Cover art: Hand drawn vs. Computer imaging

Hand drawn. Although there are cool digital ones

troublezone wrote:

I like hand drawn. Anything else is lazy.

Digital art is just as effort consuming as hand drawn art, it's just a different medium, used to achieve a completely different effect.

Anyway, I like both mediums. There are some classic thrash albums with fantasticly painted covers (Ed Repka is great at what he does) which I'll always be in awe of. Of course, there are many a great digitally made cover. Rarely nowadays are you going to get anything that is hand-painted anyway, most of it will be edited and refined on imaging software, which of course isn't a bad thing. It's cool to mix the two mediums together.

I love the Derek Riggs Iron Maiden stuff, but I would still love Maiden if they had different covers. I know it's weird, but although the cover art means essentially nothing to me, I have to have a store bought copy of something, not have just a cdr.

I don't believe one style is inherently better than the other - it all depends on the individual piece of art in question. I have seen good and bad in both mediums. The Jag Panzer cover to The Fourth Judgement always struck me as a very weak computer image. It looks like a students art class project. Metal Church's Hanging in the Balance is a perfect example of a hand drawn album cover that sucks.

I'd prefer hand-drawn/painted, but there is nice digital artwork out there as well.

I prefer hand-drawn. Every Yes cover was solid. Roger Dean was the man.

DallasBlack wrote:

I also love the hand drawn/painted stuff. My favorite artists are Derk Riggs (Iron Maiden, Gamma Ray, Stratovarius, Bruce Dickinson), Mark Klinnert (Rhapsody), Andreas Marschall (Hammerfall, Blind Guardian, Running Wild, Covenant, Dark Moor, Destruction, Grave Digger, Helloween, In Flames, Krator, Obituary, Raven, U.D.O., Wintersbane, and many more) and Gary Smith (Savatage and Omen).

My favorite album cover of all time from Gary Smith:

(Gutter Ballet a very close second)

My favorite from Andreas Marschall

Favotrite from Derik Riggs:

Favorite From Marc Klinnert:

Thats exactly what I'm talking about!

XYZ!!! SIZE DOWN YOUR SIGNATURE PHOTO!!! PLEASE!!!

There, happy now?

yes. as a matter of fact.

I like both, but if you look at where Derek Riggs hand drew the Iron Maiden albums and then when he moved into computer graphics I think it declined something major. Hand drawn wins in that regard, but they both can be done so beautifully.

Cool topic!

How can you not love a piece like this?



It's just too awesome!

Some more artist's works that just really confirm my love for hand drawn/painted art (from my recent CD purchases):

I'm almost positive that first one is not hand painted. At least not entirely.

Rexorcist wrote:

I'm almost positive that first one is not hand painted. At least not entirely.

If not all of it, then most of it. I looked very close at it (even used a magnifying glass-overkill?)and apart from some of the crows, a little bit of the grass and the non-cushion part of the chair the texture seems very much like and oil painting on canvas (I see brush strokes in the majority of the image). The artist has done album covers for many bands but whether he uses computers of paints was a subject I could find no information on, but it looks like he combines both. He has a website so I'm going to e-mail him and find out.

http://www.ewerhard.de/

altough some digital art is cool i mostly prefer the hand drawn/painted covers mostly because i think they look cooler and i prefer the bands with the hand drawn covers to the digitals

One of my fave artcover is SCREAM BLOODY GORE by DEATH. Thats the type of covers i love for death/thrash or a nice obscure black and white cover paint for a BLACK METAL band. For hard rock and heavy metal i like fantasy covers, HAND DRAWN of course or a picture of the band.

DallasBlack wrote:

Rexorcist wrote:

I'm almost positive that first one is not hand painted. At least not entirely.

If not all of it, then most of it. I looked very close at it (even used a magnifying glass-overkill?)and apart from some of the crows, a little bit of the grass and the non-cushion part of the chair the texture seems very much like and oil painting on canvas (I see brush strokes in the majority of the image). The artist has done album covers for many bands but whether he uses computers of paints was a subject I could find no information on, but it looks like he combines both. He has a website so I'm going to e-mail him and find out.

http://www.ewerhard.de/

Yeah, that guy is awesome, and I would not be surprised if it were a combo. And don't be fooled, you can add brush strokes to anything to make it look painted. I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying........

Rexorcist wrote:

DallasBlack wrote:

Rexorcist wrote:

I'm almost positive that first one is not hand painted. At least not entirely.

If not all of it, then most of it. I looked very close at it (even used a magnifying glass-overkill?)and apart from some of the crows, a little bit of the grass and the non-cushion part of the chair the texture seems very much like and oil painting on canvas (I see brush strokes in the majority of the image). The artist has done album covers for many bands but whether he uses computers of paints was a subject I could find no information on, but it looks like he combines both. He has a website so I'm going to e-mail him and find out.

http://www.ewerhard.de/

Yeah, that guy is awesome, and I would not be surprised if it were a combo. And don't be fooled, you can add brush strokes to anything to make it look painted. I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying........

I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and now must also admit that computer generated can be equal to hand drawn/painted. The artist himself confirmed that it is indeed 100% computer generated. How appropriate that there are crows on the cover because now I must eat it.

Depends on the cover for me. I've seen good and bad examples of both hand drawn and CGI (computer graphic imagery) over the years (and quite a few of both right here in this very thread!).

I guess it's not a matter of which medium is better, it's a matter of what the artist DOES with those mediums.

It now seems that a lot of albums I thought done by hand was done by computer and now must agree that it depends on the artist. Good art involves a human element (computers are just machines-right now anyways-j/k) and I always thought that good art can't come from computers. A good artist will always create good art (computers or not) a bad artist will create bad art and no computer will help him/her.

The thoughts and opinions of Dallas Black do not necessarily reflect the thoughts and opinions of this board, it's member's, or subsidiaries.

Amen sister! Thread over!

Rexorcist wrote:

Amen sister! Thread over!

Sister?! Hey, I don't know what you heard but I was young and desparate, I needed the money. Who are you to judge me?! I don't have to explain myself to you, it's my life! Leave me alone!

I just could see some brush strokes and thought I'd take a gamble!

Rexorcist wrote:

I just could see some brush strokes and thought I'd take a gamble!

Touche' ( )