 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> :)
I have. I was playing catcher at a church softball game, and we didn't
have proper gear (everyone brought their own mitts, balls and bats).
The batter gave me a good whack on the head, and then gawked at me.
After grabbing my head for a minute, I realized he was still there, and
yelled at him, "Run, you idiot!" :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> 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.
I wish the Gimp and Inkscape merged in some way. Most of the commercial
products are not pure vector or bitmap tools anymore, reusing their codes as
much as it's needed, but focusing more on either drawing or editing. In
particular, brushing strokes in most tools are bitmap brushes applied along
vector paths, so that strokes can be easily edited.
The Gimp is a kickass bitmap editor with many options, filters, palletes, brushs
and whatmore, but lacks a decent drawing tool. It works ok for drawing only if
you draw with bézier tools and use the brushes and tools to the countours.
Inkscape is wonderful for drawing, but still lacks maturity and easily editable
vector-based strokes. Both software could benefit imensely from a merge and
unified framework around Cairo.
here, a 1 hour Gimp hack. Too bad I'm an untalented drawing geek...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'notes.png' (373 KB)
Preview of image 'notes.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I wish the Gimp and Inkscape merged in some way. Most of the commercial
> products are not pure vector or bitmap tools anymore, reusing their codes as
> much as it's needed, but focusing more on either drawing or editing. In
> particular, brushing strokes in most tools are bitmap brushes applied along
> vector paths, so that strokes can be easily edited.
>
> The Gimp is a kickass bitmap editor with many options, filters, palletes, brushs
> and whatmore, but lacks a decent drawing tool. It works ok for drawing only if
> you draw with bézier tools and use the brushes and tools to the countours.
> Inkscape is wonderful for drawing, but still lacks maturity and easily editable
> vector-based strokes. Both software could benefit imensely from a merge and
> unified framework around Cairo.
You're absolutely right; but that's not my problem. I can't even play
around with plain old layers efficiently. Maybe PSP5 interface sucks and
it's only my years of experience with it that make it easy. I don't know.
> here, a 1 hour Gimp hack. Too bad I'm an untalented drawing geek...
Wow, better than I'd ever do using inkscape, gimp, photoshop, or all
three...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> You're absolutely right; but that's not my problem. I can't even play
> around with plain old layers efficiently. Maybe PSP5 interface sucks and
> it's only my years of experience with it that make it easy. I don't know.
no, it doesn't suck. It's pretty good. But so is Gimp, except it's
multiwindowed interface turns off a lot of people (though docking and tabbing
dialogs are a step in the right direction).
> > here, a 1 hour Gimp hack. Too bad I'm an untalented drawing geek...
>
> Wow, better than I'd ever do using inkscape, gimp, photoshop, or all
> three...
thanks, but composition is really awkward. :P
hint: just 3 path shapes stroked and filled. The rest is just playing around
with layers, layer modes (Multiplication, Dissolve etc), color adjustments,
layer masks, selection feathering and a few gaussian blurs...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But so is Gimp, except it's
> multiwindowed interface turns off a lot of people (though docking and tabbing
> dialogs are a step in the right direction).
OTOH, the Gimp has some features I wish other programs had too (not only
painting programs, but GUI programs in general). For example, being able to
convert any menu/submenu into a window is sometimes really handy. (That way
if you frequently need some submenu elements, you don't need to browse to
that submenu again and again, but you can have it right there to click.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It warmed my heart to see so many people acknowledge that learning to draw
rather well is a pretty challenging task requiring some real effort. (BTW, that
was genuine feeling and not sarcasm - I've been told that, with me, it can be
difficult to tell sometimes.)
I'd like to take a moment to encourage anyone who is interested in learning to
draw the human figure to look into the works of artistic anatomist George
Bridgeman and his "constructive anatomy" technique. Although I generally
recommend his work even to a general audience, it seems to me that his approach
is ESPECIALLY useful for POVers in that he breaks down anatomical components to
basic solids.
A good introduction can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334333/Constructive-Anatomy?ga_related_doc=1
(Folks with "normal" to slow connections might have to be patient waiting for
all the pages to load, but it WILL be worth it.)
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> [Actually, it's quite interesting to compare, say, today's comic to
> comic #1. There's quite a bit difference in art style. It changed over
> the years, really gradually, but if you compare the two endpoints it's
> quite striking. Oh yeah, and Lilah in particular looks a lot less geeky
> than she used to...]
>
Damn you! I just had to check the quality of the first strips out. And
guess what I've been doing these past few days? Correct! I'm now on
20060422...
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Damn you! I just had to check the quality of the first strips out. And
> guess what I've been doing these past few days? Correct! I'm now on
> 20060422...
Hehe, I somehow know that feeling. I learned about the comic in this
thread, and guess what, I have since read it through and I'm awaiting
each update with great anticipation.
Manuel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.47d18160430c9a655a8888d90@news.povray.org...
> It warmed my heart to see so many people acknowledge that learning to draw
> rather well is a pretty challenging task requiring some real effort. (BTW,
> that
> was genuine feeling and not sarcasm - I've been told that, with me, it can
> be
> difficult to tell sometimes.)
>
> I'd like to take a moment to encourage anyone who is interested in
> learning to
> draw the human figure to look into the works of artistic anatomist George
> Bridgeman and his "constructive anatomy" technique. Although I generally
> recommend his work even to a general audience, it seems to me that his
> approach
> is ESPECIALLY useful for POVers in that he breaks down anatomical
> components to
> basic solids.
>
> A good introduction can be found here:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/334333/Constructive-Anatomy?ga_related_doc=1
>
Looks a bit like subdivision modeling ;-)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Manuel Kasten wrote:
>
> Hehe, I somehow know that feeling. I learned about the comic in this
> thread, and guess what, I have since read it through and I'm awaiting
> each update with great anticipation.
I've read it for a year oslt on daily basis, but never before from the
very beginning.
> Manuel
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Amusing, isn't it? :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Amusing, isn't it? :-D
>
I have to agree on that one. :)
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:47d0b593$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. :)
>
> I have. I was playing catcher at a church softball game, and we didn't
> have proper gear (everyone brought their own mitts, balls and bats).
>
> The batter gave me a good whack on the head, and then gawked at me. After
> grabbing my head for a minute, I realized he was still there, and yelled
> at him, "Run, you idiot!" :)
Did he run? He should have been concerned for you. Are you seeing things
clearly Ben? ;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:47d0b593$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. :)
>> I have. I was playing catcher at a church softball game, and we didn't
>> have proper gear (everyone brought their own mitts, balls and bats).
>>
>> The batter gave me a good whack on the head, and then gawked at me. After
>> grabbing my head for a minute, I realized he was still there, and yelled
>> at him, "Run, you idiot!" :)
>
> Did he run? He should have been concerned for you. Are you seeing things
> clearly Ben? ;)
Can't talk now, I've got some voices to listen to... :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks good to me. Nice work.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
