Photo-Based Art - - Deep Paint Water Color - Page 2

Kraellin · #16 03-17-2006, 02:34 PM

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

NancyJ · #17 03-17-2006, 04:40 PM

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.

Kraellin · #18 03-17-2006, 09:36 PM

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 psp 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

Fox54Black · #19 03-17-2006, 11:15 PM

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

NancyJ · #20 03-18-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kraellin

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

Kraellin · #21 03-18-2006, 07:06 AM

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

NancyJ · #22 03-18-2006, 08:12 AM

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.

Kraellin · #23 03-18-2006, 10:44 AM

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

oyster · #24 03-18-2006, 06:25 PM

... 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.

oyster · #25 03-18-2006, 06:40 PM

... 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.

NancyJ · #26 03-19-2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oyster

... 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 · #27 03-19-2006, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kraellin

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!

Photomaster · #28 03-19-2006, 04:22 AM

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.

Photomaster · #29 03-19-2006, 04:42 AM

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

Kraellin · #30 03-19-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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