[aNoah]

I have used photoshop, and I have a little experience with painter. The question is which do you use, and what are the pro's and con's of each?

------------------
-aNoah
My Gallery

[plant42]

Good question.
I just started using Painter myself, and while it's awesome at mimicking 'natural media', the workflow is a little awkward. I'm sure I'll get used to it shortly.

However the almighty Spooge only uses Photoshop, so that's a point for the 'tools don't matter, good art can be made with Microsoft Paint...' side.

Try 'em both out, learn what works best for whatever problem is at hand.

plant 42

[Guy]

use both if you want to. painter can open psd's i believe.

[aNoah]

Point well taken. Photoshop it is

[Flexible Elf]

You've obviously made your choice but here's 2 more cents for the fountain

I've never used painter but I've heard the interface is silly. Making custom brushes and monkeying around with stylus, opacity and the different modes/options in Photoshop, you can pretty much duplicate any style with a little practice. Only thing that's lame about it is that it doesn't handle real quick strokes well.. it tends to block them out (gives them sharp angle points rather than a curve) but I don't draw like that on the computer.. my tablet is only 6x8.

-Flexible Elf

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/flexible_elf/Main.html

[aNoah]

Really? My tablet is 6x8 also, the wacom intuos.

[BooMSticK]

hmmm... I just thought to throw a few pennies in this thread...

I've been a strictly Photoshop user for the last couple of years. Yes! I think you can get the same results from Photoshop than you can from Painter, but you gotta work hard for it. Painter has a funky interface but I do think it makes sense once you give it a chance. Painter has layers that work quite well. But I really don't think you should think of layers as you do in Photoshop. Painter is more the kind of program that lets you get your hands in the virtua-paint. Most often you'll find yourself painting in one layer only (the canvas) having a ball painting you stuff over and over. Speedwise its no SonictheHedgehog, but I'm doing 21*30 cm paintings at 300Dpi with little slowdown. I've only used painter for the couple of weeks but I'm overly impressed with what I've experieced yet.....end of salesspeech...

;B

[Jason Manley]

I will say this again...

you cannot get the same results in photoshop as in painter.

Painters brushes are many and the paper textures and chalk tool are invaluable.

I work in the video game industry and make paintings all day long.

Photshop's brushes are too limited and fuzzy and airbrushy...it looks too computer for me...if you want to have control over your brushes than use painter...if you dont want any brush selection than use photoshop

Painters Watercolor tool is a like the hammer in my toolbox...I will not build anything without it.

If you want to tweak with photos and do matte paintings and such than you will need both.

if you want to have the tool do the adjustments of color and tweaking of the image for you rather than paint it yourself then use photoshop...the color adjustment tools and masking and such are more efficient in photoshop...

anyone who says painters brushes are less than photoshop is uncivilized.

: )

Jason

I rarely use photoshop...it has poor color conversion to cmyk from rgb and it has too limited brushes.

But...I am a painter and not a photo-manipulator...do what you will with it.


Jason

[ceenda]

plant 42: Whilst not contesting the excellence of spooge's work(being one of many who's first tasks when arriving at the forum is to look for the latest spooge threads), I would disagree with saying that spooges work looks 'painterly'. Yeah, you can see his brush strokes in the pic but it doesn't look like a paintbrush stroke, it looks very digital. The thing about Painter is that, as jason Manley says, you can try and emulate the surface of the paper, the traces of pigment in oil paintings etc.

Mind you, what Spooge, Dhab and loki do with, what is essentially a Photo Editing suite, continues to amaze me.

[Jason Manley]

Well said...

Mullins does a great job with the photo collage thing. When he paints without the photos though you can see his human side come out.

I like the photo/3-d collage he does much better. How about you?
: )

Jason


Do any of you know Justin Sweets work?

he did the invictus box cover and some stuff for Fallout 2 as well. He did our ad for Icewind the heart of winter and as soon as that is released (soon) I will post it for you all to see what is possible with painter. He did a full painting in about 3 days and it has a great painterly quality as well as being a nice image. It looks like art.

Ill keep you posted.

Jason

[ceenda]

It's interesting, I'd really like to see spooge do some Painter pics. I think it would be really neat.

I'm planning to do some new fantasy/science fiction pics using Painter.

The only thing that makes me hesitant to use Painter is the kinda smudgy edges. Okay, maybe this is realistic of a large paintbrush but how do you keep your Painter pics so crisp?

BTW - Could you upload some of those Painter pics that you mentioned?

[This message has been edited by ceenda (edited October 25, 2000).]

[JayBee]

Saying "Spooge uses photoshop to perform miracles - that must be the tool" is like saying that if you use a strat, you're on the way to sounding like Clapton...

IMHO, Spooge (and all the other PS proponents) would get fantastic results if they used MSPaint, or Paint Shop Pro (YAY!) - it's not the tools, it's the talent.

That's not to decry PhotoShop. I just reckon that to get Spooge's quality of pics out of that program requires a Spooge-worth of experience and talent. Painter can put a lot of people off becuase most people come to it from an interface like Photoshop, and like the flexibility of layers.

The hurdle isn't overcoming Painter's interface, it's realising that Painter is supposed to emulate "real" painting. When you've got a canvas, you can't make "layers" over it. Painter's one concession to this is that you CAN make one "sketch" layer, but you have to rely on your media to pull off any cool effects (you can't just whack a section on to a layer and change the opacity, for example).

Painter's goals are totally at odds with Photoshop, but people are so used to PS's way of "Painting" (which is a hack, let's face it) that they balk at Painter's "lack of features".

My 2 cents. Spot the boy that's NEVER liked PS! Gimme Paint Shop Pro any day

------------------
. . : : j a y b e e

www.sketchboard.co.uk

[Weeks]

HI,

This sketch was done only with Painter

No scan, no reference...


Weeks

[aNoah]

I got a hold of painter, and indeed, it is clearly made to emulate real painting. I guess that painter is a usefull tool, especially if you are trying to draw something for a fantasy setting, and you want it to have that "fantasy look" that is usually achieved with oil paint.

I'm trying out painter, and it seems like a good tool for what it is supposed to do.

------------------
-aNoah
My Gallery

[yoshi]

Painter is prolly better for very deliberate work, where you start with a tight sketch and follow some sort of method (classical painting in layers ?). But if you start from 0 I think PS is much more better choice because of randomness and faster results you can get with custom brushes / different blending modes. The ui and the limited selections of brushes is the advantage here. Then you can switch to Painter for more deliberate work, or painterly look. You use PS for photo brushes not natural media.

[plant42]

Hey Jason - you have to admit, after looking at Spooge's work, anything is possible in Photoshop.
Those certainly look 'painterly' to me.