So what about when John "traces" his 3d models?

Is this cheating? The computer has made all the lines "perfect" for him...

Or is this just another example of an artist using all the tools at his/her dispossal?

"So I really have no idea what is acceptable adn what is not.  I can agree that if you want to draw a Delorean you are best of tracing it, so it looks right, but with the characters themselves, it just doesnt seem right."-Todd

And that's great. You have your opinion of what you like and don't like. As much as I hate it, I never dug Kirby's art*. Doesn't mean I don't respect the skills he needed to have to do the job that he did do.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that it isn't viable or can be made to work.

* Saying that there have been a few examples of his pencil work I've seen that blew my socks off. 

"is this true for real artists or a problem specific to me? "-Ian

My opinion. Not specifically you. Every artist has to "struggle" to make an image work. Photoreferenced or imagined. It's a rarity for the image to fall out the pencil, it happens and when it does it's usually very sweet.

But the norm appears to be to "work" at the image and get it done. -If- you find yourself with a flat image after you've photoref'd you have probably followed it to closely. Remember that a photo is something that is a two dimensional representation of of a three dimensional object. So in a photo you see perspective "flatened". When you trace those images you are likely to produce a piece that has inherited more from the two dimensions and little from the third.

When using a photoref try and keep in mind what it is you are drawing and never feel constrained by it. But always remember that what you are seeing is a three dimensional object.

Hmmm, I think there's a misunderstanding happening here.
I read "phototracing" as taking a photo and studying it before going to work, sometimes picking it up again to refresh my memory.. not actually tracing it by overlaying the art or something like that..
I bet Neal sees it the same way.
- It's all about learning to see the world outside your window as it really looks, and then render your impression of it, not blindly imitating it like a camera.

That can't be right!

Since this is not directed towards the chief.

The computer is a tool just like a pencil, pen or brush. The computer doesn't make the line perfect, it just allows the artist a different way to make the line. I am sure JB isn't telling the computer to draw a building or Robotman.

"not blindly imitating it like a camera."-Mikael

That's pretty much precisely how a lot of the old masters performed their magic on canvass. "Projecting" images, albeit upside down, on to canvas and "tracing".

Of course there' no soul inany of them;-)

"Since this is not directed towards the chief."-Lee

No, you are absolutely right it was an open question.

"The computer is a tool just like a pencil, pen or brush."-Lee

Of course it is.

"The computer doesn't make the line perfect,"-Lee

Well mine does a pretty good job on elipses and circles-LOL. I do all my perspective grids in the computer too!

"it just allows the artist a different way to make the line."

Correct in the same way that a stencil might.

" I am sure JB isn't telling the computer to draw a building or Robotman. "

Well he does, he has to tell the computer what to do as he makes the model. Of course when he comes to then draw that using a lightbox or projector, whatever, that's when he pushes the slider across to Comic book and away from strata rendering.

If JB were tracing computer models that were built by someone else, then that person should get some credit.  Since he does that work himself, the computer is just another tool he uses.  No problem there.

If photography is an artform, then Greg Land is stealing from another artist, using their work without giving them credit.  Someone else took the shot of that SI swimsuit model, for example, possibly even telling her how to pose to make the composition of the photo as appealing as possible, getting the lighting right, touching the photo up with an airbrush, etc.  Maybe that photographer sold the rights to said photo, but SOMEONE who isn't Greg Land owns those rights and is being cheated by him.

Since Alex Ross takes the photos himself (or has someone do it who knows they are working to help him) there's no stealing there.

Seems pretty simple to this non-artist.

"Darren, do you or any of the other pros here, see anything wrong with the copying the SI cover?"-Todd

If this had just been a sketch or some other equally "throw-away" pin-up, I'd have no problem with the "Greg Land SI" example.

I happen to like Gregs work, irrespective of finding out what has come to light in this thread for me.

That said, my -personal- opinion is that little effort has been made to alter the model to suit the gig. Let me define "alter". He has taken the exact pose, positioning etc. Maybe taking the time to have altered it by moving limbs as well as the slight alteration to the face. Particularly where both these images are going to be appearing a) on the cover and b) in a publication.

Let's not leave out the fact that what modifications that he has done, have been excellently carried out -and- the end cover, whether you argue for or against the technique used has come out very well. Could anyone with a lightbox have come out with that cover from that photo? I doubt it.