Drawn

“which means that all the subtle colouring and shading isn’t technically vector art”
finally somebody who says what i am always thinking
its like the new effects in flash 8
that ISNT vector anymore, people- its pixel art

“which means that all the subtle colouring and shading isn’t technically vector art”
finally somebody who says what i am always thinking
its like the new effects in flash 8
that ISNT vector anymore, people- its pixel art

oh btw that doesnt mean that all that art is very very impressive

oh btw that doesnt mean that all that art is very very impressive

Giulia Balladore makes super-realistic vectordrawings for a while. She uses Flash though. Wonderful stuff to see in het pertfolio:

http://www.juniatwork.com/

Giulia Balladore makes super-realistic vectordrawings for a while. She uses Flash though. Wonderful stuff to see in het portfolio:

http://www.juniatwork.com/

Giulia Balladore makes super-realistic vectordrawings for a while. She uses Flash though. Wonderful stuff to see in het pertfolio:

http://www.juniatwork.com/

Giulia Balladore makes super-realistic vectordrawings for a while. She uses Flash though. Wonderful stuff to see in het portfolio:

http://www.juniatwork.com/

What are you basing this on?

If I make a gradient mesh, it remains fully scalable. Vector graphics are created by means of geometry, calculations done by the computer to render an image. This is still perfectly true of gradients.

*There are no pixels used.* Therefore, it is NOT pixel art.

Are you thinking that vector art is a certain style or “look” that artists create? This is not the case…if art is created with vector graphics, it is vector art.

How is a gradient mesh not vector art? it’s still scalable, and able to be manipulated by moving points in the artwork… I understand that it doesn’t hold up in other vector applications, but I don’t understand how it’s not vector.

What are you basing this on?

If I make a gradient mesh, it remains fully scalable. Vector graphics are created by means of geometry, calculations done by the computer to render an image. This is still perfectly true of gradients.

*There are no pixels used.* Therefore, it is NOT pixel art.

Are you thinking that vector art is a certain style or “look” that artists create? This is not the case…if art is created with vector graphics, it is vector art.

How is a gradient mesh not vector art? it’s still scalable, and able to be manipulated by moving points in the artwork… I understand that it doesn’t hold up in other vector applications, but I don’t understand how it’s not vector.

too slow… what john ^ said…

too slow… what john ^ said…

I concur, it’s still vector art.

I concur, it’s still vector art.

You’re right that gradiant meshes are infinitely scalable, but perhaps I’m just a slave to semantics — I feel vectors are the points, lines, and curves, and gradiant meshes are secondary colour effects that fall somewhere in between vector and raster artwork.

You’re right that gradiant meshes are infinitely scalable, but perhaps I’m just a slave to semantics — I feel vectors are the points, lines, and curves, and gradiant meshes are secondary colour effects that fall somewhere in between vector and raster artwork.

So, Johnny, what you’re saying is that if I make a simple rectangle in Adobe illustrator, and fill it with blue, then that is not technically vector art either?

Because the color fill, just like a gradient fill, is not part of the program’s vector calculations, but rather an effect added to the vectors.

So, Johnny, what you’re saying is that if I make a simple rectangle in Adobe illustrator, and fill it with blue, then that is not technically vector art either?

Because the color fill, just like a gradient fill, is not part of the program’s vector calculations, but rather an effect added to the vectors.

it seems like if you are basing your definition on semantics, you would have to include gradient meshes as part of vector art. As john stated above, the gradient meshes are computed using mathmatical calculations, just as lines are created using a mathmatical equation to connect two points. The fact that the math is more complicated doesn’t make it less valid.

it seems like if you are basing your definition on semantics, you would have to include gradient meshes as part of vector art. As john stated above, the gradient meshes are computed using mathmatical calculations, just as lines are created using a mathmatical equation to connect two points. The fact that the math is more complicated doesn’t make it less valid.

I’d think it -closer- to vector art, if it used more blends, or totally disregarded the gradient mesh.

With a wireframe of that complexity underlying the color, you might as well pull it into a 3-d program for rendering. Of course the wireframe here is not 3d, but the work involved is nearly as involved.

I’d think it -closer- to vector art, if it used more blends, or totally disregarded the gradient mesh.

With a wireframe of that complexity underlying the color, you might as well pull it into a 3-d program for rendering. Of course the wireframe here is not 3d, but the work involved is nearly as involved.

wry,
both you and johnny, I think, are still working from the basic understanding that “vector art” is a specific style involving flat colors and shapes. This is not necessarily true.

As Pencrush, stated, vector art is based on mathematical calculations. Gradient meshes, no matter how “un-vector” they might *look*, are vector art.

wry,
both you and johnny, I think, are still working from the basic understanding that “vector art” is a specific style involving flat colors and shapes. This is not necessarily true.

As Pencrush, stated, vector art is based on mathematical calculations. Gradient meshes, no matter how “un-vector” they might *look*, are vector art.

Gradient meshes are just a superior version of the blend tool. Therefore, I say this is vector art.

Gradient meshes are just a superior version of the blend tool. Therefore, I say this is vector art.

Here’s gradient mesh code straight out of illustrator. It’s vector.

/Mesh X!
%_1 /Version X#
%_/Cartesian /Type X#
%_[2 2] /Size X#
%_/Data X#
%_[0 0] /P X#
%_[0] /R X#
%_/DeviceRGB /CS X#
%_[1 1 1 115 148.8433 122.9316 148.8433 1 115 160.5903 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 148.8433 138.7954 160.5903 1 130.8638 148.8433 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 130.8638 184.0845 1 138.7954 172.3374 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 115 184.0845 115 172.3374 1 122.9316 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[0 1] /P X#
%_[0.65] /R X#
%_[1 1 1 115 184.0845 122.9316 184.0845 1 115 190.4097 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 138.7954 190.4097 1 130.8638 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 203.0601 130.8638 203.0601 1 138.7954 196.7349 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 115 203.0601 115 196.7349 1 122.9316 203.0601 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[1 0] /P X#
%_[0.3657] /R X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 148.8433 152.5503 148.8433 1 138.7954 160.5903 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 148.8433 180.0601 160.5903 1 166.3052 148.8433 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 184.0845 166.3052 184.0845 1 180.0601 172.3374 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 138.7954 172.3374 1 152.5503 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[1 1] /P X#
%_[-1] /R X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 152.5503 184.0845 1 138.7954 190.4097 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 184.0845 180.0601 190.4097 1 166.3052 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 203.0601 166.3052 203.0601 1 180.0601 196.7349 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 203.0601 138.7954 196.7349 1 152.5503 203.0601 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
/End X!

Here’s gradient mesh code straight out of illustrator. It’s vector.

/Mesh X!
%_1 /Version X#
%_/Cartesian /Type X#
%_[2 2] /Size X#
%_/Data X#
%_[0 0] /P X#
%_[0] /R X#
%_/DeviceRGB /CS X#
%_[1 1 1 115 148.8433 122.9316 148.8433 1 115 160.5903 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 148.8433 138.7954 160.5903 1 130.8638 148.8433 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 130.8638 184.0845 1 138.7954 172.3374 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 115 184.0845 115 172.3374 1 122.9316 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[0 1] /P X#
%_[0.65] /R X#
%_[1 1 1 115 184.0845 122.9316 184.0845 1 115 190.4097 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 138.7954 190.4097 1 130.8638 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 203.0601 130.8638 203.0601 1 138.7954 196.7349 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 115 203.0601 115 196.7349 1 122.9316 203.0601 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[1 0] /P X#
%_[0.3657] /R X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 148.8433 152.5503 148.8433 1 138.7954 160.5903 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 148.8433 180.0601 160.5903 1 166.3052 148.8433 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 184.0845 166.3052 184.0845 1 180.0601 172.3374 1] /N X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 138.7954 172.3374 1 152.5503 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
%_[1 1] /P X#
%_[-1] /R X#
%_[0.7294 0 0 138.7954 184.0845 152.5503 184.0845 1 138.7954 190.4097 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 184.0845 180.0601 190.4097 1 166.3052 184.0845 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 180.0601 203.0601 166.3052 203.0601 1 180.0601 196.7349 1] /N X#
%_[1 1 1 138.7954 203.0601 138.7954 196.7349 1 152.5503 203.0601 1] /N X#
%_/E X#
/End X!

LOL…talk about semantics…

LOL…talk about semantics…

Either way, who cares. Why not save yourself several painstaking weeks of clicking handles and just take a photograph? I highly doubt the ratio of time spent : reward (whether emotional or economic) is worth it.

Either way, who cares. Why not save yourself several painstaking weeks of clicking handles and just take a photograph? I highly doubt the ratio of time spent : reward (whether emotional or economic) is worth it.

After looking at the other examples it almost looks like they opened a picture in Photoshop and used a healing brush over the the whole thing.

After looking at the other examples it almost looks like they opened a picture in Photoshop and used a healing brush over the the whole thing.

Also you have to think about this in practical terms. Are clients willing to wait that long for their product when it could easily be done as a high-ref document in Photoshop, or, simply, a photograph? This stuff is indeed impressive when it comes to artists flexing their Illustrator muscles, but what is it really good for in the long run?

Regarding gradient meshes: are these artists using textures and gradients (skin tone, color) from other sources; i.e: photoshop, etc.? Clue me in on this argument. I’m curious.

Also you have to think about this in practical terms. Are clients willing to wait that long for their product when it could easily be done as a high-ref document in Photoshop, or, simply, a photograph? This stuff is indeed impressive when it comes to artists flexing their Illustrator muscles, but what is it really good for in the long run?

Regarding gradient meshes: are these artists using textures and gradients (skin tone, color) from other sources; i.e: photoshop, etc.? Clue me in on this argument. I’m curious.

louis:
oh yeah, I agree if you’re talking about the incredible level of detail in the featured illustrations. But there’s some very nice mesh work out there that isn’t photorealistic… check out brooke nunez at http://www.lifeinvector.com,
or the site linked by bjorn above.

louis:
oh yeah, I agree if you’re talking about the incredible level of detail in the featured illustrations. But there’s some very nice mesh work out there that isn’t photorealistic… check out brooke nunez at http://www.lifeinvector.com,
or the site linked by bjorn above.

I agree with the idea that photorealistic vectors are pretty pointless… It seems like a lot of work to basically be able to say, “I did that in illustrator.” However, photorealistic vectors are pretty popular these days, for whatever reason…

@Ward: I don’t claim to know how/why the artists do this, but looking at the outlines, and if they are all gradient meshes, the artist is creating all the shading, textures in illustrator. They aren’t masking a raster image behind a vector overlay. That’s not to say they aren’t using raster images as reference, but I don’t think they’re sampling raster images or incorporating them into the final piece in any way.

I agree with the idea that photorealistic vectors are pretty pointless… It seems like a lot of work to basically be able to say, “I did that in illustrator.” However, photorealistic vectors are pretty popular these days, for whatever reason…

@Ward: I don’t claim to know how/why the artists do this, but looking at the outlines, and if they are all gradient meshes, the artist is creating all the shading, textures in illustrator. They aren’t masking a raster image behind a vector overlay. That’s not to say they aren’t using raster images as reference, but I don’t think they’re sampling raster images or incorporating them into the final piece in any way.

ward,
many mesh artists use photo references for the color–although each of the hundreds or even thousands of points are still assigned manually. Check out the tutorial here to see what i mean:
http://www.lifeinvector.com/index2.html

However, many other artists, myself included, create meshes completely out of their heads. Here’s one of my illustrations as an example:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3597/2284/1600/mad2BLOG1and2.gif

granted, I’ve been really getting into painter and my Wacom lately, but I still have a soft spot fot the ol’ gradient mesh.

ward,
many mesh artists use photo references for the color–although each of the hundreds or even thousands of points are still assigned manually. Check out the tutorial here to see what i mean:
http://www.lifeinvector.com/index2.html

However, many other artists, myself included, create meshes completely out of their heads. Here’s one of my illustrations as an example:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3597/2284/1600/mad2BLOG1and2.gif

granted, I’ve been really getting into painter and my Wacom lately, but I still have a soft spot fot the ol’ gradient mesh.

oops, for that tute you’ve got to click on the “downloads” section and scroll down.

oops, for that tute you’ve got to click on the “downloads” section and scroll down.

It just reminds me of airbrush art from the 1970′s. A bit wanky, a bit juvenile, the kind of thing that will appeal to teenage boys. Technically brilliant but as others have pointed out, what do I get from this that I don’t get from the original photo that this has been slavishly copied from? The fact that all the examples HAVE to be displayed with the outline version alongside highlights the fact that we are only being invited to marvel at the technical skill involved in producing it and nothing else. All in all rather hollow exercise.

It just reminds me of airbrush art from the 1970′s. A bit wanky, a bit juvenile, the kind of thing that will appeal to teenage boys. Technically brilliant but as others have pointed out, what do I get from this that I don’t get from the original photo that this has been slavishly copied from? The fact that all the examples HAVE to be displayed with the outline version alongside highlights the fact that we are only being invited to marvel at the technical skill involved in producing it and nothing else. All in all rather hollow exercise.

I don’t remember how I found the site, but I was just looking at it yesterday (Aug. 8) and I was absolutely jaw-dropping stunned at some of the results. Then again, some of the images do appear to be photos and not drawn even when the keyline mesh is offered as “proof.”

As for the “photo vs. vector” argument, the “right” answer is determined by the circumstances. Need an image of Keira Knightley to go with a story on her because you’re a news mag and you’re going to press tomorrow? Go with a photo. Working on a movie with Keira Knightley and the desired visual effect is unsafe for a stunt double AND you’ve got time and cash to burn? Then go ahead and draw her obliques to perfection. That’s another question…When it comes to CGI effects like that of Pixar and WETA, how much is vector and how much is raster…how much is both?

I don’t remember how I found the site, but I was just looking at it yesterday (Aug. 8) and I was absolutely jaw-dropping stunned at some of the results. Then again, some of the images do appear to be photos and not drawn even when the keyline mesh is offered as “proof.”

As for the “photo vs. vector” argument, the “right” answer is determined by the circumstances. Need an image of Keira Knightley to go with a story on her because you’re a news mag and you’re going to press tomorrow? Go with a photo. Working on a movie with Keira Knightley and the desired visual effect is unsafe for a stunt double AND you’ve got time and cash to burn? Then go ahead and draw her obliques to perfection. That’s another question…When it comes to CGI effects like that of Pixar and WETA, how much is vector and how much is raster…how much is both?

What’s the point? I mean sure there’s a high degree of realism and stuff in them, but really, if your producing something of that level of photorealism, why not just use a photo? It would be a lot quicker to do, and at a guess, it wouldn’t surprise me if these are modelled off photos anyway… just seems to be a relatively frivolous activity… however realistic they may look.

What’s the point? I mean sure there’s a high degree of realism and stuff in them, but really, if your producing something of that level of photorealism, why not just use a photo? It would be a lot quicker to do, and at a guess, it wouldn’t surprise me if these are modelled off photos anyway… just seems to be a relatively frivolous activity… however realistic they may look.

Ward sez:
“Also you have to think about this in practical terms. Are clients willing to wait that long for their product when it could easily be done as a high-ref document in Photoshop, or, simply, a photograph? This stuff is indeed impressive when it comes to artists flexing their Illustrator muscles, but what is it really good for in the long run?”

Ward: Vector art is immeasureably more useful when you can not predict the usage of the final artwork. With a photo or raster image done at a specific resolution, it may not work for a large-scale billboard or when specific elements need to be reused in other contexts. I’ve found this out several times the hard way when clients ask for quick illo work for specific uses (web graphics, lo-res printing) and later don’t understand why the art I whipped out in Photoshop doesn’t look good when they suddenly need to do glossy print ads. It’s definitely worth my time to redner something in Illustrator or Freehand the first time and know the eventual applications are open-ended.

(Of course, the kind of illustration I do is like stick figures compared to the phot-realism that these artists must have taken weeks or months to complete!)

Ward sez:
“Also you have to think about this in practical terms. Are clients willing to wait that long for their product when it could easily be done as a high-ref document in Photoshop, or, simply, a photograph? This stuff is indeed impressive when it comes to artists flexing their Illustrator muscles, but what is it really good for in the long run?”

Ward: Vector art is immeasureably more useful when you can not predict the usage of the final artwork. With a photo or raster image done at a specific resolution, it may not work for a large-scale billboard or when specific elements need to be reused in other contexts. I’ve found this out several times the hard way when clients ask for quick illo work for specific uses (web graphics, lo-res printing) and later don’t understand why the art I whipped out in Photoshop doesn’t look good when they suddenly need to do glossy print ads. It’s definitely worth my time to redner something in Illustrator or Freehand the first time and know the eventual applications are open-ended.

(Of course, the kind of illustration I do is like stick figures compared to the phot-realism that these artists must have taken weeks or months to complete!)

Mark sez: “What’s the point?”

In addition to my last comment about the advantages of vector art, don’t forget that you can’t get that creepy inhuman sheen any other way. ;)

Mark sez: “What’s the point?”

In addition to my last comment about the advantages of vector art, don’t forget that you can’t get that creepy inhuman sheen any other way. ;)

Can’t think of anything more boring than ‘some ridiculously photorealistic digital art’. I just hope eventually that it will bore the people who make it so much that they stop bothering to make it.

Sorry – but I’ve loved all the stuff on Drawn, but this.

Can’t think of anything more boring than ‘some ridiculously photorealistic digital art’. I just hope eventually that it will bore the people who make it so much that they stop bothering to make it.

Sorry – but I’ve loved all the stuff on Drawn, but this.

When you say “scantily clad”, don’t you mean “not clad in the least”? ;)

When you say “scantily clad”, don’t you mean “not clad in the least”? ;)

Mike, I’m fully aware of the capabilities of vector for large-scale jobs, etc. But like I questioned in my first comment, high-res Photoshop files can do just as fine. I’m talking like 1600 dpi, you know?

Mike, I’m fully aware of the capabilities of vector for large-scale jobs, etc. But like I questioned in my first comment, high-res Photoshop files can do just as fine. I’m talking like 1600 dpi, you know?

Gotta agree with those who ask: ” why do it?”

Making one piece or several photorealistic pieces seems like an impressive accomplishment, true. Making even more… that accomplishes next to nothing.

Non-artists, and non-digital making artists, just won’t get it. Neither vector or raster makes a whit of difference to them. It is just computer made. Hence, to many of those folks, the whoop is even smaller. It certainly isn’t a big one.

If any of those vector or Photoshop realists are great photorealistics painters, bully! You go, yo! But, making vector photorealism, in particular, is good up to a point and then…what’s the point?

To top it off, it seems a tad bit compulsive. And, perhaps the output of those illustrators could have been greater had they not been so sniggling and nit-picky.

Thanks for indulging this li’l rant.

Peace In, Out, Everywheres.

Gotta agree with those who ask: ” why do it?”

Making one piece or several photorealistic pieces seems like an impressive accomplishment, true. Making even more… that accomplishes next to nothing.

Non-artists, and non-digital making artists, just won’t get it. Neither vector or raster makes a whit of difference to them. It is just computer made. Hence, to many of those folks, the whoop is even smaller. It certainly isn’t a big one.

If any of those vector or Photoshop realists are great photorealistics painters, bully! You go, yo! But, making vector photorealism, in particular, is good up to a point and then…what’s the point?

To top it off, it seems a tad bit compulsive. And, perhaps the output of those illustrators could have been greater had they not been so sniggling and nit-picky.

Thanks for indulging this li’l rant.

Peace In, Out, Everywheres.

Its a Craft not an Art…. (Hows that for semantics ;)

They’re all just copies of photographs anyway that’s why you never see any real prelims! albeit very nicely done, but at the end of the day they’re just a trace/copy (ok they can get some credit for a bit of colour, texture and light enhancing) but its a gloryifed and slower version of retouching!

Ok the result is resolution independent, but whats the point in that when most jobs you’ll know exactly the resolution the final image needs to be! thats why most of the stuff you’ll see out there is photo retouching and not the rarther OCD over engineered vector art..

Having said that… I like em, they’re nice :) who really cares what they are and how they make em and why, If you like them just be happy with that. If you don’t look somewhere else and shhhh… ;)

Peace,

Its a Craft not an Art…. (Hows that for semantics ;)

They’re all just copies of photographs anyway that’s why you never see any real prelims! albeit very nicely done, but at the end of the day they’re just a trace/copy (ok they can get some credit for a bit of colour, texture and light enhancing) but its a gloryifed and slower version of retouching!

Ok the result is resolution independent, but whats the point in that when most jobs you’ll know exactly the resolution the final image needs to be! thats why most of the stuff you’ll see out there is photo retouching and not the rarther OCD over engineered vector art..

Having said that… I like em, they’re nice :) who really cares what they are and how they make em and why, If you like them just be happy with that. If you don’t look somewhere else and shhhh… ;)

Peace,

Pretty much what kinl said, aprt from the bit about liking them :)

The technical skills are noteworthy, but the result is unutterably dull.

Another member of the “what is the point?” camp here.

Pretty much what kinl said, aprt from the bit about liking them :)

The technical skills are noteworthy, but the result is unutterably dull.

Another member of the “what is the point?” camp here.

Hey, you know, I haven’t got a strong opinion about this stuff–I’m just legitimately curious about the practical application of it. How IS it used? From what I understand and from what others have stated earlier, the advantage of vector art is the whole scaling business, so I suppose I could see some application in that direction–I suppose if you really really need those crisp edges at a very large scale, this is the way to go, though usually with billboards and such, interpolation does the job since nobody ever gets that close anyway.

So I’m thinking: it must be for really giant crisp looking art that needs to stand up to close scrutiny. So what might that be exactly? I’m really not buying into the idea that–as some have suggested–these people are doing this as some insane way of showing off. It just doesn’t figure. Somebody somewhere NEEDS this stuff. So who are they? All I’m looking for is one decent example here.

So yeah, I care. I want to know why. And if people don’t like ‘em, why shouldn’t they speak up? I really resent being told to “shhh” even though I’m not particularly moved one way or another. What’s the point in an open forum if it’s all about like it or leave? Can we get over this whole “how dare you say nay” attitude? I’m tired of having to defend the right to descend.

Hey, you know, I haven’t got a strong opinion about this stuff–I’m just legitimately curious about the practical application of it. How IS it used? From what I understand and from what others have stated earlier, the advantage of vector art is the whole scaling business, so I suppose I could see some application in that direction–I suppose if you really really need those crisp edges at a very large scale, this is the way to go, though usually with billboards and such, interpolation does the job since nobody ever gets that close anyway.

So I’m thinking: it must be for really giant crisp looking art that needs to stand up to close scrutiny. So what might that be exactly? I’m really not buying into the idea that–as some have suggested–these people are doing this as some insane way of showing off. It just doesn’t figure. Somebody somewhere NEEDS this stuff. So who are they? All I’m looking for is one decent example here.

So yeah, I care. I want to know why. And if people don’t like ‘em, why shouldn’t they speak up? I really resent being told to “shhh” even though I’m not particularly moved one way or another. What’s the point in an open forum if it’s all about like it or leave? Can we get over this whole “how dare you say nay” attitude? I’m tired of having to defend the right to descend.

Jed, don’t you mean “having to defend the right to dissent?” Unless you’re defending your right to jump out of a plane, into the ocean or just walk down the stairs. :)

Jed, don’t you mean “having to defend the right to dissent?” Unless you’re defending your right to jump out of a plane, into the ocean or just walk down the stairs. :)

I lose a little bit of my soul everytime I miss-click a point handle :(

I lose a little bit of my soul everytime I miss-click a point handle :(

You guys must be really fun at parties.

You guys must be really fun at parties.

“You guys must be really fun at parties.”

You can only imagine.

Lone- tell me about it. Why can’t smart guides (with just point magnetizing on) work on the control handles! (tip: preview mode if it helps)

dave- rofl

John- if you really technically want to be absolutely precise, I should add that no image is vector; everything’s eventually displayed as pixels or drops of paint or ink; etc. Just thought I’d ‘point’ that out. . .

and I guess also, yes, these images actually caused me pain; why would anyone do this? Its like painting grains of rice- except only trained eyes would sympathize. Actually, the interesting part is comparing them all to tease out some sort of individual style..

one final – can we get the actual vectors anywhere? I’d love to see the proof..

“You guys must be really fun at parties.”

You can only imagine.

Lone- tell me about it. Why can’t smart guides (with just point magnetizing on) work on the control handles! (tip: preview mode if it helps)

dave- rofl

John- if you really technically want to be absolutely precise, I should add that no image is vector; everything’s eventually displayed as pixels or drops of paint or ink; etc. Just thought I’d ‘point’ that out. . .

and I guess also, yes, these images actually caused me pain; why would anyone do this? Its like painting grains of rice- except only trained eyes would sympathize. Actually, the interesting part is comparing them all to tease out some sort of individual style..

one final – can we get the actual vectors anywhere? I’d love to see the proof..

Can somebody please explain me what’s this gradient mesh about?

Can somebody please explain me what’s this gradient mesh about?

The length of this thread is the best evidence so far that this forum is overrun with soulless hacks, techheads and very few artists.

The length of this thread is the best evidence so far that this forum is overrun with soulless hacks, techheads and very few artists.

Well, this is one long comments, so brief…

I like the comparison to airbrush art. I’ve never really gotten photorealism in any medium, except as an exercise for the artist. Sure it’s showing off, but it’s also helping the artist understand their limits. I applaud the work, but am completely bored by the end product.

:)=

Well, this is one long comments, so brief…

I like the comparison to airbrush art. I’ve never really gotten photorealism in any medium, except as an exercise for the artist. Sure it’s showing off, but it’s also helping the artist understand their limits. I applaud the work, but am completely bored by the end product.

:)=

I agree with everyone who calls this a waste of time. If illustrators have this much time on their hands we need to seriously look into re-opening the factories of America so people can put their obsessive tendencies to good work. All grousing aside I think if anyone did a photorealistic image in illustrator from scratch, it would be amazing, but these people are just tracing things that already exist! Who would pay $1000 for one of these “photos”?

I agree with everyone who calls this a waste of time. If illustrators have this much time on their hands we need to seriously look into re-opening the factories of America so people can put their obsessive tendencies to good work. All grousing aside I think if anyone did a photorealistic image in illustrator from scratch, it would be amazing, but these people are just tracing things that already exist! Who would pay $1000 for one of these “photos”?

Tricia: I’d like to pretend I know better, but yeah, that was just me being ignorant. Boy has egg descended on my face or what?

At any rate: it’s bad, it’s good, it’s bad, it’s good, it’s bad, it’s good–but what’s it good FOR? Nobody’s really adequately answered that yet.

I want to know because–hey, i have illustrator! Maybe there’s something I can use it for! How about that?

Tricia: I’d like to pretend I know better, but yeah, that was just me being ignorant. Boy has egg descended on my face or what?

At any rate: it’s bad, it’s good, it’s bad, it’s good, it’s bad, it’s good–but what’s it good FOR? Nobody’s really adequately answered that yet.

I want to know because–hey, i have illustrator! Maybe there’s something I can use it for! How about that?

“The length of this thread is the best evidence so far that this forum is overrun with soulless hacks, techheads and very few artists.”

Mmmmmmm…yeah, no, maybe.

Art for the sake of it is most certainly cool. Much respect to Art! I for one can dig it. (But, then again, my subject of choice is shovels and dirt)

While it is certainly understandable why an effort would be made to produce photo-like imagery in Illustrator–or, for that matter, as another artist whose work I’ve seen, in Flash– to stake out a slice of land in Nicheville to set up a curiousity shop featuring one’s abilities….well, again, what’s the point of setting it up at Photorealistic Vector Way?

If there is a need for large scale, high res images, maybe that is part of the point for it.

However, to me, the greater question is where is the artist in the final result?
Since, there are at least several people recreating stock photo images in vector applications, how can one tell their work apart? Should one be able to tell it apart? Or, is the missing element of the artist’s touch part of the art? Or, is the artist’s touch subtle or obtuse and somehow is still not easily seen?

Do I expect answers? No. Though maybe a link to an artists’ statement or explanation for why would be cool.
–
Peace Out, Around and Somewheres.

“The length of this thread is the best evidence so far that this forum is overrun with soulless hacks, techheads and very few artists.”

Mmmmmmm…yeah, no, maybe.

Art for the sake of it is most certainly cool. Much respect to Art! I for one can dig it. (But, then again, my subject of choice is shovels and dirt)

While it is certainly understandable why an effort would be made to produce photo-like imagery in Illustrator–or, for that matter, as another artist whose work I’ve seen, in Flash– to stake out a slice of land in Nicheville to set up a curiousity shop featuring one’s abilities….well, again, what’s the point of setting it up at Photorealistic Vector Way?

If there is a need for large scale, high res images, maybe that is part of the point for it.

However, to me, the greater question is where is the artist in the final result?
Since, there are at least several people recreating stock photo images in vector applications, how can one tell their work apart? Should one be able to tell it apart? Or, is the missing element of the artist’s touch part of the art? Or, is the artist’s touch subtle or obtuse and somehow is still not easily seen?

Do I expect answers? No. Though maybe a link to an artists’ statement or explanation for why would be cool.
–
Peace Out, Around and Somewheres.

Oh my.

While making the text both bolder and larger was not my intent, I’d love to know how I did it. The twinned hypens I typed prior to the last line are invisible now. Perhaps that is part of why.

But, for now, acception my apology for doing that paragraph standing out so loudly. I promise I won’t blame it on free radical vectors or errant gremlins. Though, you never know, do you?

Oh my.

While making the text both bolder and larger was not my intent, I’d love to know how I did it. The twinned hypens I typed prior to the last line are invisible now. Perhaps that is part of why.

But, for now, acception my apology for doing that paragraph standing out so loudly. I promise I won’t blame it on free radical vectors or errant gremlins. Though, you never know, do you?

While these look very real, there is very little artistic merit to it. WHy not just have use photography as your medium if your gonna make this?

While these look very real, there is very little artistic merit to it. WHy not just have use photography as your medium if your gonna make this?

noway

noway

Simply delightful!
I work for a large advertising agency in Bangkok and we always insist on using illustrator vector art. The image is allot more hyper-real than any pathetic attempt made by a traditional photographer would ever manage to achieve.
The process may take a tiny bit longer than just clicking a button on a camera but I think you can all agree it’s well worth the wait.
From my experience there is no real skill to photograhy.
The photographer is given the brief, he goes out and takes the photo.
Any of my studio boys could muster up a picture of a rusty motorbike. But if the campaign suddenly takes a turn for the worse an the client wants a rusty motorike with a duck sitting on the seat.. how on earth is the photographer going to go back in time and re-create that?? with only a day to the deadline??
With my boys I can watch their every move, and monitor their every descision.
If I don’t like the color of the rust I will tell them to change it.
“Make the duck fatter!!”
..the duck is sizably enlarged.

this id the future of image based illustrative-photo-realism.

Photo-realistic art is the bigger, more developed older brother of his little sister photograhy, and I’m the uncle that comes to visit in the evenings to see their mother.

Simply delightful!
I work for a large advertising agency in Bangkok and we always insist on using illustrator vector art. The image is allot more hyper-real than any pathetic attempt made by a traditional photographer would ever manage to achieve.
The process may take a tiny bit longer than just clicking a button on a camera but I think you can all agree it’s well worth the wait.
From my experience there is no real skill to photograhy.
The photographer is given the brief, he goes out and takes the photo.
Any of my studio boys could muster up a picture of a rusty motorbike. But if the campaign suddenly takes a turn for the worse an the client wants a rusty motorike with a duck sitting on the seat.. how on earth is the photographer going to go back in time and re-create that?? with only a day to the deadline??
With my boys I can watch their every move, and monitor their every descision.
If I don’t like the color of the rust I will tell them to change it.
“Make the duck fatter!!”
..the duck is sizably enlarged.

this id the future of image based illustrative-photo-realism.

Photo-realistic art is the bigger, more developed older brother of his little sister photograhy, and I’m the uncle that comes to visit in the evenings to see their mother.

The work itself is impressive and even more so that it’s a vector illustration. The main difference is the flexibility a vector image gives over a photo. Sure it may be an instance of showing Illustrator muscle, but it’s a great excersiceThe work itself is impressive and even more so that it’s a vector illustration. The main difference is the flexibility a vector image gives over a photo. (As Arthur says above).

Sure it may be an instance of showing Illustrator muscle, but it’s a great exercise and people who have created vector illustrations know the time put into it. Here’s a great link of photo-realistic vector work that is actually used in magazines, product guides, etc. –

http://www.techvector.com/

Just click on the “vector” link on top, then pick a project on the right side. Shows the value of “real world” vector work.

The work itself is impressive and even more so that it’s a vector illustration. The main difference is the flexibility a vector image gives over a photo. Sure it may be an instance of showing Illustrator muscle, but it’s a great excersiceThe work itself is impressive and even more so that it’s a vector illustration. The main difference is the flexibility a vector image gives over a photo. (As Arthur says above).

Sure it may be an instance of showing Illustrator muscle, but it’s a great exercise and people who have created vector illustrations know the time put into it. Here’s a great link of photo-realistic vector work that is actually used in magazines, product guides, etc. –

http://www.techvector.com/

Just click on the “vector” link on top, then pick a project on the right side. Shows the value of “real world” vector work.

..didn’t mean to double the first sentance.

..didn’t mean to double the first sentance.

I recommend Chuck Close when looking at photo realism. He was doing this years ago with water colours and acrylics. Vector art to me seems completely pointless. It seems like self gratification for the artist that created it. Something for them to go ‘Oo, look – I can create an image that looks like a photograph – praise my copying abilities.’ And this is the rub with the style itself and its relevance has constantly been under the microscope. For me the only point of the style is the ‘wow factor’ and to me this only applies with photo realism in traditional mediums (paint, pastel, pencil etc.) as with vectors and computers the process is made a lot easier as you can colour sample and trace! Which is hardly a difficult task when compared to free hand drawing and colour matching with your eyes rather than computer algorithms. I know because I have experience in photo realism both on computer and traditional mediums. Most of the art work displayed on that site seems as hollow and plastic as its typical, drab and boring aesthetic subjects such as cars, movie stars and models. They are not an attempt to say anything about anything or anyone in particular or to express a particular emotion or convey anything other than aesthetics and in that case they almost succeed if it wasn’t for the constant niggling feeling in the viewers mind that the artists are trying to become photocopiers. The whole affair seems distinctly sterile, uncreative and insecure.

I recommend Chuck Close when looking at photo realism. He was doing this years ago with water colours and acrylics. Vector art to me seems completely pointless. It seems like self gratification for the artist that created it. Something for them to go ‘Oo, look – I can create an image that looks like a photograph – praise my copying abilities.’ And this is the rub with the style itself and its relevance has constantly been under the microscope. For me the only point of the style is the ‘wow factor’ and to me this only applies with photo realism in traditional mediums (paint, pastel, pencil etc.) as with vectors and computers the process is made a lot easier as you can colour sample and trace! Which is hardly a difficult task when compared to free hand drawing and colour matching with your eyes rather than computer algorithms. I know because I have experience in photo realism both on computer and traditional mediums. Most of the art work displayed on that site seems as hollow and plastic as its typical, drab and boring aesthetic subjects such as cars, movie stars and models. They are not an attempt to say anything about anything or anyone in particular or to express a particular emotion or convey anything other than aesthetics and in that case they almost succeed if it wasn’t for the constant niggling feeling in the viewers mind that the artists are trying to become photocopiers. The whole affair seems distinctly sterile, uncreative and insecure.

Interesting discourse. There are two aspects of all this which have not received much attention.

Firstly is that, more than anything else, the reason an artist does something is within the artist and not within the medium.

There have always been artists who have strived for super realism, hyper realism or photo realism since long before photography was ever invented. Why Durer, Leonardo or whoever might have chosen a realistic effect was a choice he made relative to the message he wanted to express. So I don’t think artists choose vectors to impress anyone with their ability to do it. I think they choose them for the same reason another artist chooses oils or watercolours – because the technique/medium takes them to the effect they want.

The second point is that most people doing vector art are commercial artists – they do what clients are wanting to buy for whatever reason they might want to buy it. I remember a heated conversation about oils and acrylics in much the same vein as this. With adequate skill, the same result can be achieved. But no-one bids high at an auction for an “original acrylic” in the same way they will for a “genuine oil painting”. Thats why there are very few airbrush illustrators left, not because it isn’t a good medium to get to the result you want.

Photography was invented, similarly, to get to an effect visually and it thus quite justifiably an artistic medium. While skill is needed to take an excellent without doubt, the art is not in the medium or the technique, but in the image and the message. So it is with vectors or any medium at all.

Art is about ideas and their concretisation in some form of sensual stimulus. The attempt to create stimulus usually has a communicative purpose.

Its the final image that we should be concerned with as an audience. As artists we should be concerned about whether our medium and our ability to apply it has taken us to where we want to be communication-wise.

I have illustrated commercially and non-commercially since the mid 70′s using almost all types of art media for the full spectrum of publication methods. I love all media because they give me the ability to say what I want to say the way I want to say it. Including “vectors” and meshes.

Love ‘em!

Interesting discourse. There are two aspects of all this which have not received much attention.

Firstly is that, more than anything else, the reason an artist does something is within the artist and not within the medium.

There have always been artists who have strived for super realism, hyper realism or photo realism since long before photography was ever invented. Why Durer, Leonardo or whoever might have chosen a realistic effect was a choice he made relative to the message he wanted to express. So I don’t think artists choose vectors to impress anyone with their ability to do it. I think they choose them for the same reason another artist chooses oils or watercolours – because the technique/medium takes them to the effect they want.

The second point is that most people doing vector art are commercial artists – they do what clients are wanting to buy for whatever reason they might want to buy it. I remember a heated conversation about oils and acrylics in much the same vein as this. With adequate skill, the same result can be achieved. But no-one bids high at an auction for an “original acrylic” in the same way they will for a “genuine oil painting”. Thats why there are very few airbrush illustrators left, not because it isn’t a good medium to get to the result you want.

Photography was invented, similarly, to get to an effect visually and it thus quite justifiably an artistic medium. While skill is needed to take an excellent without doubt, the art is not in the medium or the technique, but in the image and the message. So it is with vectors or any medium at all.

Art is about ideas and their concretisation in some form of sensual stimulus. The attempt to create stimulus usually has a communicative purpose.

Its the final image that we should be concerned with as an audience. As artists we should be concerned about whether our medium and our ability to apply it has taken us to where we want to be communication-wise.

I have illustrated commercially and non-commercially since the mid 70′s using almost all types of art media for the full spectrum of publication methods. I love all media because they give me the ability to say what I want to say the way I want to say it. Including “vectors” and meshes.

Love ‘em!

Easy as tracing?
If mesh was as easy to manipulate as tracing an image with pencil, it would be done much, much more I think.
Even using the pentool to trace an object is difficult for many….otherwise it (pentool) wouldn’t be referred to as an “intimidating tool” by everyone, everywhere.
The people that say it’s like having tracing skills obviously never tried to mold mesh into a nose on a face and have the colors flow smoothly because it certainly isn’t as simple as pointing and clicking on photo reference colors.
Just zoom into a tiny and seemingly insignificant point on a photo and you’ll see that there are many different pixel colors sitting right next to each other,,so if you blindly just point and click colors for your mesh work, you’ll end up with a mess that somewhat resembles what you were trying to achieve.

I think the work looks great

Easy as tracing?
If mesh was as easy to manipulate as tracing an image with pencil, it would be done much, much more I think.
Even using the pentool to trace an object is difficult for many….otherwise it (pentool) wouldn’t be referred to as an “intimidating tool” by everyone, everywhere.
The people that say it’s like having tracing skills obviously never tried to mold mesh into a nose on a face and have the colors flow smoothly because it certainly isn’t as simple as pointing and clicking on photo reference colors.
Just zoom into a tiny and seemingly insignificant point on a photo and you’ll see that there are many different pixel colors sitting right next to each other,,so if you blindly just point and click colors for your mesh work, you’ll end up with a mess that somewhat resembles what you were trying to achieve.

I think the work looks great

[...] is it is a program that can develop nearly photo realistic images.. heres some examples… Girl [...]