Originally Posted by gfilmman
No matter what approach you use or how many software packages you are good in, you're still serving the client and supervisors, to provide a final 2d frame or frames. Would you agree with that? I guess you're saying for matte artists to remain viable and hold onto some control they need to be proficient in several areas so they can be the one stop shop solution person who saves time, correct?
I'd be interested to see what Garrett thinks, but i'd pretty much agree with that.
I think actually that people fall back on CG a lot because if a matte painter gets something like perspective or lighting wrong, it can ruin a shot. Its a sad thing to think that losing those skills causes studios to prefer the CG route, but along with the difficulty to make changes I think is what causes matte painting to be approached with caution by supervisors.
I'll admit I sometimes fall back on CG to save time as i'm sure many do. However it always amazes me when a supe shows surprise that you can work out perspective almost as accurately as a 3d package with nothing more than technical drawing in photoshop.
But yes, the matte painter kind of has to be a one stop shop, and if that includes handling some of the CG assets yourself, then you can be left to do that kind of thing too. Personally I like having ownership of a shot for as long as possible, but there are some amazing artists out there that prefer to just focus on painting and leave the rest for others to handle.