Thanks, Deebs, but it was really just a quickie. I look at it again and see where I could’ve been a little more careful with my stroke selection.
Go get a trial of Painter or Painter Essentials and try it for your self <
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/Downl oads/Trials>. If you don’t know Painter, I suggest trying Essentials. Seriously.
With Painter, your demo time may run out before you even get a handle on how to coordinate using the 30 or 40 billion different combinations available in the full-fledged application. (That may not even be an exaggeration of the possible number of stroke & brush permutations.)
Painter is an excellent program if you work with small images, but the memory management is terrible. Even Painter IX is so slow on anything over a few MB I want to strangle the cat while I’m waiting. I had to abandon Painter for PS. Now, if Corel made Painter as fast as PS, they’d really have something.
Jeff
That’s strange…I work with 800+ MB files in Painter with no problems!
Painter 9 is soooo much faster than 7 or 8, but I would definitely have a gig of Ram on board…
A way to cheat this effect in photoshop is to create a layer style on a blank layer before painting using drop shadow, inner shadow and bevel and emboss and then use a wacom, set with one of the art brushes (dry towel, some of the chalks) to create the effect…
But it’s a whole lot easier in Painter with the "Clone" capabilities
"A way to cheat this effect in photoshop is to create a layer style on a blank layer before painting using drop shadow, inner shadow and bevel and emboss and then use a wacom, set with one of the art brushes (dry towel, some of the chalks) to create the effect…"
That’s the technique Dave Nagel teaches in the MacDesignPro links I posted above.
But that’s OK…nobody ever reads the first post!
😉 XD
This thread could be confusing to new readers. Jeff Holmes said, "Even Painter IX is so slow on anything over a few MB I want to strangle the cat while I’m waiting. I had to abandon Painter for PS." And Joe Joe Smith replied, "That’s strange…I work with 800+ MB files in Painter with no problems!"
I’m somewhat behind the times (I need to do some upgrading) in that I am still using Photoshop 7.0.1 and Painter 8.1, and I do find that Painter runs somewhat slower than Photoshop, but I prefer Painter’s superior artistic capabilities enough to be willing to accept the slower performance. And I certainly don’t need to strangle any cats (grin).
In response to the original question posed by this thread, you can further enhance the realism of an image’s oil paint effect by printing the image on inkjet-printable canvas (there are several brands available and if your local stores don’t carry the stuff for your printer, you can always shop the Internet).
Then, to further increase the oil painting illusion, you can overpaint the canvas print with mostly clear oils or alkyds, using a gel medium to enhance your brush strokes. You can even use the image’s brush strokes as guides for your brush strokes. Use a bristle brush to get good three dimensional brush marks. You can add small amounts of oil or alkyd color (they are intermixable) to your clear overpainting if you feel adventurous.
— Burton —
Maybe it’s my machine. 2.5 GHz 2 GB memory. CS2 zips along though. Most of my files are layer-heavy and multiple GB’s. When I swipe the paintbrush across the image to lay down a color it’s……..zzzzzzzzz……zzzzzzzz….
Burton,
I agree. Painter is incredibly artistic. I started with Painter 8.1 and then tried out Photoshop and after PS, I found that I had to re-learn Painter. My brain isn’t advanced enough to keep them both in there.
Painter IX is greatly improved over ver 8. It’s cheap and worth having. I have PSP too, but don’t use it anymore. I spend too much money.
PS seems to work best for my photography workflow.
You must have a wide format. Epson? I love my 7600. It can print anything on any surface. I usually use archival paper – I like the detail, but have experimented with canvas.
If creating images from scratch (as opposed to photography), I would go back to the Wacom and Painter.
BURTON:This thread could be confusing to new readers. Jeff Holmes said, "Even Painter IX is so slow on anything over a few MB I want to strangle the cat while I’m waiting. I had to abandon Painter for PS." And Joe Joe Smith replied, "That’s strange…I work with 800+ MB files in Painter with no problems!"
What’s confusing? Off-topic?
I don’t have any speed problems with Painter IX. Increasing file size does not seem to relate to brush speed. It is true that brush speed is slower than PS at all file sizes, but the complexity of brushes (with multiple colours, changing opacities, etc.) most likely accounts for that. The best way to improve brush speed is to get a faster processor. (and make sure your Wacom driver is up to date)
I don’t really see PS and Painter as alternatives. They do different things. For simulating actual oils, watercolours, etc. PS is quite primitive. However curves, hue/sat, cloning, grain reduction, etc are primitive in Painter compared to PS. I wouldn’t want to use Painter to retouch photos nor PS to create an acrylic type painting.
Jeff,
You must have a wide format. Epson? I love my 7600.
Actually, all of my canvas prints were done on my old Epson Stylus Photo in 8.5 x 11. I am "upgrading" to an Epson 1280, and I will be Internet shopping for some 11×17 and 13×19 canvas, because I haven’t found any locally. Eventually I would like to go larger yet, when budget allows. Epson’s technology just keeps getting better.
What’s confusing? Off-topic?
I’m not sure whether an implied grin was meant with that. But not off topic. Just some contractory positions on whether Painter is fast enough to be a useful tool or not. Some imply it’s much too slow even on powerful systems, while others say its speed is no problem. A potential Painter buyer might wonder.
— Burton —
I’m not sure whether an implied grin was meant with that. But not off topic. Just some contractory positions on whether Painter is fast enough to be a useful tool or not. Some imply it’s much too slow even on powerful systems, while others say its speed is no problem. A potential Painter buyer might wonder.
——————————
No grin, but I wasn’t implying anything. I thought that’s what you meant, but wasn’t sure.
I agree PS and Painter are meant to do different things and I use them that way. Photography – PS, Art – Painter, so it’s probably my error in even comparing them. Painter is very rich in it’s rendering ability and I love it. Painter IX is *much, much* improved with regard to speed, but generally speaking I try to perform memory intensive processes (many layers) in PS and add flair in Painter to a collapsed PS file. This is how I was taught to marry the 2 products.
I think maybe my problem has been trying to duplicate my PS workflow in Painter and it’s not apples to apples. The larger the canvas in Painter the slower it goes – with it’s designated tasks, but that’s not always true with PS – for "me".
I’ve had Painter for a long time and it’s an excellent product and well worth the price. It just doesn’t seem to handle memory management as efficiently as PS – on my box – Celeron 2.5 GHz – 2 GB. I know it’s an oldie, but it still hums.
