>>12178567You are comparing the basic tool to unnecessary after effects. I won't insult you by setting up some strawman argument; the short version is they're not comparable.
It's not about the destination, it's about the journey. That's where you learn and grow; the process teaches you, the final result just looks pretty. Is a little texture overlay okay here and there? Sure. Many professional artists use them to save time, but they already have years of hard work built up to the point where they can take these shortcuts without it being detrimental to their fundamental understanding of art because they've already solidified it over this elongated time period.
It becomes problematic when it becomes overused to the point where you can't work without it. It becomes more or less a way to cover mistakes and distract the viewer, which is why it's often applied as the final stage, forced unceremoniously onto the final product. Think lens flare but for art.
>>12178578Oh come on, this if the first time I've piped up about anything like this in months.
>>12178595>But that's what I didI know, that's why I posted. It's killing a good image imo.
Ididn'tmeanforthatfirst posttosoundasassholleryasitdidIwaskidding ;_;>>12178603But this isn't traditional anon. There is a massive difference betwixt purposely integrating imperfections into a piece and shoving a dirty filter onto it to haphazardly replicate them.
>>12178642Oh come on dude.
