vexeling and vectoring, A different take on what it looks like. Options

[Ktru]

Hey everyone, there just something that's been bothering me about the forum's ethnic on vexeling and vectoring (which I will call Vextor).

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

Maybe you're new to vexeling or vectoring and so you're following the shapes that was created when you desaturate. But it seems like the popular notion of vectoring and vexeling is just to follow the shapes created by photoshop.

I think of graphic design as a form of art. Learning how to vexel and vector is hard because it takes time to learn what kind of shapes you need to make and what kind of opacity the shape should be. To make a good vextor you need to learn the basics ( how to desaturate. how to create shapes, how to blend the layers, etc) after you have that what you do with the vectoring should be up to you. Experiment with the color and shapes to create something different.

Here's a tutorial that I thought was great on vextoring. Can someone else provide their tutorial so I can see what they're doing?

http://www.melissaclifton.com/tutorial-vector.html

let me know what your take on this is

[*StanleyThePanda*]

omg.. this should be closed... its turning into more of an fight then anything else...

It will be closed if it gets out of hand. But right now, I think it's fine.

[Ktru]

omg.. this should be closed... its turning into more of an fight then anything else...

bottom line there is NO right way or wrong way to vector everyone has a style of their own END OF STORY

I don't think it's a fight, more then anything it's a disscussion. Of course there is no right or wrong way it's art. But even in art there is good and bad, and that's what this topic is more about.

[energizerbunny]

Firstly, I would like to say "vexel" is already a combination of "pixel" and "vector" so there's no need to create another name. Secondly, what does desaturating an image have to do with vectoring? I don't know many vectorers or vexellers who desaturate an image before working on it. What do you mean when you say vexel and vectors are meant to look "flat?" Flat means theres no definition, depth, or shadows. Do you mean they are suppose to look like 2-d illustrations? Vector and Vexel are not "styles" in the aspect that they don't have a particular "look" to them. They can range anywhere from relaism to cartoonism.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ I think he meant to say "Posterize" instead of "Desaturate"

[*slammin shelby*]

Man did I miss Trish's posts.
Anyway, I prefer the more 3-D looking vectors, to me they look more real and come alive more.
If I was a consumer looking for someone to desgin for me, I would def go for the more real looking design.
I mean, go see Trish's site and Myspace. That's what I would want it to look like.

But I agree, no wrong or right way. Just how you prefer.

[Kontroll]

Hey everyone, there just something that's been bothering me about the forum's ethnic on vexeling and vectoring (which I will call Vextor).

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

Maybe you're new to vexeling or vectoring and so you're following the shapes that was created when you desaturate. But it seems like the popular notion of vectoring and vexeling is just to follow the shapes created by photoshop.

I think of graphic design as a form of art. Learning how to vexel and vector is hard because it takes time to learn what kind of shapes you need to make and what kind of opacity the shape should be. To make a good vextor you need to learn the basics ( how to desaturate. how to create shapes, how to blend the layers, etc) after you have that what you do with the vectoring should be up to you. Experiment with the color and shapes to create something different.

Here's a tutorial that I thought was great on vextoring. Can someone else provide their tutorial so I can see what they're doing?

http://www.melissaclifton.com/tutorial-vector.html

let me know what your take on this is

Ethnic? Haha. You mean ethic right? It's just bothering me a little.

[xtrancie]

i tried again. T-T

[Ktru]

Firstly, I would like to say "vexel" is already a combination of "pixel" and "vector" so there's no need to create another name.

vexel is not the same as vecotr. I made the word vextor because i was lazy to type both vexel and vector. There's a difference to what i'm saying and what you think i'm saying.

Secondly, what does desaturating an image have to do with vectoring?I don't know many vectorers or vexellers who desaturate an image before working on it. What do you mean when you say vexel and vectors are meant to look "flat?" Flat means theres no definition, depth, or shadows. Do you mean they are suppose to look like 2-d illustrations? Vector and Vexel are not "styles" in the aspect that they don't have a particular "look" to them. They can range anywhere from relaism to cartoonism.

ya i meant posterize or w/e is the your choice of rendering before you work on it.

Ethnic? Haha. You mean ethic right? It's just bothering me a little.

haha ya

Man did I miss Trish's posts.
Anyway, I prefer the more 3-D looking vectors, to me they look more real and come alive more.
If I was a consumer looking for someone to desgin for me, I would def go for the more real looking design.
I mean, go see Trish's site and Myspace. That's what I would want it to look like.

But I agree, no wrong or right way. Just how you prefer.

Have you seen a Scanner Darkly? They use a vector like style to make their movie, it's not layery like trish's vextoring and it still looks real and good. (BEST ARTISTIC MOVIE YET!). IMO I think the layerly effect is okay but if done in moderation, there shouldn't be concentric shapes for the face arms and body ALL the time. I think trish's vectors are good, it's actually great. The only part that isn't is her skin, they're all concentric and layerly and those part whore all the attention not only because they're a lighter color but the concentric shapes are shouting LOOKY MEE!

[energizerbunny]

Many vector artists sadly don't appreciate vexel art, so I feel it's weird that you should merge "vexels" and "vectors" again on their behalf. It's not a big deal, though.
Actually, many vectorers/vexellers don't posterize or do anything to an image before working on it. Many don't even use a reference.
"A Scanner Darkly" uses rotoscoping I think so I wouldn't consider it the most "artistic movie" out there. Rather than drawing/animating everything from scratch, they basically traced over human frames.*shrugs*
I guess your whole "layery" agruement is a matter of opinions, but I don't think you should say someone's art (ex-skin) is good or bad. Art can't be good or bad.
Do you have any experience in vexels/vectors yourself? In my honest opinion, it seems you just read that tutorial on the Bjork vector and decided to make it your philosophy on vectors/vexels.

This is off topic, but I feel weird suddenly posting in this topic because I'm not an active member. I stumbled across this forum a while back and I decided to take a look at all the design talent so I hope you all don't think I'm butting in.

[*[2]Nekked*]

Ok im back again. I just cant ignore your total butchering of the english language anymore. Do you actually know what the word "concentric" means?

My vectors vary in style, so please stop talking as if i only do it in high-contrast, and even if they arent up to YOUR standards, they seem to be making me enough money. I dont understand why you wont just give this up. Everyone has their own style. No one cares if you like their style or not. It's up to the artist to decide which they want to go. Plenty of people didn't like Picasso. Plenty of people dont like Sagmeister. Then again, a lot of people DO like them.

I suggest you concentrate on your own vectors rather than putting people down for their style choices.

[Ington]

I can't believe how dumb this thread is getting. That's the only word for it. Dumb.

I don't even understand how this argument is progressing. What logic can one have to put guidelines and rules to art? If anything, history shows that guidelines for art almost guarantee their disbanding.

You can't compare one style of vector art with another, and no style of art is wrong. The entire gradient 3D feel is a style of art, not a formula or algorithm.

Furthermore, Ktru, I suggest you don't start to talk about what style of art is 'good or bad', because I doubt that would make for an interesting discussion. Additionally, a style can't be good or bad, only the artist can, and only from the views of individual minds.

Moving on, I believe that 3D and 2D art cannot be compared in regards to vectoring. The entire look of these styles put them in different categories from one another. The styles have their own respective perks for artists seeking a certain feeling or fundamental aspect to their peice.

[Ktru]

Many vector artists sadly don't appreciate vexel art, so I feel it's weird that you should merge "vexels" and "vectors" again on their behalf. It's not a big deal, though.

Hmm i can understand why vector artists wouldn't like vexel art, it's kind of in a way cheap. But it's a lot easier then doing from scratch.

Actually, many vectorers/vexellers don't posterize or do anything to an image before working on it. Many don't even use a reference.

I don't think you're suppost to work from a reference like that. I think the whole part of the posterizing and everything is just to get an idea so you can start off.

"A Scanner Darkly" uses rotoscoping I think so I wouldn't consider it the most "artistic movie" out there. Rather than drawing/animating everything from scratch, they basically traced over human frames.*shrugs*

ya they did, but I haven't seen any other movie like this that's why i think it's soo artistic.

I guess your whole "layery" agruement is a matter of opinions, but I don't think you should say someone's art (ex-skin) is good or bad. Art can't be good or bad.
Do you have any experience in vexels/vectors yourself? In my honest opinion, it seems you just read that tutorial on the Bjork vector and decided to make it your philosophy on vectors/vexels.

Ya it is in itself a very opinionated argument and I have tried vexling, it's not easy but it's not hard either. I've also looked at other tutorials online, ones from deviant art and others as well. I'm not deriving my philosophy from one source and i'm not claiming it's right either, i'm just sharing my thoughts.

This is off topic, but I feel weird suddenly posting in this topic because I'm not an active member. I stumbled across this forum a while back and I decided to take a look at all the design talent so I hope you all don't think I'm butting in.

Doesn't bother me.

Ok im back again. I just cant ignore your total butchering of the english language anymore. Do you actually know what the word "concentric" means?

My vectors vary in style, so please stop talking as if i only do it in high-contrast, and even if they arent up to YOUR standards, they seem to be making me enough money. I dont understand why you wont just give this up. Everyone has their own style. No one cares if you like their style or not. It's up to the artist to decide which they want to go. Plenty of people didn't like Picasso. Plenty of people dont like Sagmeister. Then again, a lot of people DO like them.

I suggest you concentrate on your own vectors rather than putting people down for their style choices.

okay nekked either stay with the thread or leave, lets stop declaring that you're done and then come back cause you feel like it. I do know what concentric means and i'm saying your stuff looks like a bulls eye.

I don't get why you won't leave when you've put your input on this subject, if you're done then leave and stick to your words.

You may not seem to care anymore about this thread but others do. That's why there are other posts in it. SOrry you're not the center of the universe, you don't represent everyone. If you think that way sure, but don't speak for everyone. Further I don't care if people think i like or dislike there style, this is a discussion not a precedent to be settled.

I can't believe how dumb this thread is getting. That's the only word for it. Dumb.

I don't even understand how this argument is progressing. What logic can one have to put guidelines and rules to art? If anything, history shows that guidelines for art almost guarantee their disbanding.

You can't compare one style of vector art with another, and no style of art is wrong. The entire gradient 3D feel is a style of art, not a formula or algorithm.

If you think it's a dumb thread why are you posting it? AGAIN i'm not setting any guidelines to anything. Scan the forums and look at all the vextors, I don't know about you but they they all look homogeneous with few exceptions.

Furthermore, Ktru, I suggest you don't start to talk about what style of art is 'good or bad', because I doubt that would make for an interesting discussion. Additionally, a style can't be good or bad, only the artist can, and only from the views of individual minds.

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

Moving on, I believe that 3D and 2D art cannot be compared in regards to vectoring. The entire look of these styles put them in different categories from one another. The styles have their own respective perks for artists seeking a certain feeling or fundamental aspect to their peice.

I agree you can't compare apples to oranges. But is that what we're doing when we're comparing vextors to vextors? If you're considering the layerly style as being 3d then sure but that's not the way I'm looking at it.

[*[2]Nekked*]

can you read?

[*mona lisa*]

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

There is no "good" or "bad" art. Either you like it or you don't. If it appeals to you for whatever reason (message, design, practicality, etc.), great. If not, it's not "bad". It may need improvements but even that can be subjective.

[Ktru]

Nekked' date='Mar 6 2007, 9:14 PM' post='2484356']
can you read?

That's a good question I'd like to ask you. Next time, can you try to use more than 3 words and actually read the reply.

Oh and I was wondering what the whole bs about your first post being the only one and then you comming back and replying with spam is about?Still no answer I see. I'd prefer you leave unless you're going to contribute to the thread. Clearly the wall of text is a daunting task for you to read but i'm sure you can do it!

There is no "good" or "bad" art. Either you like it or you don't. If it appeals to you for whatever reason (message, design, practicality, etc.), great. If not, it's not "bad". It may need improvements but even that can be subjective.

but there is good and bad art, it just the collective opinion at one time is swayed at good or bad. Look at picasso everyone thought his art sucks, but now people stare at it and go wow he's a genius. It is all very subjective, but that doesn't mean it can't be good and bad.

[*[2]Nekked*]

please explain to me what your definition of "spam" is, because i'm sure it's totally different than everyone else's, seeing as how you've been making up your own definitions and words throughout this whole thread. everything i have posted here is in direct relevance to everything you're saying. that's not spam. that's the total opposite of spam.

i asked if you could read because it seems you DIDNT read anything i said in my previous post, and you're more concentrated on trying to get me out of your thread. TOUGH SHIT, HONEY, I'M HERE. And it seems YOU'RE the only one that cant seem to muster a response to anything i'm saying.

but there is good and bad art, it just the collective opinion at one time is swayed at good or bad. Look at picasso everyone thought his art sucks, but now people stare at it and go wow he's a genius. It is all very subjective, but that doesn't mean it can't be good and bad.

right there. you're the only one in this entire thread that thinks the way you do. the actual collective opinion of this forum agrees that you're pretty much wrong. just extrapulate that for a second.


Vectoring is not a genre of art. It is a technique used in art. Like painting. Painting is not a genre of art.

REALISM is a genre. SURREALISM is a genre. CUBISM. IMPRESSIONISM. Figure it out already. And they are genres for a reason. Different people can appreciate different genres. Maybe you only really like one or two. Good for you. In your own words, you arent the center of the universe. The collective opinion of art does not revolve around your own.

I like R&B. I don't like Country. But there are millions of people in the world that like country and dont like R&B.

[Ington]

If you think it's a dumb thread why are you posting it? AGAIN i'm not setting any guidelines to anything. Scan the forums and look at all the vextors, I don't know about you but they they all look homogeneous with few exceptions.

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

I agree you can't compare apples to oranges. But is that what we're doing when we're comparing vextors to vextors? If you're considering the layerly style as being 3d then sure but that's not the way I'm looking at it.

Think of it as a duty to one's homeland. My homeland is art. When someone defiles or distorts it, to the smallest degree, I feel a need to protect it. I'm posting here because I am trying to protect art from ridiculous commentaries.

It doesn't matter if they all look the same to you. I think most tissue boxes look the same. I think most cardboard boxes look the same. Does that mean that the cardboard used to make them and the processes to make them are bad? If many people like the same form of art, does that mean that its bad? Are you such a non-conformist that the idea of a majority liking just turns you off to something?

I think nothing you said came close to supporting your argument. So far, you have not discussed your reasoning for why so called 'vextors' are bad. In your first post here, you said:

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

They're not supposed to look like anything. As [2]Nekked said, they are all just methods to create art. There are 'flat' vectors and vexels, which I have seen a lot on this website anyway, and there are 'layered' ones. And I'm sure there are many more vectorized peices of realism, surrealism, abstraction, etc.

And if you don't think the layered vectors are more realistic than flat vectors, then what are they? Less realistic?

Additionally, critics are respected due to their experience in a certain subject. Critics are not appreciated on Createblog, as you have no credentials, and if you do, you can't prove them. Here, regardless of what profession you've moved into, you are just a member with an opinion, equal to any other member. Don't think you can just blab your opinion about something and have everyone submit to it without supporting yourself with evidence. A critic's evidence is his or her status. You don't have that luxury.

[Ktru]

please explain to me what your definition of "spam" is, because i'm sure it's totally different than everyone else's, seeing as how you've been making up your own definitions and words throughout this whole thread. everything i have posted here is in direct relevance to everything you're saying. that's not spam. that's the total opposite of spam.

3 words responses are spam, it's not referring to anything and you're not directing your response to anything.

asked if you could read because it seems you DIDNT read anything i said in my previous post, and you're more concentrated on trying to get me out of your thread. TOUGH SHIT, HONEY, I'M HERE. And it seems YOU'RE the only one that cant seem to muster a response to anything i'm saying.

Hey i welcomed you in with open arms, you're the one that said

And with that said, I'm done with this thread, as it no longer interests me to continue reading.

Ahem. No offense.

and

And once more, with feeling: I'm done with this thread. This is my last response. Your views were entertaining at first, but now you're just not being very nice.

Clearly you uninvited yourself not me so don't be bringing your attitude back cause really you're starting to bore me with that same song you've been singing over and over and over.

right there. you're the only one in this entire thread that thinks the way you do. the actual collective opinion of this forum agrees that you're pretty much wrong. just extrapulate that for a second.

Seriously explain to me who nominated you as forum's spokeswoman?

REALISM is a genre. SURREALISM is a genre. CUBISM. IMPRESSIONISM. Figure it out already. And they are genres for a reason. Different people can appreciate different genres. Maybe you only really like one or two. Good for you. In your own words, you arent the center of the universe. The collective opinion of art does not revolve around your own.

I don't get why you think i'm pushing my opinion on anyone? I'm equally allowed to express my thoughts just as you are. So really get that whole "I'm right your wrong" thought out of your head you're just a silly monkey that got angry cause i said your stuff sucks. Really if your soo shallow to be offended by such a comment on the internet, you should consider seeking help.

It doesn't matter if they all look the same to you. I think most tissue boxes look the same. I think most cardboard boxes look the same. Does that mean that the cardboard used to make them and the processes to make them are bad? If many people like the same form of art, does that mean that its bad? Are you such a non-conformist that the idea of a majority liking just turns you off to something?

Maybe I am a non-conformist. Maybe i think everything that looks the same sucks, what's it to you? If you're in this to protect art then you too should know that art is about originality and if you're not promoting originality well... I guess you're pretty much into things that are homogeneous ya?

I think nothing you said came close to supporting your argument. So far, you have not discussed your reasoning for why so called 'vextors' are bad. In your first post here, you said:

Okay so let me lay out my arguement for ya.

This forum's vextors= layerly
I hate layerly
So I want to know where everyone's learning how to vector from

or

layerly= non realistic
organic shapes to shade the skin, is
proof?- I don't see people with layerly skin...well none from earth that is.

And if you don't think the layered vectors are more realistic than flat vectors, then what are they? Less realistic?

precisely

Additionally, critics are respected due to their experience in a certain subject. Critics are not appreciated on Createblog, as you have no credentials, and if you do, you can't prove them. Here, regardless of what profession you've moved into, you are just a member with an opinion, equal to any other member. Don't think you can just blab your opinion about something and have everyone submit to it without supporting yourself with evidence. A critic's evidence is his or her status. You don't have that luxury.

Oh but I can blab my opinion without supporting myself. This is a forum and as the artist's luxury he/she has the right to ignore my opinion.

[*[2]Nekked*]

wow. and still you havent really responded to what i've said about vectoring not being a genre of art. it's a technique.


i'm not the forum spokeswoman. just LOOK at the responses you've gotten in your thread. name ONE person that has agreed with you.
pay attention, sweetheart.

ermfermoo is right. you dont support your arguments well at all. you just blab your opinion and expect everyone to fall in line without any explanation. because you "hate" layery vectors is not a sufficient explanation at all. furthermore, no one respects your opinion because we still have not seen any of your work. even if we did, we still wouldnt agree with you. there is no ONE way to vector something, like there is no ONE way to paint something.

i've given you three chances to come up with a response to that. (that vectoring is not a genre of art, but a technique, and people gravitate towards one or two genres they like, under their own accord). So far you've just ignored it. Is it because you HAVE no argument?

[Ktru]

wow. and still you havent really responded to what i've said about vectoring not being a genre of art. it's a technique.

Ya I never disagreed to this statement. I never claimed it's a genre of art. I used a metaphor that made it appear so.

i'm not the forum spokeswoman. just LOOK at the responses you've gotten in your thread. name ONE person that has agreed with you.
pay attention, sweetheart.

If there were people who agreed with me clearly there wouldn't be a need for this thread would there? The huge majority of people on this forum thinks of vectoring like you do. Clearly there won't be many people who share the same opinion as I do.

But it seems as if you're using that statement to imply that i'm wrong? Apparently when everyone who speaks up disagrees with you, means you're wrong. There's no wrong or right to art (surely as you know), so no I won't accept this as me being wrong. A difference in opinion does not equate to being wrong.

ermfermoo is right. you dont support your arguments well at all. you just blab your opinion and expect everyone to fall in line without any explanation. because you "hate" layery vectors is not a sufficient explanation at all.

Silly I didn't expect anyone to "fall in line" with my arguement. I expected people to see the thread, take a look and go " o interesting, something different". Who said I was here to fight to establish a right vectoring style? Furthermore I don't understand why I have to explain why I hate it? My opinion is not a precedent and requires so explaination. I'm not trying to sway your opinion to my side and I really don't care if you disagree. I'm trying to present a different side to it so others can see, not so that everyone will think the way I do.

furthermore, no one respects your opinion because we still have not seen any of your work. even if we did, we still wouldnt agree with you.

No, Futhermore, YOU don't respect my opinion. Don't speak for everyone as you yourself has establish that YOU are not the forum spokewomen. Everyone here has there own hands and can type for themself. They can tell me if they dissagree, not YOU.

there is no ONE way to vector something, like there is no ONE way to paint something.

Seriously do you read? Have I not establish the fact that there isn't one way of doing something? The whole point of the thread is to establish a different way of vextoring. Hence the description "A different take on what it looks like"

i've given you three chances to come up with a response to that. (that vectoring is not a genre of art, but a technique, and people gravitate towards one or two genres they like, under their own accord).

Oh silly, this is why you're WRONG. Read response above for this statement.

So far you've just ignored it. Is it because you HAVE no argument?

No, I ignored it because i didn't think of it as an argument, since I didn't disagree with that statement. But yes, I believe I do have an argument. It goes along the lines of what we've been disscussing. The DIFFERENT ways of vextoring, your look, and the way I like it. Okay to summarize- There is more to vextoring then the style that you do.

[*[2]Nekked*]

im sorry are you just a total idiot then? if you concede that there are different genres of vectoring, then why bother shooting everyone down when they say they like a particular genre that you dont? who f**king cares who likes what genre of whatever art technique? You've spoken your mind and it seems that no one gives a shit about what you say, so f**kin get over it already.

[Ington]

So basically your point is that you don't like those styles.
Is that seriously it? That's what we've been arguing about? How uneventful.

Who cares?

[clarity]

Guys cool it down.

Anyways, I've never really expirience vectoring and vexeling because in own opinion its too complicated for me but for how it looks, does style really matter? Everyone has a unique style, and in my own opinion there is no "wrong" or "right" way to do anything.

[*Uronacid*]

Guys cool it down.

Anyways, I've never really experience vectoring and vexeling because in own opinion its too complicated for me but for how it looks, does style really matter? Everyone has a unique style, and in my own opinion there is no "wrong" or "right" way to do anything.

It's not that complicated. Anyone can do it... it's about as difficult as using tracing paper. You just have to know how to use the pent tool.... *sigh*

These guys are just making it sound more complicated than it really is. All it takes is time...

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jkeal/airship.gif - here's a quic vector that I spent about 1 hour on... more time = looks better... I don't know... I always thought vector overlays were a big waste of time. They take forever, and in the end they ultimately look just like the original. I would rather create something that I made up in my own head. What's the point...

[*[2]Nekked*]

It's not that complicated. Anyone can do it... it's about as difficult as using tracing paper. You just have to know how to use the pent tool.... *sigh*

These guys are just making it sound more complicated than it really is. All it takes is time...

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jkeal/airship.gif - here's a quic vector that I spent about 1 hour on... more time = looks better... I don't know... I always thought vector overlays were a big waste of time. They take forever, and in the end they ultimately look just like the original. I would rather create something that I made up in my own head. What's the point...

i dunno how many times i need to get this point across. vectors ALSO arent restricted to only referenced portraits. if you are USING a vector program and USING geometric shapes/lines to make ANYTHING, its a vector.