<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TalkingFox &#187; corel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.talkingfox.com/tag/corel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.talkingfox.com</link>
	<description>The artist speaks ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:19:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	
<!-- Start Of Script Generated By WP-PostViews Plus -->
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://www.talkingfox.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js?ver=1.4.2'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
/* ]]> */
</script>
<!-- End Of Script Generated By WP-PostViews Plus -->
	<item>
		<title>&#8220;Hand&#8221; Tinting</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingfox.com/2009/01/hand-tinting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.talkingfox.com/2009/01/hand-tinting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:34:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Siobhan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Northshores]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prints]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingfox.com/?p=154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve gotten into manual tinting of photographs lately. Why Is this listed as &#8220;hand&#8221; tinting? Because I&#8217;m using the computer rather than an analog approach. There is a big difference as to how I&#8217;m approaching this however, in contrast to the tutorials I&#8217;ve seen on the subject. I do NOT use bucket fills. I&#8217;m using [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve gotten into manual tinting of photographs lately.  Why Is this listed as   &#8220;hand&#8221; tinting?  Because I&#8217;m using the computer rather than an analog approach.</p>
<p>There is a big difference as to how I&#8217;m approaching this however, in contrast to the tutorials I&#8217;ve seen on the subject.  I do NOT use bucket fills.      I&#8217;m using Corel Painter in watercolor mode, thin &#8216;wash&#8217; over thin &#8216;wash&#8217;,   just as I would in analog.          As a result  the , well,  results are looser and more complex in color.</p>
<p>Time consumptive but great fun none the less.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="imageframe centered" style="width: 640px;"><img class="attachment wp-att-158" src="http://www.talkingfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/recycling-rhapsody.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="469" /></p>
<div class="imagecaption">Recycling Rhapsody</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="imageframe centered" style="width: 640px;"></div>
</div>
<div class="imagecaption">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="imageframe centered" style="width: 576px;"><img class="attachment wp-att-159 aligncenter" src="http://www.talkingfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/flotsom-and-jetsam-5.jpg" alt="" width="461" height="346" /></p>
<div class="imagecaption">Flotsom and Jetsam 5</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="imageframe centered" style="width: 640px;"><img class="attachment wp-att-157 aligncenter" src="http://www.talkingfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/omega.jpg" alt="" width="369" height="295" /></p>
<div class="imagecaption">Omega</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>As always I welcome your input and prints are available at my</p>
<p><a href="http://SMcElwee.imagekind.com/"><strong>Imagekind site.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.talkingfox.com/2009/01/hand-tinting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Support of Digital Media</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingfox.com/2008/10/in-support-of-digital-media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.talkingfox.com/2008/10/in-support-of-digital-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Siobhan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fine Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life in General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prints]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[painting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingfox.com/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I hear a lot of argument on both sides about digital media. Galleries have been slow to accept it as a valid media and many analog purists dismiss it as somehow &#8220;cheating&#8221;. I&#8217;ve actually heard some say that digitally created works of art somehow &#8220;don&#8217;t count because you can just whip &#8216;em up&#8221;. As someone [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hear a lot of argument on both sides about digital media.   Galleries have been slow to accept it as a valid media and many analog purists dismiss it as somehow &#8220;cheating&#8221;.  I&#8217;ve actually heard some say  that digitally created works of art somehow &#8220;don&#8217;t count because you can just whip &#8216;em up&#8221;.</p>
<p>As someone who has worked on both sides of the aisle on this issue let me start by saying that nothing is &#8220;just whipped up&#8221; in any working artists studio that I know, my own included.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been working with digital media off and on for well over 20 years.   As of late I&#8217;ve been working in combinations of digital and analog mediums.   Has the digital experience changed my approach as an artist?</p>
<p>Yes and No.</p>
<p>I work mostly with Corel Painter IX these days.  It has a gazillion and fifty two nifty features that I don&#8217;t use, opting to work the digital format like an analog medium.   Why don&#8217;t I just work the analog equivalences  you may ask?</p>
<p>My reasons are as follows:</p>
<p>1. Pixels aren&#8217;t toxic.</p>
<p>I worked in oils for years, then switched to wax pastels due to toxicity issues.   I tend to not pay attention to where my brushes and solvents are and also have an unfortunate propensity  when rapt in work to stick my brushes in my mouth when I need a point or to wipe solvent laden brushes on my pants leg. *DOH*</p>
<p>Even though there are other mediums that don&#8217;t require toxic solvents I realized that most artists pigments are, in and of themselves, toxic.    This includes the pigments in pastels, acrylics,watercolors etc.   Cadmium anyone?  And then there&#8217;s always the issue of toxic fixatives.</p>
<p>2  Pixels are green</p>
<p>No solvents, no minerals, no wasted paper in reworks , no waste in general.</p>
<p>3. Safety of Originals</p>
<p>I had a studio flood on me a few years back.   I lost a lot of pieces.  I&#8217;ve also had pieces meet a number of more unusual demises, some involving housecats.</p>
<p>Back up your files on disc regularly and your originals are safe</p>
<p>3. Space</p>
<p>it takes a whole lot less space to work on a Wacom Tablet than to work on an easel, as well as a drafting table and airbrush booth.  That and one doesn&#8217;t have to pay for all of that equipment.</p>
<p>4. Versitility</p>
<p>See entry 3.</p>
<p>I tend to approach my digital works the same as my analog work ie with classical layering technique.</p>
<p>I also tend to combine scanned analog and digital, using the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>The only thing I really miss about analog is working with  impasto, but then again a girl can&#8217;t have everything.</p>
<p>When I was in college , back in the earlier days of computer art, my instructor told me 2 things that have stuck with me throughout my career.</p>
<p>The first is that it doesn&#8217;t matter what tools an artist uses to get the effect that they&#8217;re going for.  They STILL have to come up with the idea for the piece and make every call along the way as far as approach.</p>
<p>The second is that a computer is really nothing more than a fast pencil.  You still have to be able to draw  and be well grounded in artistic fundamentals in order to make it do what you want.</p>
<p>My challenge to you is this&#8230;look around the works posted on this site and <a href="http://SMcElwee.imagekind.com/"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">My Imagekind Gallery.</span></span></strong></a></p>
<p>I have a whole lot of pieces that are marked mixed media.  Can you tell which are purely analog and which are analog/digital?</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be interested to hear which you think are which.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.talkingfox.com/2008/10/in-support-of-digital-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
