Iron Man 3 poster

[MSM 194]

How do you guys like the Iron Man 3 poster? Although I am not particularly fond of his graphic art, I actually very much like the concept art look of this poster by Mark 'Jock' Simpson. Also I appreciate the fact that it is a movie poster which is actually illustrated and no Photoshop for a change.

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

It is indeed refreshing to see real art, instead of Photoshop (tho' PS is nothing to sneeze at IMO)

[Jay 46,244]

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16439&p=898197

[Pieter Boelen 1,032]

At least something different-like.

[MSM 194]

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16439&p=898197

I'm sorry...I often have trouble to find subjects in 'search'...and have no time to keep track of all threads.

It is indeed refreshing to see real art, instead of Photoshop (tho' PS is nothing to sneeze at IMO)

Indeed, one can make real art in Photoshop, and it has possibilities that extend beyond classic techniques...but you know what I mean.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Meh! No fire or explosions. No Downey Jr. In full front and centre on the poster!

This is far to alternative and weird for Marvel!

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Would a designer use a combination of software like the Holy Trinity of Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign?

Blume?

[Ollie 1,375]

I'm there to watch a movie, not stare at a poster. Don't care what they look like.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Photoshop, some physical medium, and Illustrator tend to be the most common. Whichever is the right tool for the job (often a combination). I think it's a little unwise to criticize (or praise) a work based on the medium, rather than the actual skill and talent demonstrated within that medium.

For example, I know for fact the Iron Man poster being hailed for "no Photoshop" here is in fact a physical sketch scanned, painted, and finished in Photoshop.

[Brónach 1,330]

For example, I know for fact the Iron Man poster being hailed for "no Photoshop" here is in fact a physical sketch scanned, painted, and finished in Photoshop.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Pretty much every film poster has been though some photoshopping.

And why not? Its a FANTASTIC piece of software.

[Brónach 1,330]

I am extremely annoyed by that kind of software, but I can see you can do some badass stuff in it. Which I can't do. Even the simplest things.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Photoshop allows bad artists to create bad art.

Just as a paintbrush and canvas are available to any crappy artist to create bad art.

[MSM 194]

Photoshop allows bad artists to create bad art.

Just as a paintbrush and canvas are available to any crappy artist to create bad art.

This is exactly what I meant to say. I dont have anything against PS if it is used in an artistic way. But these days, with a computer anyone can make 'art'. And the difference with bad physical art so to speak is that the latter wont easily be used in million dollar marketing campaigns.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

But these days, with a computer anyone can make 'art'.

No!

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

But these days, with a computer anyone can make 'art'.

No!

there is a difference between art and 'art'

[Brónach 1,330]

But these days, with a computer anyone can make 'art'.

No!

Strictly speaking, yes.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Anyone can go to a store and pick up made in china acrylics and a canvas and make 'art' as well!

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

almost all of the great "art" was made by accident anyways

[Brónach 1,330]

Anyone can go to a store and pick up made in china acrylics and a canvas and make 'art' as well!

Actully I know some people are somehow annoyed by this. I don't get it. It's like only some chosen ones can give it a try or what?

Now, when it's a marketing campaign with lots of money for a very expensive film, I am indeed annoyed by unexplainably shitty posters.

[Muad'Dib 2,059]

almost all of the great "art" was made by accident anyways

Not really

Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Plato, Lovecraft, Einsestein, Tarkovsky, Kubrick didn't make their art by "accident"....

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

almost all of the great "art" was made by accident anyways

Not really

Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Plato, Lovecraft, Einsestein, Tarkovsky, Kubrick didn't make their art by "accident"....

I'm sure each of them did. The process of art is one of exploration and accident. You don't just "decide" to create what you end up creating. You have an idea...a feeling...and you're sort of a curator of all the little accidents and unexpected things that happen in your head as you explore that idea. Then you bring it all together and hope it works.

The final result is often times vastly different than what you originally envisioned.

It's a sort of controlled chaos and accident.

[Brónach 1,330]

Great art normally comes from a lot of hard work and some happy coincidences. But you might actually put a lot of work and fuck it up anyway.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Working hard has nothing to do with anything.

So many people work hard, but produce crap, are as dumb as a sack of peanuts, well-intentioned but ultimately failures. (*cough* anyone who's ever had to do business with Japan can tell you of the "work hard and accomplish not much" problem)

What's important is working smart, critically, with continuous precise and meaningful self-assessment, which means stepping outside of yourself. Some people just do those things intuitively and effortlessly. Often the people that can put something together in a coffee break. 99% of the world doesn't know how to do it.

But with the spirit of BloodBoal's reply: sometimes times things are just sheer dumb luck.

[Brónach 1,330]

I'm sorry to ruin your little fantasy, Chaac, but your comic book will suck, whether you work hard on it or not.

I'd rather work on things than not do anything and finish things ten minutes before deadline. The reason being that I find doing it fun.

Besides, I already said that working on things thoroughly like Blumenkohl says doesn't guarantee anything.

[Pieter Boelen 1,032]

So many people work hard, but produce crap, are as dumb as a sack of peanuts, well-intentioned but ultimately failures. (*cough* anyone who's ever had to do business with Japan can tell you of the "work hard and accomplish not much" problem)

What's important is working smart, critically, with continuous precise and meaningful self-assessment, which means stepping outside of yourself. Some people just do those things intuitively and effortlessly. Often the people that can put something together in a coffee break. 99% of the world doesn't know how to do it.

And then there are the times when you COULD get a lot of good things done in a short time frame if only you got the opportunity.

But then you run into people who just DON'T - WANT - YOU - TO - DO - IT. Those are the best times.

[Naïve Old Fart 13,023]

A bit of Bob Peak, here, and a bit of Jon Alvin, there. I like it.

[MSM 194]

Great art normally comes from a lot of hard work and some happy coincidences.

I think this is also what Bluhmenkohl is relating to. Actually it is something one can only understand when he is familiar with the process.

[Brónach 1,330]

while other artists just do something during their coffee break, and everyone calls the end result a masterpiece.

I think this also depends on the form. For example, you wouldn't get to make a film in "your coffee break" or something. But you might come up with a nice sonnet.

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

Some people just ignore smileys I guess

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Anyways, if you want to see some good digital art we have a thread going here:

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22586#entry899064

[Muad'Dib 2,059]

Some people just ignore smileys I guess

I thought you were trying to seduce us.