Is photobashing an acceptable art technique?

>>2772921
The person buying the art decides if it's acceptable or not.

>>2772921
no

>>2772921
It's an acceptable technique to communicate an idea quickly in a work environment where you are being paid to do that. It's not really about art.

>>2772921
For concept art, yes.

For literally everything else, no.

File: IMG_0817.jpg (67KB, 500x252px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x252px

>>2772921

I don't see any technique, at all... sir.

Clearly considering its widely utilized in concept art.

What's acceptable for one employer won't be for another, what's acceptable for one viewer won't be for another.

>>2772921
The only thing limiting digital realist painters from photobashing is either some form of ethical concern or fear of getting called out. I say this as a traditional artist who only uses digital for sketching.

It's completely pointless to not photobash if you're a digital painter. It's fast, it's effective, you can paint over it in case you don't want the photo to show through.

The only true detriment I can find to it is that you won't improve as much as someone who draws his own perspective grids and/or draws from imagination. I don't even know if that's true though, and in the end it doesn't matter when ti comes to getting work.

>>2772921
Only thing that matters is the end product and requirements/limitations set for it.

>>2772939
kek.

Do you want to be an artist, OP? Or an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill?

Photobashing is old hat.

3D and photobashing is the new thing /ic/ should be getting it's panties in a twist about.

>>2773064
/ic/ can't even 3D model or photobash, so it doesn't bring up the things it can't do.

If you want an ugly result then yes.