[ SECRET POST #5826 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5826 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/C3kRcEs.png

[(Anonymous)]

That's certainly a take.

[tabaqui]

HRmmmmmmmm.
If you think buying (expensive) and learning to use Photoshop is 'no work' tells me you might not know as much about Photoshop as you think.

[rosehiptea]

Thought this also.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they're comparing it to the learning curve with GIMP.

Photoshop budgeted in lots of money for their user interface, while (much as I love GIMP) I get the impression that, like lots of open source projects, it tries to make up for its usability shortcomings by just telling users they're supposed to read the effin' manual. And telling non-users that it's just as powerful as the proprietary thing, and actually superior in most ways, and that the idea that PS is easier to use owes its existence to universities and design schools exposing their students to the Adobe product. But the relevant difference is that Photoshop designers put actual emphasis on people being able to look at the menus and ask themselves "which of these options sounds like it will apply the effect I need?" Which maybe seems trivial, but when you consider how many times a user that isn't hyper-familiar with a particular program will have to do that and then either be happy that their guesswork worked or go search for what the program actually called the thing they needed and where it's located, it adds up. Especially when "what this program called the thing" bears no similarity to anything they would have called it and is hard to memorize, so they have to do the exact same thing the next time they want the same effect, or take notes and more notes on what they did before.

I'd agree with you that mastering Photoshop is quite the time commitment, but making art with it at all? Not really.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it weird that rationally I know this is a VERY wrong take but as an artist I refuse to learn how to use brushes like that because I feel like it's cheating? Obviously this take never did my art well (or my self-confidence) lol.

[(Anonymous)]

nah, you've got a point. I've talked to a lot of artists who've been doing digital art for quite a few years who absolutely refuse to use "cheating" brushes. they've had a hard enough time fighting for "digital art is real art" that they don't want to give anyone ammunition to use against them. I get it. there's a line to be drawn somewhere but idk where it would be.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that's weird at all. Society pushes people who want to do creative things to feel like they don't DESERVE to, and invalidates them a lot, and I've seen a lot of arcane bargaining as a kind of self-defense to that? Like, artistically inclined people often try to mix their culture's uncritical acceptance of hard work with its reflexive skepticism that art *is* work, and hope the result will be acceptance and peace of mind.

[tabaqui]

It's funny, because my exSO, and a lot of his fellow artists, fell on brushes and whatnot with cries of delight, because they were doing commercial art, and anything that got the same effect in less time was something to celebrate.
Can they make the effect without them? Sure. Do they want to take all that time to do it on a piece of art that they're doing for a client, who absolutely will not know the difference?
Hell no.

I think everyone just needs to do their art in the way that makes them happy, and if that means no brushes, well - all good! I don't judge, and I don't know why anyone else would, really; art is so subjective, anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

Telling me you've never actually tried to make digital art.

Yes, there are a lot of tools. That doesn't make things into art for you.

[(Anonymous)]

You know what is the dumbest take on AI art? Most people just make some profile pics for fun and that’s it. Most people are also not going to pay an artist to make them profile pics for Twitter, lol.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not harmful to make a profile pic. The issue here is that, in order to do that, you'll be sharing your data with an AI company - that is, a company that makes money by creating programs that make images effortlessly by stealing art (born from artists' hard work - who kindly shared them for free online) and automatizing "copypastas" of it. Thus, empowering such companies.

It'd be better if you just stole an artist's fanart to use as a pfp probably.

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly find it hilarious when fanartists who sell their shit get up in arms about AI art generators. You're literally doing the same thing, what are you complaining about?

[(Anonymous)]

??????

No, fanartists use their own talent, work and creativity to make a piece of art. It's not stealing. Come on, surely this is an old argument.

[(Anonymous)]

How is charging for your manual labor, even if illegally (because unlicensed) inspired by the labor of others, the same thing as complaining about a program that allows anyone (who can pay for it) to "make art" effortlessly by means of automatically copying and mixing-and-matching actual artists' works (without permission, so it's equally illegal)?

[(Anonymous)]

So they put it into a prompt and mishmash things until it looks good, not... Spend time actually drawing the thing? Because "oh they don't own the property?"

LBR, tech bros like you want AI art because then you can skip paying artists for their work.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you an idiot?

Fan artists still spend their own time and energy and skill on creating that fan art, and acknowledge that it IS fan art.

They aren't punching in a prompt to a computer and then claiming it was their own work and skill.

[(Anonymous)]

1) I am actually against fanartists selling their work. Especially if they do fanart for smaller indie things.
2) Still no it's not the same. The work they do is work. The thing they steal is mostly promotion (by using the famous base) and some ideas. So no, not the same

[(Anonymous)]

very false - you still gotta draw to make a picture if you're using PS brushes, no matter how advanced.
AI art to me is like if someone claimed to be an artist because they made a few picrew avatars/characters tbh, I can't believe there are people who don't get it, which ofc there are /SIGH

[(Anonymous)]

I'm mostly anti-anti-AI art but I still think this is a pretty silly point

[(Anonymous)]

By this logic, any game developer who has ever used premade assets like models, plugins or textures is also in the same boat.

Guess I'll try and break into the industry again when I've programmed my own game engine from the ground up.

[(Anonymous)]

To someone with no digital art skill whatsoever like myself, the difference is certainly not negligible. You throw a bunch of texture brushes at me and tell me to create an image, I wouldn't know where to start. With my lack of drawing skill, there would be nothing decent for those gorgeous textures to go on.

If you gave me Stable Diffusion, I'd be able to get there in much less time. That said, I'd refuse, because I don't love that they scraped other people's work online to teach their AI. I've seen people post their AI "work" on social media and getting praise for it and it just gives me secondhand embarrassment. Why are you LARP-ing as an artist bro, I know you can't draw for shit.

[comet_scout]

As another digital artist. I don't think it's cheating, but I still refuse to use them because I feel they don't fit my style and look odd. (though tbf, SAI2 doesn't have many of those.)

[erinptah]

If you use a brush that the original creator made available with no restrictions, or that they put up for sale and you paid for, then the creator has been compensated for their labor according to their own terms.

The people who have a problem with AI art also have a problem with pirating brushes that the creators have put up for sale.

Coders could make an AI dataset using only art that the original creators had been compensated for! Either because they were paid, or because they released the art under a license that says you can use it without paying! As long as the coders aren't doing that, people will keep having a problem with it.

[(Anonymous)]

tell me you know nothing about digital art without telling me you know nothing about digital art