Hm, impressive but:
with alittle photophop bluring
Reveal Technnique
walrus
#10
There’s also a lot you can do in Photoshop by drawing something orthagonally on a seperate layer and using the Free Transform tool to “perspectivize” it to where you need it to be, saving a lot of work or need for a 3D app.
All in all, it’s hard to make such sweeping generalizations about Photoshop artists, saying they all leave out apps they use. I know you’re not going that far with your request, but it might also help to inquire on a case-by-case basis: Hey, I’m really impressed with your roof, your perspective, whatever, cold you please share how you did that. People are often flattered to have their work appreciated, and many on this site are more than willing to share their tricks of the trade.
-mike
kraal
#12
doesnt matter if the used custom photos … brushes … textures or what ever it is still done in photoshop.
Verboten
#13
You are missing the point, I didnt say that wasnt legit Photoshop work I just asked to simply share little more technique details when art piece is posted instead of just saying …photoshop.
Similarly I could say its done on computer… and that also would be legit answer.
nebezial
#14
well here is one…u make a sample of a few tiles lets say, u duplicate it over and over to create a roof surface, now u paint some natural abrasion and stuff, moss whatever, and then free transform it into perspective…i guess that could be a neat trick
JMcWilliams
#15
Well, thats fair enough 
But you did say in your original post “theres no way on earth u used ONLY Photoshop and Wacom to do that” which I (and perhaps others) took differently to how you intended. It sounded more like an accusation of deception thats all 
The free transform thing could work well for flat surfaces (but those interlocking tiles you mention might not be possible with such a technique). Could be used as a basis for those tiles I suppose.
Traditional matt painters in the past have painted details like that and even more on real canvas, so I’m was just not sure why it seemed viewed as not possible to do by hand in photoshop. Of course it is.
You should see what my illustrator tutor at college was capable of on paper. :buttrock:
LadyMedusa
#16
Personally, I do almost all of my paintings in photoshop only 
Really, it’s all about paticense, skill and little tricks.
You know, custom brushes, pressure sensitivity and other useful things.
Verboten
#17
Well thats great, I like when people are honest and lots of cg artists use images for textures etc. and thats great. if someone doesnt want to share the exp. it’s ok but would be greatly appreciated if ppl said: mostly done in photoshop, used landscape photo as theme, used maya for more realistic stones trees and perspective.
then I can folow you mentally and im happy. 
JMcWilliams
#18
ok, i’m not having a go here I just want to point something out:
I would understand where you are coming from if people were in fact being deceptive on a regular basis (or at least doing what you say without mentioning it) but…
In my humble opinion; I think most artists DO explain if they use any 3d or photographs in the artwork. If they put down only photoshop, then I am inclined to believe that they used only photoshop (and no photo paste jobs).
Linda B (Enayla) was accused of using photographs in her pieces I recall. The accuser just could not accept that someone could paint what she had painted, well… thats HIS problem, not Linda’s ;). Linda and others have been kind enough to post many tutorials on how they do their work, these are the ‘tricks’ you are requesting. There are no super tricks that they hide from everyone.
Again, a skilled painter does not need to use pasted photo’s for textures, they can paint it.
They do not need to render the scene out in 3d to get the perspective, they can paint it.
Not that I am putting down people who do use other tools. But I just don’t see this ‘hiding of secret tools’ as something that is wide spread. :shrug:
As with anything, there are a minority that will try and pass off photo’s as hand painted work but they usually stand out and have inconsistant work (i.e the non photographic elements look crap or the blending is poor).
Just because something looks very real or complex does not mean the painter had to use 3d or photographs. So I maintain that 99 percent of those pictures you think must have had more than photoshop are likely to be just photoshop There is no secret 2d artist handshake to gain access to a wealth of quick fix tools and magic bullet techniques 
Walrus had it spot on, just ask the artist.
Good luck,
Verboten
#19
ok, I think your goiong little overboard here, you cant call people who use those methods unskillful. (and by btw I never thought Linda’s paintings used photos, I can see her “brush”…)
and you have said yourself that you knew some people that tried to pass photos as their hand painting…so I guess there are some.
check this “unskillfull” person’s work and tell me if he lacks skill cos he used several programs and methods not just ps.
nebezial
#20
i know what u mean by passing photos as work there was even a blatant attempt at spectacular challenge…but it is often followed by a serious gap of quality…and becomes obvious. but with skilled use that can be completely hidden that is what matte artists do…and do very well
kraal
#21
back to my original stance being it doesnt matter… If a drawing was done in pencil is it nessesary to say well i used a sharp pencil here and the side of the lead here…oh i used my finger here and the eraser here here and here… just figure if some one says photoshop… painter maya or what ever then thay used any possible tool available in that program… dont hold it against the artist cause he/she does not share every bit of detail as to how they acheived an effect
Verboten
#22
Can we end this please, this is taken completely different path. bunch of overexadurated interpretations of my questiono, I dont need anyones detailed description.
thank you for your input.
The End , Fin, Zip, Zippy longstocking, would you like to suckle on my zipple? www.shhhh,.com,org
JMcWilliams
#23
You just took everything I said completely out of context and are telling me off for something I did not even say. My post was not calling anyone unskilled (actually read my post, intead of offering me your zipples ). He is a prime example of someone clearly stating how he made the image. Which simply confirms what I was talking about. :shrug: I also never claimed that you personally said anything about Linda.
There was no attack on you or on any method or aid. As I said, it was just an opinion.
But at no point was I suggesting that those methods are evil. Using a photo and pretending you painted it would of course be the devils work.
I apologise if I offended you however. Which was not my intent. I certainly don’t want to get into a flame over it, it’s just a forum after all :wavey: Life goes on. And I probably did hijack your well intentioned thread a little which I am sorry for.
Truce? :deal:
nebezial: yes, I agree.
system
#25
Mactador,
I think it was a good idea to start this thread and I also wish that some people would share their techniques a little more openly.
You only have to surf a bit in the gallery to convince yourself that some people use photo heavily - sometimes other members even find the photos used on the net and post them in the thread - the threadstarter just acted as if he did that all by himself … it happens - I’d say - at least once a week. It is often discovered in portrait paintings.
One thing that always - perhaps because I’m a photographer - gives the pieces away is that the poster didn’t bother to retouch unwanted elements in the background - EVEN a photographer would do that nowadays ! 20 % of a table lamp on the border … which artist would do that ?? Why not incorporate the lamp entirely or at least half of it ? The feet are cut off at the border … somebody more skillfull would at least have added some more canvas and have reinvented the missing parts of the feet !
Many more or less newbies use photos and it’s very obvious, because some parts of the image looks almost photorealistic and others are really badly painted - how come someone is so good at painting a face and all the rest just looks like crap ? James, if you surf around in the gallery a little, you must have noticed ! What bothers me the most about it is that there are always some people there to say : “incredible work - it looks so real !” Yes of course it does, because half of it is more or less the photo as it was from the beginning ! And James again, I have seen some people here - mostly newbies or people who are not that good at painting - saying that they didn’t use any photo when it was OBVIOUS that they did. You have to ask yourself sometimes : how could they get the proportions so right and then render SO badly ?
In some fields use of photo seems more accepted than in other as far as I understand : 3D textures and matte painting for example. I think that a lot of people use photo to some degree in their paintings. If a newbie or somebody with no real talent isn’t able to cover it up, more skillfull people would be able.
Unfortunately some people are very dishonest about their procedures, although I do agree with Kraal that why should an artist give all his secrets away if he doesn’t really want to ? It’s his right. Right now I’m thinking of someone who posts these days here : he always have very photorealistic faces in his images, but the rest just doesn’t follow … to me it’s obvious that his faces simply are photos with very little repainting.
Personally, I’m not at all against using photos and I do myself use overlay of textures in my images because I’m too lazy to paint it all by hand. Of course it still needs some tweaking and stuff - it would be foolish to think that you can just find a photo and cut and paste and that’s it !
Why spend a week painting some textures if you can obtain the effect you want in an hour or two ? I mean, we ARE working with digital media. I always try to see if I can’t find a quick and easy way to obtain what I want to. It’s not always possible and I have to go the hard way in some areas of my images. I am not a professional graphics artist - I have another profession and kids, so I don’t really have the time to learn everything “the hard way” - perhaps when I get retired in 15 years time
I also like to play a lot around with different filters - mostly free ones found on the net - unfortunately I often find them more interesting than the ones I paid for … I often do this in the start to get some sort of atmosphere and then I work on from there. My first initial sketches and color blocking mostly look like something a four year old kid would be able to do :sad:
But little by little I get it in the right direction. I’m definately not at all as good at drawing as someone like James for example - perhaps I should use pencil and paper more. Sometimes I try to find a reference photo that looks somewhat like my painting and put it on a layer above my painting to check if the anatomy isn’t completely off.
Most of the filters do though disappear little by little as my image advances - they were only there to help me get it going and inspire me.
I use the “real” photographer tools a lot in my images. Selective color correction, hue and saturation, etc. All the color correction stuff. I even use dodge and burn, but sparcely. I do a lot of corrections with feathered selections - 20 - 30 even 50 or more to get an invisible border where the corrections were applied. Many people would perhaps just repaint those areas, but I think it’s so much easier just to apply a correction in PS. I don’t use layers very much by the way - I find that working directly on the canvas gives a more harmonious feel to the painting, so every time I’m quite satisfied - I flatten and save as version N° 46 …
OK, that was some of my small and humble “secrets”. I hope some other people will follow and thanks again for starting this thread Mactador:thumbsup:
JMcWilliams
#26
Hi Photographer
You are completely right of course, but those who are using dishonest tactics such as using photographs and claiming it to be painted are never going to come here and admit it. However, I looked up one image originally mentioned in the thread there is not really any doubt in my mind that it could be painted by hand.
As you say, the blatant photo-rips are usually weeded out, but I admit that some do slip through the net. I cannot be bothered trying to point them out though because it would result in a flame of one persons word against another. However these obvious photo rips have even occasionally attained front page plugging! Some elements of one were so poorly painted that the comparison to the ‘photo’ elements where obvious.
In any case, Ive just received some very bad news and dont feel like going into this further at the moment.
Good post though :D]
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.