Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hmmm, not so sure I like her in white. I only really like a few of the pieces in that scheme, and I don’t believe she’d become one of them.
Oh well. Can’t afford one no matter the colour. 😉
I wondered if you could paint over the interference to give a semi-transparent wash. That’s good to know; I didn’t think it would stick or look good. I’d probably do that if the design warranted it.
Antiquing should come first unless you want to discolour your interference paints by accident. Although, the latter I think doesn’t allow paint to stick to it as well, so it might be ok if you’ve done it the other way.
I’ve never used interference paints, but I always used to do the darkening antique process before applying special highlights or other detailing colours.
Maybe when humankind is suffering a serious decline in population from which recovery isn’t possible, and the planet has so many resources that we don’t know what to do with them all, I would maybe consider thinking about the possibility of considering children.
Or maybe I’ll get a hole drilled into my head first!
Maybe your cookies aren’t being saved properly when you visit or are expiring immediately?
Expiring cookies, OH NOES!! 0_0
That said, ‘ketchup on cocktail napkin while I was at the pub’ as a technique, say, might be pushing the art quality envelope a little far…
Akeyla wrote:DigitalDragon:
quality…thats the point, done on your lap infront of the TV is not what I would consider high quality :/
especially because I dont do big pre-studies (time thing problem) :/
well, anyhow, after a few sales where I started low and it went up I have a bit more instinct training on my prices, specifically the 3Ds. With the time you get closer to a real “buy for art” and not “bargain” but still, subject and time of the year are my worst enemies. Pricewise.On the contrary… you could paint and draw these things sitting naked upside down in an old cardboard box while singing show tunes, and it wouldn’t matter, so long as the end result looks good. Quality isn’t how you get there, it’s what you end up with. ^_-
Watergazer wrote:Lol, one published wanted to hire me on as their sole artist and was outraged I’d charge more than $500 per book because “all I have to do is draw it once and have the computer move the character and limbs around.” Needless to say I didn’t take THAT job, and boy was the woman angry…but let her try to hire someone else for $500 or less an entire book.
Hey that’s a damn GOOD price, and pretty average for low-end providers who want to offer a good deal (just layout, not art though). That’s just sad… I’m glad you refused! *LOL* Let her get mad. Those intimidation tactics shouldn’t be used to get their way…
I think I like this newer version better because of the less silver aspect. Very nice. I love those stripes too.
What’s worse is when the media makes something look easy… like it’s all automated these days!
“Hey, you can’t fool me, I saw that episode of X-Files! You just gotta click a button and POOF—instant photo merge!”
Watergazer’s story and the concept of time-based charging brings up another good point…
If you produce high quality AND are speedier than everyone else, why should you be penalised for being more efficient? You are being paid for the amount of work you do and the talent it takes, not how long it takes (in that case, might as well take forever at it and really rake in the bucks!). Businesses charge more for rush jobs; for getting the same exact job done more quickly. And it’s touted as a way to become more profitable at what you do: by always charging a flat-rate but getting faster at doing the job so you have more time to do more jobs.
Time does not necessarily equate to talent required.
Well, even when InDesign files arrive it was rarely as simple as just clicking ‘Print.’ We’d have to spend a minimum of several hours or so on every file, laid out or not. There’s usually always something that needs fixing unless the person is a professional design/production artist (and even then, that’s no guarantee). I’ve seen some positively terrifying stuff even from fellow ‘professionals.’ Wrong font types, wrong margins, wrong book size, wrong file formats, corrupt files… *shudder*
But cripes… they wanted to pay $50 for a layout?? 😯 Takes hours to do a book design and layout correctly. And then there’s all the endless revisions. *LOL* Don’t they realise that’s why people (including Trafford) charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars for design and layout? It’s a professional skilled trade that needs years of education and training to do it right and save them money by avoiding costly errors. Honestly, they just don’t get it…
I’d love to do fursuits myself, but I think I need more free time to learn it and hone my sewing skills. Trying to do design and layout well is hard and time-consuming enough. 😉
Edit: Whoops, I’m falling behind! *LOL* Sorry.
Well, ‘worked’ at Trafford (sorry if it wasn’t clear). I first mentioned it briefly in my introductory post in the Community section, and it was promptly buried in other posts, so that’s probably why you missed it. That or I worded it ambiguously. 😉
Yeah, I worked there for almost three years, and left just over two years ago to do the freelance thing. I was the third technician to be hired on there (they had only one or two for a long time) so I was one of the senior tech ‘oldies’ who was there since the ‘early’ days. Quite a few more than three techs there nowadays!
But yeah, I suddenly realised who you were when you listed your book titles several months ago! Small world indeed. 😉
Yeah, unless the books came in all laid out in InDesign and were perfectly ready to go, we would construct the complete layout based on your mock-up. Oh yeah, and often scanned peoples’ big@$$ oversized artwork on a tiny scanner *LOL*. I wondered if you had to do the production part as well (all the typesetting, scan and colour adjusting, file output, etc). That’s the tedious and tricky part.
