"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47cbf253$1@news.povray.org...

>>> (That's what's so great about vector images - you can edit *everything* 
>>> and nothing is ever "final".)
>>
>>   He is not using vector images.
>
> Indeed. What I way saying is that this is why *I* prefer vector graphics. 
> I make so many mistakes, it's nice having a system where anything can be 
> undone or modified later. But it doesn't seem to hinder Tim in any way...
>
Photoshop does support basic vectors. You can use the pen tool to make them 
and even edit them afterwards.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

> Photoshop does support basic vectors. You can use the pen tool to make 
> them and even edit them afterwards.

Even PaintShopPro (which many think of as PS without as many features) 
allows you to add layers that contain vector art (including text).  There's 
no need to lose any of the vector art data until you want to save as a 
bitmap file format (as opposed to the native psp format).  Of course it 
supports all the usual anti-aliasing, gradient colour/opacity fills, line 
styles etc.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If all of the complex manipulations seen here are really done with 
> layers... hmm, it must take quite a bit of planning to make sure 
> everything is in the correct layer and not accidentally paint yourself 
> into a corner.

  You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics professional
uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
  Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.

  If I'm not completely mistaken, you can group several layers in Photoshop
into one entity which then works as if it was a single layer. This way
you can eg. move a part of the image, which in itself is composed of many
layers, as if it was just one layer.

  Naturally layers can (and should) be named so that you can keep track
of what is where.

> Lilah appears to be in a single layer. (He moves her around as one 
> item.) And yet, he was able to scale just one leg. How do layers help here?

  Probably a bunch of layers grouped together, or maybe some other technique.

> >> - I guess the floor fills kind of give it away that this *must* be a 
> >> bitmap. But how does he manage to fill in all that counter-shading and 
> >> never accidentally draw over the outlining? Is he just extremely 
> >> skillful, or is the software assisting him somehow?
> > 
> >   Layers and layer masks.

> DPaint used to have a thing called "stencils" where you could mark 
> certain colours as "protected", and any pixels drawn in that colour 
> can't be altered. (Remember, DPaint works with palette-based bitmaps.)

> Is this a similar trick, or something different?

  A layer mask is basically an alpha channel for a layer. That is,
besides having a full rgba color layer, the layer can have an additional,
separate alpha channel (called layer mask) which is applied to the layer
as well.
  This is handy when you want to show/hide parts of a layer, without
actually modifying the contents of that layer. And the other way around
is useful too: You can edit the contents of the layer without modifying
the layer mask, which means that your edits will never "bleed" outside
boundaries.

  The layer mask is not a bitmask, but a full alpha mask. This means
that parts of the layer can partially visible, not just on/off.

> >> - How the heck does he do that thing with the floorboards? And the 
> >> shading for the shadow in the doorway? I've never seen anything so 
> >> advanced, ever!
> > 
> >   Layers, transparency.

> Well, sure - but how does he make the shadow edges soft? That must 
> involve some pretty special shading technology. Most software I've seen 
> will do simple linear colour gradients, but not complex shadow outlines 
> like that.

  Varying degrees of alpha transparency. I don't see any difficulty in that.

  In rgba images each pixel has an alpha transparency value. This value
can change from pixel to pixel.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47cbf253$1@news.povray.org...
> I've heard of layers - but it never occurred to me that you could use them 
> for *composing* images. I always throught of them as simply a way of 
> merging two images into one. (E.g., so you could cut out part of one 
> photograph to insert it into another one.)

Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.

http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics professional
> uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
>   Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.

Wow. Just... wow.

And to think I still work on bitmaps using only 1 layer... (But then, if 
you take a photograph of something, it's all one layer, and there's not 
too much you can do about that.)

>   If I'm not completely mistaken, you can group several layers in Photoshop
> into one entity which then works as if it was a single layer. This way
> you can eg. move a part of the image, which in itself is composed of many
> layers, as if it was just one layer.

I can easily see that if *I* ever attempted to do something like this, 
I'd end up putting two things into the same layer and then being 
completely stumped later on because those things need to be in seperate 
layers.

>   A layer mask is basically an alpha channel for a layer. That is,
> besides having a full rgba color layer, the layer can have an additional,
> separate alpha channel (called layer mask) which is applied to the layer
> as well.
>   This is handy when you want to show/hide parts of a layer, without
> actually modifying the contents of that layer. And the other way around
> is useful too: You can edit the contents of the layer without modifying
> the layer mask, which means that your edits will never "bleed" outside
> boundaries.
> 
>   The layer mask is not a bitmask, but a full alpha mask. This means
> that parts of the layer can partially visible, not just on/off.

Right. So... there's a channel that controls how opaque a layer is, and 
another channel that controls how much you can draw on it?

>> Well, sure - but how does he make the shadow edges soft? That must 
>> involve some pretty special shading technology. Most software I've seen 
>> will do simple linear colour gradients, but not complex shadow outlines 
>> like that.
> 
>   Varying degrees of alpha transparency. I don't see any difficulty in that.

Oh - you mean make a layer that's just flat dark-green, and then paint 
onto the alpha channel to blend it into the light-green parts? Ingenious...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.

GAH!

Why would you...? no, HOW would you...? damn, 2 MONTHS?! An image file 
that's more than 1 GB in size? How the hell do you edit it? What the... 
I think I need to sit down.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
>>> Are you *kidding* me? This is the most advanced thing I've ever seen! 
>>> o_O
>>
>>   Clearly you have never used an image manipulation program to its full
>> extent. Even the Gimp has many of the features showcased in that video
>> (although, admittedly, some of them are not as easy to use).
> 
> Well, given that I can't actually draw, I guess I don't spend a huge 
> amount of time with drawing packages. (Which arguably Photoshop is and 
> the GIMP isn't - depending on your definitions.) And it's not like the 
> GIMP comes with a manual. It's not even clear what half the buttons are 
> meant to DO...
> 
> Some things that shock me about this video:
> 
> - Tim manages to draw, UNdraw and then redraw lines multiple times. 
> Usually in a bitmap editor, all drawing operations are final and cannot 
> be undone like that. (That's what's so great about vector images - you 
> can edit *everything* and nothing is ever "final".)

You just erase. Since you should be using layers anyway. Erasing on a 
layer won't affect the rest behind.

> - He scales objects. This generally isn't possible in bitmap editors 
> without absurd levels of highly-visible distortion. (Tim even scales 
> individual *parts* of objects - something I've never seen any bitmap 
> editor allow.)

Layers.

> - Tim is able to move objects around, place one in front of another, and 
> draw stuff behind objects. It's standard in a vector editor, but I've 
> never seen it in a bitmap editor.

Layers or even moving a selection (so called 'floating selection', 
because it's not merged with the current layer yet).

> - I guess the floor fills kind of give it away that this *must* be a 
> bitmap. But how does he manage to fill in all that counter-shading and 
> never accidentally draw over the outlining? Is he just extremely 
> skillful, or is the software assisting him somehow?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but: using "replace color" 
instead of a brush could help. Even Paintbrush in Windows 3.1 had 
something like that, and it was removed in MS Paint later. You can paint 
all over the image with color X, but only areas of color Y will be affected.

> - How on earth does he do the text like that? When *I* want to outline 
> something, I have to sit there for hours drawing the outlines in by 
> hand. He appears to have some kind of automation that does it for him... 
> And not to mention all the squishing and bending of the text, and the 
> multiple levels of gradients and...

Just a panel with dozens of options :)

I used to have Paint Shop Pro 5 (that's from 1996 i think). To do text 
with outline, first I added some plain old text. That added text to the 
current layer and selected it (selection shape had antialias too). Then 
I created a new layer *behind*, enlarged selection (selection | 
transform | enlarge IIRC), and filled the selection with another color. 
Obviously not as easy as on any modern software, but I could do it anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran a écrit :
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 47cbf253$1@news.povray.org...
>> I've heard of layers - but it never occurred to me that you could use them 
>> for *composing* images. I always throught of them as simply a way of 
>> merging two images into one. (E.g., so you could cut out part of one 
>> photograph to insert it into another one.)
> 
> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.
> 
> http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm

Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique.  Why give up
the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?

  Why not? Relieves stress?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> If all of the complex manipulations seen here are really done with 
> layers... hmm, it must take quite a bit of planning to make sure 
> everything is in the correct layer and not accidentally paint yourself 
> into a corner.

Humans can make mistakes, sure.

http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20080216
http://www.cad-forums.com/showpost.php?p=2554424&postcount=31

>>> - How the heck does he do that thing with the floorboards? And the 
>>> shading for the shadow in the doorway? I've never seen anything so 
>>> advanced, ever!
>>
>>   Layers, transparency.
> 
> Well, sure - but how does he make the shadow edges soft? That must 
> involve some pretty special shading technology. Most software I've seen 
> will do simple linear colour gradients, but not complex shadow outlines 
> like that.

If the shadow is on its own layer, you could blur it when you're done :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
>> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.
> 
> GAH!
> 
> Why would you...? no, HOW would you...? damn, 2 MONTHS?! An image file 
> that's more than 1 GB in size? How the hell do you edit it? What the... 
> I think I need to sit down.
> 

Apparently there aren't really 15000 at a time (that would need some 
terabytes of RAM). He used separate image *files*, each with some 
hundred layers, then put those together.

Also, the 1GB file is the final bitmap (probably compressed). The 
photoshop file is probably *many* gigabytes, to keep all the layers 
independent.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> damn, 2 MONTHS?!

Uh, no. Where did you read that? It says eleven months.

Post a reply to this message

"Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47cc1c7a$1@news.povray.org...

> Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
> reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique.  Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?

I guess it's more an historical thing. Bert Monroy is a digital art pioneer 
and he's been famous for a couple of decades now for his photorealistic 
work. He's probably one of the first computer artists to have a real 
following. This kind of piece is really a showcase for his 
Photoshop/Illustrator skills (and books, lectures, TV shows etc.).

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien escribió:
> Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
> reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique.  Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?

To get high on digg?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:44:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> ...and then I remember that I can't actually draw, and just having
> similar software and hardware to Tim wouldn't magically enable me to be
> a supreme artist like him. And I'm probably too stupid to figure out a
> package like Photoshop anyway.

Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:39:21 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> And it's not like the GIMP
> comes with a manual. It's not even clear what half the buttons are meant
> to DO...

Tooltips are very helpful.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If all of the complex manipulations seen here are really done with 
>> layers... hmm, it must take quite a bit of planning to make sure 
>> everything is in the correct layer and not accidentally paint yourself 
>> into a corner.
> 
>   You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics professional
> uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
>   Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.
> 
>   Naturally layers can (and should) be named so that you can keep track
> of what is where.

The drawing I'm working on I've got various layers; each reference on 
its own layer, earlier versions still have the original sketch, the 
dolphin is one layer, the mermaid another, two versions of her hair on 
their own layers, the background will be its own layer, I have a few 
masks so one thing can be fully drawn but partially behind another thing 
without being visible through it, if I ever want to add colour, each 
colour will probably be on its own layer...

What really sucks is spending an hour drawing, then realizing you're on 
the wrong layer...!   *sigh*

I use Alias Sketchbook Pro 2 which is relatively feature-spare, but 
because of its simplicity is a lot easier to handle.  I personally 
loathe PhotoShop due to the culture of elitism surrounding it (it WAS 
originally a Mac product), and GIMP was obviously originally for linux; 
complex, unintuitive, and missing some smaller features that you still 
end up using regularly.  I still use PSP 7 for mundane image manipulation.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I can easily see that if *I* ever attempted to do something like this, 
> I'd end up putting two things into the same layer and then being 
> completely stumped later on because those things need to be in seperate 
> layers.

Ever heard of Cut & Paste?  Cut an object out of one layer, and paste it 
into a new layer.  IIRC, it even has a "Paste into new layer" option, 
that saves you the step of creating a blank layer.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:44:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> ...and then I remember that I can't actually draw, and just having
>> similar software and hardware to Tim wouldn't magically enable me to be
>> a supreme artist like him. And I'm probably too stupid to figure out a
>> package like Photoshop anyway.
> 
> Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.
> 
> Jim

And in some cases, school.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:03:44 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:44:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> 
>>> ...and then I remember that I can't actually draw, and just having
>>> similar software and hardware to Tim wouldn't magically enable me to
>>> be a supreme artist like him. And I'm probably too stupid to figure
>>> out a package like Photoshop anyway.
>> 
>> Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> And in some cases, school.

True, very true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.
>>>
>> And in some cases, school.
> 
> True, very true.

In case you missed it - I already tried that. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran a écrit :
> "Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 47cc1c7a$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
>> reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique.  Why give up
>> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?
> 
> I guess it's more an historical thing. Bert Monroy is a digital art pioneer 
> and he's been famous for a couple of decades now for his photorealistic 
> work. He's probably one of the first computer artists to have a real 
> following. This kind of piece is really a showcase for his 
> Photoshop/Illustrator skills (and books, lectures, TV shows etc.).

Visiting his site, I noticed that he made some backgrounds for "shatter", which
is seen as the first comic done on a computer. It's amusing because I remember
quite well reading "shatter" in Spirou (yes!) at the time (early eighties).

The limitations of Mac Paint gave "shatter" a very specific feel, quite interesting,
graphically (and now historically).  His most recent work are rather bland
aerograph-mock stuff, in comparison.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:52:47 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>
>>   You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics  
>> professional
>> uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
>>   Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.
>
> Wow. Just... wow.

Most I've worked with is about 20 layers at a time, I've had files in with  
around 100.

> And to think I still work on bitmaps using only 1 layer... (But then, if  
> you take a photograph of something, it's all one layer, and there's not  
> too much you can do about that.)

As Ben said you can copy and paste items into a new layer and indeed PSP  
has a Paste as New Layer option

>>   If I'm not completely mistaken, you can group several layers in  
>> Photoshop
>> into one entity which then works as if it was a single layer. This way
>> you can eg. move a part of the image, which in itself is composed of  
>> many
>> layers, as if it was just one layer.
>
> I can easily see that if *I* ever attempted to do something like this,  
> I'd end up putting two things into the same layer and then being  
> completely stumped later on because those things need to be in seperate  
> layers.

Yeah that's easy to do, it's also fun to mark out an area on layer 1 copy  
it to layer 2 and find you haven't got everything you thought you had  
because some of the image you can see is contained on layer 0. Likewise,  
as has been mentioned, brushing something out on layer 1 and finding  
you're really on layer 0 and need to undo.

>>   A layer mask is basically an alpha channel for a layer. That is,
>> besides having a full rgba color layer, the layer can have an  
>> additional,
>> separate alpha channel (called layer mask) which is applied to the layer
>> as well.
>>   This is handy when you want to show/hide parts of a layer, without
>> actually modifying the contents of that layer. And the other way around
>> is useful too: You can edit the contents of the layer without modifying
>> the layer mask, which means that your edits will never "bleed" outside
>> boundaries.
>>    The layer mask is not a bitmask, but a full alpha mask. This means
>> that parts of the layer can partially visible, not just on/off.
>
> Right. So... there's a channel that controls how opaque a layer is, and  
> another channel that controls how much you can draw on it?

Yeah sort of in PSP I can set a graduated mask for the alpha transparency  
on a layer, but then make that entire layer 50% opaque too. If you've got  
a copy of Paint Shop Pro it's well worth spending the time to fiddle I  
still find things that I hadn't realised it did, and it's cheaper then  
Photoshop.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> [You might recall I gave up on 3D Studio Max - reputedly the most 
> powerful 3D software ever written in human history - because I couldn't 
> figure out how to make it draw something other than spheres of cylinders.]

If you can manage GIMP, you can manage Photoshop a bit easier, IMO. 
Especially for macro-like things, you can record actions, etc... 
Photoshop is *the* program for image manipulation, and it does it well. 
One of the things I really like is the non-destructive features, such as 
adjustment layers; Very helpful. CS3 has even more non-destructive 
editing. The software is extremely stable and mature. Gimp is mostly 
stable, but I have managed to make betas crash a few times.

Elements, on the other hand I have found to be a major pain in the arse. 
My wife has Elements to use with her digital camera, and I somewhat 
dislike the way it works. An advantage of having Elements (it comes OEM 
with some products) is that you have upgrade pricing. My father in law 
was able to get CS3 for US$300. One of the few very expensive programs 
I've found to be well worth the money spent.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Some things that shock me about this video:
> 
> - Tim manages to draw, UNdraw and then redraw lines multiple times. 
> Usually in a bitmap editor, all drawing operations are final and cannot 
> be undone like that. (That's what's so great about vector images - you 
> can edit *everything* and nothing is ever "final".)

Undo, or he occasionally flips the stylus over and uses the eraser end. 
(yes, it has an eraser..)

> - He scales objects. This generally isn't possible in bitmap editors 
> without absurd levels of highly-visible distortion. (Tim even scales 
> individual *parts* of objects - something I've never seen any bitmap 
> editor allow.)

He's probably using a high enough resolution to mitigate the effects, 
plus the scaling he's doing isn't *too* drastic.

> - Tim is able to move objects around, place one in front of another, and 
> draw stuff behind objects. It's standard in a vector editor, but I've 
> never seen it in a bitmap editor.

Layers. Even Gimp has layers.

> - How on earth does he do the text like that? When *I* want to outline 
> something, I have to sit there for hours drawing the outlines in by 
> hand. He appears to have some kind of automation that does it for him... 
> And not to mention all the squishing and bending of the text, and the 
> multiple levels of gradients and...

Photoshop has a means of adding effects to layers. Essentially, you open 
the blending options dialog, and choose the items you want (Drop shadow, 
  Outer/Inner glow, Stroke, etc ...)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:36:52 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.
>>>>
>>> And in some cases, school.
>> 
>> True, very true.
> 
> In case you missed it - I already tried that. ;-)

Doesn't mean you're incapable of learning - it could well be a poor 
instructor (by which I mean "an instructor who didn't teach in a way you 
could learn")

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.

This year's winner in the "too much time on his hands" category...

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>> Nobody becomes an expert overnight.  It takes time and practice.
>>>>
>>> And in some cases, school.
>>
>> True, very true.
> 
> In case you missed it - I already tried that. ;-)
> 

You went to art school?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>> In case you missed it - I already tried that. ;-)
>>
> 
> You went to art school?

No. I took evening classes for drawing.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:06:51 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> In case you missed it - I already tried that. ;-)
>>>
>>  You went to art school?
>
> No. I took evening classes for drawing.

Which you mentioned here and in your blog, except I don't recall seeing  
any conclusion?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

>> No. I took evening classes for drawing.
> 
> Which you mentioned here and in your blog, except I don't recall seeing 
> any conclusion?

Eventually the course came to a close. (Shortly before Christmas actually.)

Did I meet some new people? Well, I met 4 little old ladies who weren't 
very talkative. (At least, not to me.)

Did I learn to draw? No.

Did I improve my drawing skills? Well, slightly.

Did I learn *anything* useful? Yes, probably.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:35:38 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> No. I took evening classes for drawing.
>>  Which you mentioned here and in your blog, except I don't recall  
>> seeing any conclusion?
>
> Eventually the course came to a close. (Shortly before Christmas  
> actually.)

I did wonder, but it seemed you'd only attended about two classes.

> Did I meet some new people? Well, I met 4 little old ladies who weren't  
> very talkative. (At least, not to me.)

Will I never be rid of Chorlton? "Hello little old lady"

> Did I learn to draw? No.
>
> Did I improve my drawing skills? Well, slightly.

Which implies you could already draw and therefore could not be taught how  
to draw :-P

> Did I learn *anything* useful? Yes, probably.

Probably?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Eventually the course came to a close. (Shortly before Christmas 
>> actually.)
> 
> I did wonder, but it seemed you'd only attended about two classes.

Actually 11 classes. Most of which just involved sitting around drawing 
stuff. [Which I could have done myself.] And being told about all the 
stuff I did wrong. [Which is also pretty self-evident.]

>> Did I learn *anything* useful? Yes, probably.
> 
> Probably?

I learned the following facts:

- Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special 
technique to it. But no, there isn't. I had assumed that drawing only 
*seems* hard because I'm doing it the wrong way. But no, actually it 
*really is* hard. And that's all there is to it.

- Getting the proportions of shapes and the angles of lines exactly 
correct is insanely important. (I was really shocked when the teacher 
got out a ruler and started *measuring* my hand-drawn image. But sure, 
the line is definitely 8 mm longer than it should be. Jesus, I need to 
be THAT ACCURATE???)

- I tend to obsess about drawing tiny details rather than looking at the 
whole image to check whether it's actually in proportion.

- You can check proportions by lining various image elements up against 
each other. (E.g., a person's nose is supposed to line up with their 
ears. If it doesn't... they look pretty retarded.)

- Empty space is really important.

That more or less summarises what I learned. I still can't draw very 
well - but I've got a little better at copying drawings...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:20:26 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Eventually the course came to a close. (Shortly before Christmas  
>>> actually.)
>>  I did wonder, but it seemed you'd only attended about two classes.
>
> Actually 11 classes. Most of which just involved sitting around drawing  
> stuff. [Which I could have done myself.] And being told about all the  
> stuff I did wrong. [Which is also pretty self-evident.]

Time well spent then :-)

>>> Did I learn *anything* useful? Yes, probably.
>>  Probably?
>
> I learned the following facts:
>
> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special  
> technique to it. But no, there isn't. I had assumed that drawing only  
> *seems* hard because I'm doing it the wrong way. But no, actually it  
> *really is* hard. And that's all there is to it.

To be precise you find drawing hard, my cousin finds drawing easy.

> - Getting the proportions of shapes and the angles of lines exactly  
> correct is insanely important. (I was really shocked when the teacher  
> got out a ruler and started *measuring* my hand-drawn image. But sure,  
> the line is definitely 8 mm longer than it should be. Jesus, I need to  
> be THAT ACCURATE???)

Art teacher meet Picasso, Picasso this is art teacher. So long as you can  
tell what it is who cares?

> - I tend to obsess about drawing tiny details rather than looking at the  
> whole image to check whether it's actually in proportion.

But that's fine if you're trying to duplicate exactly what you see for  
architectural purposes, but it ain't art.

> - You can check proportions by lining various image elements up against  
> each other. (E.g., a person's nose is supposed to line up with their  
> ears. If it doesn't... they look pretty retarded.)

Okay now you're dealing with faces and yep that's hard because of how our  
brains work

> - Empty space is really important.

Meh.

> That more or less summarises what I learned. I still can't draw very  
> well - but I've got a little better at copying drawings...

Okay once again here's a quickie essentially what lies between my keyboard  
and monitor base, HB pencil, eraser, no ruler and a index finger to smudge  
stuff. It's not in proportion, but if I'd use it as a base drawing.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stapler.jpg' (19 KB)

Preview of image 'stapler.jpg'

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47ce9e1b$1@news.povray.org...
> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special
> technique to it. But no, there isn't. I had assumed that drawing only
> *seems* hard because I'm doing it the wrong way. But no, actually it
> *really is* hard. And that's all there is to it.

If you're still interested in learning, get yourself a copy of "Drawing on
the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards.

I went through it a few years back, though I never finished it. The part
that I did work through helped quite a bit with my drawing. I don't draw
much at the moment, very little time, but what I learnt from the book helps
with rough sketches that I sometimes do.

If you do get the book, do all the exercises. Reading it is only a small
part.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> If you're still interested in learning, get yourself a copy of "Drawing on
> the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards.
> 
> I went through it a few years back, though I never finished it. The part
> that I did work through helped quite a bit with my drawing. I don't draw
> much at the moment, very little time, but what I learnt from the book helps
> with rough sketches that I sometimes do.
> 
> If you do get the book, do all the exercises. Reading it is only a small
> part.

Yeah, the tutor recommended that book as well. I'll have to see if I can 
find it for sale somewhere...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw escribió:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47ce9e1b$1@news.povray.org...
>> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special
>> technique to it. But no, there isn't. I had assumed that drawing only
>> *seems* hard because I'm doing it the wrong way. But no, actually it
>> *really is* hard. And that's all there is to it.
> 
> If you're still interested in learning, get yourself a copy of "Drawing on
> the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards.

Right side instead of the wrong side, or instead of the left side? :)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47ce9e1b$1@news.povray.org...

> I learned the following facts:
>
> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special technique 
> to it. But no, there isn't.

       Yes, there are special techniques involved with drawing, (more than I 
know), and especially with a soft pencil or charcoal, but it's not hard to 
get a good 3D effect this way. Your forefinger is your friend in this case 
Andrew!    ;)

     Draw a character with a soft pencil and then smudge with your finger, 
every *verticle* line to the RIGHT or LEFT of your character. You now have a 
lightsource on paper.  :)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47ced53e@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw escribió:

> > If you're still interested in learning, get yourself a copy of "Drawing
on
> > the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards.
>
> Right side instead of the wrong side, or instead of the left side? :)

The latter.

Post a reply to this message

>> Right side instead of the wrong side, or instead of the left side? :)
> 
> The latter.

Yeah, there's some theory that one side of the brain is more analytical 
and the other is more emotional, or something like that. (I can't 
remember which is supposedly which though.) Presumably it's a reference 
to that.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:30:57 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

>>> Right side instead of the wrong side, or instead of the left side? :)
>>  The latter.
>
> Yeah, there's some theory that one side of the brain is more analytical  
> and the other is more emotional, or something like that. (I can't  
> remember which is supposedly which though.) Presumably it's a reference  
> to that.

The left-side of your brain, which deals with the right-side of your body,  
is supposedly the more analytical; with the right-side (left-side of the  
body) being emotional etc. That's why left-handed people are supposedly  
more creative.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special technique 
>> to it. But no, there isn't.
> 
>        Yes, there are special techniques involved with drawing, (more than I 
> know), and especially with a soft pencil or charcoal, but it's not hard to 
> get a good 3D effect this way. Your forefinger is your friend in this case 
> Andrew!    ;)
> 
>      Draw a character with a soft pencil and then smudge with your finger, 
> every *verticle* line to the RIGHT or LEFT of your character. You now have a 
> lightsource on paper.  :)

Oh, sure, *shading* is easy. It's drawing the lines in the right place 
that's hard... Most of my drawings involve no shading at all.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> The left-side of your brain, which deals with the right-side of your 
> body, is supposedly the more analytical; with the right-side (left-side 
> of the body) being emotional etc. That's why left-handed people are 
> supposedly more creative.

[For anybody that didn't know.]

The human brain is wired up back-to-front and upside-down. The left side 
of your brain receives sensory input from the left side of your body, 
yet *controls* the right side of your body. (Something to do with this 
being optimal for fast reactions when adjusting your balance or 
something.) Similarly, your visual cortex is at the *back* of your brain 
- as far away as possible from your eyeballs. Go figure... [This is, 
apparently, why being hit over the head with a baseball bat makes you 
see stars.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
> 
> That's a Wacom Cintiq.  ( http://www.wacom.com )

Like this?

http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=WACCIN12

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
>> That's a Wacom Cintiq.  ( http://www.wacom.com )
> 
> Like this?
> 
> http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=WACCIN12 

Probably this, but yeah, "like" that.
http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=WACINTIQ21

Manuel

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47cfb812@news.povray.org...
>>> - Drawing is FREAKING HARD! I had assumed that there's a special 
>>> technique to it. But no, there isn't.
>>
>>        Yes, there are special techniques involved with drawing, (more 
>> than I know), and especially with a soft pencil or charcoal, but it's not 
>> hard to get a good 3D effect this way. Your forefinger is your friend in 
>> this case Andrew!    ;)
>>
>>      Draw a character with a soft pencil and then smudge with your 
>> finger, every *verticle* line to the RIGHT or LEFT of your character. You 
>> now have a lightsource on paper.  :)
>
> Oh, sure, *shading* is easy. It's drawing the lines in the right place 
> that's hard... Most of my drawings involve no shading at all.

   Well, if you continue to practice with shading work, then you will 
definately get better. It's like finding the right texture in PoV-Ray for 
the first time - you kind of don't forget it. Anyway, don't stop, you're 
doing well with it. Better than me at least for my doodling. :/

      ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47cfb89a$1@news.povray.org...

[This is,
> apparently, why being hit over the head with a baseball bat makes you see 
> stars.]

   LoL. Yeah, I guess it would. Thankfully, I haven't had that experience. 
:)

      ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
> news:47cfb89a$1@news.povray.org...
> 
> [This is,
>> apparently, why being hit over the head with a baseball bat makes you see 
>> stars.]
> 
>    LoL. Yeah, I guess it would. Thankfully, I haven't had that experience. 
> :)

Can be arranged... >:-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47d05cdc$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
>> news:47cfb89a$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> [This is,
>>> apparently, why being hit over the head with a baseball bat makes you 
>>> see stars.]
>>
>>    LoL. Yeah, I guess it would. Thankfully, I haven't had that 
>> experience. :)
>
> Can be arranged... >:-)

    Heh, I had a funny feeling I should be looking over my shoulder this 
evening...   ;)

     ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran escribió:
> or the Gimp (the horror, the horror)

I just ended getting frustrated with GIMP. Copied Paint Shop Pro folder 
from my other machine.

http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png

*Now* I can get productive.

Post a reply to this message