Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Astrophotography and Sketching >> Sketching

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
So what are they?
      #6124942 - 10/08/13 01:28 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

Edited by azure1961p (10/08/13 01:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6125353 - 10/08/13 04:18 PM

Quote:

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: So what are they? new [Re: David Gray]
      #6125851 - 10/08/13 09:09 PM

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


Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6125930 - 10/08/13 09:50 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."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: So what are they? new [Re: Asbytec]
      #6125950 - 10/08/13 10:02 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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6126155 - 10/09/13 12:02 AM

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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stray1
sage


Reged: 09/03/12

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6126292 - 10/09/13 02:32 AM

Quote:

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?



-stray-


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: stray1]
      #6126331 - 10/09/13 03:48 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.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk12/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.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk11/u110121z.htm

Then got the camera idea.

David.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hbanich
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 06/17/05

Loc: Portland, Oregon
Re: So what are they? new [Re: David Gray]
      #6128302 - 10/10/13 01:57 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stray1
sage


Reged: 09/03/12

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: So what are they? new [Re: hbanich]
      #6128340 - 10/10/13 03:28 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.



-stray-


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: So what are they? new [Re: stray1]
      #6128418 - 10/10/13 06:38 AM

Why don't we just call them observations?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
frank5817
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/13/06

Loc: Illinois
Re: So what are they? new [Re: Asbytec]
      #6128679 - 10/10/13 09:55 AM

Visual representations.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: stray1]
      #6129225 - 10/10/13 02:27 PM

Quote:

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: So what are they? new [Re: stray1]
      #6130213 - 10/11/13 12:05 AM

Quote:

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.



-stray-




You could say the EXACT same thing about imagers.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (10/11/13 12:08 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6130390 - 10/11/13 03:58 AM

Quote:

Quote:

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.



-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 .


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stray1
sage


Reged: 09/03/12

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: So what are they? new [Re: David Gray]
      #6130878 - 10/11/13 11:47 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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.



-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 .




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").



-s-


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: stray1]
      #6130929 - 10/11/13 12:00 PM

No worries stray:

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

Cheers,
David.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: So what are they? new [Re: David Gray]
      #6132014 - 10/11/13 09:31 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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6132026 - 10/11/13 09:34 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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G. Abel
sage


Reged: 01/28/10

Loc: UK
Re: So what are they? new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6135236 - 10/13/13 03:22 PM

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 7 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  cildarith, JayinUT, WOBentley 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 860

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics