painting in photoshop with super realism

Greetings, and Happy Chinese New Year to those who celebrate.

I am looking for a good tutorial or book on techniques used for painting in Photoshop 5.5, where I can achieve "super photo realism" without using a 3d graphics program.

According to my mentor "Your draughtsmanship is good, but I think your problem lies in your technique. Particularly colour, shape, form and modelling. I think, as computer artwork most often looks flat (due to the nature of the medium) you really need to approach either od two extremes of painterly techniques. The first is to paint with a kind of "Super" realism in the vein of the Italian Rennaisance painters ( Leonardo etc...) or the second is to be very stylised and focus on the marks you make."

Any help would be much appreciated.

one looooong tutorial i'd think! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Hi ozid,

That subject would most definately be in book form, not a tutorial i'd guess. It's much too involved for a tute format.

I myself haven't seen any specific books dealing with the intricacies of this topic either. But, perhaps going through the various onLine book stores' lists might yeild something?

Does you 'mentor' not have any suggestions for books on this subject?

Perosnally i seldom use PS for any really "painterly" type of image composition. I've always generally "tried" to produce realistic images and effects - ala the real world.

But me thinks that if you're trying to create for instance an outdoor scenic image in 'photo realism', your only real problem will be your own ability to comprehend how to do that in photoshop using the various tools it has. I would think it's quite possible - if YOU have that much technical/theoretic ability that is. Photo realism requires pain-staking amounts of detail, and THAT is what would be the toughest part to produce - not by Photoshop itself, but by YOU being able to do that.
If you DO have, or can learn that much artistic prowess and patience, then i don't see a problem. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Doing this with Photoshop, theoretically, would be no different than doing it with traditional tools. It all comes down to the artist's abilities.

TOOLS:
The methods you'd most likely need to develop are with importing/creating real world textures and objects (via photos if neccessary). Those can be aqcuired in a number of ways - one being scanning photos of what you need.
As well as how to really work the painting/editing tools. Using a Stylus would be optimal for this subject matter.
And on top of that stuff, you'll need to be familiar with the various "Transform" tools; to 'mold' certain perspectives on textures.

PS: i think having to know, and being able to do all this stuff so well is what might have been a catalist for the invention of 3D programs! hehee

Hope this helps in some way?

Take care,
Mark...

I've been toying with creating some scenic ocean-view images.

Here's a sample of something done in this vien.

The areas i'm focusing on now are:

- more detail in the foreground

- more detail in the waves (which will pretty much make the water believable)

- being more versitile with landscape

- a bit more depth in the skies

I'm also trying to create these images without using a Stylus Pen. In fact, with as little of or no 'painting' at all. I'm only using native PS filters and tools too; no fancy 3rd party plugs. As well as a TON of layers. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The only real 'tool' used on the image below was the Smudge tool, for the waves. The rest is created just with filters and layers.

It's a trying task, but a most interesting one i think.

PS: everything in this image was created right in Photoshop. No external textures were used. That's what i think is so cool about trying to do this. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Mark...

[This message was edited by theKeeper on January 25, 2001 at 02:25 PM.]

An excellent book on this topic is by Bill Fleming called 3D Photorealism toolkit. He is an amazing 3d artist. His stuff is very 'real' looking. I know he has a website (but I will have to hunt around for it) that is on a subscriber basis.

The biggest problem that 3D artists have is making everything too shiny. I have seen oranges and paper bags look like they are made of glass rather than the organic matter that these objects are normally made of. Real life is not that shiny. So one thing that can be done in photoshop is to dirty up the image to make it look more realistic. But then again, you are probably best off using more appropriate lighting and image maps to begin with.

Super Realists dont really try to portray life as it is. They try to show more than what is actually there. Ken Danby is a super realist and he spends considerable time on every detail in the painting. Every raindrop on a rain jacket is painted as if viewing it close up. Even the highlights and reflections on the raindrop will be portrayed. It takes incredibly skill and observation to do this kind of stuff. A photograph is not like this. And nor is real life like this. When you are viewing something, you generally focus in on a certain area and give that more depth and detail. Other areas are less in focus and have less detail. Where as the Super Realists see absolutely every detail on everything. The italian rennaisance painters as such, were not really 'super realists'. They actually tried to use techiques to focus the viewers attention on areas of the painting like charascurro (forgive the bad spelling) where parts of the image faded off into the shadows.

Anyway, best of luck and I will try to find Bill Flemings website for you.

Beth

PS: One of the sites is

http://www.komodostudio.com

I cant find the tutorial one

[This message was edited by Beth Mohler on January 25, 2001 at 04:22 PM.]

That picture is very nice Mark. Nice serine quality to it.

Beth

Well stated about realism. I couldn't agree more.

I have Bill's book on "3D Photorealism" Beth. I can't see any Web addy in it to a tutorial site, but it has the Komodo url you gave above. Great book. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

PS: thanks for the kind words. It's still an adventure in the works. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Creating sceneic scapes and the like ONLY using filter/commands (i.e. no actual painting) is a great challenge. I think everyone wanting to really 'get inside' Photoshop should give it a try! hehee

Take care,
Mark...

yeah...I looked for the address too. I think it has disappeared from the face of digital world. I kinda think it was www.serious3d.com . There is an ad in the book about this URL too. Just a place holder there now though. I might have a way of getting the address though from an author friend that knows Bill. If I get it, I will post it. He originally had two of these online 3D magazine sites and was thinking of doing one on Photoshop. Busy, busy.

Id like to get into the 3D stuff, just havent really invested too much time in it yet. I think it might be a marketable skill for such things as renderings of houses from blueprints etc. Oh well.

Take care,

Beth

That sounds great Beth please do post the url if you can still get it. I'd be interested in it myself. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

3D is so cool. A different kinda 'cool' than Photoshop too. I use Cinema 4D XL. I find it SO well designed and it's VERY fast, and easy to understand and learn it's interface setup.

Hey... let's not forget the ever omnipresent "flying 3D logo" type of work too huh?! hahahaa [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Hi guys.


Imagine what sort of master pieces the masters themselves could have come up with,with say PS 6 or a 3d program? makes me shudder to think.They used to prepare their own paints from pigments they ground themselves.I tried painting with egg tempera once but only once..hahaha.

Makes me feel kinda spoilt actually.

Stu.

If you want to paint in the style of the great Leonardo, you will have to do things that have never been done on any computer I think.
I am a traditional painter (old Flemish style, fantastic,...)and I want to do approximately the same thing on PC. I am baffled that Photoshop might be the tool for this. Interesting (but not for my bank-account!!!)

If you're interested I can prepare a longer reply off line on some differences between the old techniques and the reason why computer art is often so plastic like. We might find a solution to this together (with everyone on this whole forum) and create a breakthrough in computer art.

One small remark, and no offence meant [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] :
you talk about Leonardo, and about your mentor, but what do YOU want? You have to unleash your creativity, and that river will have to follow its natural way towards the ocean without being canalised (hope this word exists in English) by someone elses natural flow (or canal).

One of the main characteristics of great art is that technique is not the focus of attention. Art inspires, goes beyond your (selfconstructed) limits and offers you possible or impossible worlds and universes. And in this the computer might well be the best tool ever used. But we humans can't see perfection as being "real" so we add structures, moss, decay, etching, rust etc... to feel comfortable...with our illusion.

I too feel that life is quite imperfect, dirty, and most of all... random!

If computer art is to truely resemble reality in any way, it too must contain these, often very subtle, elements.

Unfortunately though, these are characteristics that a lot of CGAs overlook. Though i'm happy to report that they are some of the easiest things to do with programs such as Photoshop, Painter, etc... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

PS: that reminds me Erik... if you really want to try creating old style/traditional works of art on the computer, you might want to consider using a more formittable program designed for that than Photoshop - such as Painter.

Oops! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] Was that a blashpemous statement on my part! hehee

I agree with you guys about the technique.

I think there are two reasons that CG comes up short,one being that I cant see how a CG brush can accurately mimic the multitude of brush hairs in say a sable brush,and two being we have the software which allows us to clean up the dirt and over saturate our colors etc and maybe sub consciously we are trying to spring clean what we dont like in reality itself.

I agree life can be inperfect,but I dont know if I agree with the dirty for myself,because you never know when something is going to drop in your lap that makes you re examine how you feel about a great many things,and from that point on what was dirty becomes a really special gift.I find for myself that I dont really realise just how much I appreciate something until I am threatened with losing it.But then again thats just my opinion.

Stu. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Perhaps it is more like every action, be it human or not, leaving a kind of burr. Our brains tend to simplify things, leave things out to be able to concentrate on the useful and the necessary. Perhaps we are still this fragile frightened creature that was surrounded with lots of other animals that were better adapted to the circumstances...
Nowadays we still simplify, hence the power of chaos theory, in scientifical research AND in our fractal producing apps, that tries to go further than the "let us presume that pi equals 3,14" to give an example. Nature never presumes, and can not be cut into little pieces without losing the essence.

What I want is not imitate the painting techniques as an aim, but as a step towards something I can't envisage yet. With the right technique (painting in transparant layers) one can come to intensities of colour that no monitor or slide can reproduce. But it is not humanly possible to paint let's say fractals that open like flowers and that keep their complexity in every detail, no matter how you zoom in.
So the two might come together somewhere. The attention, the awareness and observation of traditional art and the randomly richess, the perfect rhythm and repeating patterns, and the undercooled perfection (a world like an overcleaned hospital without dust, scratches, skin, disease etc) of computers.

If you have something to speak, then say it. If you have a vision, then make an image, if you hear a melody, then make music.

Why should a computer programme imitate a painting? The emboss effect is as flat as the surface of your monitor, and there will never be dust on its ridges. Photography doesn't need to imitate painting, but can never replace it either. It has a creative value of its own. So does computer art. I think we are the precursors of something new. Sorry if I hurt the fans of it, but I've never seen a really good, alive looking poser man or woman. This is no critique on Poser's capabilities, but these have never ever been discovered yet. The same with Photoshop and its likes (this too is a blasphemy here): without any doubt it has been further explored than any other computer app, and if I ever can afford it, I'll probably buy it, but most of the artists and professionals that work with it stay safely in the cities on the coastside, making collages, a technique that was extremely difficult in the darkrooms of old-fashioned photography. But there is more than a coastline: there is a rainforest bigger than the amazone, a desert hotter than the sahara and some galaxies to be discovered.

Sorry for this intensity: it's just that I feel the volcano-like vast creative potential that is as attractive as Rider Haggard's She.

It is inevitable that we will find a way. That is our only certitude. So let's go for it!

Hehehe... aaa.... just WOW! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Guys, this topic is just BEGGING to be ponder further while sipping a latte, in a quaint little cafe on the French Riviera. hahahaa

PS: i love "deep" conversations. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

"Photorealistic Techniques with PhotoShop and Illustrator" by Bert Monroy.

Take a look at this Monroy image (completely digital): http://www.be-in.com/9/areas/netcast...oy1PicnPac.jpg

There are severla more here: http://www.be-in.com/9/areas/netcast...r/gallery.html

You can buy the book at Amazon.com and various other site.

Marcus Geduld
{ email me } { visit me }

I'm a traditional painter, too, and also find computer graphics as "attractive as Rider Haggard's She" (I loved that novel and your reference to it!)

I well know Bert Monroy's work, though I haven't seen his book yet. He's good - but I quite agree with Mark that probably all computer paintings I have seen so far fall short of what has been accomplished by painters working in the field of traditional, physical painting. But who knows what the future might hold for one of us pixelpushers? ;-)

For what it's worth: I've been invited to fly down to Bermuda in April, to give two lectures on digital painting and art to a small group of rich, art loving commodity traders! Strange, but true. After I have given the talks, I might make the lectures available on the web in some form.


K

[This message was edited by Klaus Nordby on January 31, 2001 at 03:28 PM.]

I love this thread.

It begs the question is it possible to create near reality with a pixel?,I mean thats what it comes down to right.

Maybe when you paint in a physical manner ,but not digitally some of the essence of the artist or the artists experiences themselves are applied to the canvas as well,but in some form that we dont really understand yet or comprehend,what do you think?

I would love to see that lecture material if you decide to put it on the web.

Stu
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for the link to that site Klaus, i've been wanting that for a while [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I agree that his work is very good. The "street corner" image though has 2 small "glitches" i'd probably do different [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

1) The air is much too crisp and clean - needs some "atmoshpere".
2) the roads are a tad "over done" - less skidding on the corner and grunge on the highway section.

Other than those small snafus, i like the image a lot. Serious detail in there - not surprising though when using BOTH PS & AI. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Oh and i too would enjoy reading your lectures if you should decide to post them on the Web in some form. Thanks!

PS: Stu the 'personal experience' reference you made i believe to be the 'human randomnous' factor - or otherwise thought of as "accidental style". hehee

Quote KIWI:"It begs the question is it possible to create near reality with a pixel?"

And say that a pixel has no dimensions...that it is only a mathematical abstraction. A real virtual reality...Ages ago someone said that you see reality as you are. So what makes that us then?

theatrical background voice:"And while it was misty outside and the cold wind howled, his thoughts drifted to the French Riviera."Good idea. Only problem is that I'm awake while you westcoast Canadians and Australians are sleeping and VV.

By the way: do try out the Opera browser. It's free and, as far as I've tested it out, much better than the two other dogs, fighting for that legendary bone... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

To me, Photoshop is really a production tool for my job/business. I need to get newsletters, brochures etc done and photoshop with my layout aps let me do this. But I do sometimes work with painter/photoshop to create more artsy things.

>>Why should a computer programme imitate a painting? The emboss effect is as flat as the surface of your monitor, and there will never be dust on its ridges. Photography doesn’t need to imitate painting, but can never replace it either. It has a creative value of its own. So does computer art.<<

I agree completely. And, as Erik is strugling to see how the computer relates to his artwork...so am I. I havent discovered the techniques as of yet that I would call anything I do on the computer, art. But I may be coming close.

But following the discussion about art on the computer and whether or not it is really art...I have been thinking about the following questions and answers (or at least my answers to them)

Q: what is art?
Well this is a tough question to answer. And there probably is no hard and fast rules to govern this.
I personally want to see an impression or thought that the artist is trying to portray. Something that the artist is pasionate about. I dont really care if it is accurate and true to life. Sure I can be impressed by an artists skill in trying to represent ‘true to life’ images. But beyond that, that type of artwork does not want to make me get out my checkbook. I want to see creativity. I want to see intellegance. I want to see passion.

Q: can you call what is done on a computer art?
Defineately, yes.
Artists decide what media they choose to work with. And no matter whether it be oil paint on a canvas, welded and forged metal or the pixels on a computer screen. This is the artists choice.
The problem with computer graphics is that we often see the media and not the art. We tend to scrutinize it and break it apart. We see it on the monitor and it somehow, it seems less personal. I do believe that this changes once it is printed on a suitable substrate though. It becomes more tangible and hence becomes more valuable. And this is no different than seeing a picture of a painting in a book...when you see it in the gallery...it becomes more tangible.
Successful computer art, accepts its medium for what it is. The piece is not about technique or filters, it is about the artists impression and how this impression translates to the viewer.

Q: is playing with filters and effects, art. No. But they are some of the techniques that can be used in creating art. I understand people that play around in Photohop or in Painter, saying isnt this cool. Yes, it may be a neat effect, but it is not art. For it to be art, it must be able to stand on its own.

Q: is it something I would buy
This is probably what it is all about folks.
What the purchase price of the piece or whether you have the money to actually purchase the item is not really realavant to my point here; but whether or not the artwork speaks to the person. Whether or not the image means enough to the viewer that they are willing to trade something that they have (in this case money) for what the artist has done. Sure you can buy something that cost a 100 dollars and put it on your wall because it matches your furniture. But ‘real’ art in my mind has to touch the viewer in some way. It becomes personal. (but of course, what appeals to one person will not appeal to another)

Q: Would I buy something that was done on the computer?
You bet I would. But again, I would want what ever it was, to be printed on something so that I could hang it on my wall (etc.). And I would want to put it on the wall for several reasons. I dont really like looking at things on the computer. The light is somewhat glaring. ANd besides, I would friends and family to be able to enjoy it too. I dont want to have to turn on my computer screen to see it. Maybe this is why we tend to think of computer art as less tangible...if we turn off our monitor...it is gone. But if it is printed, this no longer becomes a factor.

Beth

This is a good reply Beth, it adds lots of new possibilities to this thread.

Yes, yes and yes (you have to say it three times to be true before you are ready to go hunting the Snark.). I adore classical art, and live with Greek Mythology (no joke). In those days they considered the artist as having a double link to the Divine World, whatever that might be. On one hand you had the Muses which inspired, but this was not sufficient. To make real art you needed the Graces too because they laid contact from the artist's heart to the heart of the person who looked at the work of art. It might be some kind of clich

[This message was edited by Erik Heyninck on February 01, 2001 at 02:56 PM.]

Something's wrong with the forum. I can't post my answer...I'll start a new topic. See you there...

[This message was edited by Erik Heyninck on February 01, 2001 at 03:03 PM.]

Beth said a lot of things I might like to comment on (some of it rather, umm, er, critcally), but I have a lecture to write for my Bermuda-trip, so it's gotta wait!


K

I wonder if it was at all practical if you took your computer outside and set up as you would with your oils and easel to paint naturally,if the resulting landscape would be more realistic and compelling after being created with CG because of the natural light source as opposed to an artifical one created inside four walls? Maybe one of the stumbling blocks is we try to create realism using second hand methods ie photograph.

Have any of you guys ever heard of anyone taking a computer out into the field to paint with CG {just curious}

Stu.

Thank you everyone who posted a reply to my challenges.

As has always been the case when dealing with artistic concept, I see that utilizing computer software to accomplish a specific task is again in the eye of the beholder.

This generates a new idea. Given the exact same specifications regarding a image..such as content and limitations, I wonder how many different and unique forms that same content would provide. With the quality of conversation this question has provoked, I have no doubt the end results would be remarkable.

As always, power to the pixel pusher!

Ask one hundred specialised travel agents to walk around in a certain town for one day, and write an article on what they saw, you get 100 different towns to visit. That's what's called individuality.

I thought seeing as their are obviously some formally trained artists in our midst that I would post a seascape that I created in PS 6.I think it has a little of that realism we have been discussing.Its also a little undersaturated.

Any comments on this image are more than welcome as I am only interested in improving.

Stu [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Very good points Beth, every one of 'em.

I especially like the point about "turning off the screen and it's gone". That is exactly how i view computer art work.

Well... until NOW that is! hahaa

Thanks for the new outlook!

Hey by all means Klaus, speak your mind here. No offense will be taken. After all, I dont think, I really can define art. Its a very personal thing (although I think that is what my point was). The passion thing is probably too niave. I would like to believe that an artist is passionate about the things they do. But there are alot of big name artists (or should I say business') that hire painters and glass blowers etc to do the labour for them. Is that art? ??

I am also attaching a few things that have been done in Painter. I have some other really good things done on the computer....but they are on my windows machine (which is not hooked up to the internet)

Thanks for all the comments folks,
Beth

guess you can only attach one at a time

Excellent work.


Those two images look more like they were painted with natural media than with CG.


Stu [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

>> they were painted with natural media than with CG.<<

Yea, dont they. I think I better clarify something though. I did not do them, I grabbed them from the Metacreations website. The product, Painter is a natural media painting ap and is now marketed thru Corel.

Painter is quite an amazing program. It has a tonne of natural media brushes to use. Everything from a 2B pencil to sable water colour brush and thick impasto oil. And when you use the program with a graphics tablet, it really feels like you are using natural media. Then when you switch to a different media type, like charcoal...it feels like you have a stick of charcoal in your hand. The program responds to presure, angle and speed of the stylus. The media type you use responds with the paper you pick (plenty of types to choose from) and tools like the water colour brush will leave small pools of paint in the recesses of the paper grain. A charcoal tool pressed lightly will result with just the bumps of the paper showing the charcoal. Very natural looking. You almost feel like you should dip your stylus in water to clean it off.

THe program is very hard to learn. I have just started to scratch the surface with it. Tres cool.

Bryce

Painter is the application you are looking for. It is oriented to fine art. There you will have tools similar to those you use in fine art real world.

You should take a look to Bryce also. You can build 3D scenes, then you can retouch them in Painter.

Here are two files. One created in Bryce and same scene quick impressionist brush in Painter.

Regards

Here is the other file