Swipe File - Justice League Dark And Deviant Art (UPDATE)

[Russell Fox]

Because "can't draw it from your imagination" and "can draw it better if you have reference material" are two different things?

Seriously?

It's downright lazy is what it is.
And again, if you can't draw that from imagination, you're in the wrong industry.

[Emperor]

I looks at best vaguely similar.

It really is very similar.

While the artist probably just found it in a google search, it doesn't excuse the photoshop-filter job.

It isn't a simple Photoshop filter job, the image has been reworked and simplified.

To adress both points here is a quick trim of the original photo and an overlay (I didn't really do much to get them to match, just got them to a similarish size and moved the top one around a bit). I also I can't quite work out how to do animated gifs with Gimpshop so here is just a set of stills with different opacities (the comic is the top layer):

50% opacity:



65%:



85%:

[The Zug]

I looks at best vaguely similar.

Look at the branch that bows over the road. Then look at the one to the left of it that forks. That's not vaguely similar. That's an exact match.

[mikeljanin]

Yes, obviously I used this photograph as reference for the image. As you can easily see it's not the same image filtered as someone said, but I admit it was the main source in this drawing. I didn't find it in Deviant Art but in a wallpaper stock image site, and I really thought this image was copyright free. (Dark Forrest Road wallpaper from Dark wallpapers personally think that using photographs for reference it's always ok, using your own photographs, stock images or similar. When I need a photograph for reference I buy it or I download it from a free copyright site, or ask permission to the author of the image. I'm sorry I didn't seek enough to find the person who did this one. The debate about referencing in art is old and don't want to start one here. Someone so big and respected in the industry like Stuart Immonen explained something about it way better than I could do. (Stuart Immonen on Computers and Art | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources) Thanks to Bleeding Cool I've found the photographer, so I'm going to write him to clarify this. My sincere apologies to the photographer, and to anyone who can feel cheated by the use of an image as reference.
Best regards,

Mikel Janín

[mikeljanin]

Oops, looks like the link to the wallpapers site don't work here, but type this in your browser to check it: "dark(dot)pozadia(dot)org/wallpaper/Dark-Forrest-Road/"

[Mark Seifert]

Thanks to Bleeding Cool I've found the photographer, so I'm going to write him to clarify this. My sincere apologies to the photographer, and to anyone who can feel cheated by the use of an image as reference.
Best regards,

Mikel Janín

Good to hear. And thanks for your candid reply on the situation.

[Joe Kalicki]

Look at the branch that bows over the road. Then look at the one to the left of it that forks. That's not vaguely similar. That's an exact match.

I didn't say it didn't look like it at all, but I think it was changed enough to attain "vaguely similar" status to my eyes.

[Emperor]

My sincere apologies to the photographer, and to anyone who can feel cheated by the use of an image as reference.

I don't think anyone should feel cheated from the use of reference material, in fact I think some people's work would benefit from it (especially, with human anatomy) and, despite what people think, the swipe file feature isn't an accusation of judgement on the use of the material. I think the key is in using appropriate reference material well to create a better image than would be possible otherwise - so tracing from porn never seems a good idea

Good article by Stuart Immonen. A friend of mine has also shown how he uses reference photos and 3D models:

Never finished only abandoned: The bad guys are coming!
Never finished only abandoned: Ghost in the Machine.

[Dave Wallace]

I didn't say it didn't look like it at all, but I think it was changed enough to attain "vaguely similar" status to my eyes.

Well, the point is moot now that we have an explanation from the horse's mouth.

[Joe Kalicki]

Well, the point is moot now that we have an explanation from the horse's mouth.

Quite so, just a clarification.