[cheney]

I have given people sound advise that have politely discarded or ignored a few times because my advise often describes the use of techniques that involved filters. I could fully understand if my advise were incorrect or illogical, but I do not believe that it is. When I say filters I do not strictly mean only filters, but all things relative to higher use of photoshop including but not limited to layers, channels, filters, shapes, selections, guides, layer effects, color modes, and other benefits?

Isn't the idea of using a computer to be more accurate and finish projects more time efficiently than through using tradtional brush and canvas alone?

I don't understand why this continually happens? Many of you are pros and painters while I am neither, so perhaps some of you could shed some light upon my issue.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Tom Luth]

The problem, as I see it with filters, is not that they are bad, per se, but that it is so darned easy to mis-use them.

They are very seductive, and can create an effect with a lot of impact quickly, yet often inappropriate to the image. Lens flares look cool, for example, and it is tempting to throw them onto an image, without regard for the light source, or the nature of the image. (or the fact that a lens flare is a camera effect, not something seen by the eye.) Same is true of texture filters, such as KPT, and fractals. Just darn cool looking images at the click of the button. I think of this problem much like the guitarist's Wah-Wah pedal. A cool sound, when used sparingly and skillfully. However, the fact that it is so cool seduces a guitarist into using it too much, and in the wrong place.

I've come around to an almost reverse of the popular advice (never use) to suggest that people play with them until they are so sick of seeing these effects, that they will only use them later, when it is appropriate to the image. Well, that is the idea at least.

I enjoy the act of painting (digital and traditional) and tend to use filters to diffuse an image slightly. One use is when I enlarge from one size to another. I will add noise at a low setting (2 or less) scale up, and apply noise again. It shoul be near invisible, but adds a very soft sheen to the surface.I also happen to like Chris Cox's Fractal noise filter (as well as KPT 5's noise) for rough textures. I tend to paint back into these, as they are rather obvious when first applied.

Bottom line is that any tool is fine, as long as it does not become a crutch, or replace design and drawing/painting skills.
_________________
www.thomasluth.com

[cheney]

Filters are easy to misuse, but what about when they are used properly? You said filters should not replace design and painting skills. So if filters are used to emphasize or modify a region of an image are they less evil?

What about painters that claim filters are 100% evil? Is this often a mask to compensate for their lack of design skills to properly integrate filter usage into the production of a painted creation? As a result do some really skilled painters have a lack of basic art design skills?

I am curious and confused.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Impaler]

Boy, this is an old issue.

Filters are bargain-basement art 99% of the time. When they are applied in haste because an image doesn't look "finished" (read as, the fundamental design isn't strong enough to stand on its own), they rob the picture of its artistic essence. It becomes impersonal and mechanical. Take any picture in either finished works or WIP, and apply any filter to it. Let me know when you've improved one.

Filters should be categorized apart from the actual image processing functions of the program, like levels or curves. The only reason one would apply curves is to adjust or circumnavigate the limitations of a medium. Remember that it's called PHOTOshop-- photography has some notable shortcomings that can be remedied by readjusting contrast, etc.

It all comes down to math. There are roughly 100 filters that come with Photoshop. There are millions of copies of Photoshop sold every year, with countless more being h4x0red by the more elite among us. How long will the sumi-e filter last before becoming infernally redundant?

Filters = Kenny G
Image processing = Charlie Parker
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Socar MYLES]

I think part of the reason you get shot down so often, Cheney, is that you come off as if you're saying digital artists who use the brush tools are inferior to those who use all the Photoshop tools, or less efficient.

However, in order to use most of Photoshop's more advanced tools to good effect, you still have to put quite a bit of time and effort into it, not to mention planning. Building up an image with hundreds of layers can end up being twice as laborious as simply painting the damn thing and being done with it. I can easily finish a 3000 X 4000 pixel image with a relatively straightforward composition in a day, using the Paintbrush tool. The images that take me longer aren't the ones that require more painting, but the ones that need more planning--the ones I end up spending ages on compositional sketches and colour roughs for--the ones I'm not immediately satisfied with. And I'm afraid no amount of filters or layers could turn bad composition into good composition, so I don't see how I'd save time there.

Also, unless you have a lot of RAM, there's a lot to be said for using minimal layers and...ah...other thingies that aren't the paintbrush.

Anyway, my take on the matter is that it's all about results. It doesn't matter how you did it, as long as the image looks great when it's done, and gets finished within a reasonable time frame. A more technical process is only superior to a more painterly one if it works better for you...and for a lot of people, myself included, it doesn't. If it ain't broke...don't fix it.

I mean, think of it this way: some people, when they are doing inks, use a single Rapidograph and a bit of paper. Other folks have a full set of Chinese brushes, plus a few Western brushes, a toothbrush for spatter effects, one of those photocopy markers you can use to get an old-magazine effect, a stylus with several interchangeable nibs in different shapes and sizes, and a box of those sticky things. You know...sticky things. What are they called...screen tones, or something. You know what I mean. Well, even if you don't, that's not the point. The point is, the guy with just the Rapidograph isn't WRONG, and he shouldn't feel obligated to use every possible instrument available to an inker just because some other dude does. If he gets the results and works at a good speed, he's fine. Sure, maybe he'd benefit from trying out a brush or a sticky thing once in a while, but that's his call--and if he DOES try it out and doesn't like it, he's still not wrong.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[cheney]

[AliasMoze]

Hey Cheney. If people refuse your sound advise, perhaps the reason is that you write not in the form of a post but the form of a bible. Keep it short, dude.

If filters work for you, use 'em.

[Drunken Monkey]

I dont think you are curious and confused, i think you are a flamebait cheney.

What are these design skills you speak of? You mean the design skills you use to edit your photographs? Traditional artists may not know how to store masks in a channel but they end up producing more interesting images than 99.9% of design skill masters out there. Lets not put photography and painting into same box again.

Photoshop filters are for the most part evil because just like any other widley accessible tool, when they are relied on heavily it shows. The images look cheap and rushed. Just another piece of electronic vomit. I remember mullins posting a pic (of a red woman) all filtered to hell, my instant thought was - how did this look before the filtering?

I am sure there are countless ways to use filters to achieve results qucikly, but when done effectively - you cant tell if the filters were applied. Look at the noise pictures in the Propeller Thread to see what i mean.

Its just more rewarding for people who are using digital medium like they would traditional to do all the layouts, effects and rest by hand. This doesn't make them any less skilled, and you more special and misunderstood.

[cheney]

[Drunken Monkey]

[Drunken Monkey]

[cheney]

Photoshop has limitations compared to a blank canvas. It would be diffecult for Jackson Pollack to freely create using his style of splashing paint into intricate designs on a computer. Photoshop does not seem to have a splash paint tool unless you are counting the spatter filter. But, then that would be a filter.

You are merely contributing to the mentality I may have failed at explaining above.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Drunken Monkey]

You are totally missing it again dude.

Would Pollack be able to create his 'splashes of paint' to the same effect with a filter if such was designed? Don't you think that each of those 'manual' splashes can assume much indiduviality and be become richer as one done by some algorythm on a computer?

I really gotta go to bed, be back tomorrow.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[cheney]

Isn't everything on a computer an algorythm at some point? If people were truely using no form of automation to create their art then how is a computer of any greater value than a canvas?
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Socar MYLES]

I'm not sure you understand quite what "composition" and "design" mean, or that you read my post properly. Your response was pretty "out there". If Craig or Prep uses filters, more power to them. But if you look at Craig's watercolours, the underlying compositional and design skills are still there. Design skills are media-independent. What you are talking about is technical skills which some people haven't learned. What I'm saying to you is that it doesn't matter which particular skills are used to create an image, as long as the result is good. You're reading it as...well, I'm not quite sure what you think you're seeing in there, but you seem to have found argument fodder somewhere.

As for reasons for using a computer, besides filters, layers, etc--well, there are quite a few REALLY OBVIOUS ones:

1. No drying time - increased efficiency.

2. No mess.

3. No health hazards.

4. No scanning required--finished product can be delivered INSTANTLY over the Net with no post-production necessary.

5. That undo thingy there.

I understand that you're trying to prove a point, here, but when you quote people out of context and deliberately (?) misinterpret their statements, you just weaken your position and alienate your audience. There's one guy who often posts heavily filtered and manipulated work here on Sijun, and gets nothing but praise. His work is absolutely excellent, too. And if people ask him about it, he says that's the technique he likes to use. He likes what he's doing...and people like his work.

So, do you like what you do?

And do people like your work?

If you can answer yes to both of those, what's the problem?
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[Drunken Monkey]

[Enayla]

I�ve seen filters used wonderfully. Generally by someone who�s not using them because he, or she, couldn�t produce the effect without the filters but rather because they save time, or because the filters enhance an already lovely painting.

I rarely use the filters myself � mainly because I don�t like the look of them. I can�t help it, but after having held several photoshop classes every year, I�ve learned to recognise almost any filter quite easily, and I can�t help but feel that the generalised look of them really cheapens an image. I like a filter when I can�t spot it � but that doesn�t mean I�d use them myself.

Oh � and everything that Socar said

Use filters all you like, though, and be proud in your use � but if someone seems to be after advice on how to paint, I think there�s a chance they might not appreciate advice on how to filter. Everyone has the right to disregard advice they don�t feel is beneficiary, and people who aren�t on the lookout for filters might not be the least bit interested in them.

Personally - I give no painterly advice to someone who manipulates photos, for instance, nor do I suggest to someone painting in water colours how they could fix an image in photoshop. Different techniques, is all - we've just got to accept that others might not be interested in doing things the way we do it.
_________________
furiae.com

[cheney]

I suppose this is futile in its inevitability. Its really the exact thing that made Rembrandt an unpopular artist until well after he died.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Socar MYLES]

1. No, it isn't.

2. Rembrandt was not unpopular during his lifetime:

"Perhaps the greatest of the Dutch Masters, Rembrandt is justly remembered for his innovative work and for his marketing savvy (a true Dutchman). A master of etching, chiaroscuro (light and shadow). Unlike most artists, Rembrandt was very successful during his lifetime, having a bevy of patrons amongst the wealthy burghers of Amsterdam. His house is a popular tourist attraction."
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[-HoodZ-]

to each their own cheney

[Tom Luth]

Cheney, I feel you are seriously overreacting here. I suspect someone gave you a terribly harsh critique at some point that you have taken too much to heart. None of the replies here have suggested that "filters are always bad." Most have pointed out the ways in which filters are misused, and noted the nature of filters and presets that may lead to such misuse. That being said, most agreed that filters used well, are as valid as any other form of creating art.

Specifically, the ease of use makes filters very susceptible to being abused. With the availability of computers and cracked software, it is inevitable that many non-artists will attempt to create art and will seek the easiest means to do so. How many times (some years back, now) have I seen someone click a preset in the KPT Fractal Explorer and boast "Look what I created!" Likewise for people who downloaded a picture of Stonehenge and ran the watercolor filter, and believe they created art. Sadly, there is a lot more work of this level than of skilled artists. This is true for art created with a pencil; How much badly traced Sailor Moon art is on the net? Remember Sturgeon's Law? "90% of everything is crap.*"

Now, back to your own work: I've checked your site, and actually I think your work and design sense is very good. I particularly like the poster section. I have no problem with your use of filters, as you do not fall into the 90% category. You have gone well beyond the presets, and have explored uses of the filters far beyond what 99% of Photoshop artists ever get around to. You also take the time to compose your images, and weigh elements, color, value, etc. in a manner completely ignored by the click-the-preset "artist." If people are lumping your work in with those who "create" floating chrome spheres with heavy lensflares, then they are doing you a mis-service.

During and after college, I found similar prejudices in traditional media. When I began oil painting, an instructor scoffed that I was using a dead technology, as Acrylics were the future of painting. An art director who initially liked one of my pieces asked if it was airbrush; when I said it was actually pastel-dust and frisket, it suddenly lost all value. There will always be such people, and you need to just move on. I could easily be paralyzed by the nasty comments I've received over the years, if I let it sink in. Take the valid criticisms to improve your work, and ignore junk that doesn't help you get where you are going. Focus on the art, not the tools, and do what works for you.

tl

*Theodore Sturgeon, famed Science Fiction writer, was once rebuffed for writing Sci-fi, as "90% of that stuff is crap." Mr. Sturgeon replied, "90% of EVERYTHING is crap."
_________________
www.thomasluth.com

[Jezebel]

I don't mind filters, I just think that in general a picture painted from scratch looks significantly better. Filtered work tends to have a plastic, almost-3D appearance about it that I don't care for. I like seeing brushtrokes over bevels. Just a matter of preference I guess.

On top of how it looks though, I also enjoy painting freehand more than tweaking settings. I just don't get the same feeling of accomplishment from a piece that is filtered.
_________________
My Art.
My Photography.

[Jezebel]

(one more thing)

Actually one kind of filtered art I really enjoy is the type of stuff you see at damnengine.com

I love that guys work. Very talented, nice blend of photography and digital effects.
_________________
My Art.
My Photography.

[Rychan]

I just found this site today and browsed through a lot of the gallery and you people do some fantastic work. I'm a little of an artist myself and this has me interested in trying some new techniques.

My 2c. Filters are just tools. If you run a single filter on a photo, and expect your result to be called art, you are probably stretching it. Art can employ any tool you choose, but the result should show (unique) intelligence.

I'm a computer scientist. I love art. I research art and computer science, and this has done nothing but give me more and more respect for artists. I don't call my work art, though it would thrill me to see it used as a tool for artistic means.

example input and output

another input and output

The more you work on this the more you realize that it takes a tremendous amount of intelligence to produce compelling art work.

I've focused mainly on movies, actually. That's a domain artists have trouble entering just because of the tremendous work it is to paint at 30 fps (without using a style like cell shading, and even then it's enormous work)

[Drunken Monkey]

Rychan that is incredible. Output 100% CG? Wow. The patterns are still visible but that is just incredible... best i've seen.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[Blind Tree Frog]

Too much elitism in this thread I think.....


Filters are a tool. They can be used well. They can be used badly. The main problem is that they are simple to use, so most anyone can use them. The more people that use them, the more bad uses you see. Those that use them well, you barely notice them being used.

A bunch of people need to get off of their high horse and pull the stick out of their ass in this thread. Should a beginner be using filters? No, there are more important things to be learning and doing. But once you know your shit, use the filters to save yourself time and effort and focus on the more important things in the work.

[Tom Luth]

<<A bunch of people need to get off of their high horse and pull the stick out of their ass in this thread. Should a beginner be using filters? No, there are more important things to be learning and doing. But once you know your shit, use the filters to save yourself time and effort and focus on the more important things in the work.>>

Seems like a straw man argument. No one here has said "never use filters." The Poll shows, as of this post, 0% voted for the Never use filters, option. Most people here have pointed out the inherent risks of overusing, or of using filters to make up for other skills. Most have also gone on to suggest that filters used well are just fine. Pretty much what you just said, eh? So, what's up with the high horse, stick up the ass?
_________________
www.thomasluth.com

[Tom Luth]

<<A bunch of people need to get off of their high horse and pull the stick out of their ass in this thread. Should a beginner be using filters? No, there are more important things to be learning and doing. But once you know your shit, use the filters to save yourself time and effort and focus on the more important things in the work.>>

Seems like a straw man argument. No one here has said "never use filters." The Poll shows, as of this post, 0% voted for the Never use filters, option. Most people here have pointed out the inherent risks of overusing, or of using filters to make up for other skills. Most have also gone on to suggest that filters used well are just fine. Pretty much what you just said, eh? So, what's up with the high horse, stick up the ass?
_________________
www.thomasluth.com

[Blind Tree Frog]

You're right. My bad. I'm sorry.

[B0b]

OMG!!!! TOM LUTH

/me bows

any chance i can have ur Autograph?