edit the scatch board tool

[workbench]

Those are not artifacts per-se it's just how the "Rendered" engine works, one other flaw is that it leaves clear pixels here and there on broad brush strokes. I would really like to see this brush engine improved, it could be really great.

[Mu]

http://muratkayi.de/cpg/albums/userpics/10001/normal_screenie%7E1.jpg




I frequently hear people trying to emulate simple soft round brushes and having problems with it.

The things that I recommend is

a)

create a category the main purpose of which is to serve as a home and playground for new brush creations. Put one brush in there which is as simple as possible and use it to start experimentations. Copy brushes from other categories to this playground category before you start and tweak them.

b)

Use the brush creator (ctrl+b) to get real familiar with what the brush engine does and what the consequences of using a certain dab type are.

The above brushes are what I called "simple round hardedged" and "simple round softedged" in my playground category. There is a dab type called "circular" in german and I hope it's the same in english, because that's what I used, here.
a circular, single stroke set to cover (subtype soft cover) low opacity, high resaturation and practically no bleed should do the trick.

hope it helps.

[kraal]

thanks MU that is what i was looking for ... ill start there and tweak as needed

[Hecartha]

I've done this image to show you the difference between the opacity system of painter and photoshop:
The Conclusion can surprise you because painter does not seems to have any opacity system, what we are using in painter is a "flow" system. (See the image)
Each brush strokes are composed of steps of the brush shape. More you use step and more your brush stoke will be detailed.
-The opacity allows to limit a brush stroke to a number of percent of opacity before releasing your stylus.
-The flow allows to adjust the opacity of each brush step which composes the brush stroke. More you use step, more it will be opaque because each brush step add their own opacity to the others. Photoshop with its opacity value allows to limit this effect to a maximal.
Now the rendered dab type of the scratchboard tool almost avoids than the brush step superpose itself...but it is not always the case (the annoying artifacts)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p76/hecartha/Opacity-System-1.png

As many painter users i'm waiting for a true opacity system in painter, a system than allows a subtle work, increasing progressively opacity to reach the result we are looking for. It is ridiculous than any 2d freeware can give this basic feature and we, the painter users are still awaiting for this one in painter...

[rattsang]

wow thats an eye opener........... shows how weak the opacity system in painter really is. this really does need to be fixed a.s.a.p.

[Hecartha]

sure, i was surprised myself by this result. :D
But it is really a bad thing painter is not able to play with a true opacity system. Using low opacity allows to add multiple coats of paint successively preserving the first coat painted on the canvas instead of the actual system which destroy all these precious pixels which give the texture like transparent oils or colored varnish technics. Sometime it is a good choice to cover or to merge color, sometime preserving all the work bottom your latest brush work gives a pretty good result.

So i will join this image with the new wishlist...when someone or i will create it if i have the time. Perhaps if the missing feature is fully explained (with arguments and images) the painter team will take it in consideration :).
I think it will be a good idea to create also a sticky bug thread where every discovered bug (minor or major) are explained...there are too many issues actually which jump accross version...

[Mu]

you know, missing a behaviour from app B is not actually a real shortcoming of app A.

I say so, because I think that it's mostly PS users making the jump to Painter feel they are missing something.

When I started to use Painter all I had was a bit of experience with a heap of free apps and so I did not miss any behaviour in regards to opacity.
One of Jin's mantra's is: Take (and use) Painter for what it is. I strongly recommend that.


which give the texture like transparent oils or colored varnish technics.

Creating texture by layering low opacity strokes like seen on so many Craig Mullins pics, isn't it?
It is quite an intruiging look.

But Painter offers so many built-in sophisticated ways to create interesting textures in your paintings that I think the best thing would be to explore the Painter specific ways of playing with textured strokes or layering textures.
I have heard Craig Mullins uses Painter for his work, too (hearsay), so he must have found a way to make Painter do what he wants for textures.

[kraal]

at no ways was my attempt to turn this into a what is painter missing and a when will corel fix this post. and that is all I will say.

[Hecartha]

you know, missing a behaviour from app B is not actually a real shortcoming of app A.So you really think the artifacts in the first image from the kraal's post are a feature? What i can see here is with a true opacity system these artifacts would not be there, so in this case yes, the app B needs the behaviour from app A ;) Or you have the solution to not use opacity with rendered dab type, or to not use slow movement, or to not use it. Perhaps there is also another solution, the improvement of this tool.
Now i never wrote anywhere than a true opacity system was indispensable to do an interesting work :) But if you think the program can't be improved or does not need to be improved, any user can stick with any old version. Since the biggest artist did not wait painter X to do lot of outstanding work, no one need this latest version?
I say so, because I think that it's mostly PS users making the jump to Painter feel they are missing something.You can add a lot more users, in fact when you are not really familiar with what a program can do you cannot really analyze a need like talking about brush steps, flow, opacity especially if you come from natural media. It is mostly why this wish comes from not the photoshop users, but the users who have one day tried photoshop.When I started to use Painter all I had was a bit of experience with a heap of free apps and so I did not miss any behaviour in regards to opacity.
One of Jin's mantra's is: Take (and use) Painter for what it is. I strongly recommend that.Yes, i know about the painter features, i've spent many hours creating and organizing my own brush library. I played with every possible sliders, i like this program and i would like more if it can be improved. So I am talking about what i would like to be added in painter because that has not any sense to talk for ever about existing feature :) Yes we can do lot of things in lot of ways in painter, you can also work with the palette knife only if you like it, and you could do a great job with it! Anyway you can also do a good job with another tool, and i'm talking about this other tool, in this case, a true opacity system.
Creating texture by layering low opacity strokes like seen on so many Craig Mullins pics, isn't it?
It is quite an intruiging look.

But Painter offers so many built-in sophisticated ways to create interesting textures in your paintings that I think the best thing would be to explore the Painter specific ways of playing with textured strokes or layering textures.
I have heard Craig Mullins uses Painter for his work, too (hearsay), so he must have found a way to make Painter do what he wants for textures.Why are you talking about what Craig Mullins want? I'm not Craig Mullins (haha) i can't use his technic. I admire his work but it is not my work, i have not his skill, and if i had his skill i will not use his technic because we have not the same personality. Again i never said you cannot obtain any texture work in painter, my god i should be really stupid to say that (yeaah, i created some high resolution papers, i played with grain creating lot of custom brushes...really fantastic!) :) So the question is not "does a true opacity system can be replaced by the use of another technic" but it is rather "does a true opacity system give you another interesting way to do your work".
at no ways was my attempt to turn this into a what is painter missing and a when will corel fix this post. and that is all I will say.You have submited what you thought be a problem, workbench said you it is a normal way this tool works, Mu has given you an altenative solution to do what you want, i explained the origin of the problem which comes from the opacity system...and added a wish about an improvement. No problem there:shrug:

[Mu]

kraal - don't worry, things are not going to get heated...:scream:

Hecartha - you know, everything you say makes sense to me, but when I look at the comparison chart you took the nice effort to create I can basically see a behaviour that is totally different from what it is now.
And I am actually happy with how paint is applied to the canvas in Painter right now.

But, of course, if things are so you can choose from a set of behaviours, it's always better to have more choices and alternatives.

BTW, I was talking about Craig Mullins, because what you described about layering low opacity strokes creating a mult-stroke pattern and texture reminded me of the style that he made so popular. I do think it might be worthwhile to investigate if he creates the same look when he works in Painter, because it might mean that you could have an alternative workflow which might produce similar results in Painter.
All of which is only true provided that he does actually use Painter (again, hearsay... but I also heard he mainly uses standard brushes. Wish I could find that discussion again)

good times everyone...:wavey:

[Hecartha]

I'm happy you understand my opinion, it was just what i would :) I will still continue to think in a normal opacity system the brush spacing should not change the resulting opacity to avoid strange combination (spacing 2%, opacity 10% --> resulting opacity 100%) yeaah, i'm like a stupid dog with its bone ahah

Good luck finding the discussion about Mullins. Now i can point you another great artist, perhaps you already see this sketchbook by not a master like Mullins but an artist who just uses the software for what it allows. It is pretty interesting to see in time the construction of what it will be the great Zhu Haibo's technic. The latest pages show some work on painter, i really like what this artist does and when i see these pages i just feel happy :)
Sketchbook Thread of zhuzhu (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=200&t=297847&page=53&pp=15)

and good times to you too :)

[workbench]

I'm happy you understand my opinion, it was just what i would :) I will still continue to think in a normal opacity system the brush spacing should not change the resulting opacity to avoid strange combination (spacing 2%, opacity 10% --> resulting opacity 100%) yeaah, i'm like a stupid dog with its bone ahah

Good luck finding the discussion about Mullins. Now i can point you another great artist, perhaps you already see this sketchbook by not a master like Mullins but an artist who just uses the software for what it allows. It is pretty interesting to see in time the construction of what it will be the great Zhu Haibo's technic. The latest pages show some work on painter, i really like what this artist does and when i see these pages i just feel happy :)
Sketchbook Thread of zhuzhu (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=200&t=297847&page=53&pp=15)

and good times to you too :)

I've seen ZhuZhu work on a chinese board before but I didn't know he posted here too very cool!

In this piece http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=4215361&postcount=787 he used the "Rendered" brush.

[Mu]

oh yea man, zhuzhu...

I still remember when I first saw his tutorial on digital watercolor paintings with PS. I had not done any painting with software on a PC back then and I was totally staggered by its beauty. Was definitely an important reason why I ever considered trying digital in the first place.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.