Can it be done? It can!

Is it good? Let's not quibble!

If you're publishing a game, and your art budget was blown on Fritos and beer, then you're going to have to illustrate the thing yourself. I got lucky -- my game's got some art that's so good, it'll make your feet stink. No lie. But I did some myself. To wit:

There are two methods of artistic expression that I would like to discuss with you. The first, digital art, can be cheap, fun, and rewarding. However, the second, traditional painting with brushes art, is cheap, fun, and rewarding. See that dichotomy? Dichotomy is an artistic word, and it will help you, by the way.

Digital Art:

If you have a copy of Fireworks or Adobe Photoshop, or any other high-quality art/design program, you have all the tools you need. However, you may not have spent the time to learn the minutiae -- the myriad functions and effects available to you. However, there are online tutorials and entire pages devoted to digital art effects that you can employ. For example: http://www.digital-creativity.co.uk/tutorials.html

Using these programs, you can convert existing photographs (scanned in by yourself or by the staff at Kinko's) into digital artwork. Tweak images to make people look like aliens or heroes, or add special effects. You can also create entirely new images, like scenes of stars and nebulae, or dark woods. Again, study the tutorials -- there's a wealth of information out there.

Painting with brushes art:

I was working on a supplement for Dread, which I hope to get out by Halloween. It involves a death-metal band and a preacher and a horrible murder and a demon and all kinds of crap, and I was listening to some old-school death-metal for inspiration while writing it. I noticed that a lot of death-metal bands have painted covers depicting abstract images of infernal torment.

I went to an art shop, bought a ten-dollar paint set (acrylics -- all colors -- blue, red, green, something else, orange, and black or something), and a three-dollar easel (two feet by three feet). I spent a few days tinkering with it, and now I have a cover to my first supplement. Is it good? Let's not quibble! However, it looks exactly like a garage death-metal band abstract infernal album cover. I think. The thing is, artistic integrity wasn't necessary, since I wasn't trying to draw a "good" picture or paint a "good" painting -- I was trying to create a Sim cover (see, I tied GNS into it -- this was worth reading), and it worked okay. Also, it cost sixteen dollars, and I still have a lot of paint left over (in true metal fashion, I used mostly black and red, also I'm clumsy, so after a session of painting, I looked like a clumsy coroner).

Of course, what you want to do beforehand is do some reading. Tear yourself away from the computer for five minutes and get some fresh air. Hit the library and read up on technique. An hour with the basics of acrylic art won't make you good -- but you'll know what you're doing.

At any rate, the point isn't to neglect commercial artists -- if you can find people who'll work with you, and your budget, then by all means, find use for their talents (I've got about nine artists on the payroll, many of whom are people I already knew, like the girl I worked with who loves to sketch, or the friend who teaches university photography). Rest assured, networking and using your talented friends is a great idea.

When you've exhausted the possibilities, and you can't afford to hire another artist, consider exploiting yourself. It's easier than you think.

Word is bond.

-- Rafael

Cool ideas.

For KOTR2, I went the photo route. I searched the Library of Congress archives on-line and the New Deal archives, as well as just looking across the web in searches for existing photos. But that went along with my overall game (grounded in history had its serious advantage there). The only drawings were my sketches for archetypes– 9 of them– and a water tower. The rest was easily picked up.

The cover was done in Photoshop by simply compositing and drawing my own glyphs, nothing fancy, but pretty.

One caveat there- make sure your ducks are in a row as far as copyright issues. Usually a nice simple note will suffice.

aaron houx

I had a discussion with a friend about photo copyrights yesterday. We were both wondering if copyright is applicable to just a section of a photo that has been cut from the full picture. What happens if digital effects are added that significantly change the look of the original photo?

I'm sure there is a lot of gray area here, but there must be some point where the photo, or components of the photo, cease to become the original copyrighted work. Does anyone know what that point is?

-Chris

All I know is that if you make "significant changes" to the photo, it is yours to copyright. So if you cropped it, colorized it or played with funky filters, dropped out the background or changed the background, I think you'd be okay. But don't quote me on that. I'm just relaying the words as i have seen them in the past.

aaron Houx

C. Edwards wrote: I'm sure there is a lot of gray area here, but there must be some point where the photo, or components of the photo, cease to become the original copyrighted work. Does anyone know what that point is?

I'd be pretty careful even with modified photos. Photogpraphers and AD's tend to have a great memory for that stuff and even if a piece of it is used they might notice.
you're better off taking your own photos or hiring a real artist. Scrap ethe $$ together and do it right. There's a a big difference between an illustrator and some guy who fiddles around on photoshop cause he thinks its neat, and most of the time it's very obvious.
Not only that, but your product will be all the better for it.

if you are going to GIMPify/photoshop some art, aside from the copyright issues and the talent issue, there's also the stylistic issue. carefully composited photographs may look pretty good if you are skilled with the GIMP, but they would not match the style of medievalesque fantasy gamebook ... better to use the GIMP's levels, contours, and similar features to turn the composited photos into something that looks like a woodcut (for example.)

also, if you are taking your own photos, you may hold the copyright, but make sure you get a release from the appropriate parties. or alter the photos alot and hope no one notices.

I personally like using 3d programs like bryce, then using the GIMP to posterize and adjust levels to make something that looks like a line drawing.

talysman wrote: better to use the GIMP's levels, contours, and similar features to turn the composited photos into something that looks like a woodcut (for example.)

Clay wrote:

talysman wrote: better to use the GIMP's levels, contours, and similar features to turn the composited photos into something that looks like a woodcut (for example.)

Ack! At that point it's probably easier to just make a woodcut and scan it. Of course, I have a strong bias since I enjoy working in the medium. It's pretty easy to get something that looks like the European woodcuts in a short period of time. The beautiful Japanese woodcuts would be another story altogether though.

talysman wrote: well, for you, it would be easier... for me, not having any skills with woodcarving, it would be harder...

mahoux wrote: All I know is that if you make "significant changes" to the photo, it is yours to copyright.