[Tetra]

i was curious, it seems that people like to do there rendered artwork in painter instead of photoshop. What is different between the two? is painter better? is there any trial download for this program?

thanks

[Tetra]

anyone?

[brainwash]

Hi,

You can get the Painter 7 Trial from Procreate's Website. You decide if its better. Some like it some don't. =)

[phox3z]

This has been asked so many times, it'd be safe to search these forums for your question...
_________________
MSN: [email protected]
EMAIL: [email protected]

[Jin]

Hi,

The short answer is that Painter's brush technology is unmatched by any other program. Hundreds of drawing and painting tools are installed with Painter, more on the CDs, third party book CDs, on the Web, and endless numbers and variety of drawing and painting tools can be created by the user. Painter 7 brushes are .XML files so they're cross platform compatible and easy to share. Older version brushes can be imported (converted automatically by Painter 7 into .XML files) and loaded into Painter 7.

This is not to mention Painter's many other features, including, just to name one:

Recording Scripts and playing them back into movie frames, then saving as AVI or Quicktime movies, or animated GIFs or recording Scripts to either play back a painting or to perform routine and repetitive tasks.

Photoshop is better at selections and color management tasks. Some users like Photoshop's Layers and Masking better, some like Painter's. The ideal situation is to own both programs and use each of them where they excel.


Have fun with the Painter 7 demo and be sure to ask questions so you make the most of your 30 day trial period.

[eyewoo]

I once got a real deal on some woodgrain patterned formica... real cheap. I was building a recording studio at the time, so I used the simulated woodgrain formica on some counter tops. When finished a friend came in and was totally upset at the countertops. His point ... why use a new technology to simulate an old technolgy... rather than the wood grain formica, he would have preferred a formica that looked like formica.... I tried to explain about the cheap cost, but he'd have nothing to do with that arguement. It was a philosophical thing, eh!

Same thing between Painter and Photoshop... Painter is designed to simulate a traditional look... Photoshop is designed to do nothing more than present a new digital technology.
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[faB]

I believe that Painter is a new digital technology, not just a simulation.
No need for expensive colour, & chemicals to mix with your oils and what not.
Besides as a simulation it does things in a rather surprising manner, you can mix in Painter medias that just shouldnt work in the real world, and sometimes it works well and that's something new.

I know there are pros out there but usually I can tell a digital painting done in Photoshop a MILE away with the strokes of the round brush.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[Tetra]

Painter seems kinda cool, anyone know any good tutorials that i can take advantage of in the 30 day trial?

[eyewoo]

faB wrote

[Lionel]

Eyewoo: I find that agument a bit silly imho. I agree to a certain extent that simulating traditional media is a bit pointless when you have real media to hand (There are good reasons to do this but this isn't the point I want to make) but I think it is wrong to write of painter as simply a tool to simulate traditional media. Going by what people say (I have used photoshop very little) painter has a much better brush engine than photoshop people and it has been used to great effect to simulate tradition media however there is nothing to stop you from using it to create some kind of digital paint of you own with its own unique properties and look. The old masters used to inovate the paints etc that they used I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same in the digital relm. As everybody keeps saying you can generally spot a photoshoped piece of art work. That isn't a bad thing but I don't think that the photoshop look has to be the only digital look there is. I don't mean to take anything away from the people doing photoshop paintings as looking photoshoped is as valid as looking oil painted etc. Your portrats seem to have pushed digital portrats a very long way even if I was to practice for the rest of my life a doubt that I could improve on them however I might find different way of digital painting to push digital portats in a different direction. I am sure there is still some more millage in the photoshopped look but I recon there is more millage finding a new way of painting digitaly. Who knows but I doubt I will be the one to find it.

[Lunatique]

What I love about Painter is its incredible brush engine.

With Painter, you can do the same kind of stuff Photoshop can do, but you can do SO much more. With Photoshop, you are kinda stuck with the limitations of its brush engine, which is kind of like a toy compared to Painter's brush engine. But, Photoshop can do certain things faster and easier.

I would never go back to using just Photoshop ever again. I use it in conjunction with Painter, and it's the best combo for me.

Here's a section of a painting I painted in Painter and Photoshop. It's pretty easy to tell which parts of the image was done with painter, since Photoshop would not be able to achieve that kind of brush work.

[Pat]

[Tetra]

so, does ANYONE know of any tutorials that i could try out in the 30 day period of the trial download??

[B0b]

first major use of Photoshop :

intro: John Knoll was hired by ILM in 1986 as a motion-control cameraman, knoll foun dhimself searching for a new hobby. He had begun working with the Pixar image-processing system and found it a cubersome tool requiring a lot of typing of commands to work. Intrigued with the notion of developing a new imageprocessing tool, he hooked up wihth his brother Thomas, who was working on a doctoral thesis in vision of systems for computers at the University of Michigan.
His brother's researches in computer vision, for example how computers can "see" materials coming down an assembly line and recognise and remove any defective parts, had its roots in image processing.

Photoshop had actually been targeted for the publishing industy. "Photoshop was primarily intended for the print industry, for preparing images to be printed on four-colour offset presses," Knoll said. "I'd say ninety-five percent of its use is for prepress, and a much smaller percentage are using it for animation video and special effects kinds of things."

there u go PS was designed for Pre-press, but as the years have grown-on ppl have started using it more and more for digital art.. (sorry for any typo's)

[faB]

Tetra just do a search on google I think it's dstributed by Macromedia now so you can download the trial on their website, if you have never touched Painter and can find the classic version, I strongly advise you to get the classic, sure its got a ton less features but you can test all its brushes in a week as well as read the doc that comes with it and have a great intro to painter. Painter Classic is still a whole load of fun besides Photoshop.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[faB]

I'll add some more salt heheh feel free to add pepper

Well geenrally I think the traditional medias produce side effects that actually add depth and emotion to your paintings. A lot of materials that appear in your 'scene' can be represented this way, i.e. rugness, dirt and vegetation there';s tons of use for traditional style brushes. I feel the digital art look that comes with a limited brush engine lack the emotion and 'texture' that comes with your typical artwork.

That's why I think taking a brush engine that , at the base aims to emulate traditional media, but can do much more, allows you to create artwork with your tablet than anyone who doesnt know about computers can really appreciate.

In other word,s I tend to judge the quality of something simply by my memory of it. I see a ton of nice looking nice polished pics that I forget 5 minutes later. Then again you can make those too in Painter there's no question, but just generally since a better brush engine requires more fiddling and mastery, it means there is more reward to come out of it. When I see craig's posts on the speed painting I remember them, like his latest 'dress; picture. I love the simplicity and yet the emotion that comes with the texture work behind it.

I can see the 'photoshop' style as a style in itself but it's pretty limited so far, I really think there's lot to be explored with a powerful brush engine.

And if your e going to make a powerful brush engine, I suppose yoiu ought to pay respect to the masters and first try to emulate them

But let's not forget a bad artist will make a bad artwork whther it be painter or photoshop
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[Pat]

Read.

Thomas Knoll's interest in photography is one of the primary reasons why Photoshop's strengths still lie in Color Correction and Image Editing and still has darkroom tools that photographers use, such as Dodge and Burn.

There was a desktop revolution going on but the majority of Photoshop's uses were black and white. It wasn't until professional offset printers shifted from camera based negatives to computer RIPed (raster image processing) negatives did Photoshop's value as a pre-press tool come into it's own. And it didn't accomplish this by itself. There was a lot of interest in color separations and layout done by computer but it wasn't until the proliferation of desktop layout software facilitating the ability to print and RIP these computer images did it all take off.

Believe me, I was there. I sadly recall the days before Aldus Pagemaker could do color separations and CMYKing a 300 dpi image in Photoshop took 50 minutes.

-Pat

[JFreak]

I haven't used Painter as much as the classic version, but nevertheless it's a natural media simulation tool. And it does a very good at doing what it's designed for. I beleive that it was initially created to save time and add more natural looking tools to a already useful "digital toolbox". By no means should Painter be a substitution for real natural media. It's kinda like a microwave. I use it all the time cause it's sooo convenient. but sometimes the food doesn't heat up quite right. (not to mention you can't put metals in it.) On the other hand using the oven tastes much better, but takes longer.
How'd I come up with that analogy - must be hungry.
_________________
Mike
Nahum 1:7

[pulpy ze brachypelman]

i'm not strong in coloring, but i'm usually using photoshop and i really like it. But. But yesterday, i've got Painter7. And the result is that i've tried to work with photoshop today and ... no. i've re-opened painter7...

[Ragnarok]

I have the cd of Painter Classic that came with my wacom tablet. Haven't tried yet, but I might install it today.
But, what's the difference between Painter Classic and Painter 7?
Different brushes, differen engine, or simply new add ons?
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[Tetra]

yeah i thought of that question too- what is the difference??

[JFreak]

Tons more options and tweaking galore. PClassic works fine, that's what I use but it's quite stripped down compared to Painter 7. Different brushes, better engine (I think), and many new add ons?
_________________
Mike
Nahum 1:7

[Tetra]

wacom's website describes painter classic as "an exciting new limited edition of painter 7" that dosen't sound like it has less than painter 7, it sounds like it has more.
http://www.wacom.com/productinfo/bundle_intuos.cfm?soft=all

[faB]

Okay, they have made a new version of the Painter Classic bundle then.

The one I have that came witha regular A4 Wacom Tablet does NOT support layers. It's really really basic, particularly oils and watercolors are much more simple.

I have 'Painter Classic Wacom 1.0, (c) 2000 Corel'

That new P.Classic version sounds great. I feel cheated. I bought my tablet like a few months ago I've got Painter 7 today but when you dont need all the advanced brush whizbangs its great to be able to load a lightweight app such as the Classic version.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[eyewoo]

My point is just that Photoshop seems to me to have a much better designed interface based on using the digital medium for what it is... a new medium with its own particular characteristcs... Of course that feeling may grow out of the fact that I used Photoshop long before Painter.

As for PShop's new brush engine... give it a chance and use it in conjunction with PShop's other functions - quick mask and all the adjustment tools. For me, using the digital medium is not just painting with brushes... The essence of the PShop digital medium is using the quick mask and adjustment tools in conjunction with brush painting, levels of opacity, flow... etc. - all the capabilities offered. With PShop 7, I'm finding all sorts of interesting and exciting textures... I'm sure Painter users can say the same thing...

...but I prefer PShop...

Here's a texture detail - all Photoshop...



The full picture here.
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[faB]

Personally what biases me towards Painter simply is the feature of being able to have my full size poicture without window broders, panned anywhere on the screen. In Photoshop it always get centered and that's annoying with the palettes when you use a single screen.

But it's true Photoshop's streamlined interface is just awesome.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[JFreak]

If anyone's interested in buying a nice legit copy of Painter 7, there's a deal going on that if you have painter classic and want to upgrade it's slightly cheaper. www.wacom.com/painter7savings
_________________
Mike
Nahum 1:7

[spooge demon]

Does anyone know offhand if I change platforms will software makers make me buy a whole new license? That would be very expensive and suck really a lot.

As far as painter, I don't think ps or painter are anything close to traditional media. Like Eyewoo said, it is a separate expression. But I think this goes for painter as well as PS.

I want to use all three, and forget about ideas of purity and ask just what I can get each of them to do.

I think digital stuff is still in infancy, but if analogies to digital music are applicable (and electronic music is a lot further along or has been around longer?) then things will change a lot in the coming years. what an obvious statement. humph.

[B0b]

[Eric Pommer]

For those who use both Painter and PS, how easy is it to go back and forth between the two? Can you open a layered PS file in Painter and vice versa? I'm very tempted to get Painter, as I hear it can simulate wet on wet painting, which is what I do away from the keyboard. PS has nothing close. But I'm not sure I want to embark on a huge learning curve right now either.
_________________
-=-=-=-
Mindplaces: Artwork by Eric Pommer
http://www.mindplaces.com