If anyone cares to do a personal intrepretation of this photo, be my guest.

To view my Deep Paint watercolor painting of this photo click HERE (http://www.retouchpro.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4484/size/big/sort/1/cat/500)

Still learning Deep Paint and continue to be amazed at the power of this free program. My original photo is posted below.

you're definitely getting the hang of deep paint. nice photo and great art!

craig

i was inspired on this by the weather a few days ago. we had some heavy rains over the last weekend. on monday things had mostly cleared up, but the sky was still a bit gray and overcast, yet the sun was out here and there. every once in a while there would be one of those rains where it's also sunny. i took my cue from that.

i hope this comes out. the compression had to be rather heavy...37%.

craig

Nice, bit thick for WC but still nice :)

nancy,

wc=water color... was that some humor there? :)

and thanks :)

craig

wc=water color... was that some humor there? :)

no humor, I was talking about Photomaster's ;) Looks more like guache(sp?) or acrylic than watercolour.
I think the compression on yours is a little heavy, maybe you could post a smaller size? or link to a high rez version elsewhere

Nancy is correct; the first attempt was a little light so I had to give it a second coat. :wink:

Craig,

I like your interpretation. The scene evoks the look and mood of an early-fall, dusting of snow.

A bright colourful watercolour

Great photo, This is a mix of photoshop filters and impressionist ( not got to deep paint yet but possibly in the future)

Palms

nancy,

oh, ok. wasnt sure there wasnt a pun in there directed at mine. as for the compression, i just looked at the original again and the attachment and the posted one isnt really that different even with the heavy compression. so, being that i find i tend to agree with a lot of your critiques in the other forums and that i know you'll give an honest, upfront opinion, what else? likes and dislikes?

and photomaster (from now on you are PM... 'photomaster' is too long to type :) ),

snow? hmm, ok, i can see that. not what i was going for, however. i can see i'm going to have to re-work this one. this is the first time i've ever really attempted rain droplets as rain. i've done the 'streaky', sort of stormy rain, but i wanted the softer, droplet rain for this one, since that's the type of rain that inspired this. i can definitely see the 'snow'. seems to be mostly coming from the background i interposed. fair enough...back to the drawing board.

craig

nancy,

on your watercolor, i like the color parts. i also know you're testing and attempting to flex your art muscles a bit more from what you've said in your recent posts. so, if i may, i'm not real crazy about all that white space. there is a lot of it.

and before saying the next thing, i'll preface it with saying that my exposure to watercolors is quite limited, so take this with a big grain of salt. to me, watercolors bleed a lot. this consideration probably comes mostly from seeing watercolors primarily done on very absorbent, highly textured papers. the colors just ran or bled a great deal. now, i know that's a very limited idea of what a watercolor shld be or is, but i just cant help that every time i see someone do a watercolor, i look for that bleeding. if i dont see it, then it isnt a watercolor to me. so, that may just be me.

however, watercolors are almost always done on paper of some sort and i'd love to see you add some paper texture in there, especially on the white where it might show the most.

craig

alright, i changed some of the background to reduce the white 'snow'. i also changed some opacities and blends to allow more of the rain to show through. it was there all the time on the layers, but i had purposely reduced the effect.

and i would like some feedback on this... better, worse, indifferent?

craig

edit: probably help if i actually posted the image :blush:

Before my computer crashed, I dabbled with Deep Paint a little myself, but it's really not designed to be used with a mouse, so when I rebuilt my machine, I decided not to re-install it.

Anyway, here's my cheating entry (used Vector simplication again; that's what I call cheating). Also blended in some Wash effects with Paint Engine. :)

on your watercolor, i like the color parts. i also know you're testing and attempting to flex your art muscles a bit more from what you've said in your recent posts. so, if i may, i'm not real crazy about all that white space. there is a lot of it.
White space is a common 'feature' of watercolours. At school my art teacher always nagged me about not leaving enough of the paper showing through.


and before saying the next thing, i'll preface it with saying that my exposure to watercolors is quite limited, so take this with a big grain of salt. to me, watercolors bleed a lot. this consideration probably comes mostly from seeing watercolors primarily done on very absorbent, highly textured papers. the colors just ran or bled a great deal. now, i know that's a very limited idea of what a watercolor shld be or is, but i just cant help that every time i see someone do a watercolor, i look for that bleeding. if i dont see it, then it isnt a watercolor to me. so, that may just be me.

That stuff is horrible, its like trying to paint on toilet paper ;) I'm very anal about what I paint on. I dislike canvas too, for oils and acrylics I find a nice smooth wood base is wonderful to paint on - if less practical. With watercolours I always prefer a tight fairly smooth, weighty paper - preferably card backed. I like to control every brush stroke. The rough stuff is like nasty recycled paper and you have to wet and stretch it so it doesnt crinkle.
Bleeding can also be a sign of impatience ;) If you dont let the surounding areas dry properly then your colours will bleed and can ruin your picture. Some people let it bleed intentionally because thats their style but it was never mine. I like to be precise - I know, I'm just anal ;) On a fine and more importantly, dry paper with controlled brush strokes you get a watery look with darkened edges where the water soaks into the paper but stops when it meets the dry barrier and more colour settles there than in the middle.


however, watercolors are almost always done on paper of some sort and i'd love to see you add some paper texture in there, especially on the white where it might show the most.

craig
I guess I got out of adding texture after working for print, you dont want to print an artificial paper texture on the finished piece.

nancy,

oh, ok. wasnt sure there wasnt a pun in there directed at mine. as for the compression, i just looked at the original again and the attachment and the posted one isnt really that different even with the heavy compression. so, being that i find i tend to agree with a lot of your critiques in the other forums and that i know you'll give an honest, upfront opinion, what else? likes and dislikes?


I'd be happy to give you a critique but it might help to know what effect you were going for - I had assumed that the 'scan lines' were due to the compression but that may not be the case. Whether I like or dislike it as a piece is not particularly useful, its just my opinion - which doesnt count for a lot ;)
If I know more about what you're trying to do with it, I can give you a more objective and therefore useful critique.... hope that makes sense to you.

nancy,

re the white space. i'll say two things here. one, your art teacher is one opinion, even if he is a teacher. and two, it is water 'color', not water 'white'. :) ok, so i just happen to differ from your art teacher. i like color.

as to the rest, the paper and so on, i'm a novice in water color, so i appreciate the explanation. i figured that might be the case with the papers...that i dont really know that much about it, so, ok on that one.

and re the texture, that also would depend on the paper type, so ok. but on adding it in after it is done, that can be on a separate layer and blend modes without ruining the work. but, it was just a suggestion and again a matter of taste. i dont paint, so i dont know and if you're going for something other than my fixed idea on what is a water color, then i certainly understand.

and again, just my fixed idea of what water color is, i've just always associated the bleeding effect with water colors, so i stand corrected :)

on my own work, all i was going for there was a 'rain on a sunny day' look with just a bit of brightening of colors and sharpening.

and actually, to me, i'm MUCH more interested in if you like it or dislike it as opposed to a clinical critique. and to that, i would then want to know what you like and dislike about it. so, the goal here isnt just the effect on the 'canvas', it's the effect on the person. that's what motivates me. my 'perfect' picture is the one where i go 'wow!' or if it's my work, someone else goes 'wow!'. that's what makes my day :)

craig

OK. If I'm completely honest, I dont like it. To me it looks like a frame from a badly pirated VHS (particularly the second version, the added colour looks like random distortion).
I think the scanlines are distracting ad your attempt to 'brighten the colours' has left them blown out and cold rather than bright and warm, which is what I assume you would be going for.
I think the rain droplets arent right for the piece either, they're too dense and large to be light rain drops on a sunny day and their shape position dont fit with the picture.
Overall I think if you wanted something expressive, theres too much of the original in there but its too distorted to be considered realism.

Just because I dont like it doesnt mean its bad. Art is like that.

More generally sharpening seems to be your new favorite 'tool'. I've noticed in a lot of your work lately (not just photoart) that it is oversharpened causing bad artifacting. I prefer highpass overlay to USM because it avoids any artifacting, particularly if applied only on the Luminosity.

nancyj,

fascinating. i'm surprised you even noticed the scan lines. at 100% zoom i hardly see them. actually, they are a result of the sharpening process, a new filter i've been trying out.

on the colors, i wasnt really going for bright and warm. the original is bright and warm. i wanted heightened, sharp and vivid.. so ok.

and the rain, i tend to agree with you. that one is new to me and i've been experimenting with all sorts of things. i'll work on that one. though, the rain i was referring to the other day was a rare one. the sun was out and rain came down in big drops, widely spaced. i've only seen it this way a few times in my life.

as for the over-sharpening in other pieces, all i can say is i'm still working on that process. this also goes for the 'blown out' colors. the on-going sharpening experiment is a sort of looking for process. there is a certain look i'm trying to achieve, that heightened, sharpened, vivid look. and, like you pointed out, there is a danger there of added noise and artifacting, so still trying to refine that one. apparently, i didnt achieve it here either. oh well, back to the drawing board. i'm afraid the usm in Paint Shop Pro is pretty poor. seems to either be all clipping or no effect at all, so i gave up on that one long ago. i do use high pass, but it's somewhat limited compared to some of the filters i've been playing with.

you asked before what i was trying to achieve, where i was trying to go. when i do the sharpening items, i'm going for pop, something that jumps off the canvas. high contrast, high sharpen, vivid colors usually. something that when you look at it you wish you'd worn filtered glasses :)

so, fair enough. i asked, you answered. thank you.

craig

I did this in Deep Paint using the Brush Fade cloner brush. :happy:

nancyj,

fascinating. i'm surprised you even noticed the scan lines. at 100% zoom i hardly see them. actually, they are a result of the sharpening process, a new filter i've been trying out.



I thought this was probably the case. This is the problem working digitally, what I see isnt necessarily what you see. There are a number of reasons why they might be very noticeable for me and not to you. I have a 17" TFT screen at 1280x1024 and its probably just over a foot away from me... Your setup will undoubtably be different to mine. And, not trying to be rude, but it may be that my eyesight is better.

Your first attempt I agree with (I think it was) PM that it looks snowy. I'm probably very biased in my opinion, it looks cold and bleak and I'm from yorkshire - I get enough of that looking at the window atm ;)

nancyj,

again, interesting. my monitor is set at 1024 x 768. that would account for some thngs here. i'm going to pump up the resolution and look again.

and yes, when i go back, it even looks snowy to me as well. lol. not what i was originally going for.

ok, well, this is good. i needed that feedback. oh, and i also went back and looked at the high pass overlay. i mistook what you first said there and thought you were talking about 'high pass sharpen'. there is also an 'effects\edge effects\high pass', which has an 'overlay', 'hard light' and 'soft light' mode to it. so, ok.

craig

Ah no, I mean make a highpass layer then set the blend mode to one of the overlays - adjust opacity to affect strength. I dont know what tools you have available in Paintshop Pro....
Anyway, dont take my critique too hard, you asked my opinion and I gave it - its purely my opinion (based on what I see on my moniter). This isnt like retouching where there are certain 'rules' and such to base a critique on. When its just down to likes and dislikes, everybody likes different things - its what makes the world go round.

nancyj,

probably not the same tools. similar maybe, but not the same.

as for taking things too hard, i specifically asked you for the critique because i wanted a frank answer and i knew you would give it.

i have a friend who is a writer. when he asks folks to comment on his work, the tendency is 'oh, that's nice' and those sort of answers. when he asked me, i told him what i thought. he ended up doing a re-write for typos and a few plot 'errors'. and i ended up proof-reading it :) so, careful what you critique, you may end up being the editor ;)

craig

... about how you painted your version? I find your wcolours very persuasive. In the game of simulating the various media, watercolour seems to me the hardest to pull off. With the exception of Jaykita's (I don't see anything of her on the site lately; is she still around?) your skills with watercolour are the only ones I covet.

... what a nice piece of work Photomaster's image is. It does look like gouache, or a photolithograph of one of those cheery advertisements that art editors were so fond of in the forties. No reproach there: the image summons up a much lamented pictorial style now long vanished.

... about how you painted your version? I find your wcolours very persuasive. In the game of simulating the various media, watercolour seems to me the hardest to pull off. With the exception of Jaykita's (I don't see anything of her on the site lately; is she still around?) your skills with watercolour are the only ones I covet.
Hi, Oyster, who is this directed at?

nancyj,

probably not the same tools. similar maybe, but not the same.

as for taking things too hard, i specifically asked you for the critique because i wanted a frank answer and i knew you would give it.

i have a friend who is a writer. when he asks folks to comment on his work, the tendency is 'oh, that's nice' and those sort of answers. when he asked me, i told him what i thought. he ended up doing a re-write for typos and a few plot 'errors'. and i ended up proof-reading it :) so, careful what you critique, you may end up being the editor ;)

craig
Heh, thankfully artists dont need editors ;)
I rarely give critiques on Photoart because I recognise the experimental nature of the medium. I'm very picky in my likes and dislikes, I'm very traditional and have certain expectations when I look at a piece. One of the things I dont like is for a piece to look obviously digital/photoshop filtered. Things like brush/pencil strokes all the same length and direction bug me, they're sloppy and half arsed. I know, I'm just uptight :) its a flaw I'm willing to admit.

Oh BTW, you're in trouble now Craig, I just got a new GFX card ;) ooooh its so crisp!

My original watercolor of "Berries" was done by careful coloning in Deep Paint. I set the original as the Cloning Source (right click on layer to set this) and then create a new layer. I then select the cloning tool in the tool box. On the upper right corner of the screen, in Cloning Options, select Disable Offset, Resume last Cloning, ARTISTIC and Hue. Select any tool or brush from the Presets, adjust the Brush Settings and go to work! You will not believe the magic that happens. Now here is the wisdom of the ages: By unchecking the Artistic box in Cloning Options you will have complete control over reversing or modifying any of your previous artistic strokes to any dergree you want (use a very light stroke with your pen.) By switching between these two settings you have unprecedented control over all of nearly all of the tools in Deep Paint. For even more fun try the Image Processing presets. What I have told you here is the best kept secret of Deep Paint and will give you artistic control you never dreamed of. So, check it out and thank me later. Remember Zoom in, name your layers and save often.

Continuing: The resulting Berries image had to much white area (sorry Nancy) so I followed-up with quite a bit of free-hand work using the eyedropper and various watercolor brushes. This was done on three separate layers so I could fix things I didn't like. Finally I switched to Photoshop to tweak the highlights on some of the berries.

Attached is an editing version of the painting done in Painter IX (Newly accquired so I am oblivous to most of its capabilities) that better represents the watercolor style. This one got so wet I had to use a hair dryer on my screen. Don't ask me how I did it because I'm still playing.

Nancy, Craig: I'm enjoying your spirited, yet frank and honest exchange.

Oyster: Thank you for your astute observations.

I did this painting originally in Photoshop then opened it in Painter IX. Under Layers I selected Lift Canvas to Watercolor Layer then, Wet Entire Watercolor Layer. Then back to Photoshop where I overlayed the modified image over the original. Then I used the eraser, set at 50%, to remove some of the watercolor effect from the pheasant and the bear. What do you think? Does it meet the criteria for a watercolor?

My original painting is HERE (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13106)

Oh BTW, you're in trouble now Craig, I just got a new GFX card ooooh its so crisp! lol. god help me!

ok, i had another go at this. taking to heart some of nancy's and PM's remarks (and completely ignoring some as well ;) ), i left the warmer tones in this time, hopefully reduced the snow effect, got rid of the sharpening, at least the traditional sharpening (thereby reducing the scan lines) and varied the water drops to give that effect a bit more depth. i also added a bit of motion blur to the water.

there is still one glaring flaw in this image (well, at least one), but i'm not worried about that for the time being.

and nancy, i know you're more of a traditionalist and that's also one reason i singled out asking your opinion. i'm not. i love digital. but i also know that 'art' has a very deep history and that when you roam too far from this history you risk losing your audience. i also know there are certain 'rules' to art. i also know i dont know all those rules. thus, your opinion is valued here. but i also love 'painting outside the lines' at times, exploring the unexplored and like you said, 'experimental' and in this, i would hope to shake up the traditional... just a bit. your critique was fair and frank. and i do realize there is good digital and not so good. so again, your opinion was/is valued.

and at the risk of barbing a few on here, one of the things that bugs me, like you're bugged by what you mentioned, whenever a new image is posted in the art area, you can count on at least one or two 'sketches', one or two 'impressionists', one or two 'impasto or smudges' and so on down the line. even the various scripts and actions are named things like 'van gogh' or 'da vinci'. now, i'm not bugged by the pieces themselves; the folks here are incredibly talented. i'm just a bit bugged by the predictability at times; the sort of attitude that the only art is traditional art, 'safe' art.

now, that's a horribly large generality and certainly not true in every case, but you can go through almost any of the threads here and find one or two of many of the traditional forms. and that's also a good thing. retouch is a learning site. i've done a few of the traditionals also. and there's nothing wrong with traditional, but i'd love to see more 'stretching of the wings', breaking the old boundaries, and so forth as well.... the 'experimental'.

that your art teacher happens to like white water colors is fine. it's a bit of a fixed idea on what a water color shld be, but that's fine, that's him. what does nancyj like? and if that is what you like, why ok, but i also know you mentioned wanting to be more 'fluid' or expressive and where i may not have captured your exact words there, i do recall the idea of it. to me, the 'rules' of art arent in the style, but in the technicality. or, like you said, Things like brush/pencil strokes all the same length and direction bug me, they're sloppy and half arsed. and i mostly agree. there is 'sloppy' art. but i also know of at least one style where all the brush strokes are the same length and same direction and it's a valid style and often quite good.

ah well, seems we're back to the age old question again of 'what is art?'. it's a question worth answering.

"Ode

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,...

... For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth...."

Arthur O'Shaughnessy, 1874

craig

Craig, don't dropplets of water form a sphere as they fall? :question:

I cannot tell a lie, I digitally arted the cherry tree.

George (AKA Steve)

Nancy, yours is the watercolour technique I admire. I'd very much like to read more on your procedures.

Photomaster, I too have spent a lot of time with Deep Paint, and have discovered what you have so fully described (Your post ought to have a "sticky" label slapped on it and placed in the *Tutorials* forum. It would be very helpful for those trying to use the app.) What I can't figure out is the relationship of the "Clone" tab in the upper left of the workspace, and the "Paint" tab right next to it. The instructions get you cloning under "Paint" exactly as you have stated; but what's the use of the "Clone" tab with its specially-loaded brushes? You can set out to clone more quickly under the "Clone" tab, to be sure, but the brushes generate an image more like the photo than a painting. If you want painterly strokes, you have to go to the "Paint" tab and tick "artistic", just as if you had begun under this tab. I suspect there's a feature or two under the "Clone" tab that I can't winkle out, but the instructions are no help. Have you uncovered any secrets hidden under the "Clone" tab?
Oyster

ok, i had another go at this. taking to heart some of nancy's and PM's remarks (and completely ignoring some as well ;) ), i left the warmer tones in this time, hopefully reduced the snow effect, got rid of the sharpening, at least the traditional sharpening (thereby reducing the scan lines) and varied the water drops to give that effect a bit more depth. i also added a bit of motion blur to the water.
Craig, I love it. Its beautiful, its like the first rain of spring bit from Bambi and christmas morning all rolled into one ;) There are a few scanlines in the darker tones but they're hardly noticeable.


and at the risk of barbing a few on here, one of the things that bugs me, like you're bugged by what you mentioned, whenever a new image is posted in the art area, you can count on at least one or two 'sketches', one or two 'impressionists', one or two 'impasto or smudges' and so on down the line. even the various scripts and actions are named things like 'van gogh' or 'da vinci'. now, i'm not bugged by the pieces themselves; the folks here are incredibly talented. i'm just a bit bugged by the predictability at times; the sort of attitude that the only art is traditional art, 'safe' art.
I'm probably one of the guilty ones there ;) WHat I dislike more, it those that produce the same picture over and over, as talented as they may be and as stunning as the end result, there is a certain predictability about some peoples work, while theres nothing wrong with having a style you're good at and sticking to it, it seems to me theres little need to share it, you've already demonstrated your ability to reproduce x effect.


that your art teacher happens to like white water colors is fine. it's a bit of a fixed idea on what a water color shld be, but that's fine, that's him. what does nancyj like? and if that is what you like, why ok, but i also know you mentioned wanting to be more 'fluid' or expressive and where i may not have captured your exact words there, i do recall the idea of it. to me, the 'rules' of art arent in the style, but in the technicality. or, like you said, and i mostly agree. there is 'sloppy' art. but i also know of at least one style where all the brush strokes are the same length and same direction and it's a valid style and often quite good.

At school I rarely did as I was told or what I was supposed to and I always had her saying 'how did you do that?' Well I just picked up the paint/pencils and just did it. Its the way I am. But I think at school you're supposed to follow the rules, they teach you that you have to know the rules first in order to break them. A lot of abstract and expressionists can give the impression that they cant paint, if you want to go down that route and be respected as an artist you generally have to first prove that you can draw and paint and that its a stylistic choice rather than a lack of ability.
One of my favorite exam pieces was a silkscreen painting, because I never listened or paid attention I just did what seemed to make sense to me and totally confounded my teacher. With silkscreen we were supposed to draw the outline in some stuff, I think it was called gutta or something like that, anyway then you were supposed to fill in the shapes with blocks of colour using the silk paints. Ofcourse, I didnt know that, I drew the outline then painted it like a watercolour, mixing the paint on the silk and building up layers of colour and shades, it was a very special piece. I guess sometimes not know the rules can be an advantage ;)

ah well, seems we're back to the age old question again of 'what is art?'. it's a question worth answering.

The age old question, I dont think there is an answer. A more poignant question, I tihnk, is what is photo-based art? Where do we draw the line between photo-manip, retoucing and photo art?

Just to say i have found the chat between you Nancy and Craig quite interesting and informative
Isnt healthy debating a art form in itself ?

Palms

Just to say i have found the chat between you Nancy and Craig quite interesting and informative
Isnt healthy debating a art form in itself ?

Palms
It is a rare and precious thing online. A healthy debate that hasnt degraded into using any of the words "fag, ghey or nazi" ;)

This Deep Paint program is fun, here's a version done with the Round Oil Cloner.

Craig, don't dropplets of water form a sphere as they fall? :question: PM, at this point, i dont care if they're square ;) but, as i used to tell others, go out and look ;)

nancy,

Craig, I love it. Its beautiful, thank you :) thank you for the compliment and thank you for pushing me to it. and thank you for being honest. i value these things.

At school I rarely did as I was told or what I was supposed to and I always had her saying 'how did you do that? hehehe, this surprises me not at all. it's the true artists, the good ones, who refuse to always paint within the lines, and normally who could teach the teachers a thing or two :) and i love hearing bits like this about people here. the silk screen one also :)

and palms,

i view this whole process between nancy and i more of a coming together of views. i'm wildly undisciplined, overly casual, unschooled and often times downright lazy. nancy strikes me as more of a traiditional style, much more disciplined and having more form and structure. this process, for me, has been more of a trying to see another view, another way, nancy's way, while at the same time conveying something about my way that maybe she could grab onto or had possibly even given up partitially and might want to revisit. so, to me, it's more about breaking our own little boundaries, just a smidgen, and looking at something outside of that. i've learned from nancy here and that's not always easy for me ;)

craig

I suspect there's a feature or two under the "Clone" tab that I can't winkle out, but the instructions are no help. Have you uncovered any secrets hidden under the "Clone" tab?
Oyster

Check out my Deep Paint Tutorial on this site.

I downloaded this program from the site you all listed but after I put it into Photoshop I just had a face the said retriving and send - nothing about doing anything with it.
help needed :rolleyes:

Run Deep Paint as a stand alone program. The interface with Photoshop is too iffy. Go to START, ALL PROGRAMS. Look in the RIGHT HEMISPHERE folder. Click DEEP PAINT to start program. When done working, save your file and reopen in Photoshop.

Good luck!

Nancy, yours is the watercolour technique I admire. I'd very much like to read more on your procedures.

Photomaster, I too have spent a lot of time with Deep Paint, and have discovered what you have so fully described (Your post ought to have a "sticky" label slapped on it and placed in the *Tutorials* forum. It would be very helpful for those trying to use the app.) What I can't figure out is the relationship of the "Clone" tab in the upper left of the workspace, and the "Paint" tab right next to it. The instructions get you cloning under "Paint" exactly as you have stated; but what's the use of the "Clone" tab with its specially-loaded brushes? You can set out to clone more quickly under the "Clone" tab, to be sure, but the brushes generate an image more like the photo than a painting. If you want painterly strokes, you have to go to the "Paint" tab and tick "artistic", just as if you had begun under this tab. I suspect there's a feature or two under the "Clone" tab that I can't winkle out, but the instructions are no help. Have you uncovered any secrets hidden under the "Clone" tab?
Oyster

Sorry I missed this post Oyster - was caught up in discussion.
The technique is not very difficult but it does not work on every picture...

Duplicate original layer, set blending mode to color dodge, and invert the colours.
The canvas should now be white (or mostly white) filter->blur ->gaussion blur, play around to get the colours in the right places.
You can stop at this point or
Do a very small gaussian blur on the original layer, then filter->styalise->find edges, edit ->fade find edges ->colour burn approx 30% - this should give a wetter look with darker edges in places (where the colour collects at the edge of the water)

I found this interesting thread and made something like
watercolor, I hope..
Photomaster - very nice picture :happy:

I used Gimp.

Acrylic attempt. I dont know what is the number of filters that I used! :depressed But I'm sure that is a frame here :happy:

Interesting thread. Some nice entries and conversation. ;)

I found this interesting thread and made something like
watercolor, I hope..
Photomaster - very nice picture :happy:

I used Gimp.

I like this version Barbara, care to share the steps involved in it?

Hi Foxie :happy:
the very first thing is to simplify the image , so depending on kind of a photo
I use selective blurs (sometime with warping ), sometimes despeckle filter
makes here a nice job too. So I repeat small steps until the result is ok.
Then I clone it on a new white layer and add a bit of texture.
Sometimes I add a bit of outline.
So simple it is :happy: