[cheney]

I use Photoshop a bit differently than most other illustrators. I am getting tired of people asking me how and why I use Photoshop the way I do. I am also tired of people telling me I am wrong for using Photoshop in ways that don't make sense to them. So, I am putting up some of my PSD files to better explain why I use Photoshop as I do.

Before you rush to flame me for writing long boring posts or for making art in a different manner please consider the following: I will ignore all flames from all people who have not downloaded atleast one of the PSD files first. If you wish to flame me after downloading one of the images that is fine, but please limit your flaming to my art as used in this post. I will ignore all other flaming that could arise. Most importantly, don't bitch about how big the files are. They are PSD files, and they are far smaller than the original larger versions I edited them from.

I have put up three PSD images each having a different purpose. The links for each file are at the end of the post, but I advise reading this readme explaining the files in order to avoid later confusion. Please feel free to pick apart these images and do what you wish with them, except you cannot republish them in any way or form. Please do not take objects or textures from these images to use as your own. Please keep in mind I am going out of my way to help explain Photoshop, so please do not go out of your way to rip me off.


Layer Effects
The first file is about using layer-effects to create realistic raised objects in Photoshop. This works great for objects and textures on a flat surface, but becomes far more complex after perspective is taken into account. When perspective is concerned its time to leave Photoshop for 3D software in terms of this method. Basicly, the image is a simple wooden frame with raised areas to show an etching type design without having to use different colors. This is more realistic, because etching into a single piece of wood would not cause the wood to change color to account for depth.

I made this image far easier to understand by adding layer sets. When I first created this image I only had Photoshop6, so I did not have the ability to use layer sets. You will see why layer sets incredibly simplified this image, and how complicated it must have been without layer sets.

Also keep in mind this PSD has been downsized by more than half for quickness of download. As a result the beveling around the lamps is completely off. I just wanted to point out that is not a mistake, but a problem of downsizing. For some curious reason the hundreds of bevels in the frame were not effected by the downsizing except for a loss of details.


Simple Objects
This PSD shows how I used simple colors and simple shapes to create photo-realistic objects. This image contains very few textures and no complex lighting, so its focus was entirely on the minor and major objects. This layer does not contain layer sets, but it should still be fairly easy to navigate as most of the layers have major effects in the image. This image is not technically complex in any way, but shows how layering and common shapes can make complex things. This image can be opened it Photoshop 6 or 7.


Texturing
This PSD is complex. It contains a variety of textures for various objects and various textures for single surfaces. It might help to navigate the layers in this image if you make several layers unvisible at a time to see where they are and what they do. This image also contains realistic caustic lighting, and shows how layer dumping can be used to create dynamic lighting as well as textures. At this stage you are working with textures as segments, so keep in mind that massive texturing and color correction may take place to adjust the image in utero. I used the Replace Color tool to do final color correction to texture areas of image once it was flattend. Those versions of the image can be found on my website. This image can be opened it Photoshop 6 or 7.


If there are any questions please ask them here and I will answer them as best I can. The total size of the three images is 49mb. Each image takes up approx 200-300mb of scratch disk. The PSD files are sized down in resolution from 2304x1728 to 1024x768 or smaller. The images can be found at:
http://www.createdbycheney.com/psd/
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Light]

Thanks. I haven't studied this but always good to have more information available if needed.

[Drew]

Hi cheney. I downloaded the simple objects file. I was going to talk about it a bit, but looking at how you work it's obvious that we just don't think in similar ways about art. I'm certainly not saying that what you're doing is wrong! We just have different goals. More power to ya for being able to use the hell out of Photoshop!

I do have a crit for the image, though. The blueprint and ruler have lighting that coming from another direction compared to the other objects. I know fixing that won't be a big deal for you since I'm sure the shadows are in other layers, so you have my method beat there. The image is, as advertised, quite realistic. Good job!

[cheney]

Thanks for the comments. Thanks, so much Drew for the critique. I am not sure how wrong the lighting is in the image. I intended the light source to be a low radius diffuse lighting from high above the image. I intended the light to be at the center of the top-left quadrent of the image pointed downward and towards the center of the image. Such things are hard to accurately calculate in a program intended for only 2D imagry. So, for now I will admit that it is probably wrong, but I am too lazy/busy to consider examining it enough to properly fix it. I am glad you took the time to look into the images.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[jfrancis]

I'm fascinated by the fact that you expected criticism for working in this way. Is it really so unusual a way to use Photoshop? This is not a flame, nor is it meant to in any way minimize your work, but if I understand what you are driving at, then what you're doing here -- and I only downloaded "simple objects" -- may seem to be a new or unusual approach to traditional painters, but it has been standard operating procedure for years for anyone who has entered digital image production from the direction of writing surface shaders for 3D rendering packages. Actually, it's been my great frustration with Photoshop that it doesn't have more math more accessible to the user. (For example: Why is ADD no longer a blend mode -- but buried somewhere else? How am I supposed to un-premultiply CG -- occasionally necessary, especially for novice compositors -- without a DIVIDE function anywhere in the program?)

I've been "brushing up" on my traditional painting skills, and for me it's been a challenge working that way -- in direct color, and without benefit of layers -- so my hat is off to all of you who are adept at that. That's been "the hard way" for me.

Really the only minor criticism I would make about your work is that -- from what I noticed -- all of your highlights and shadows are shades of pure, unsaturated gray. Every key light source in nature has at least some slight warmth or coolness to it, and so does every fill light source -- which makes the same thing true of every shadow. If you throw a little warmth into your key lights before you screen them on, and a little coolness into your shadows before you multiply them in (or make the opposite color choices, if that is what is called for -- this is not meant to be a blind formula) -- then I think you'll get a little better results. When you use monochromatic gray to make shadows, all you are really doing is lowering the brightness of the existing local color in that area, which is not a good imitation of nature -- if that's what you're after.

http://www.digitalartform.com <-- my main site

http://www.gfxartist.com/community/member_gallery/32230 <-- warm and cool color temperatures in some recent CG of mine