As of late I've fallen in love with the master copy technique. I found that it is very helpful as a self-taught artist, it allows me to get inside the mind of the artist who I'm using as a source of inspiration/reference, that way I'm able to learn a lot in a short time.
Only that, to simply copy and paste it exactly as how it looks isn't that appealing, so I tend to add my own style to it so the final render looks that it has a bit of my touch in it, and also it doubles the fun.
To help you picture it:
The one on the left belongs to johnsonting
(I've been a fan of his work since high school). While the one on the left is my attempt to replicate his work in my own style... so it's a master copy... ish. Overall, the credit goes all to John and his very helpful and educative time-lapsed speed paint video, which I'd used as a guide.
Okay, now at first, when you look at it plainly you guys probably go, "This dude's a copycat,"
In reality however, no, I'm not. I'm just an aspiring digital artist looking to improve himself in any way possible.
It's just that, to simply exactly master copy his work is quite hard because it's a matte painting, I had trouble finding the exact same photo he had used as a base. Secondly, as I've mentioned before, it's boring to just copy paste, and if I did just copy paste it exactly as how it is, it seemed like I won't learn as much as when I made improvements of my own.
So, what do you guys think? Is master copying considered as the act of a copycat?