does photobashing make you a worse artist?
It can. The best photobashers are artists who got good at all the fundies first.
>>6848594There is something about Photobash that just looks so genetic and trashy, like its mass produced garbageI lack the verbal IQ to describe the feeling with precision, but I don't remember a single Photobash piece of art, its like its not memorable at all.
It does, because it robs you of gesture, composition, appeal.Your photobashing is only as good as your base pic, so you basically have a self imposed quality ceiling.It's like ceramic paintingsIt's an ok thing to do and there's a market for it, but yes, it does make you a worse (certainly more limited) artist
>>6848594It's soulless. It was ai-slop before ai-slop existed.
>>6848594Photobashing is basically AI art done by hand.Fucking retarded.
It is a tool and it depends on your creativity and work to give it an artistic sense, Also do not forget that this technique is used for conceptual artists who need to finish their work quickly and with high quality. Find the artist: Nekro (It is not exactly the same technique but it shares similarities). He made covers for blasphemus and some elden ring illustrations.Let's stop demonizing tools, humans are the ones who, with their work and artistic sense, will give them meaning and no, just writing prompts is not using AI correctly And it doesn't make you an artist.
>>6848594>picIs this some edgy Zoids prequel?
Photobashing is a shortcut for people trying to meet deadlines and when you cut such huge corners your end result is a pile of shit.
>>6848594if you use digital for anything, its not art.
>>6849701>>6849794>>6849892have you ever been employed?
>>6850480not an argument hastily written by a frustrated child.
>>6848599Wow, a balanced opinion. In the first post.>>6849701>>6849794>>6849892That's more like it.
>>6849617>but I don't remember a single Photobash piece of artLinda Bergkvist had some pretty memorable pieces. but we didn't know they were photobashed at the time.
>>6848594I think photobashing makes a piece less impressive, gives it less soul, and usually limits you to a more realistic style. However, it's pretty much impossible to be competitive as a concept artist or visdev artist without doing it, so I don't blame anyone for it.
>>6848594What is photo bashing?
Feng Zhu ruined the industry when he normalized it and made it seem it was acceptable to do by calling it a "plate", no it's just a photo.
>>6848594Obviously, yes.
>>6852144I wonder how much more diverse and interesting AAA games and movies would have looked had he not done that. If photorealism was sorta off the table...
>>6849701>>6849794>>6849887>>6852144based>>6848599>>6849815Cringe
>>6848594>>6849617>does photobashing make you a worse artist?the process of photo bashing rips your own unique style and intent out of the work that's why all pieces produced with this technique tends to look like homogenized AI tier slop it's similar problem to using a base in that respect.
>>6849892I'd be curious to see your "art" in that case. To see your skill level. But you won't. So I'm just gona assume you're mid if anything. I use both mediums btw. Have been for a long time. Regardless you're entitled to your meritless opinion.
>>6852981NTA but certainly digital represents less of an artistic acheivement. Similarily a castle built in blender holds less artistic value than a real life equivalent. A music piece made in ableton less than an actual orchestral recording.In my view digital art is only fully valid when it is transparently so, ie pixel art. Digital art that mimics tradiditional art will always be fraudulent on some level. An inferior synthetic approximation of a potential physical equivalent.
>>6853035give a bricklayer blender and see how he doesgive a trad artist a tablet, it come out same and vice versabad analogyyou're retarded, pyw, and don't reply to me because im right
>>6853870found the hack
>>6853886You literally don't even draw you fucking retard
>>6853898pick up a pencil you fraud
>>6853903Same goes for you, retard
>>6853907>no uAbsolutely malding
>>6853919I said you too, you illiterate little chump
>>6853924Ah so you admit you don't draw! Very well
