Digital Painting

Voluntarily subjecting myself to photography elitism........is there anyone on

this site who dabbles in digital painting? If so I'd love to see your work, get

advice, etc.

Do you mean screwing around in Photoshop? If so, one of my desktop patterns follows...

More along the lines of cloning a photograph and then painting it (Corel Painter X) I still do the photography, but then convert them into digital paintings.<div></div>

I screw around with it.<div></div>

another/different style...<div></div>

Those are great Lauren, are those from photos or blank canvas?

From photos. The dog was a tiny corner of a larger image that didn't work out. But, I liked his pose, and the way he was facing the light, so I decided to start with that. The background was an iron bed, and there was a lot of stuff going on, a bed, dust ruffle, comforter...using PS, mostly the brush strokes/push/smudge on different size settings, swirled and rubbed all of the detail out of the background into a soft mottled effect destroying anything with detail, and rubbing it into a marbelized effect. I also used soft focus , and continued using brush strokes, ink pen, and push, in different brush sizes, adjusting continually. I hand brushed much of his fur, curl by curl, using a tiny brush size. The whole thing took a couple of hours. Kind of tedious, and hard to describe, but those are the tools I used. It's the size of the brush that plays the key role. You have to experimant, and hit "UNDO" a lot until you find a size and density that works for your style, and the object you are "painting". It helps a lot if you have painted before, for sure.

I think thats what I like most about it, is how engaged you become with the picture/painting, I'm definitely going to mess around with this a little bit, see where it leads, I'm not sure how the PN community will react to "paintings" though.

Well, if you follow the PN rules, as long as it starts out as a photograph, whatever you do to it after that is up to you. Quite a few on PN doing this type of thing..it gets mixed reviews, but some of the florals I've done, which aren't posted now, recieved very high scores, and positive critiques.

Well, because of the time they take, they do become your "babies", and criticism stings a bit more, as they are more of an extention of you. That's how I feel about the 8 or so I've done.

whats a few more 3/3's LOL,.......

So there might be some hope for those blown out photos of mine yet! I certainly won't be knocking it before trying it.

 

Hakim

lauren does amazing work, so a walk thru her portfolio is always hugely inspiring.

 

i don't know what this guy 'kent B.' is doing in terms of effects, but he's a true genious:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5075902

 

my own stuff blends painting and photography. here's a sample where the technique is

pretty conspicuous-- where i want the brushstrokes to be obvious in order to signal

clearly it's not just an amalgamation of 'filters' and push button PS special effects.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6695449

 

cheers. chris

I wish I'd seen his thread months earlier ( as it turns out, it was posted before I became a member of PN). I went to some lengths to justify my hybrid photo/painting images, as I anticipated they'd be poorly received. Some are, some aren't. There are photographers who draw a very severe line between an unadultereated phtographic record of "reality", as opposed to a modified ( or "digitally altered") image. I very much agree with Lauren that fine arts training aids in overlaying the phtoto with the artist's vision; absence of such training may if fact obscure, rather than enhance, the photographer's message. In any event, "pure" photography does not portray an absolute "reality", as the image's message may be altered by routine and seemingly trivial techniques - the angle, contrast, starkness, venue, and such convey the photographer's take on the subject. Consciously superimposing stylistic touches upon a photo is little different, though purists may disagree. But airbrushing, colorizing and toning have been applied post-production for years. Granted, photomanipulation programs make "impressionistic" photography much more simple, and allow a broader scope of personalizing a photo. Which is precisely what drew me back to photography, and away from oils. The photograph is my template, a canvas on which I can explore and share my feelings about the subject with hand

( computer assisted) painting. The bottom line: I really enjoy this form of hybrid art, and I'm relieved to see that others are exploring it's potential. I do post unretouched photos, but only when these fully express my vision, and I have nothing more to add. But the "perfect capture" is a rare beast. Best wishes, C. Unger. Add: I will add Lauren and Tim to my "interesting people" ( or whatever it's called) list, if only to validate my approach with imaging by other artist/photographers . Best, C.U.

Tim, I do either totally ubretouched photography or heaviuly manipulated work. Here's an example of the latter.....

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7925123

 

 

 

Bill P.

<p>I am bit late for the party - I have feet in both camps of traditional hotography and "photo Art". I think I would like to do more in the latter as I try to acquire the skills and required toolsets. I have a few folders with Photo Art - and I have one where I have used only the liquify filter and manually applied changes to the image with - yes - my mouse. Here is an example:<img src="../photo/6244988" alt="" /> </p>

<p>I am bit late for the party - I have feet in both camps of traditional hotography and "photo Art". I think I would like to do more in the latter as I try to acquire the skills and required toolsets. I have a few folders with Photo Art - and I have one where I have used only the liquify filter and manually applied changes to the image with - yes - my mouse. Here is an example:<img src="../photo/6244988" alt="" /> </p>

<p>Tony, I'd love to see your work, but the links aren't linkin'.<br>

Give it another try.<br>

Bill P.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=628573">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=628573</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6244988">http://www.photo.net/photo/6244988</a></p>

<p>Sorry</p>

<p>Lookin' good now !<br>

I spent a few minutes at your portfolio and I saw "Pilots' Hands", among other work.<br>

I'm guessing (hoping) that it's unretouched.<br>

If I'm right, then I'd say you're doing top-flight (no pun intended) work.<br>

I know that we're discussing 'Photo Art" here, but a proper original is the best place to start.<br>

Too many people use p/s to "edit" (fix) photos.<br>

I don't take broken photographs.<br>

P/S, in the context of photo art, is a powerful toolset, and should be used as such.<br>

And yes, I'm extremely prejudiced, but my opinions are my own, and should be taken as such.<br>

Bill P. </p>

 

<p>http://moca.virtual.museum/</p>

 

<p>Yup, I do occasionally dabble in digital alterations that began life as straight photographs. I don't upload 'em to photo.net, other than a few hokey jokey images that are obviously altered for laughs.</p>

<p>But yesterday I created a bit of promotional art for a friend based on a photo of a statue. I don't use one-click "Wow! Instant painting!" fx anymore, not since I got past the gee-whiz phase of those fx almost 20 years ago. My approach is very elaborate and time consuming, using lots of brushes to gradually soften, blend, alter hues and selectively tease out certain characteristics. The one I did yesterday was influenced by Jill Greenberg's "shiny people" stuff, which she creates through a laborious process, not any magic one-click fixes. (I happen to be a fan of her work and couldn't care less about the scandals, even tho' we're polar opposites in politics and ethics. I'm only interested in her artistic style.)</p>

<p>Since I studied graphic arts along with photography many years ago I have no problem compartmentalizing different approaches to creating images. That's why I don't understand the tedious fretting some folks do on photography sites about this stuff. But I don't often look to photo.net for ideas about digital art since other sites do that better. Occasionally I'll see some unique or at least novel digital alteration in the critique queue that catches my eye, but most of it is pretty mundane or trendy stuff.</p>

<p>You'll probably find a more receptive audience on sites like deviantART for stuff like this, but don't expect much in the way of insightful critiques. tARTlettes never saw a digital alteration they didn't lurv. Everything is like wow teh so kewl lol.</p>