Photobashing

>>3027255
to get it right anywhere, loomis
to get it right anytime, photobash

>>3027255
Combine them to become the ultimate hack.

File: 1497246443823.jpg (698KB, 1920x2160px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1920x2160px

>>3027255
You need to learn the fundamentals to photobash correctly.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is suffering from technophobia:
>"People fear things they depend on but don’t have any control over. That’s technology."

The keyword is control. You need to control the software and not let it control you.

>>3029733
That image isn't a photobash though.

>>3029961
yes it is ya dingus

>>3029961
It is.

All the props come from photos.

>>3027255
What kind of bullshit comparison is this? Loomis is just a teacher, the real question is
>do I need the fundamentals
And the answer is 100% yes.

>>3027255
At this point it's part of the digital painting process if you want to do realism

But that doesn't mean you have to use it?

>>3030195
it's part of the process if you want to be competitive. It's completely possible to do realism the old fashion way but it takes for-fucking-ever.

Honestly, you need to know how to do it for real before taking the shortcuts.

>>3030289
>It's completely possible to do realism the old fashion way but it takes for-fucking-ever.
to be fair what OP asked is not a stupid question

Loomis is a constructive method for figures which you really don't need to learn if you want to get in the concept art industry. Photobashing is really more about knowing the internal consistencies of a light scene and stuff like that, which makes it a lot closer to academic painting from copy.

/ic/ doesn't seem to understand that there are various methods for painting and many skilled people who make realistic paintings both digitally and traditionally have never learned to construct a figure by volumes, and instead copy flat 2d shapes on a 2d canvas.

So no >>3027255, you don't have to learn Loomis.

File: vkijw0sklp8ej4uvf4jz.jpg (66KB, 800x362px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x362px

>>3030306
>>3027255
Traditional renderer here, So what/where is the recomended starter pack of profesional photobashing?
I've seen a few tutorials on youtube but the results are lifeless at best and hideous at worst.

>>3027255

Actually learning to photobash good might be better for you than Loomis. I mean, with photobashing you van really experiment and try new things, check what works and what doesn't in composition, how to make things work together by adjusting light and contrast properly....

On the other hand beginner who go full Loomis tend to make stiff and lifeless figures.

>>3030483
John Sweeney's tutorials.
https://gumroad.com/sweeney1987

Some are free, others are in cgpeers.

>>3029961
It is lmao. And its a terrible image

Id assume after all this time average /ic/uck would be able to tell when something is obviously photobashed, guess not

>>3029707
Kek