Jump to content


Photo

So what are they?

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 12:28 PM

When you make a drawing and adjust or color or invert it in a photo editing program, maybe add sharpening or softening, Denoise etc - well...

What is it?

Calling it a sketch is a little under mereting, calling it a painting is over stating it and calling it a drawing doesn't rightly define it well particularly if its been colorized. Saying its art is too general but calling it a digital painting is a little wordy. I use the term rendering but is that accurate?

Anyone want to float some terms?

digital illustration?

Pete

#2 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:18 PM

What is it?

Calling it a sketch is a little under mereting, calling it ............. I use the term rendering but is that accurate?


Hi Pete,

Just got in - after struggling in vain with that double - and saw this post...!!

I like "rendering" - check out the small print on my Nova Del Graphic : bottom right corner. Never liked the term "colourized" tho' and started to use "tinted" instead; after all I use the Tint Tool in Corel for my planetary drawings.

Cheers,
David.

#3 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:09 PM

So rendering sounds ok then. As I mentioned the other names are close but not fitting enough. Thanks for your input David.


Pete

#4 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8335
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:50 PM

So is this the sketching, painting, drawing, rendering, and digital illustration forum? Or the planetary medium forum?

I like the term "digital illustration." Or better yet, simply "illustration."

#5 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 09:02 PM

See, illustration though to me is more explanatory in the conceptual sense. A drawing of the cross section of Jupiter is an illustration. A drawing or digital painting of Jupiter is a rendering.

Those are my impressions I could be wrong.

Pete

#6 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8335
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:02 PM

Okay, good point. But, in a sense, are we not taking a cross section of Jupiter's apparent 2 dimensional surface? We're just illustrating the very first layer of that cross section.

#7 stray1

stray1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2012
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:32 AM

When you make a drawing and adjust or color or invert it in a photo editing program, maybe add sharpening or softening...


Digitally enhanced artwork?

:grin:

-stray-

#8 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:48 AM

Not comfortable with "digitally enhanced" as far as my planetary drawings go is tantamount to messing with them. I like to see some indication of the paper texture after tinting them so I know I've strayed little. Scanner always put specular reflections on, and harshened, the graphite grains entailing a lot of processing and that stressed me out. I have found photo'ing with a digital camera from 8 to 10 feet is just about right.

I related my concerns here: http://alpo-j.asahik...12/u121212z.htm

These are lo-res and mainly stump-work so texture will be elusive here.

But my initial directly copying by painting in Corel Photo Paint the drawings of Uranus and Venus were pretty dreadful (plastic): http://alpo-j.asahik...11/u110121z.htm

Then got the camera idea.

David.

#9 hbanich

hbanich

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2005
  • Loc: Portland, Oregon

Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:57 AM

I call them drawings. By comparison, a photo that's been digitally enhanced is still called a photo and the digital work is often detailed in the caption or description, which I think is an honest and clear way to go with drawings too.

#10 stray1

stray1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2012
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:28 AM

Drawings, renderings, sketches, digital enhancements whatever.

What they are NOT is what we as individuals actually see when peering through our EPs. Certainly, we can try and make them as technically perfect as possible, but in actuality we only present to our viewers an imperfect vision of what we think we saw.

:grin:

-stray-

#11 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8335
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:38 AM

Why don't we just call them observations?

#12 frank5817

frank5817

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8496
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:55 AM

Visual representations.

Frank

#13 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:27 PM

What they are NOT is what we as individuals actually see when peering through our EPs. Certainly, we can try and make them as technically perfect as possible, but in actuality we only present to our viewers an imperfect vision of what we think we saw.


Never had any illusions there; but nonetheless I endeavour to represent, for planetary detail, what the body presents to me in the eyepiece/s. To me easing up on this aspiration leads down the road to sloppiness. The inner draughtsman needs a tight rein on the inner artist. The artist let loose is apt to produce what John Rogers (BAA Jupiter) calls “fairy castles”! We might never reach perfection but does not mean we should chicken-out either! It’s all about self-criticism and honesty and maintaining self respect.

So what are they? Depends on what/and how I draw/depict: with planets especially I stick to the old principles: only draw what you are sure of. Way back it used to said do not work-up/”prettify” the drawing indoors. Some, not all, would allow for careful stumping/smoothing the inadvertent pencil lines/marks. In my case I stump-paint the details first then tickle in with an HB pencil; then stump/so on as required – Venus/Uranus in particular need little of the latter. This way the drawing is finished at the eyepiece – totally! So to me after getting it on the PC it is still a drawing and a coloured version can be tinted in Corel Photo Paint.

My Nova Del offering on here I might call a PC Graphic Presentation; but in actuality I feel it sufficient to detail the method used and let others decide what they want to call it – they probably will anyway. As for my drawings being coloured on the PC that still offends some purists I know!

Digital enhancing - more the province of the imagers - my view of course! Visual has all but lost it's scientific usefulness now but no excuse to abandon basic principles - self respect! If something is done as a work of art then that should be declared - simple as that!

I go along with Norme “observations” as I call myself an observer as opposed to stargazer – always hated that term.

#14 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:05 PM

Drawings, renderings, sketches, digital enhancements whatever.

What they are NOT is what we as individuals actually see when peering through our EPs. Certainly, we can try and make them as technically perfect as possible, but in actuality we only present to our viewers an imperfect vision of what we think we saw.

:grin:

-stray-


You could say the EXACT same thing about imagers.

Pete

#15 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:58 AM

Drawings, renderings, sketches, digital enhancements whatever.

What they are NOT is what we as individuals actually see when peering through our EPs. Certainly, we can try and make them as technically perfect as possible, but in actuality we only present to our viewers an imperfect vision of what we think we saw.

:grin:

-stray-


You could say the EXACT same thing about imagers.

Pete


Pete you touched on a part of my previous post that, not wanting it to look too much like a rant I deleted; then wondered if I should have left it in.

I do not know of anyone that is/was deluded into thinking they have drawn a planet/whatever with absolute accuracy. It used to be said that even the best drawings had a distinguishing style. Phillips from Antoniadi, Doherty from Murray, Dollfus from Lyot etc.; That alone is telling – all usefully accurate just the same. But we might say that the inner artist has unavoidably showed its presence.

Perhaps paradoxically, it’s possible still to distinguish the best imagers in a similar way: Chris Go from Peach, Parker and so on. Technical considerations apart, perhaps it is in the processing that the artist creeps in??

For me nothing captures that view of a planet I see in the best conditions, but at the same time what keeps pulling me to grasp it. There is an intangible ‘something’ that defies HB to CCD; all the way past Hubble, even if it’s just in the mind……….. So they all, in varying degrees, become something of the poet’s “Cold star bane that deadens human hearts”

Perhaps we should call them “Corruptions” or even “Futilities”.

But in spite of all that lets just enjoy our sketching – follow your star :grin:.

#16 stray1

stray1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2012
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:47 AM

Drawings, renderings, sketches, digital enhancements whatever.

What they are NOT is what we as individuals actually see when peering through our EPs. Certainly, we can try and make them as technically perfect as possible, but in actuality we only present to our viewers an imperfect vision of what we think we saw.

:grin:

-stray-


You could say the EXACT same thing about imagers.

Pete


Pete you touched on a part of my previous post that, not wanting it to look too much like a rant I deleted; then wondered if I should have left it in.

I do not know of anyone that is/was deluded into thinking they have drawn a planet/whatever with absolute accuracy. It used to be said that even the best drawings had a distinguishing style. Phillips from Antoniadi, Doherty from Murray, Dollfus from Lyot etc.; That alone is telling – all usefully accurate just the same. But we might say that the inner artist has unavoidably showed its presence.

Perhaps paradoxically, it’s possible still to distinguish the best imagers in a similar way: Chris Go from Peach, Parker and so on. Technical considerations apart, perhaps it is in the processing that the artist creeps in??

For me nothing captures that view of a planet I see in the best conditions, but at the same time what keeps pulling me to grasp it. There is an intangible ‘something’ that defies HB to CCD; all the way past Hubble, even if it’s just in the mind……….. So they all, in varying degrees, become something of the poet’s “Cold star bane that deadens human hearts”

Perhaps we should call them “Corruptions” or even “Futilities”.

But in spite of all that lets just enjoy our sketching – follow your star :grin:.


I should note that, more than anything, I was being critical of myself and my lack "artistic" ability when trying to accurately depict my EP view on paper and then further attempting to transfer this to digital.

Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear and not included everyone in my frustration ("I" vs "we").

:grin:

-s-

#17 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:00 AM

No worries stray:

How did JFK's Apollo/Moon speech go - "We do these things not because they are easy............."

Cheers,
David.

#18 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:31 PM

Dave,

You make solid points. There are qualities of the live view I don't think are possible to translate to drawing (rendering). I think a lot if it has to do with the fact a planet can be seen as a *moving* object - not so much in motion (which it is of course) but by way of time. Because these renderings are compilations maybe those fleeting and elusive qualities can't translate to a still image and still convey the tenuous nature of visibility. I think the deepsky artist has an even steeper uphill climb in translating the hide and seek of averted vision details. It'd seem a short animate might even suffice here more than a still capture.

I've found drawings Ive done too also lack that fleeting presentation in time - but as you say its what keeps us persevering.

Pete

#19 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:34 PM

You know... an animate of half a dozen frames of sketches of Jupiter for example WOULD be quite the unique way to convey it. I've seen the guys in the imaging forum do it with rotational examples - perhaps we can do it to convey the elusive visual impressions?

Pete

#20 Paul G. Abel

Paul G. Abel

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2010
  • Loc: UK

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:22 PM

I simply call them observations. Why look for extra labels.

#21 mike73

mike73

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 165
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: UK Plymouth

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:11 PM

Some times I call my sketches 'a mess' other times I'II label them as 'good for the bin' once I even labeled one as 'looks good if you squint at it' but seriously my astro sketching is all about observing and I agree with Pauls comment above.
:)

#22 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:28 PM

Trouble is it does not define a medium or approach. Sooner or later the topic of the artwork inevitably cones into play and it'd seem awkward to keep sidestepping a proper name for the work itself rather than the method used to arrive at the artwork. Rendering settled it for me. Thanks guys.

And Paul - nice renderings.

Pete

#23 ericj

ericj

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2005

Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:07 PM

Hi Pete,

Interesting topic. For me the words I would use are drawings and sketches, which I try to make as accurate as possible.

When I made my first sketch of Jupiter in 1973 with a 60mm refractor that was not the best quality I simply wanted to record the detail I saw.

Without realizing it by making drawings / sketches at the eyepiece I was training my eyes to see more detail, and this has become a lifelong passion.

I include the word accurate because it has allowed me record long term changes in planetary features, such as the shrinking of Jupiter's Great Red Spot:

http://ejamison.net/...nt_obs9.html#20

I am reminded of a quote by Frank Sinatra:

"There is something to be said for keeping at a thing, isn't there?"

Clear Skies,

Eric Jamison






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics