she was of it, but two people (including me) pointed out that she traced a photo.
She responded by deleting/hiding the post and complaining about "snark" on her journal. However, up until very recently, she was selling this traced artwork on Artspots and DeviantArt. She was told that this was wrong, yet she did it anyway.
Now, by that point she had already been doing this for some time,. However, she is still doing this, as evidenced here. Please note the general shape of the mouth, the placement of the eye, and the contour of the farthest cheek ruff. Yes, the shapes are a tad off, but the reason for this is that this higher-resolution photo was found through searching for "coyote snarl" on Google image search. Searching for "wolf snarl" (as she did) pulls up a blurrier, smaller version of the image that when traced, produces the aforementioned result.
When she does not completely copy a photo, she will mostly trace it and change a few details, but will still try to pass it off as entirely her own work if she can. For example, note the similarities between this image and one of the first images found when you search for "Japanese crane." I see that only now does her DevArt description say "refs used," but this was only after someone called her on it. Had they not done so, she would have once again tried to claim this work as her own.
When she is not tracing, she will very heavily lift from other artists, as seen here. Please note the general shape of the ears and mouth, the cheek ruffs, the eyebrows, and antlers. Also please note the small lines she put onto the orb in an attempt to mimic the smoke inside the original artist's orb. The most telling detail is the arm; in the original artwork, the dragon's body is partially obscured by clouds, and without this information, she seemed uncertain as to where and how the arm of her dragon should attach to the body.
And a relatively minor quibble, but part of the description for her Earth Rat is directly copy-pasted from here. Again, she makes no mention of this, preferring that people assume she wrote it herself.
Various individuals have confronted her about this. However, she always responds with extreme hostility and takes it very personally. She seems to think there is nothing wrong with what she's doing.
In short, I would reccommend not buying from her. She doesn't see a problem with her actions, and as such buying from her could very well get you some traced/lifted work from something she found on Google. I actually feel kind of bad about bringing this up, but I feel that it needs to be said.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 11:41 pm (UTC)The lovebirds, it's pretty obvious it's photoreferenced from that particular image. bit cheeky I guess not crediting, but ALL wildlife illustrators use photos, it's how you, well, know what the animal looks like. And it's rare to see a photograph credit with a print or pro piece. I suppose they could have taken the picture themselves or used public domain stuff, but very few people are capable of drawing highly realistic animals entirely from memory.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 11:50 pm (UTC)I'm not taking sides here, but they are two very different things.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:06 am (UTC)But yes, completely agree with you. This kind of thing is wholly unacceptable when the artist claims full credit for the image. People would still like it visually if they said they were painting over photos, but then that wouldn't get the same fanboy/girling reaction I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:12 am (UTC)In any case, many MANY artists DO work from a single photo, or at least take large segments (such as the entire head-chest region) from one photo.
LOOK HERE:
http://www.onlineartdemos.co.uk/misc_images/on-easel/african-lion-final.jpg
professional wildlife artist. AWARD WINNING professional wildlife artist who is a member of fine arts organisations. Public setting. Not hiding anything. COPYING A PHOTO. One photo. not several, not "lifting elements", not learning anatomy, making a picture of a buffalo from a photo of a buffalo. One photo, one painting which is in the same pose as the photo with the same details as the photo.
IT IS NOT CHEATING TO COPY A PHOTO.
Now, the pic in the OP is a copying of a photo. No problem. I assume the artist did not take the photo or was not given it by the owner, which IS a problem, and lack of credit is the ONLY thing we should be discussing here. but DAMN I'm sick of people on here crying foul just because a person uses a photo to draw an animal.
you *cannot* hold a wildlife artist to unrealistic standards; a landscape, portrait or still life painter has the subject right in front of them, and draws what they see. For animals, you can't do that without killing and stuffing them, so people have to do the next best thing, working from photos. If I could get a bison to stand still for 14 hours in my studio, I'd paint from life. Short of that, to make the best picture, I will use a photo (ONE photo, not elements, not "learning anatomy") and I will not be ashamed of it. I will not trace it but damned if I won't use it.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:21 am (UTC)O_o;
Or.. I dunno, live studies? I'd hate to have to kill one of my pets before I can draw him/her!!
Like sono_cat said, the proper way to do it is to use several photos and go from there, not copy a photo unless they own the copyright to it or reimburse the photographer for the rights. I imagine that's what the guy you linked to is doing. He even mentions on his index that he goes on safaris and takes photos, so he apparently has a stock of his own photography to work from.
http://www.onlineartdemos.co.uk/pages/adventures.html
He's not copying from other people's work and selling it off without so much as a "Hey, thanks sucker!" to the photographer who is an artist too.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:22 am (UTC)If you have not forgotten, and were in fact wholly unaware of these facts, then I strongly suggest you brush up on your legal knowledge before you paint another picture or, worse, rant at someone online about what is and what is not 'ok' to do with other people's photos.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:24 am (UTC)I thought it was common knowledge that she did that. She's always been one to take the shortest possible route from point A to point B.
Her skills lie only in photomanips and vector traces. We were discussing why her vector work is passable, and her traditional art is pretty much the same stuff she's been drawing since...well...it's the same stuff.
Along with what a delightful person she is RL... and how ready and willing she is to take advantage of people...I can't say I'm surprised.
(Her fox avatar is also ripped from a video game. The little inari miko from Bloody Roar 3(?) 4(?) with the magatama? Same character.)
I'll agree with the lovebirds, the asuka traces (Check her LJ icons for more if you wanna see...) but the dragon and the coyote not so much...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:25 am (UTC)It's subtle, sure, but I just don't think it's a tracing. No question it's a photo copy from that photo, but I'd put money on it being eyeballed, not traced.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:26 am (UTC)Really, I'm railing more against the idea that frequently crops up here that ANY direct photo use is cheating, and real artists just "make it up". My main point is that the ONLY thing that should be a problem is the copyright issue, and not the fact a photo was used in and of itself.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:28 am (UTC)Guess it's no surprise that she does it with anything if she does it with something that obvious.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:28 am (UTC)"I assume the artist did not take the photo or was not given it by the owner, which IS a problem"
but just using a photo is not a sign of a poor artist.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)Actually...it is.
Unless you're the photographer, or you give the proper credit (Including licensing fees)
How would you feel if I stole one of your images, traced it, and called it my own?
I wouldn't want you doing the same to one of my photos, either, unless I specifically licensed them for that reason. (Such as posebooks or websites)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:38 am (UTC)However, this is the problem with possible art theft; if it's proven that you basically traced a few images, the rest of your body of work becomes suspect. How much more did you copy from photos and just didn't give credit? I for one wouldn't want to compliment someone on something which in essence (composition, lighting etc.) was created by someone else.
I actually quite liked her art, but this sort of thing taints my experiences.
Anyway, off for the night.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:38 am (UTC)I can see where it's more artistic if they go ahead and put in gorgeous colouring or something but when it's just flat vector colours like this I find it hard to consider it art; I'd regard it as more like graphic design perhaps. And as others have said, permissions are a problem, GIS is not a freebie zone. :P
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:40 am (UTC)I have nothing against referencing. I'm three years into art school and two of my direct relatives are artists by profession. I know the value of good reference material. In fact, as I am saying this, i am working on an assignment for tomorrow in which I've referenced in pretty much every panel. But I'm not sitting and drawing exactly what I see.
I found a stock photo of a woman cupping her hands to use as reference a panel I just finished that is supposed to be my own hands holding a keychain. (As my camera is currently broken and I don't have a roommate, it's really hard to photograph my own hands).
I just yesterday returned, 6 months late, a folder of 58 photos to the New York Library Picture Collection that I've had sitting around so I can reference it for my thesis project of bi-planes, sheep, foxes, forests, and deserts. I ended up using at least 20 as reference in the pages I've done.
I needed to reference them because I live in Manhattan. There aren't forests or desert or bi-planes readily accessible to me. I've NEVER had them right in front of me when drawing them. But I had a good 10 photos of each and while I used some as a more direct reference, I looked at all of them to figure out what I needed to know about what I was drawing.
I don't care what you're drawing, be it a living thing, a still life, or a landscape, reference material is always good. But if you're going to sit and just copy photographs then what is the point? If you're not willing to learn about what you're drawing, then why are you drawing it?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:42 am (UTC)But too often on here, the prevailing attitude seems to be "do a direct photo copy = bad artist", with no mention of credit or copyright, or whether they took the photo themselves, or have permission. I'm more railing against that idea in general than this specific case, where it does appear the artist used an image without permission, which I never denied IS a bad thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:42 am (UTC)There's a difference between using it to learn and using it as a crutch. And yes, if you copy a photo directly that you do not take yourself then you are using it as a crutch regardless of the hours you put in it.
A photographer had to spend a lot of money on their equipment, plus their time in setting up a situation that allowed them to get the shot they did, with the correct composition and lighting. How they developed, cropped, and framed the piece is all part of the art. It's bullshit to just take their hard work and copy it in your own medium.
heck this article was posted here recently:
http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/456/visual-plagiarism
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:43 am (UTC)For fucksake. DRAW YOUR OWN GODDAMN SHIT ARTISTS.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:51 am (UTC)The argument normally put through on here though is "copying = bad because it is a photo => you did not make it up => bad artist", with no mention of credit, or who took the photo. Plagirism is a problem. Art from a photo is still art. It's only legal, right and good when you have permission from the photographer.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 12:52 am (UTC)