ZBrushCentral

Portrait of Scarlett Johansson

ZBrush Artworks
#141

And i have word for {cbeese} when you give a comment on something would you please don’t posting a pic and pointing it makes the artist [who that thread for] very uncomfortable…believe me…
but thank’s any way.
I also thought this odd, especially when it was constructive feedback and the effort cbeese made.

Anyhoo, thought I’d wade in here too… I think there wasn’t enough transparency. He said ‘render for hair and compose’ now we find the most impressive part of the image, the eye, is also from the original photo.

Top row means warranted recognition from this community, art to be inspired by. This ain’t it…

#142

Gaboon, your art is amazing! Just saw your portfolio on your site. MANY of them deserve Top Row, have you posted them here?

#143

I used to think that top row meant something…:roll_eyes:

#144

Man, I have tons to say about peoples’ mentality in this thread yet I am not going indulge save this:

Get over it.
Now I say this without malice. But, it needs to be said.

Its great work (that includes ps compositing). It belongs up top.
You don’t have to understand it, you don’t even have to like it, just accept that it is what it is and it still takes skill to do what has been done to accomplish the look of the final image. Marcel’s Work is celebrated because of his ability to use Z to augment his PS work and vice versa.

The beauty of Z is how it has ALWAYS blurred the lines of art, 3d, technicality, and design. I feel that time would be much better spent making your own image for top row consideration than trying to sully the showcased accomplishment of another artists work.

I pray that all of you one day can celebrate yourself in the top row and I truly hope you may do so without experiencing the same negativity that we all see here.

#145

The issue here is one of plagiarism, copyright infringement and the blatant disregard and pure lack of respect for other artist’s work.

There seems to be, unsurprisingly, a large percentage of the cg community that thinks stealing work from other artists to make up for skill inadequacies, or simple laziness, is no big damn deal. Maybe illustrating this situation from a slightly different perspective will spark a couple of neurons in some numb skulls.
Would it be okay for someone to swipe a large section from a high profile Zbrush artist’s work, one that is well known here at Pixologic, and use that stolen element in a work and just, matter-of-factly, claim that it was “done” in Photoshop? I’m sure that the robbed artist would not be too happy with seeing unauthorized parts of his/her work used in someone else’s work. Top row or not.

A third of the portrait collage here isn’t the work of the OP but the work of another artist, the professional photographer Todd Plitt. His work makes this portrait a success and the OP did not give the photographer an iota of credit. Personally, I’d like to hear what Todd Plitt thinks about the matter himself.

Do digital artists (so called) have to really wonder why the wider art world has little respect for digital art? I sure don’t.

#146

wow …do i have any word 2 express it… nat …don think so
when can do like this … U CAN DO …

#147

Started reading this and thought what’s this guy blabbin about plagiarism for?! But am glad I read it through, I never even thought about it that way, you’re very right. And I think it more than likely Todd Pitt would not appreciate another artist using his work for gain.

#148

This is really beautiful work but I think I’ld smooth the skin & lip bump down some.

#149

This is really a bummer to see here. I’m all for enhancing your work in photoshop…why not? But this is just sloppy. The likeness is way too obvious- call me obsessed but I took the photo by Todd Plitt, and this guys work into photoshop to see for myself… I don’t care- top row or not…an artist shouldn’t claim originality when pulling sketchy moves like this. At least give a SMALL shout out to Todd Plitt if he’s responsible for the most impressive parts of your work…even the thumbnail is apparently his- oof, embarrassing…

#150

I agree completely Quadart. I definitely see your point and I definitely feel that one should have permission/give credit.

#151

hey – wow, you could left her name off of the title and we would still know who it was…look exactly like her. Can’t wait to see some renders of this one.

#152

I strongly agree with Quadrant also using software and rendering isnt cheating its simply using good tools. It’s not “cheating” when HR giger uses a good airbrush is it?
Dont be ABSURD. The problem with this image is they Artist took almost 1/2 of the piece from photos and didn’t mention it. Saying you did hair is PS isnt the same as using a straight up photo. And this kinda stuff makes ALL CG artists look bad. Were not into ripping people off were trying to make our visions come to reality and into using the very b est tool to make it possible.

#153

Plagiarism is a tough subject( legally ) and its pretty apparent a few haven’t a clue about it and should refrain from indirect insults acting as if they do. Now I’m not defending the guy but nor am I against him, as I said this seems to be a pretty common thing in digital art. But I digress, if what he has done is to be considered plagiarism then frankly the entire art world should be shut down!

Starting with pixologic, as their spotlight tool encourages and make plagiarism more accessible, you think its ok to take a pic of someones face( or any other pic ) and glue it onto your mesh as a “texture” is ok. But to take “pieces” of a pic and glue/blend them onto a pic of your mesh is plagiarism…really. Not to mention the thousands of traditional sculptors like myself who have sculpted our favorite hero or villain from a scene, poster etc because we liked the design/pose/look. News flash, just because me, you or anyone else may build our pieces from ground up to represent a scene or pic we like of a particular subject does not make it ok so to speak. If its a representation of an existing piece in any medium by someone else then technically it is plagiarism.

EX: If you see a pic of batman that you love, and sculpt a batman statue as he is in the pic essentially that is plagiarism and can be argued as such in a court of law. Though it usually does make it to court because said artist/company/right holder knows it would cost more money than its worth and most judges would throw it out anyways. But Look at all the people George Lucas has gone after for simple “one off’s”. Where all they did was take a SW character

The artist of this piece SHOULD have given a shout out to Todd Pitt if those were his picks. He didn’t, and if you want to thrash him for that then that is understandable, though I doubt Todd Pitt would GOS either way, but please refrain from screaming “plagiarism” unless you fully understand it which it is apparent some don’t, we are all guilty of it to some degree.

#154

An amazing job on this piece…What has he done that differs so much from others Top Row work? Used Photoshop a little bit more than the next guy?:smiley:

This goes for you wanna be Top Row moderators/ Police… Shut up with the childish whining.

#155

If the OP had stated at the outset the piece was a photographic collage of work by a noted photographer, then I don’t think the moderators would have even allowed it to remain posted, let alone graduated it to the top row.

#156

Muddpitt–obviously you are one of those, of whom you speak, that seems to be confused by the term Plagiarism, as you can’t seem to be able to distinguish the difference between plagiarization and derivative works. Plagiarism specifically refers to literary appropriation opposed to visual appropriation (even though it is loosely excepted to do so), but since the term “plagiarism” tends to ring the Pavlovian bell with the general public I decided to run with it to describe a particular copyright infringement.
Being a freelance illustrator working for the major publishers in this country, I do know my fare little bit of U.S. Copyright law as it pertains to the visual arts–it has come in handy a few times. Clients can unwittingly drag the unwitting down some pretty costly highways.

#157

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.

So that would apply here, surely.

It covers works in the visual medium, not just the literary medium.

#158

Yeah, I’m one of them…family of lawyers over here, but hey what do I know, I mean you are a freelance illustrator. I actually have had dealing with claims of plagiarisms( copyright infringement ) from well known artist whos characters I had sculpted. Not in any “scene” or “pose” that they had done( save one ) but just sculpted their character.

You do not need a third grade education to see its a fine line between the two. Now the TC “could” fall under the definition for plagiarism( in the casual sense of the word )…OR the definition for derivative. There is no middle ground regardless of you or anyone elses opinion. You can come in here and scream its plagiarism, but frankly its foolish and hypocritical. My original point on “ART” as a whole still stands. Derivative is what someone uses to hide behind from any responsibility from imitating( copying ) someone elses work or ideas, seriously lets not kid ourselves here.

Funny how you ignored my zbrush spotlight point. But I’m gonna run with it anyways…are you in threads crying foul when someone use the spotlight feature to texture their model? When someone who has done a portrait/likeness sculpt of an actor etc, uses the same picture they used for reference to essential “paste” their face/texture/color etc…?

#159

Here is an image I created in Zbrush - little photshop on the ears.

#160

No photoshop I swear!