On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Mirai Warren
> Ach. Sorry, but my meaning was simply that an artist can create art
> with any tool. mspaint was only an example.
>>Looks like you have to make a tough choice to stop contradicting yourself :)
> I wasn't contradicting myself. By "was responsible for" I meant "was
> used to create". It is still the artist that creates.
>>While it is technically possibly to create dither
>>patterns like this using a tool like MS-Paint (which it wasn't in this
>>case - it was Gimp), it is my opinion that an artist would have to
>>either be masochistic, have way to much time on their hands, or just
>>be stubbornly trying to make a point to use such a tool rather than a
>>more suitable one...
> I can do those patterns with mspaint rather easily, and I am not a masochist.
I can do them easily (in GIMP, and probably in mspaint). But it takes
more time, and is meaningless grunt work -- I already know exactly
what is wanted there, so the method I used was to generate a sample of
the dithering and then clone it. With the advent of the 'clipboard
pattern' feature in GIMP, this would be even easier -- I could draw
the ditherpattern sample directly onto the image before copying that
section and cloning from Clipboard Pattern. Tool use allows you to
forget about the meaningless and spend more time on the meaningful.
The time that you can choose to spend rendering such things manually,
subtracts from the time you have to attend to other parts, and to the
picture as a whole. As long as there is an efficiency gain, tools are
worthwhile to use. I do not use a cloning method for small amounts of
dithering, as it is more efficient to just render them with pencil
Yes, I'm the artist of that picture :)
If you're not very practiced at dithering, it might be good to spend
time doing it manually despite available tools to automate it. With
the understanding of what you want that comes with experience, this is
only rarely needed.
Gimp-developer mailing list