PDA

View Full Version : Watercolor WIPs- Sharing and Learning



Pages : [1] 2

Steve B
10-13-2011, 08:24 PM
After some discussion earlier in September, I'm starting this thread as an attempt at sort of making a home for watercolor works on these forums. I'll be posting my attempts here, and I'm really very interested in seeing how others might be working in Artrage as well. A lot of the art and tutorials I see here are focused on the oils and pencil tools, which is cool. I just figured a place where we could learn, experiment, and teach each other about the watecolor tool, as well as techniques adapted from some of the other tools, might be helpful.

I'll start it off by sharing something I've been working on tonight. "Blue Haze". In this piece, I wanted to experiment with using the sticker spray and PS brushes, imported textures, and the Smear blender brush. After I had lay down and spread around a lot of color, I went in and carved out a picture with the pencil too. I then went back in and did more highlights and shadows with the watercolor tool to emphasize the composition. Lots of fun, and perhaps something relatively watery in parts- particularly the "clouds" up above. Thoughts?

Caesar
10-13-2011, 08:32 PM
Your mind never cease to add discoveries to the aim of producing the most credible watercolors effects ... and You do succeed, one way or the other! :eek::cool::):):):):)

Tony867
10-13-2011, 11:02 PM
Good work, Steve, I like it.

Alexandra
10-13-2011, 11:29 PM
I too! Great lesson.

coops
10-14-2011, 01:51 AM
This is so nice and so well painted. The sky is beautiful, well done Steve:)

gxhpainter2
10-14-2011, 03:21 AM
SteveB.. I applaud your efforts to establish a place for watercolors...as that was my medium of choice for over 30 years I am always looking at your experiments although I have not really tried much your continued great successes are an inspiration to give it a go. This one in particular has that great wet in wet look to the background and then establishing the forms in a drybrush style over it really gives an authentic look.. just needs a few more splatters and drips..:rolleyes::rolleyes:...:D:):)

Steve B
10-14-2011, 04:30 AM
You're right about the occasional splatter and drip adding authenticity. It's hard, even when being careful not to have a few. I find sometimes that digital artists sometimes overdo this though and really splatter that mofo. It's really just a drip or two, and often disguised under one or two additional layerings of paint, so the color's muted. That's probably how I should try it in these.

Re: dry brush strokes over wet into wet stuff- I agree about the feeling of authenticity that comes from that process in particular. This is something I think is often missing from some of the pieces that I see here. When doing natural media, there's often a stepped process of wetting and drying depending on the amount of control and bleed you want, and this is shown visually in your brush strokes. Digitally, it's so easy to have total control that you really have to work at giving it up and letting the paint "play" before you go back over it and work in the detail.

Also, I've definitely been using the Airbrush for some of the very soft sort of color washes, where you're just adding a gentle hue over something. You can see this most in the rosy hue in the upper right, for example, which pushed forward over the more dominant blue when I lay it down. I'm also sometimes moving layers up and down, or trying out some of the more radical layer blending modes, in order to get different effects.

*****

Btw, I really do mean that I hope others will post their own watercolor works here. In an effort to sort of build a "portfolio" of techniques and examples, I might re-upload some of my earlier images from the summer up into this thread. Is that ok?

If anyone has any questions, etc about process, ask away. If you post stuff, I'm sure I'll be asking you. I've definitely picked up some nice stuff that way.

mannafig
10-14-2011, 08:31 AM
Very nice I like the light feel:):)

pat1940
10-15-2011, 01:45 AM
Steve, love your wc, and so glad you started this thread, as my last paintings have all been in wc and love the medium, so looking forward to this thread:):):):):)

Jasminek
10-15-2011, 02:35 AM
One of the unique WC painting indeed. Beautiful.:)

richmond2anderson
10-15-2011, 03:25 PM
Nice work you have there. I love the color combination.:)

jibes
10-15-2011, 03:31 PM
Very watercoloristic that shows what's possible. You have captured the essence. Good job!

Juz
10-15-2011, 06:44 PM
Beautiful painting, love your use of pencil in this one too. :):)

Just a thought. You may find people a little reluctant to add their own works in a thread in the 'gallery section', probably best to start the thread in the 'art projects' section for community participation.

screenpainter
10-15-2011, 11:51 PM
really fine piece of watercolor in my estimation. love it. love the washes...impressive wet on wet.

Steve B
10-16-2011, 04:48 AM
Ah, that's good advice Juz. Perhaps I'll simply repost this piece in that section? Seems a bit funny to do so, but it might be a better venue- and no better time than the present to get things going. Re: pencils- I was inspired by looking at a lot of Nickullus' works recently, where he does a lot with good lighting/highlights to help create drama.

Thanks for the compliment screenpainter. The smudge tool, in particular, was a lot of fun to work with- swirling it around, mixing the two colors together, then pulling it out like taffy. !! Honestly, I found the stickers useful too, once I got the hang of it.

Both of these ideas actually came to me while doodling in SKP. SKP doesn't have very powerful blend modes, and so all their brushes basically work a lot like the stickers in Artrage. In an attempt to get something done in it, I worked with what I was given. That helped me create the method that I used in Artrage, where I had found it so difficult to work with the sticker tools, as they work so differently from the normal brushes. I guess that's the difference of a bit of cross-pollination!

Mostly, I keep trying out different techniques because I'd like to work out some techniques that can be done a bit more rapidly, in order to create a good painting. I really feel like I should be able to create a good wet into wet study in an hour or so-- just as long as a normal piece done with natural media. That's sort of one of my goals, but right now its still taking me 2-3. Of course, for a bigger, more detailed piece I expect it to take longer, but right now, in general, the watercolors are taking longer than I want, even when the effects are something I'm relatively happy with.

I mean, the computer's a tool-- it offers rather unsurpassed flexibility, but I'd also like it to be offering a boost in speed/productivity as well.

PaperTree
10-17-2011, 05:01 AM
Steve B, I just thought I would put on here what I am doing with regard to watercolour. I have been looking up how people work with watercolour via the forum posts and have pinched a technique here and there and finally got down to experimenting with something. This is a WIP of it so far. I kind of like it, but my challenge is to remember how to do it once I have gone to bed and had a good night's sleep. Usually I forget how, once I walk away. Anyway, if I don't muff it up next time I pick up where I left off, I will jot down a few notes on how I got to this point (too tired for the mo. to do any more).

BTW, if you move the post to another part of the forum, do I still get subscription notes that this thread has had a reply?

Margi
10-17-2011, 02:19 PM
Fantastic, Inspiring....really really nice...

PaperTree
10-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Well here is the finished version. In short, what I did was to start painting on one layer (the master painting layer), in a small area of the canvas (say for instance one petal). Then introduce another layer and strengthen the colour already painted as if in real life you paint an area, let it dry and then paint on top of it with the same colour to strengthen it a bit. If we are talking ArtRage again, the second layer of paint is then blended using the palette knife after it was merged down to the master painting. That way the paint colours blend and blur together as if it was wet in wet in real life, picking up the colours from the master painting as you blend. I kept on working throughout the painting by introducing a layer above the master work, paint on that layer with a new colour and merge down and blend on the master building up the master layer by layer as I go.

Tools Used:
Watercolour brush - Delicate on Dry
Palette Knife - Hard out Smudge and Hard Wet Blender
Canvas - Watercolour Paper

The "Hard out Smudge" brings out the grain texture of the paper through the paint and the "Hard Wet Blender" blends the paints together to look as though the paint has run together while wet in wet.

EB
10-18-2011, 02:20 PM
I like it too

screenpainter
10-19-2011, 12:08 AM
beautiful watercolor paper tree.

Steve B
10-22-2011, 03:26 AM
Did this yesterday over about 3 hours. This is one of the first pieces where I was really playing, IMO, with the medium being digital. What does that mean to me? Well, beyond using stencils to lay down color, or importing textures for certain areas that I then reduced the opacity on, etc, etc, I also used the Select Layer Contents and Adjust Layer Color tools for the first time.

So, in this painting I actually moved some layers around, after the fact. I also imported to a layer a digital watercolor doodle that I'd worked on before-- washes and whatnot with texture-- and then flipped the image vertically and horizontally-- just trying stuff out. I changed the color of a different layer too, fiddling around with the contrast and hue dials. Mostly, it seemed like a good opportunity to experiment and have some fun-- seeing what kind of results I could get if I did different things.

Then I stared at it for a bit, and put saw the faces. Went back in on a new layer and penciled in the shadows and highlights. What was interesting to me, by the end, was I beginning to see how I might use some of these rather abstract techniques in portraiture and more representational work.

Eyes on the Mountain--

EB
10-22-2011, 03:33 AM
Interesting and well done

byroncallas
10-23-2011, 06:32 PM
Terrific work - and the potential for a great thread.

Steve B
04-14-2012, 04:58 AM
In an effort to share some of what I'm doing with watercolors, I thought I'd start what I'll call a sort of "Tutorial in Progress" on some of the watercolor techniques I'm using in Artrage and Paint Tool Sai. I don't think I'm ever going to get to it if I try to "write it all up" and then post it. As this thread was already built to accomplish some of these things, I decided to bring it back up from the Fall. There might some info in it that's helpful to others already, so why not expand it?

So, lets start at the beginning-- how I steal stuff from other people! Here's a list of links to those watercolor painting tutorials I thought were most critical to helping me. I thought this sort of "collating" of info would be helpful to others, as I've not seen anyone really bring these together yet on the forums. I'll be going over how I apply some of these techniques as well, but first, where I myself started to learn stuff.

First, the thread where I found out you could really do Watercolors in Artrage. There are some examples of work from the DAA Artrage class from last year. Sos chimed in, and there are a number of good examples of still life pears in it, some discussion gradients, some disscussion of sticker usage, etc. A good starting point.
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32860

Now, the big 5. These were, to me, the most important tutorials I found for helping me along.

1) A wet into wet technique by Someonesane-
In this wonderful thread he talks a lot about laying down basic shapes, then selecting them, inverting, and using that as a template for your other layers. It makes a lot of sense when he talks about it the video. An absolute must if you want to get any sort of wet into wet techniques but don't want your paint going everywhere. Gotta use Sos's texture taken from a picture of his rug if you want to get good watercolors! ;P Really, it's true! LOL.
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33202
and this videos as well by him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsgwbHMaqjY&feature=related

2) Moving pigment around with "water" by Karen Bonaker-
These 2 video tutorials by Karen Bonaker from the Digital Art Academy are also very good. She talks a lot about using a brush with a lot thinners in it to lay down water and push pigment around. They both feature a lot of clouds and wet work. A good technique as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s144gsnPKHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdpWHsa9vA&context=C44b9906ADvjVQa1PpcFP3sO19USzBpqkOOIUhyMMH 8blT21rn2C0=

3) Using Stencils for texture buildup by Jon Hodgson-
Jon Hodgson has some very interesting videos and tutorials as well. This thread I'm linking to was started by him to share them. There's a number of them there, and he has short descriptions for each of them. They're not watercolors specfically, but they're very worth exploring.
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30851

4) The essential Nick Harris tutorial-
Nick Harris is a very good artist, and if you've seen his thread, you know its true. This pdf tut by him was very useful to me. Very helpful to see his work in process, how he lays in textures with imported images, etc. A helpful read.
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/files/nick%20harris%20textures%20tutorial.pdf (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/../files/nick%20harris%20textures%20tutorial.pdf)
He has additional tutorials as well, and they're all worth exploring, IMO. Here's one, for example, as a pdf, and with a youtube video series to accompany it. The videos have some odd audio problems, but its still worth it, IMO.
http://www.imaginefx.com/02287754329985955219/tutorial.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek8bwvH63XU

5) How to make an underpainting using blend modes-
This tutorial was sort of revolutionary to me when I saw it. It's a 4 part series, and is very good at explaining how to make your values count, how to build an underpainting, and how to then apply watercolors to it. If you're looking for a more controlled watercolor technique, but still want that "wash" over the top, this is a very useful place to start. This is a real natural media technique, so although it might feel very "digital" it actually almost exactly emulates a way of laying down very controlled values and building color on top of that. Here's the first video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9NDdQBZ8PU&list=UU5kRRap8HrE-R6DJB70rADg&index=8&feature=plcp


These are some of the additional techniques I've learned from others in the forums.

Getting pigment buildup on the rims--
This thread is about how to "push" watercolors around and get those rim textures one might want. Part way down the page royblumenthal has a very useful post just about this. I tried it out and posted my results there as well.
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34537

Getting good dry brush reaction to paper texture-
I'm not really a fan of how dry watercolors in Artrage work with paper texture, but I've found that the Gloop Pen does very well to get some of these results. Use it right (lay down color in one go, then use a new layer each time you want to lay down new color/swaths on top of each other) and it can get nice results. Here's the thread where I learned about this-
http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26981&page=2

How to get good "ambient" inner texture while painting-
I was just having a conversation with Twagger about illustrating children's books, when he did a nice tutorial thread last week. In it he goes over one of the best ways to get that kind of ambient "grit" that's so nice while painting in watercolors-- importing textures to a layer that you then set to Overlay. What's so nice about this is that if you set this up ahead of time, you get the textures in real time, as you paint, which is much more realistic in feel than putting them in later. I'll be going over this more, but this tutorial by him is a good place to start.
http://http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39747 (http://http//www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39747)


Next up, I'll try and either a) share some thoughts on my process with completed paintings, or b) build a painting from scratch, and give some screen shots. Hope this introductory list was useful to some of you! It sure was for me. :)

shadowslake
04-14-2012, 05:37 AM
I like the feeling of water collors too. They offer so much to the emotion protraied in the painting. Keep up the good work.

jbeau
04-14-2012, 06:27 AM
The perfect afternoon inspiration. Great work!

Steve B
04-14-2012, 06:59 AM
Glad to hear it means something to someone besides myself. ;) I'm bringing over my latest landscape from the other thread, just to sort of bring it in with the other paintings and descriptions of my process.

Here's what I had to say about the painting in the other thread--

For those who are interested, my basic approach is to build many layers of pale washes, which I then blend out, one after the other, as I see fit, leaving some sedimentary edges and grit. I know some people want to simulate the "spontaneity" of real-world watercolor washes, and so don't utilize many layers or blend modes or imported textures or stencils, but personally I find that sort of a skewed perspective that often falsely looks at the mechanics of painting digitally as a process that's antithetical to the experience of real world watercolor painting-- that's just an opinion of course. I actually find the two very similar in many ways.

My experience, personally, with natural media has been that its a rather slow meditative process of gradually laying down many washes of various colors, slowly building up texture, color, shadows, and contrast. Similarly, I use many layers when painting watercolors digitally-- just as I would dry my watercolors between washes of natural media. I often also import found textures or would use stencils after the fact, to occasionally give a more aggressive texture as well-- much as I might do by dabbing with a tissue, for instance. I also often lay down color, lock the transparency, and then blend new color into it, "pushing" against the edges, much as I might do if I were to lay down a bit of water in an area I was working in with natural media, into which I can place more than one color knowing that both of them will mix and yet not expand past the edge of the water.

Anyways, on this one I used about 15 layers, and painted on a 3000 x 2400 canvas. Something that I felt I might be able to crop and print at 200 dpi on a 12" x 18" piece of watercolor paper. I find 200 dpi works pretty good for watercolors, which are very soft, and therefore don't suffer from the negative effects that crisper-edged mediums do when printed at something lower than 300 dpi.

Steve B
04-14-2012, 08:20 AM
So, where do I start? Well, first, I approach digital watercolors much as I do natural media. What's that mean? I guess that you need to probably know a little bit about how natural media watercolors often work. This post is my basic approach before I actually get into details.

Layering Pale Washes of Colors and Using Negative Space-
I tend to work in the layering method of watercolors, going light to dark one pale layer at a time. So, I build up density bit by bit with the Multiply blend mode, generally not laying lighter values on top of darker values, just as would do with natural media watercolors. This means you're generally thinking in terms of negative space. I don't paint clouds, but rather paint the sky around them. My advice, for those don't do this much, is to go outside and actually look at trees and clouds, for example, and actually think about how you'd have to paint them if you're building a painting from light-to-dark (watercolors) instead of dark-to-light (oils, as I understand it), and having to use negative space for objects with a light value (objects that approach white). This means things like pale sky goes in first, pale highlights on trees go in first, bright highlights on a nose, etc. are painted in with a very minimal amount of color first (if at all) and are then preserved-- that all important and super critical thing with most watercolor work.

Using Layers to "dry" your watercolors-
This is also probably a good time to say that I use a reasonable amount of Layers (10-15 per pic), as I feel that they're no different than taking a blow dryer to a wet painting, drying it down, and painting on a new non-interactive layer on top of it. I know some people like to paint on one layer, but I often wonder if that's meant to emulate the experience of Oils more. It's never worked for me in terms of actually emulating the experience of painting on watercolors, where you layer your colors one on top of the other. For example, btw, in Autumn Colors I have something like atleast 10 layers. Not a ton, but more than some might think for such a "quiet" and soft painting.

Use a bigger canvas--
I also use what is, by some standards, larger canvases. Mine usually 200-300 dpi, and atleast something like 9 x 10 or 9 x 12, sometimes larger. I was taught that its almost always easier to paint bigger rather than smaller, and I still tend to agree. It's just so much easier to lay in detail if need to, explore areas, zoom in, etc. And that means something for the final product, IMO. If you right-click on last landscape painting I did ("Autumn Fog") and actually open it in a new window, you'll get the full size of the canvas, which is much bigger than the typical picture. Then you can get a sense of what I'm normally painting on, when I want to go in an put in details, shadows, etc.

Common Natural Media Effects/Processes--
I'm also often thinking about things like--
"Is this going to be a background wash?" For that, I use the Airbrush, not a watercolor tool, and let it be very soft.
"Am I feathering out these exterior lines?" For that, I plan on blending out with something like the Hard Wet Blender or the Instant Blur.
"How much blue separation of pigment do I want?" If I'm doing a big wash, I know that Ultramarine and Cobalt will make sedimentation with natural media, so I'll try and emulate that with Artrage by importing a texture or using a stencil to lay down some additional texture for that color only, say, in the sky.
"How much pigment build up do I want around the edge of this?" For this, I turn down the Thinners to nothing or almost nothing, and let the paint stop pooling around the edges.
"How dry is this brush? How loaded? Am I going to get interesting texture on the edges of my brush stroke?" If so, then I am often fiddling with the Layer Textures to get them just right.

Moving Past Artrage presets and labels--
Basically, I don't want basic Artrage presets to dictate what I'm trying to achieve. I find the presets often replicate only a certain kind of watercolor work, and don't emulate as well as I'd like the ability to lay down soft washes of color that slowly build up a picture. I'm also not making myself stick to the "Watercolor" label of certain tools. To me, since it's all digital, I figure any tool that makes the mark I want is good to me. That means I see stuff like the Markers as useful for small highlights, or certain grungy Sticker Sprays (like some of SOS's set of pencils, charcoals, and oil sticks) lay down good texture when you blow them up to a large size, that then looks very real once lightly blended out.


Also, I know I've said it before in other places, but since I'm here writing it all down in place, I'll just say that that quick spontaneous natural-media watercolor experience some people are looking to duplicate with digital watercolors is, to me, sort of a fallacy-- I just don't think it really happens in real life much, and I don't think it happens much with digital stuff either. Those awesome paintings that many of us like to explore most likely took hours (or many hours) to paint, and I think its the same with digital work. And the sometimes laborious (and seemingly rather technical) process of doing things like laying down textures with Stencils (just as an example) or importing images for textures is not really any different than using a sponge or a rag to build texture in a natural media watercolor, IMO. So, although there's a clear "exploratory" process with what I'm doing (they wouldn't be any fun without it!), where I get to find out what the pictures going to be like as I go, it's not so "flowy", but actually rather technical, step by step.

I like quick watercolor work in real life, but I just don't think that digital watercolors are really there yet, in that regard. Just my two cents.

Marilyn Anne
04-14-2012, 09:22 AM
Love the water color effects!

Caesar
04-14-2012, 09:54 AM
I'm very grateful for this tutorial, dear Steve!

Steve B
04-16-2012, 03:59 AM
Did these pears in the DAA class I'm taking. I'm mostly working on getting good dry textures when I want them and good wet into wet effects. I'm also playing with just using the Settings Panel more aggressively, instead of using quite so many layers. For example, I would sometimes lay down some wet into wet colors (like on the red and green pear), and then hit the Instant Dry toggle, reduce the loading, and lay down a rough dry edge to the brush stroke here and there, then blend in with Tiny Frost or something approaching it in the Settings. This might be something I would normally do with a couple of layers, but here I did it in one. You can see it around the edges of the pears, mostly on the bottoms.

Of course, I'm still a layer whore, so I must have used 10-15 for these pears alone!!! LOL.

Another fun thing I tried out that's related was to lay down color, toggle Instant Dry, lay down a new color on the same layer, then blend the two only on the edge. This lead to a relatively convincing "back bleed" where it looks like the two colors are only truly mixing at an edge. You can see this on the yellow pear in the shadows around the stem, for instance, as well as just above it where the brown shadow bleeds into the yellow, and we get a little rim of green.

The other thing I did was import a nice textural watercolor image first, before anything else, desaturate it, set it to Overlay, dial down its Opacity a bit, and moved it to the top of the layers. Then all my painting occurred under it. This allowed me to get some very nice mild textures in real time as I painted. I see the benefits most easily in the cast shadow of the yellow pear, which I find subtly more convincing in the final image with the Overlay. It's just, IMO, too smooth in the image with no Overlay.

Finally, I also used the Splatter sticker spray from the Art category to put a bit of "pepper" on the fruit. Then I dialed it down to let it be very mild. I shamelessly admit :P that I stole this from Someonesane's post in the first thread I linked to in my Tut #1-- its from last years DAA class, where they also made pears. You can see some other examples there.

The class has been fun so far, and I'm glad I'm taking it.

I've included down at the bottom a version of the painting without the importing texture image Overlay, just to give a sense of what it's providing. Of course, it lightens the image, but more important to me is that it adds just a bit of grit.

screenpainter
04-16-2012, 05:46 AM
those are beauties Steve. I really like the first version with the texture added that appears as less worked. it really is convincing watercolor. love the textures and colors you achieved. in the first image (texture added)the green pear skin just shines like it is catching light. amazing! :eek:

KariedAway
04-16-2012, 06:32 AM
Thank you SO much for taking the time to make this thread, Steve! Your WIP tutorials are really, uber helpful to me. I'm only slightly embarrassed to admit that I've copy/pasted your tuts into Word so I can read them offline while I paint. :o

When you talk about importing a watercolor "texture" to use as an overlay and then paint under it with real-time texture interaction, it's a little hard for me to understand. I think I'm still in CS4 mentality, where there is no texture changes underneath with brush strokes. Are these imported textures that you use scans of actual watercolors to help convey the overall "real" feeling of the digital watercolor? (I have used scanned real watercolors in CS4 many times, for that very reason.)

Thanks again for your effort and wisdom in this thread. My learning curve thanks you too! :D

D Akey
04-16-2012, 08:18 AM
I thought I had commented on part of this thread. Hmm. . . Oh well. I feel remiss.

This is an extraordinary group of paintings and exploration of the watercolor effect. I love it. Really impressive. Plus you make it look quite fun. Congrats!

screenpainter
04-16-2012, 08:37 AM
Finally, I also used the Splatter sticker spray from the Art category to put a bit of "pepper" on the fruit. Then I dialed it down to let it be very mild.



I don't have a group called Art category in my sticker presets. could you point me towards where I could get it?
I have one called art brushes, but there isn't a brush called splatter in there. any idea where you got the Art preset group? maybe it is one you made?

Steve B
04-16-2012, 08:49 AM
Thank you guys! It's just nice to think that some of my pseudo-egotistical, "I think know it all" ramblings have some value to others.... LOL! Of course, when I'm working it's still much of an exploration and a testing-out experience.

In terms of what I'm calling "Texture Overlays"- yes, these are imported images of natural media watercolors that I'm importing to Artrage, usually after I've done my pencil sketching but before I lay down any paint. I then go through the process of expanding the imported texture image to whatever size I want, desaturating it to black and white, and setting its blend mode to Overlay. Then, when I go to start painting on layers below it (each of which I set to Multiply), I get those nice mild ambient "inner" textures I'm looking for in real time, as I paint. It ends up making it all feel much more like painting with natural media watercolors, because I really feel like I'm building the image, texture, value, color, and all, as I go. That, to me, is the most pleasing and exciting part of this work flow process to me, and why I do it in that order.

Now, simultaneously, I am also futzing with textures that I import to Artrage to be used through its own Edit Layer Texture interface, not as imported images being laid down on a layer. Having a good assortment of Layer Textures available in Artrage has been really critical for me to get what I call good "rim textures", or essentially how the edge of the pigment interacts with the "geography" of the Layer Texture you're using. Pushing the Roughness and Grain size of the Layer Textures up some (often to the 60-80%) is how I get the "rim textures" for those area where I'm playing with a bit of dry brush work.

Maybe using these pears as a starting point for a tutorial might be useful. I still have all the layers, and I could take some screen shots that I could edit. I doubt it'll happen today, but it might over the next week or so.

I have to admit that I spent last summer spending many hours (more than I care to count!) reading over tutorials and watching and rewatching many of those I linked to in my Tutorial #1. I even took notes that I typed out in Word to have as a good quick reference when painting. So, I think that approach has value Karied! :D

Steve B
04-16-2012, 09:49 AM
My bad screenpainter. I used the Airbrush Spats right at the top of the Art Brushes category of the Sticker Spray tool.

In re: to the green pear and those nice reflective bits, etc.-- it's my favorite of the two. The cool thing about painting it was that rather than the old way I've been doing things--

paint with watercolors>import image for texture, etc> hmmmm.... that changed things> futz with filters, etc.> rework drawing, etc.

I actually got to build the drawing in real time with the texture, and all of its effects in place (both in terms of visual "grit" and in terms of Brightness and Contrast) with each and every brush stroke I layed down. Thus, it wasn't like I did the bottom image first then added things in and revamped the image to improve it. No, I built the image with the overlay texture in place, and thus that's the way I always presumed it to look. The bottom version without the overlay in place is, in my mind, some sort of funky not-the-actual-image version of my pic. Like its' been Photoshoped or something! :D

Steve B
04-16-2012, 10:01 AM
This is one I did a few weeks ago. Paint Tool Sai and Artrage.
Perhaps 1-2 hours of noodling.

hypotaxis
04-17-2012, 09:21 AM
This is a water colour I did as an exercise for the same DAA class that Steve is doing. It also uses Steve's technique of using a texture in overlay mode.

Brett

Steve B
04-17-2012, 10:42 AM
Hey Brett!

Very cool to see you here. :) And I'm glad to see others such as you using this thread. The original intent was for it to be a kind of repository/home for everyone to share their watercolor work, techniques, etc and receive feedback at the same time they're teaching others.

On the theme of all these pears everywhere, here's a pear I did last fall while taking a class in Painter 11. I thought it would be helpful to see how each program comparatively seems to provide textures and mix paint. Now, I've learned something since Sept when I did this, so it might look better if I did it now, but still, it gives you some sense of how the watercolors were working. In the end, I preferred the look of Artrage and Paint Tool Sai, but I was glad I explored.

hypotaxis
04-17-2012, 11:31 AM
Hi Steve

Thanks!

I downloaded and trialled Painter 12 and we just did NOT get on together. I found the whole programme quite counter-intuitive and in the end I couldn't be bothered with the struggle. It doesn't help that I have had a few run-ins with Corel over the years and they have all been ugly!

Brett

Steve B
04-22-2012, 04:25 AM
Did this one for the DAA class. Took me about 4 hours.

First hour was just making the sketch with Someonesane's Sticker Spray "Sketch Brushes"-- Chalk 3.

Second hour was spent just a) blocking out the basic shape of flowers and stems, etc. to simulate layer masks, as in Sos's tutorial that I linked to, b) importing a texture layer, desaturating, and setting to Overlay, and c) laying in the pale blue-grey shadows in 2-3 layers each within the previous one as I darkened certain areas.

Third hour was spent on the color- yellows/limes, and purples/lilacs. I turned up the texture a lot on the layers for this- in the 60-70's % for both setting. This was done with a watercolor brush that I turned down to a low thinner setting (15%) and a medium loading setting (60%) to allow for a lot of texture. I also used Juz's Sticker Spray set "Juz Grunge", with the Triangular Chaos setting. I set the brush to a very big %, 300-500%, and then very lightly brush the colors in. Then I go back over it with an eraser-- aggressively erasing where I don't want any at all, and then setting it to a very low pressure setting and high softness setting to just dab at those areas I want to soften.

Fourth hour was spent doing detail work on the stems and some of the pistels, as well as importing a new texture, desaturating, setting to Overlay, etc., cutting the area out of it where the flowers were, and painting in a background using it.

Phew!

KarenB
04-26-2012, 02:44 PM
Just so beautiful Steve :) We all enjoyed this painting so much in class. Again, just beautiful.

Well done,
Karen

jbeau
04-26-2012, 04:22 PM
Very nice Steve! Thanks for sharing your technique. Mine is similar expect I rush through things, I think for being random and spontaneous it suites my style. After reviewing your detail work it definitively worth it; I may need to revisit my process.

Steve B
04-26-2012, 04:41 PM
Thanks for the compliments guys. One thing I've been noticing since I posted it is that I think the background Overlay Texture could be toned down a bit. It seems too aggressive-- or perhaps the scale of it is too large, and I need to use a texture that's pulled back some?

One thing I'm going to try out this week is actually doing sort of "speed paints"-- perhaps 1/2-1 hour max paintings in watercolor. I have landscapes I have in mind that I think would be good for the experiment.

I think, with Overlays and good use of Layer Textures and appropriate Sticker Brushes (Triangular Chaos and other grungy stickers), I should be able to get something evocative and believably watery in a shorter amount of time.

I don't know if either of you have checked out Someonesane's Sponge Brushes, for instance, but he recently made them flat and they look much more like watercolors now, so there's an application for that. We were also discussing the value of having the Luminance and Hue settings set to something slightly off zero-- between 5-15%. This gives, to my eye, a very nice effect, that is well worth trying- particularly where you are looking for that watercolor experience that that has a slightly mottled aesthetic in terms of color and value.

jbeau
04-26-2012, 05:07 PM
I really need to check out those sponge brushes.

I find myself gravitating towards the watercolor blend mode by duplicating the layer and pulling up the thinner with a narrow brush. I lighten up my Wacom pressure to give randomness. This controls removing and adding wet edges and contrast. The only bad thing about this mode is photoshop doesn't support it. I also like the highlight mode to pull whites back in without having to erase. Sometimes I'll duplicate the highlight layer and change it to overlay to give hue to my highlights. Then erase the overlay in parts that don't require color.

Caesar
04-26-2012, 07:08 PM
I love this new outcome and watercolor look. You really bacame a scientist and resercher in this field! :eek::cool:

screenpainter
04-26-2012, 07:58 PM
beautiful Steve!!!

coops
04-27-2012, 12:21 AM
What a delightful, delicate painting Steve, well done:)

Steve B
04-27-2012, 01:07 AM
Ha! I may be a watercolor scientist, but I'm more likely a MAD SCIENTIST! Mwah haha! 8D

I'll post up the next set of experiments when I knuckle down and do them, but if you guys have other watercolor works you'd like to share here, please do so-- we could critique them here together, or share processes, or just share.

silvy
04-27-2012, 01:17 AM
This post is very interesting and your last is superb!:):)
Hope to see more !

Steve B
04-28-2012, 01:54 AM
Did this in 1/2 hour last night, and figured I'd call it done.

Lots of Sticker Sprays used-- Juz's Triangular Chaos, Sos's Sponge set (the ones he recently posted that are flat), some of the Airbrush Splats from the Art Brush set done in white, and the Blooming spray as well for the darker area on the trunk, though used to paint with rather than to do "dots". I played a lot with the Spray Variation settings for Hue and Luminance, turning them up a bit just to around 15% when using the spray-- this creates just a bit of color variation and a slightly mottled effect for value. It's nice and seemed to work well. You can see this best in the tree and the grassy area. I did a big wash in the background on one layer, moving from Orange to Yellow to Blue/Green at the bottom-- then erased some with a soft eraser behind the darker grassy horizon line to backlight the tree. I got the watery drippy-spready area at the bottom by using the Hard Out Smear palette knife.

Input is welcome! It's all just an experiment to find stuff out, so post any crits or questions or response paintings you might have.

Steve B
04-28-2012, 03:12 AM
Did this this morning. 45 minutes. From a photo on a drive recently. I locked the layers after laying down color, and then would blend and lay in new colors with the Transparency locked-- this provided lots of interesting effects-- you can see them most clearly in the tree, mountains, and grey clouds. Used the Hard Out Smudge with a pretty high setting (60-70%) to dust the rain clouds down and get them wet. I was having a very hard time with the setting lower-- but it works much better and drags the paint farther with a higher setting. Watch out though-- too high and it never ends. :P Would like to do more, but the experiment is to do them quick. Besides, I have to go to work!!! LOL.

As before, interested in feedback and input. Thanks guys! This is fun, you should try it and post it here. :)

jbeau
04-28-2012, 10:40 AM
Nice Looks on your latest test pieces! I was just experimenting with locking the transparency lastnight:) I like using a dry brush to lay down the color and then lock the transparency. Then use a wet brush to remove some color or go wet on wet with different hues. Thanks for sharing SteveB:)

screenpainter
04-28-2012, 12:42 PM
beautiful additions Steve. I especially love the latest one called backlit tree. awesome to get to see your watercolor experiments. thank you.

Rondo
04-28-2012, 01:01 PM
i really like this kind of stuff:) well done!

Weeks
04-28-2012, 08:14 PM
Nicely done, Steve B, great rendering...

Best,

Weeks

Luckofthedraw
04-28-2012, 09:40 PM
Hi Steve B,
As a raw beginner and only just purchasing Artrage today these are just the sort of inspirational examples and informative posts that I need.
I think I have a lot to learn just to get started but the journey should be exciting.

Please keep it coming.

mannafig
04-28-2012, 10:35 PM
Great little paintings:):)

Steve B
05-15-2012, 04:57 PM
Worked on this today. Line work was done in Paint Tool Sai, then imported to Artrage for all the color work. A big canvas by normal standards for me at 3200 x 6400, but meant to simulate a 9 x 9 kids book, so a 9 x 18 2 page spread. And yes, the perspective is intentionally skewed/tilted on the chicken coop-- though I wonder now if its a bit too much. Meant to add some fun drama. I'm up for critiques, if people see things to improve.

Caesar
05-15-2012, 07:50 PM
Marvellous variety of WC effects and styles again. I think I still miss, in my started collection, the Juz' Triangular Chaos and the Art Brush set with Airbrush Splats (unless it's within the standard AR resources).
Do You have the relevant links, pls?

Steve B
05-16-2012, 04:45 AM
Hey Caeser,
Thanks for checking it out!! :)

The Airbrush Splats (which I didn't use in this pic, but did in the some of the tree ones one the last page) is part of Artrage 3-- they're Sticker Sprays and are in the Art Brushes group at the top of the list.

Juz's Grunge Stickers are a Sticker Spray set that Juz made. Triangular Chaos is one of a set. I don't use the others much, but I use Triangular Chaos a lot for very soft ambient color noise. Set the Luminance and Hue dials under Random to 10-20% in the Spray Variations chart, and you'll get good results. You can see some of this in the greens I've laid in on the blue/black chicken,the green I lay in to the orange chicken to the far right, or some of the softer greens in the tree, etc. I often make a new layer, blow the brush up really big to 500%, dust the color in pretty lightly with it, gently erase around the object, and collapse the layer down. I don't build value much with it, but I use it at the end of the process to add good textures and ambient color. What it seems to do is emulate the effect of dabbing a color into a wet area-- there's a soft kind of "veination" to the spray, as it doesn't have a hard edge. Just play with it on its own first, and you'll see what it actually does individually. Then try laying down one color with a watercolor brush, then lightly painting a different "highlight" or "shadow" color over the top of it with the Triangular Chaos, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here's the link to the brushes-- http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?39300-wet-on-wet-watercolor-effect

The other one I use a lot is Someonesane's Sponge Stickers. He made a "flat" set for me here (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?37629-Spongy-Brushes-%28Sticker-Spray-Presets%29/page3), and its wonderful for watercolor work. I did the whole tree canopy with this sticker, with the Hue and Luminance dials altered again. Then I went over it with the Triangular Chaos brush.

Hope that's helpful! I'll try and upload a Tutorial #3 here next week, and go over some of this more systematically.

edit-
I want to include a link to the Neil Brushes set here (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?28197-New-texture-brush-stickers&highlight=neil+brushes), with the various Superfuzz brushes. These are another great set of sponge-like stamps to use. Neil provided these a few years back, before the more easily downloadable sets were created by Artrage, for ease of sharing. So, you'll need to learn where to place your stamps, and where to place your presets. If you feel up to it, you should try them.

Steve B
05-17-2012, 02:13 AM
I find myself gravitating towards the watercolor blend mode by duplicating the layer and pulling up the thinner with a narrow brush. I lighten up my Wacom pressure to give randomness. This controls removing and adding wet edges and contrast. The only bad thing about this mode is photoshop doesn't support it. I also like the highlight mode to pull whites back in without having to erase. Sometimes I'll duplicate the highlight layer and change it to overlay to give hue to my highlights. Then erase the overlay in parts that don't require color.


I was just experimenting with locking the transparency last night:) I like using a dry brush to lay down the color and then lock the transparency. Then use a wet brush to remove some color or go wet on wet with different hues.

Jbeau,
I just saw these two posts you made a few weeks ago. Sorry so late for my response!! Can you go into these processes you're doing a bit more? It sounds very interesting, but a bit complicated to someone that hasn't tried them before. I'd like to try them out and experiment with them-- your results are usually very nice, so that's something I could really learn from! If you have any images that demonstrate the results that you're getting using these techniques, that would be very helpful-- then I can see how best to apply them.

Fashmir
05-17-2012, 02:42 AM
Steve B- I love this thread. Thanks.

D Akey
05-17-2012, 03:26 AM
Very impressive the range of watercolor effects you have been managing.

How straight is this stuff as a technique and how much is clever manipulation? What I mean is whether or not the painting is direct and uninterrupted or do you find you have to stop and add a texture overlay or whatever? Long ago, before ArtRage, in Photoshop I would scan in black and white drippy and splashy and water color wet into wet marks that I would then import as a layer later to assign it a color(s).

It was in an effort to make my computer stuff look more like it was done traditionally, while keeping the edit-ability for doing variations etc. Was more like working in Illustrator - slow and laborious, but it has its uses.

It worked, but it was very indirect, and it totally lost the spontaneity that makes direct painting expressive and feeling.

I'm sure you do different methods and thus they have their respective qualities of experience. Which technique would you say effects the best balance between getting the right look with the most facile, natural method?

Steve B
05-17-2012, 04:20 AM
Well, I would say that last summer I was having to go through what were, in my estimation, back flips to get reasonable results- lots of stencil work, pushing pigment around while switching presets, etc. It was, by my estimation laborious. I'm much happier with my current work flow. This last piece with the chickens took about 3 hours in Artrage to paint-- considering I printed it on a 12 x 24 piece of watercolor paper, 3 hours seems pretty reasonable for the color work (plus about 2 hours sketching before hand, plus about 2 hours of roughs and concepts a while ago). The two "tree" images on page 6 took 30-45 minutes each, in total. So, I feel like the "speed" and spontaneity one might associate with watercolors is working out digitally, all in all.

As for process, I still have that preliminary "setup" phase, just like with natural media-- I just do different things. No soaking paper for 15 minutes and stretching it. Instead, I pull up a big canvas, set my bottom layer to white, import a ambient background watercolor image on a layer, stretch it to fit, desaturate it to black and white, make it Overlay. Then make my new blank painting layer between the "white" layer and the Overlay imported image layer, and I'm off. That takes a few minutes in the beginning, but then its there the whole time. Then I just get painting.

What's been appealing to me about this method so far is that I get those "ambient" bits of watercolor texture as I go, as I'm painting, because the hidden background Overlay Texture is there from the beginning, waiting to be used. No importing and tweaking after the fact. This allows to me to realistically build the painting as I paint, which I prefer as an artist, rather than spending a bunch of my time "tweaking" it digitally after the fact.

I spend the majority of my time in Artrage switching brushes, changing settings, opening Layers and setting their blend modes, etc. Things like--
1) changing Layer Textures, where I up the Grain Size
(I do this to get the rough bits around the edges)
2) changing my Brush Settings to reduce the Loading or the Thinner, depending on the effects I want
(low Loading= drier brush techniques, like in the edges of the chickens, vs.
high Thinner= more pigment at the rims of the brush stroke, as in the dust cloud)
3) switching to Sticker Sprays, and changing the Hue and Luminance settings in the Spray Variations chart for effects in certain areas-- the Triangular Chaos gets used a lot, as does the Sponges stickers I mentioned above, as does the Airbrush Splatter Art Brush spray.
4) switching to blenders for some mild effects
5) picking colors
6) making new layers, setting blend modes, etc. for when I'm laying down new coats of color, shadows, highlights, etc
7) zooming and panning and resizing my brushes (although zooming and panning should largely go away once I get my new (used) 18sx Cintiq today!! oooh la la! It's "out for delivery" right now)

So, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I don't find that to be particularly anti-"process". As before, the trees I did on page 6 were done in under an hour. That seems quick and straight forward to me. I don't know if importing the Overlay ahead of time and doing what I'm doing sounds like digital fakery to you and you don't like that idea on a personal level (??), or if it was just the laborious "I'm not really getting to even do real painting" feeling that was bugging you about those Photoshop days, but it's a work flow that's been very nice to me. I feel like I'm painting. A lot of the digital "heavy lifting" is done in the beginning, which lets me get down to image making more smoothly after that.

Steve B
05-17-2012, 11:14 AM
This is the one from today. This is a slightly older image that I reworked-- added the dragon, as its from a picture book-- and pushed the shadows and highlights more, etc.

hypotaxis
05-17-2012, 11:18 AM
That is gorgeous Steve. It has such a great atmosphere and mood to it. Very cool!

MSSalem
05-17-2012, 06:18 PM
a profisional art indeed
so wonderful
i liked it very much

Caesar
05-17-2012, 07:28 PM
Another good example indeed!
I still have one question about the magical Triangular Chaos I wasn't able to use this far.
Once You get such a .prs file, where is it supposed to be placed (within the resources)? I mean it's a pre-set of which tool?
Thank You!

Steve B
05-18-2012, 02:03 AM
My understanding and memory, from looking over the linked-to thread, is that Juz provides the Artrage pack with the stickers in a post lower down (its there through a link), and that screenpainter provides the presets through a download link as well. Don't you just drag and drop them into Artrage?

If it needs to be done manually, then I think you can put the stickers in place by--
open the Tools bar> User Content> User Content Folder. Then in Stickers> make a folder, mine is Juz's Stickers. That's where I put her stickers.

You can put the presets in place by--
User Content Folder> Tool Presets> Sticker Spray> there you can make a folder "Juz's Stickers" or whatnot, and put the presets in there.

Or, atleast, I think that's how you do it manually. That's where my stuff is placed. I guess this is why its so nice to have art packs. Eventually, I'd like to make an art pack where I'd cobbled together those things that I use all the time that aren't "normal". I've never done that though, and so have dedicated the time to learn it yet. I'm sure its real easy.

Steve B
05-22-2012, 02:17 AM
Well, last week was very busy as I tried to get my work into shape for a portfolio review. I did get some stuff done, and I just wanted to post a few images to share.

First, here's the final version for the Dragon and Child image I posted last week. I needed to change the format, and I pushed the contrast, made the girl bigger, etc. Color work done in Artrage, line work in Paint Tool Sai.

I'd thought I'd share the series of versions of I have of this. You can see I add the the dragon, it gets darker, I make the woman a child, the clouds get highlights as does the dragon, I move the text, I change the format, I enlarge the girl, I add "flying grass seed", etc.

Steve B
05-22-2012, 02:21 AM
And here's one I did in a different style but a similar theme. Pen and ink was done with natural media and scanned in. Watercolors done with Artrage. I'm planning on coming back to this one and pushing the contrast more, making it darker and more "night", maybe giving her a flashlight, that sort of thing. But this is the composition for now. Changes I made from the original so far include- flipping the image to move left to right, changing the format for a 2 page spread, moving the text, enlarging the dragon head and dragon tail.

Steve B
05-22-2012, 02:35 AM
This last one wasn't actually done in Artrage, but it was so fun, I thought I'd share it. I actually imported an abstract watercolor painting of mine, found the composition, inked over it digitally, and added the boy and terodactyl.

chinapete
05-22-2012, 02:46 AM
... the drawing is so spontaneous and I wonder whether that was behind the choice of natural media for line ... color doesn't depend so much on hand movement or hand pressure or even the manner of application ... but line does ... so you have the best of both worlds ... ps I'm talking about the dragon in the room picture, I see another has just been posted ...

silvy
05-24-2012, 08:12 AM
Bellissimi:D
It's a pleasure to see the work in progress. Thanks!

Steve B
05-28-2012, 04:00 AM
Thanks Silvy. It's definitely been a learning experience. I thought the works were pretty good when I took them to be critiqued, so it was a rather humbling experience, frankly.

Hopefully, the WIP of the Girl on the Hill is engaging for others.

I'm working to push the contrast and the lighting in the images, as I think that seems to be the straightest path to pulling out the most interesting drama in a painting, speaking in terms of technical activity, not in terms of, say, the actual situation or setting or characters of an image. I look at stuff as different as, say, Rembrant and Nickullus, or Frank Miller and Monet, and if I like the image, it's almost always because good lighting and strongly placed contrast has created drama and tension. It's not that I don't like stuff like Paul Klee or Picasso, but art like that is largely "symbolic" rather than representative, IMO, as it flattens the image and goes more for color and pattern. If I'm going to go for something more illustrative, then I'm going to try for contrast. Hopefully, that process in coming across in that sequence of images.

The rest of the changes have mostly to do with format-- being the right size for a two page spread, thinking more about what's going to fall in the gutter where the two pages meet, thinking more about where the text is going to go, as well as how the image fits in the thirds-- that kind of stuff.

edit-- I added up above (earlier on this page) the original "He just got too big to fit under the bed anymore" image to compare and contrast it with the tweaked image after the critique.

chinapete
05-28-2012, 04:19 AM
... "boy and pterodactyl" shows the power of broken, floating, calligraphic strokes over washes to create a sense of vibrancy and motion throughout ... also very much admire your ability to use black and near-black ...

screenpainter
05-28-2012, 07:55 PM
I really love the dragon and child illustration. You really have a Quentin Blake kind of style... fun thing going on there. don't let the naysayers get you down.

Caesar
05-28-2012, 09:03 PM
You've got a process which looks very effective and artful for drawing professional kids' books illustrations. A sort of déjà-vu, as for the style, in kids corner of bookshops, I think. Probably You're already in that business. Congratulations!

coops
05-29-2012, 01:53 AM
I love your gentle way of painting, I feel very relaxed when viewing your wonderful work:)

Steve B
06-26-2012, 01:18 AM
A darker image, perhaps. Done free-associatvely,where I wasn't really sure what I wad drawing for a long time. Still not really sure. :P

jbeau
06-29-2012, 08:40 AM
Very powerful and thought provoking. Maybe call it "Orphaned Angel".

Steve B
08-02-2012, 05:58 PM
These are two quick works I did in relation to a conversation with Tigermoth. She's got the original watercolors, and I'm trying to reproduce some results without having to do backflips. I'll see if she can bring the original pics into this thread.

Watercolor Seahorse-
69155

and Mermaid-
69154

Caesar
08-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Your last addition are wonderful and amazing again. By means of Your discoveries on settings and use of ancillary procedures and tools, You are progressively declining AR watercolors in every kind of real WC style.
The first one is a superb artpiece looking very much like a Moebius' color drawing. Congrats!

Tigermoth
08-02-2012, 08:38 PM
Here are the pics as requested. :)

6915969160

Steve B
08-03-2012, 02:48 AM
But somehow I ended up with a skinny seahorse but a more fully fleshed mermaid. ??? ;)

Steve B
08-06-2012, 09:31 PM
Okay! After a week of repeatedly failing I've got the first Youtube video up. I've never done that before, so that's pretty cool. :) It's a tutorial on using Texture Overlays-- how to import them and set them up, what they offer, and why I do them before I paint my image rather than after.

Here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyml1eKNv54)to the tut. If you feel up to commenting or liking the video, it's always helpful. Hope this upcoming series of tutorials answers some questions and makes watercolors in Artrage make more sense to people. If you have any questions, ask away-- either here or on youtube. Fun!!

Alexandra
08-06-2012, 10:42 PM
Steve, these are marvelous. Wonderful style and talent!

D Akey
08-06-2012, 10:51 PM
Okay! After a week of repeatedly failing I've got the first Youtube video up. I've never done that before, so that's pretty cool. :) It's a tutorial on using Texture Overlays-- how to import them and set them up, what they offer, and why I do them before I paint my image rather than after.

Here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyml1eKNv54)to the tut. If you feel up to commenting or liking the video, it's always helpful. Hope this upcoming series of tutorials answers some questions and makes watercolors in Artrage make more sense to people. If you have any questions, ask away-- either here or on youtube. Fun!!


AWESOME!!!!!! What a great trick to get texture. Bravo! Well worth the effort. Thanks!

Fashmir
08-07-2012, 03:57 AM
Great tutorial Steve. Thanks for sharing your methods and ideas. I have a question about the colorful tool panel seen to the right of the screen in your video... What is that? I am always intrigued by tools that extend capability and refine workflow.

Steve B
08-07-2012, 05:15 AM
Hey everyone,
It's very cool that people are checking the video out.!! Yeah!

I've got another out now too. This new one (2/5) goes over Dry Brush and Wet into Wet Techniques. I use the Layer Texture settings a lot, as well as various Brush settings, to simulate dry brush techniques. I also use the Lock Transparency feature to play with wet into wet effects. I go over both of these in the new video. Here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGJmDndMBrI).

Fashmir,
Re: the cool little toolbar-- THIS is the super awesome toolbar I've been talking about, the "add-on" that I've been building with another Artrage user for the last 6 months or so. It runs independently from Artrage (only on Windows though), but is designed to work in conjunction with it. It basically allows me to work on Clear Screen on a tablet pc or a Cintiq with almost zero need for a keyboard. I can do stuff like
-rotate, draw straight lines, transform, or lasso with the click of a button.
-I can also do multiple redo's without having to tap the Artrage onscreen button repeatedly-- just down the button on this toolbar and it zips backwards.
-What's also really cool is I can link zoom and resize to my second pen button. So, I can resize to 500 or whatever by clicking my 2nd pen button and dragging the pen tip. I can also zoom by just clicking the back button and "hover-dragging" above the screen.

Right now, we're hammering out the last details to have Hover Icons-- this allows you to "bind" your opened Artrage Pods to a small onscreen icon that visually takes it place, even while using full screen mode. Then all I have to do is hover my pen on top of the Hover Icon, and instantly the Artrage pod pops out. This allows you to work on a big screen with almost nothing in your way in terms of UI, and yet have full instant access to all of your pods and key commands that you might need.

Clearly, I'm very excited about sharing this. Right now, we're ironing out some last few bugs and doing some tests, but as you can see, I use it all the time. I'm planning on sharing it with the community for free. I'm actually looking for testers as well, to find bugs that might pop up on systems other than the ones we've been testing it on.

It's very COOL! :D I'm planning on doing a video on it as well.

Fashmir
08-07-2012, 09:03 AM
Thanks Steve. That seems pretty cool. I just watched your second video and I love the bit about locking the transparency of a layer and washing in new color. This is very good use of the tools.

Shibui
08-07-2012, 10:21 AM
I was in the class with Karen, but was not able to participate at the time. Did follow everything and so glad you are sharing yor tips online. Thanks, Gail

MSIE
08-07-2012, 12:55 PM
thank you Steve for the tutorials, well done! :)
what about posting them in "Tips & Tricks" forum so people can find them easily? ;)

Tigermoth
08-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Well I replied to your PM Steve, fabulous job and everyone is already giving ya feedback - you should be getting plenty. ;)

I'm already looking forward to the next ones in the series. :)

chinapete
08-08-2012, 12:39 AM
Steve, I've watched your videos and want to add my voice to those in praise of what you've accomplished, and in the spirit of learning and sharing, also add a comment of my own ...


I find it striking that you endorse an idea I've promoted consistently in all of my digitial work, that digital art should try to emulate natural media ... On the surface, this sounds reasonable, and it is after all one of the selling points of AR ... But I wonder how many of your viewers actually agree with that idea -- I say this because reactions to my own work, where I have almost obsessively pursued imitation of natural media, seem to ignore the traditional elements in those artworks in favor of anything "new" or at least different ... It's as if people want to believe that digital art holds the promise of allowing an artist to do something really wild and strange and never before seen in the visual arts, or at any rate, cut loose from the traditional arts ...


That is an unlikely possibility, given the long history of non-digital art, and the thousands of creative minds that have contributed to the history of art ... I say this not because I'm old-fashioned or a traditionalist, but because clearly there are valuable lessons to be learned from natural media, lessons that can improve one's art and at the same time deepen our understanding of the advantages and limitations of digital art -- recently on this forum I wrote at length about the basic concept of gradation, something you touch on but don't name in your videos --


Identifying limitations in turn should help the folks at AR to refine the tool set -- with the goal of bringing it closer and closer to natural media, of course....


As an example, when you suggest that we "roughen" at the edges or draw outside of the lines that define the cat, at that point you actually are giving your viewers an art lesson, aren't you? ... That lesson has little to do with digital or non-digital -- it's a psychological fact that texture and fuzzy boundaries cause visual responses that differ in interesting ways from, say, flat cartoon-like linear drawing (the very definition of most digital art) -- and I believe this is why you seem to insist that these effects "look better" -- a value judgment that, again, I'm not sure the majority of your viewers will share, if I were to judge by standards for popular digital art ...


In this connection, I am always amazed that AR treats the iPhone and iPad platforms as step-sisters to the lovely Cinderella known as the desktop ... I believe the iPhone and iPad are much more powerful tools for emulating natural media, because with them you actually touch the screen ... The tactile dimension is one that I try to exploit in all of my works -- these by the way mostly are judged failures, if I am to go by the number and quality of comments they receive ... I don't mind, I just take it as further proof that most people who look at artwork created digitally see no relation to similar work done in natural media ... Or they themselves haven't had the experience of softening a charcoal drawing on newsprint, or laying down an ink or watercolor wash on textured paper, and so on ...


In the attachment, I offer an image I created in like two seconds using Auryn Ink, a program that specializes in watercolor ... I think you can see that it is possible -- if emulating natural media is the goal -- to do that quickly and without any need for all of the powerful tools you demonstrate ... I simply pick up my Nomad brush, select a color and brush setting, and paint on the iPad screen ... The question is -- it is a question and not a criticism -- why can't I have the ease of that experience in AR on any platform (iPhone has no watercolor tool, iPad has or had lag problems and lacks the power of the desktop application, AR Pro is not tactile in the way I define tactile) ...


I look forward to your future videos ...

Steve B
08-09-2012, 02:55 AM
Thanks everyone for the responses! It's nice to hear, and I'm doing it to share. I like the idea, MSIE, of making an additional thread in the Tips and Techniques thread. I should be uploading a new one today. When I do so, I'll make an alternate thread there, for reference. Mostly, I'd just like things to be findable, so they're useful to others.

Chinapete,
That's a really interesting post!

For what its worth, I think your experiments are fascinating and often very successful. In my mind, you're clearly a benefit to the community, and am glad you continue to share. I do think we're all sort of waiting with bated breath for you to do something on a larger, perhaps more "ambitious" scale. At first, I often thought you were mostly making studies-- exploring techniques and methods, trying to duplicate some small part of a famous painting, etc. and that you were, in time, going to be produce something larger, more human focused, perhaps a landscape, etc, whatever. Now, however, I feel like your focus is more on producing these more intimate gestural explorations, and that the images have more to do with mood and texture than specifically to do with a subject. Thus questions like "Is this a fan?" and "Is this a rock?" matter less to me when viewing your works. I tend to focus more on texture, brush movement, the play of color, etc. because I feel like that's what you're bringing to the table. I quite like the work you've been posting on here, and find it quite successful. It broadens the palette, so to speak, and I like bringing that into my work.

I think your results on the iPad are fascinating. Auryn Ink is a great app and has some powerful and interesting watercolor tools. I was just watching a video on it, and I love that you can tilt the canvas, that it pushes pigment to the edges, that it has a counter for "drying" so that it mixes differently depending on how wet or dry the pigment on the canvas is, etc. These are things that I think Artrage could very easily be doing. I hope they get there in Artrage 4.

Re: digital art and natural media-
Your point about about people seeming to gravitate to the seemingly "open" and purely.... pixel based notion of digital art is well put. Having said that, I don't know if I'd say that digital media should try to emulate natural media. Rather, I would say that I want my art to emulate natural media. This is a rather broader topic, but, to me, the point of art is beauty and a desire to interact with the world through it. I don't see why pixel based, digital-only art can't do that. However, for me I find certain visual things interesting and evocative, things based on texture and viscosity and granulation-- probably based on my experience growing up in an art world without digital work. Essentially, those things are the elements by which I explore and judge a works value, because those works I grew up learning art through had those elements for me to judge them by. It's like an art muscle I've developed-- now I use it, as I have it. Who knows, perhaps in 20-30 years there will be a whole generation of kids who will have grown up reading comics painted digitally, looking at video game art done digitally, viewing artwork online that's digitally done in Photoshop, and then they'll prefer the aesthetics those things provide.

I will say that art done digitally allows a kind of control and detail that's difficult to achieve with natural media tools unless you're painting big. Alternately, part of the appeal and focus in natural media is how to pare things down a bit to their essential elements-- a desire and practice that I've long thought is born just as much from the processes required to make art with natural media tools as it is from independently chosen aesthetics. The two are intimately tied.... process and intended aesthetic result, because I think often you learn to make something good from your limitations. Essentially, the standards by which we judge the value of a natural media artwork are partly based on the limits of what natural media tools can do. I would imagine that, for example, Chinese ink art is loose and bristly with its brush work because 1) it reflects the aesthetics and philosophy of that society, and yet 2) because that's what their tools were capable of producing-- so they worked with what they had and made something good out of a limitation. Thus we learn to actively apply positive standards that reward us for the limits of our tools. If that makes sense. It's not the whole game, of course, but I think its part of it.

With digital artwork, however, you're able to include a great deal more detail in a very small canvas because you're allowed a greater degree of control over the tools you work with compared to natural media alternatives. This has led to a style that focuses on two basic things, IMO- 1) artwork that is very focused on detail, even when doing small sketches or roughs, and 2) artwork that is very precise in terms of linework and color fills. Additionally, as there is no canvas, texture and grit is lost unless it is actively introduced by the artist. This is an interesting shift, as the focus, IMO, becomes on how to introduce chance/grit/ambient effects into a digital painting instead of trying to control the tools more and more, like a lot of natural media art still tries to do (with new types of paint or new types of paper or brushes, etc).

It's a peculiar dilemma. I think almost all artists would like greater control of their medium so that they can better express what they have in their mind. Simultaneously, as I say in the second video, I think too much control can be a detriment to the final product, the results of which somehow end up feeling dictated by the whims of the digital tool rather than the mind and heart of the artist. So, that's why I think it's good to introduce some element of chance into ones process when painting digitally, as I think it gives the artist something to "push against".

So... on that level perhaps I do think digital art should emulate natural media-- but more because I think a good artist needs to knock against some chance to discover those things that are going to make an image engaging, than because I think natural media is somehow innately "better." I guess you did catch me teaching about "art-making" instead of just "digital technique" in the video! ;) I actually thought, while recording it, "Heh, I'm really starting to talk about how I think art should be made, and not exactly about how this specific technique equals this specific result." It's hard sometimes to separate the two. You'll see that even more in my upcoming video, where I go into how and why I use layers the way I do. It has a lot to do with emulating the process of painting with natural media, and how I think that process actually produces results that 1) better emulate natural media results and that 2) I think look more interesting because of that. So, yeah, it's hard to get from having an opinion! :P

BTW, where's you post on gradation? Can you link to it? That sounds like an interesting read.

I'll be back with the next video later this morning. I just need to annotate it.

chinapete
08-09-2012, 04:06 AM
hi steve ...

... thank you for the generous and thoughtful reply ... if I haven't said it clearly enough, I admire your work, your technique, your ability to convey your ideas simply and with conviction, but most of all, the spirit of encouragement you bring to all who follow your thread -- and who now are able to watch your videos ...


... the real world is chaotic, textured and subtly colored, I cannot envision a time when digital art that doesn't faithfully record those features will be thought successful ... you can compare the historical moment when photography was introduced (I hinted at this in a recent post, "Souvenir"), artists in the 19th century began to despair at the thought that the high level of realism attainable in photography signalled the end of painting in natural media ... but in the 150 years or so since the birth of that technology, painters have continued to have an edge, the proof is in the many brilliantly textured and nuanced watercolors you have posted on this forum ...


... a purely digital world doesn't exist, nor does photographic realism, unless you define realism as mechanical reproduction ... traditional painting allows for levels of abstraction and interpretation rarely achieved in photography -- and when such abstraction is achieved, ironically it often is likened to painting ... Mechanical photographic realism in painting is a red herring, except to those -- not me -- who believe the brain is a computer, and the heart a machine ...

Steve B
08-09-2012, 06:08 AM
OK! Next video is up. Here's the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78uQzgMYOD4). :)

This is on Layers and how I use them. For those who already know how to paint with natural media watercolors, parts of the video will be a review in many ways, but I also go into how I apply that process to my digital artwork, as well as why I think that matters. Namely, that process gives me results that I've been happy with.

Also, thanks for compliment Pete. It's appreciated, and I do try to work hard to be helpful. I think my experiments and failures can only help others. I've learned lots through the tutorials and videos of others that I've watched, so it's a pleasure to give something back.

I also have to say that I really like your final comment. The world is a chaotic and full of texture and subtlety. Or atleast I think so. That's a very articulate reason to describe why it is that we want those things in our art, in whatever capacity we're capable or receiving them. Gonna have to ponder that one for a while.

chinapete
08-09-2012, 03:50 PM
hi steve,

I just watched video #3, on layers, and wished I had more than one opportunity to "like" it ... I think your casual yet informative style will win over many viewers who are puzzled about layers or achieving transparency in watercolors, or both ... and your decision to deconstruct the image by showing it in its completed state and then peeling it back, so to speak, also seems an effective way to fix in the viewer's mind the goal as well as the process ... most important, though, your emphasis on how the image looks at every stage -- how each layer interacts with the whole to produce a fresh, vibrant, and light-filled watercolor, is the best argument for layers in AR ... One of the more difficult concepts to grasp in layering is blending, and again I think your choice of limiting the discussion, at least for now (topic worth returning to) to Multiply is enough of a teaser to perk interest, without overwhelming the basic message ... :)

screenpainter
08-10-2012, 05:39 AM
watched all three.... very interesting to watch. pleasant voice you got there.
are you using camstudio to make these?

Tigermoth
08-10-2012, 07:51 PM
Hey Steve - watched all the videos so far, keep it up! I did some experimentation and wrote a (rather long) blog post about the process, but I used the basics of what you taught in your videos... along with a lot of time spent experimenting with layers. lol

The end results:
69416


(P.S. if it's not ok to mention I did a blog post, please let me know - will remove the reference!)

Steve B
08-11-2012, 01:38 AM
Hey! That is quite a marked improvement! That's exciting to see. :) Is it possible to edit the post and add in a larger version of the pic? I'd like to get to see it more upclose.

There's a lot to like here. Compositionally, I like the tail, and how it moves the eye. Same goes for the lance. I like that you added the ...city? castle? in the background. I think it produces a nice sense of balance to have the 3rd object. I haven't gone over it in the videos yet, but I'd watch out about uses colors that are outside the typical color gamut you'd get with watercolors, if you're going for that natural media look-- the rich rich teals give pause, because they look too vibrant to be actual natural media. Second part that gave me pause was some of the very smooth brush strokes of brown down on the ground plane-- you have so much nice texture everywhere else, those sort of stick out to me because they seem too smooth. I don't know if you're using the Layer Textures yet, but this would be an opportunity to explore and apply it. Just a thought.

I like the image. And your control of Artrage is already leaps and bounds better. I can really see it. !

I think it's cool to talk about your blog and all. I've got mine in my sig now. Everyone's pretty cool and mellow here. I've got another video coming up-- this one's on Brush Settings. I've been mapping out my thoughts on a few others-- Blending Tools, more on Layers and how to create glazing effects, Blend Modes, how to make Masks in Artrage and use them, Sticker Sprays, etc. I've got 'em listed, so we'll see. My work schedule has been very very slow recently, and that's allowed me to make a little lemonade with these videos, so to speak. I've had the time. Things look like they're going to be picking up, so I imagine the videos will probably start coming slower too come next week.

Steve B
08-11-2012, 04:53 AM
Yo! Got the 4th video up, which is on Brush Settings in the Settings Pod. I go over what I don't use (and why), as well as what I do use, and some of the effects you can get by using them. I don't use the Presets Pod much at all for the watercolor tool, because I find the Settings Pod more functional, and just as easy to manipulate. Check it out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_ZtHupQTc).

Talk to you all soon. I might post a pic or two, just to change things up. ;)

Steve B
08-11-2012, 07:10 AM
This is a self-portrait I did last month. Some of its done in Artrage and some Paint Tool Sai for ease and speed, but frankly almost all of it (outside of the bristly streaks) could be done in Artrage. I sketched this out on a large watercolor sheet (perhaps 16 x 20 or so) to get good detail compositionally, photographed it, and then painted it entirely digitally.

69422

Tigermoth
08-11-2012, 01:00 PM
Hey! That is quite a marked improvement! That's exciting to see. :) Is it possible to edit the post and add in a larger version of the pic? I'd like to get to see it more upclose.

There's a lot to like here. Compositionally, I like the tail, and how it moves the eye. Same goes for the lance. I like that you added the ...city? castle? in the background. I think it produces a nice sense of balance to have the 3rd object. I haven't gone over it in the videos yet, but I'd watch out about uses colors that are outside the typical color gamut you'd get with watercolors, if you're going for that natural media look-- the rich rich teals give pause, because they look too vibrant to be actual natural media. Second part that gave me pause was some of the very smooth brush strokes of brown down on the ground plane-- you have so much nice texture everywhere else, those sort of stick out to me because they seem too smooth. I don't know if you're using the Layer Textures yet, but this would be an opportunity to explore and apply it. Just a thought.

I like the image. And your control of Artrage is already leaps and bounds better. I can really see it. !

I think it's cool to talk about your blog and all. I've got mine in my sig now. Everyone's pretty cool and mellow here. I've got another video coming up-- this one's on Brush Settings. I've been mapping out my thoughts on a few others-- Blending Tools, more on Layers and how to create glazing effects, Blend Modes, how to make Masks in Artrage and use them, Sticker Sprays, etc. I've got 'em listed, so we'll see. My work schedule has been very very slow recently, and that's allowed me to make a little lemonade with these videos, so to speak. I've had the time. Things look like they're going to be picking up, so I imagine the videos will probably start coming slower too come next week.

This is interesting - it seems that when I "Export to Photoshop," the colors get changed and more saturated. I hadn't noticed that when I posted. I just realized I can export a jpg straight from Artrage (may be over 100K) that is not saved for web using photoshop, below. I actually used the imported set of colors of Winsor & Newton watercolor swatches, for artrage; so unless those swatches are no good... ?? It could also be the effect of a lot of layering - it's one of the bad habits I developed over the years, when working digitally - something I suppose I should tone down - I try to name all the layers but always end up adding, merging, adding, merging! lol

I didn't necessarily focus on producing results that would look -exactly- like watercolors; I don't even use real watercolors in a way that most people would consider "Traditional," hehe... it was more the textures I was looking to push, I guess you could say? My focus was in playing with textures in the dragon, hopefully the photo below will show it better.
The textures in the green/ground plane probably look smooth, because I used more of the dried strokes brush there, along with a less 'rough' texture - on a different layer. So - ha, everything is indeed relative.

This still makes me wonder if zooming way in to see the textures is a good move - in terms of posting on the web or on a website portfolio? If most images are going to be somewhere between 500-800 pixels wide, will the nice textures ultimately just get lost in translation - see what I mean? Unless you work on a subject that is really up close, that is, as opposed to the one I did, with things zoomed out. Don't know...

Anyway - hey its good to hear things are picking up for you. Thanks so much for your feedback and videos - I'm looking forward to the next one!

69428

chinapete
08-11-2012, 01:37 PM
Hi steve, I haven't seen the 4th video, and Tigermoth, I'm unable to open your attachment, but I wanted to ask, how are you all defining texture? ... There are at least three areas where we might speak of texture in relation to watercolor ... One is the relative roughness of the surface -- really, this is to pay attention to the transparency and graininess of the pigment (smooth paper can be made to show texture, in this definition) ... the second is the special effects that can be obtained by integrating actual materials or whatever to imitate texture patterns that exist in the real world -- painting over silk or screen, for example ... And a third is texture by extraction, soaking up water and pigment from the surface, or scratching through a dry layer to expose the surface below ... There are others, I'm just wondering which ones you are stuck on -- or feel you've been successful with? -- in relation to painting digitally ...

ps: broadly speaking in relation to texture, when we say we want digital media to imitate natural media, I suppose we should keep in mind that natural media also must imitate the texture of the chosen object -- as the rough form of the nib in the lemon I posted a few weeks ago tried to show, there should always some attempt to capture the texture of the world, and not just to leverage the texture(s) that are possible to create with the media at hand ...

Tigermoth
08-11-2012, 02:04 PM
Hi steve, I haven't seen the 4th video, and Tigermoth, I'm unable to open your attachment, but I wanted to ask, how are you all defining texture? ... There are at least three areas where we might speak of texture in relation to watercolor ... One is the relative roughness of the surface -- really, this is to pay attention to the transparency and graininess of the pigment (smooth paper can be made to show texture, in this definition) ... the second is the special effects that can be obtained by integrating actual materials or whatever to imitate texture patterns that exist in the real world -- painting over silk or screen, for example ... And a third is texture by extraction, soaking up water and pigment from the surface, or scratching through a dry layer to expose the surface below ... There are others, I'm just wondering which ones you are stuck on -- or feel you've been successful with? -- in relation to painting digitally ...

Hi Chinapete, I'm still getting the hang of inserting images I guess - hopefully I just fixed it. :/ I think in terms of going for very realistic paper-grain textures, SteveB is the pro - for me this is a good exercise; as in real media, I actually use smoother hot press wc papers, thick bristol, or high grade illustration board - which would provide entirely different effects than the traditional 'rough grain' watercolor paper. I also use inks or mix my miedia, so I do end up working rather differently.
In the exercise I just did with the dragon, I used my own hand-painted texture, scanned in. On the side, I have created some personal stuff, made hand-made watercolor 'journals' where I play a lot with water/alcohol drips, various grain paints and mica paints dropped in, so the one I used has a lot of "texture" or shapes created. So the second one, I guess. I think as a device for making texture digitally yes its very successful; although it won't truly duplicate the combination of means and materials I use in real media. :) Hope I understood the question correctly?

Tigermoth
08-11-2012, 02:13 PM
This is a self-portrait I did last month. Some of its done in Artrage and some Paint Tool Sai for ease and speed, but frankly almost all of it (outside of the bristly streaks) could be done in Artrage. I sketched this out on a large watercolor sheet (perhaps 16 x 20 or so) to get good detail compositionally, photographed it, and then painted it entirely digitally.



Well done on your portrait, again its cool how you're pushing these capabilities. :) I haven't got Sai - although I have to say there are certainly some interesting tools out there.

chinapete
08-11-2012, 02:47 PM
... Tigermoth ... yeah it's all good ... I just couldn't see any real motivation for texture in the dragon picture, so it was hard to track along with the discussion ... Steve, your portrait is excellent ... its relative heaviness to my eye gives it the feel of silk screen or certain types of prints ...

chinapete
08-12-2012, 04:59 AM
Steve, I've been able to view video #4 onbrush settings ... there's a wealth of information there for such a brief video -- am I the only person hoping for longer in-depth treatments? :-)


... I'd like add something to your discussion of Paper Wet settings, which I've studied because I'm hoping one day to be able to emulate basic Chinese brushstrokes, these rely on loading and other factors to achieve what I can only call a "dry in wet" kind of yin-yang opposition, but without the signficant rim effects you prefer (for good reason, as they do look more convincingly like Western natural media watercolor brushstrokes) ...


... in the attachment, you can see a matrix of brushstrokes done using basic settings that approximate those in your video, initially everything (including brush size) is set to 50% on basic AR Watercolor paper ... Then I varied only Paper Wet On/Off, and InstaDry On/Off, so reading from the left, you have Paper Wet Off and InstaDry Off, then Paper Wet Off and InstaDry On, third stroke is Paper Wet On and InstaDry On, and finally Paper Wet On and InstaDry Off ...


... for my purposes, the last brushstroke, Paper Wet and InstraDry Off, comes closest to the effect I'm looking for, but is far from perfect, for reasons that go beyond this post ... Each brushstroke has been turned at a 90 degree angle to illustrate brush direction -- this is a feature of brushwork I hope you will touch on in a future video, as straightline strokes are rare in watercolor ... The fourth brushstroke shows some sign of registering the movement of the hand as the brushstroke is completed, as you can see in the slight paling and thinning at the inflection point as the brush turned ...

edit: what I'm calling brush direction here is of course related to pressure sensitivity and variable load, issues I assume will be addressed with the advent of the pressure sensitive stylus ...

... it is worth noting that although brush size has not been varied, of course one main effect of Paper Wet is that the brushstroke widens by some pre-set multiple (double?) ...


... by the way, I'm not big on commercialization, but I wonder if you are aware of lynda.com, it's a tutorial site for all things digital ... at present, there is nothing on that site for ArtRage, but there could be ...

pictogramax
08-12-2012, 12:51 PM
Hello everybody,
I've just purchased my copy of AR3, but I've been following the forum and especially this thread for a while.
I would like to thank everybody for very useful information and of course Steve B for his great video tutorials.
Here's a sample of mine, using some of the techniques Steve laid out in his lessons.
As time permits, I'll explore this deeper - I've seen in other threads some custom textured brushes that look mighty fine but I still have to learn how to install and incorporate them.

eighty+
08-12-2012, 07:10 PM
Hi Steve b now I know why he painted the Shriek :confused: :confused: :confused:

ChinaPete :p :D :D :D


P/gramax Like Like Like :cool: :cool: :cool:

PaperTree
08-13-2012, 12:42 AM
Well I am liking these tutorials and have done a little experimentation myself using your method "Steve B". I am pleased with the result so far, but need some more experimentation with it. I just wanted to say keep up the good work, I am learning a lot as you can see.
69450

chinapete
08-13-2012, 03:16 AM
... this might be a good time and place to explain a series of paintings I posted on this forum called "chalk washes" ... I was trying to avoid what might be called illustration techniques when line and color are combined (I had a different goal), and I experimented with ways to have the underdrawing to blend with the overpainting, and this it seems to me was easier to accomplish in digital than in real media ...

... if you can get past the rough sketch and poor anatomy, the two images are meant to show, in A, the chalk tool set to 1% and pressure less than 5% to draw in the outline and areas where the color of the future wash is indicated ... in B, Delicate on Dry washes have been set to 50%, and Paper Wet off, and you can see how the wash picks up the chalk color indications (single layer) ... The great thing is, unlike natural media, the chalk can be reapplied over the wash immediately and frequently, as for example in the darker shaded areas ...

Steve B
08-13-2012, 03:20 AM
Wow, there is some really great stuff coming along here! I've been viewing this all on my phone for the last few days, but hadn't really had the chance to sit down and LOOK at stuff till this morning. The things being produced are really good. I'm kind of curious what techniques you two are using from the videos-- knowing what is ending up being the most useful to others might help guide me in terms of what I'm showing.

pictogramax, I'm amazed that that's your first first post! LOL. What sort of art background do you have? I think there's too much control of form and shadow for there not to be. There's some great dry brush stuff in the garment the man is wearing, but the movement from warm yellows on the top of the head to the cooler green on the shoulder in shadow is very nice. The greens work on the fabric for me, because it makes me feel its pulling on the natural color of the material-- I'm unsure about the greens on the shadows of the face though. I'm surprised you didn't use more blue or umber there. Thoughts? Also, look to my new video on Blenders-- I think this might help you achieve more varied effects with your brush strokes, for example, in the beard or on the top of the head.

Papertree, the layering of colors is good on the cat too-- the eyes in particular are quite successful. Nice translucent colors blending together! I'm curious though about your Layer Textures and brush size. Your strokes, for example, on the little hairs, as well as at the bottom where you're doing a color fill, look relatively smooth (and small). I was actually wondering if there was a more... "watercolorery" way to achieve the look of the fuzzy hair? I feel like you're still using a pencil kind of technique with the watercolor tool, where perhaps something with rougher, larger, and drier brush strokes might get you a kind of "fuzzy hair" texture that would look more like natural media watercolors. Alternately, you could soften the edges of the form, and use two media instead (watercolors and pencils, for example). That's a nice technique too. Mostly, I feel like you're using the WC tool for the hairs the way you use the Pencil tool. I think that specific technique works marvelously for you with the Pencil, but I think you could leverage the WC tool to greater effect by doing something different. Just a thought. I'd love to see that experiment.

My next video is on the Blenders (I've finished it, and just need to upload it to YouTube and annotate it), and I think you all will find some very useful stuff in it-- I still think people aren't really using the Knife to as good effect as they could, and there's LOTS of really useful things to do with it. If you're interested at all in achieving some of the looks one gets with wet dispersal of pigment (on the rims, for softening or blending colors, etc), I think these are the tools you would need.

Steve B
08-13-2012, 03:33 AM
Chinapete,
Re: the kind of brush work you're looking for-- can you upload a pic of it? Your pic showing what Artrage can do is useful, but it sounds like it too is largely unsuccessful. I had a thread from last fall where we tried to work out certain effects for painting with india ink and brush. It's here in this thread (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?36909-Pen-settings-for-India-Ink-brush-work-and-textural-effects). If you scroll down to the bottom and the second page, there are some interesting opportunities to explore in terms of settings. I actually see, going over that thread, that I've had a misunderstanding about what the Pressure setting does for the watercolor brush as well.... What I now recognize is that a higher setting doesn't just increase the size of the tool, but actually increases the sensitivity of the brush, allowing a wider breadth of size within the same range of pen pressure. Essentially, with a higher Pressure setting, I can still achieve a very small stroke size with minimal pressure, but have a greater range of opportunity and can also create a larger sized brush stroke with greater pressure. That seemed to be some of what you were looking for.???

I'm not sure if that would provide what you're looking for, but I thought it might be a good place to start, and see what others have discussed-- the work being produced there seemed similar to what you were showing up above-- no rim, varied width of line weight, etc.

@ Tigermoth-
It's all good! :) I like what you're doing in the sky with the imported Texture Overlay. Also, the bit of glowing light (for lack of a better description) at the tip of the lance-- there's a nice bit of blooming going on there. Cool! I also like that you've really muted your background colors-- it reads easily as being distant. I saw you used a Sticker Spray by the way, which is cool! But watch out! Some of them (like yours) are meant to simulate other media, and therefore have height. I can see on your dots (particularly the ones above the knights head) that these have a shadow. I'll be going over some of the Sticker Sprays as well, in another upcoming video.

Re: textures and viewing size--
I think this actually is a really pertinent point you bring up, tigermoth. I think the final size of the image you intend for others to view your painting at is really critical. If you're only planning on having people view your image online, as as a relatively small thumbnail (3" x 4" or something), than I'm unconvinced you need tons of texture. Although I will say that I think those ambient Inner Textures and Rim Textures go a long way towards believability, even when seen at a distance. I think, however, if you're planning on having your images seen in a larger scale-- where someone might click it and open it full screen or where you hope to have it printed out or in a book-- then I think all the texture you can get is of value. Truthfully, if you're planning on having an image seen only at a small size, there are times where I actually think painting more gesturally and on a smaller canvas can help-- I think it helps you compose an image that is appropriate in terms of its detail, linework, and texture for how it is being viewed. Of course, I also have always loved those illustrations that have been shrunk down and just seem to have an amazing amount of detail in them-- old Beatrix Potter books and whatnot. What's your intended purpose for some of the images you're planning on painting?

Re: "Texture" and what I mean by the word-
I guess, in my mind, for the videos and what I've been aiming at, I see texture as 2 different things. I agree it's an ambiguous word, and so I try to add additional descriptors to help makes things more clear. I don't care to normally spend tons of time labeling things, but I think that here it's of real use to facilitate clearer, more helpful conversation. So, I see it like this--

1) Representational Texture/ Texture of the Object- to make the surface of things in a painting look like the surface of things in real life. This, to me, is the root of your point about the lemon nib. Or I think it is! LOL. I looked the lemon nib up and took a look-- nice gestural painting! This is where we want an image we paint, to whatever degree, to explore and/or represent the texture of the world we see-- clouds are soft, pebble beaches bumpy, plumes of grass wispy, etc. Whatever the case might be, or painting is having a conversation with the world. And we sort of transmute that as artists into something new on the canvas that might explore that texture, even if not perfectly representational.

2) Media Texture/ Texture of the Medium- This has been more my focus for the videos-- just getting things to look like we're actually painting with natural media watercolors. More the technique and less the expression, so to speak. So, #2 means (to me) things like creating effects such as tilting your board to wash color, or having a very dry brush that scrapes a canvas (what I call "rim texture"), or achieving those sorts of inner bits of visual grit where a pigment settles into the depressions of a paper, etc (what I call "ambient texture"), as well as all the other techniques I'm going over.

Although my videos touch on and are clearly guided by my personal opinions re: art and what makes a engaging image, I don't feel like my videos directly deal with telling you how to make an invigorating image (that's more the realm of Representational Texture, in my mind), but instead are more about how to give each of us a set of tools that get varied and interesting results that approximate the expressive textural potential of natural media watercolors.

pictogramax
08-13-2012, 04:28 AM
Thanks for the warm welcome:-)

Steve, I'm new here, but I draw professionally for more than 20 years. I'm a graphic designer by formation, but I worked more on illustrating, story-boarding and even animation (although that was long time ago). For over ten years or so I'm drawing comics for French publishers. Drawing is really my "forte"; I did very little painting or color work generally and especially since I work in France and all the coloring is handled by their studios.

But watercolors, being my love from childhood, always were lurking from the back of my head and recently somewhat re-sprung to life as I discovered drawing with fountain pens and washing the sketches over (I'm attaching a New Year's card I did for my blog as a sample of my real pen, brush and paper sketch)

As I always carry a tablet PC that I draw on in my backpack, I wanted to try something similar in ArtRage, but my version 2 would not let me:-) So I finally succumbed and bought version 3, even though I postponed the purchase several times because I was disappointed that the team decided to replace the bottom-navigation bar with a compass-like canvas positioner (which just takes far more space but is more restrictive, at least to me). For my BW work version 2 is quite sufficient, but for color stuff version 3 obviously rocks. Being able to fine tune the tools and save the preset is also a big plus, of course. I'm guessing I just need some additional time before I'll grow to love version 3 as much as I like version 2:-)

Concerning your suggestions on colors used in posted sketch, I see your point. But I just went for a limited palette, by the feel of it, being concerned more of exploring the possibilities of glazing and texturing than producing a quality image. I find I overdid the shadows on the face, using to many glazes resulting in somewhat gouache-like appearance. But I was into exploring glazing at the moment:-) I would like it to be more simple and more luminous in the future, but there's a lot more to learn:-) The image I posted is actually the fourth I did.

The very first AR watercolor I drew with ink pen on one layer and did all the painting on just one other layer. This was before I watched your videos, which is obvious by lacking of any textures:-)

Thanks again for your great videos. I'll be checking a new one later tonight.

Steve B
08-13-2012, 05:03 AM
Ok people I've got a new video up. It's kind of a two parter.

Video #5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m3CEKb9_Q4) is on using your Blenders or, as it's called in the interface, your Palette Knife. Hopefully, some useful stuff in there for you.

I also made a quick video #5b (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjgq_-rLn1Y). This goes over how to make custom Groups for your Presets. This is nice if you want to make something that only lists those presets you use for watercolors (or other media). It's just a nice way to organize things.

Hope these help. I've got more that'll roll out over the week I think-- something more on Layers and glazing techniques, as well as the Sticker Sprays and how I use them.

chinapete
08-13-2012, 07:26 AM
steve ... for instructional videos, taking the time now and then to define terms seems well worth the effort ... but beyond that, there are at least two other reasons to tease out with greater precision what you mean, first, the vocabulary is in transition and is proliferating, now there are hundreds of brushes, thousands of surfaces, millions of colors, no wonder digital and natural media artists often talk past each other, and as I've hinted at in other posts, what should be uncontroversial -- for example, the idea of an "original" work of art -- is up for redefinition ... second, there are 1.3 billion people in China who historically have had no vocabulary to describe how Western art is made, or how to look at it, and they will learn from your videos -- for my purposes, I have pretty much given up on AR or really any combination of digital tools as a means of reproducing what a basic Chinese brush can do easily and quickly ... the barriers are not so much technical, though these are considerable, as they are gestural, the Chinese aesthetic differs radically, in spirit and in execution ...

Steve B
08-13-2012, 09:33 AM
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought labels had to no value. That's not the case at all. Sometimes though, people get very caught up in labels and less in content, but I agree that a good system of reference is important to having a clear conversation. Not knowing what the h*ll each is talking about sure can stymie a healthy debate! :D

Re: chinese brush painting- I bow to your greater knowledge. I only suggested the link as it seemed you were bringing it up in your earlier post, with the example and all. I agree that some things are very intimately linked to the device that makes it. I've still not seen anything done digitally that I really thought compared to the kind of richly varied, bristly work you can get in some paintings, so I hear where you're coming from.

I have to say that I think it would be very interesting to hear about comparative notions of painting-- chinese vs. western. Is it technique (I would imagine there's a dramatic difference) or more the intent of the art (I'm sure that's there as well)? You make reference to a large body of knowledge, but the truth is I guess I don't know much about it. It would be interesting to have you say more about what you're thinking on that subject.

chinapete
08-13-2012, 10:35 AM
... well, you know, eighty+ likes this thread, and he doesn't want to hear me yakkin' away :) ... I don't have much more to say than what is is known generally about cultural differences, and you've got a lot of positive momentum going with your videos, I didn't mean to distract from that ... really looking forward to catching up with the latest! ....

eighty+
08-13-2012, 11:34 AM
Thanks. China. Me old mate. Yeah I love it wouldn't be so bad if Icould understand it

But brain. Tell's me it's. Too late ? To start. Now. So it look's. Like I've just got go on

Kicking the. Cat.Must be a Chinese cat. As he's started. To claw me back.......:D :D ;) :D :D :D

.........Slainte............Statte. Bbone..............Si...................Si........ ...............;) :cool: :cool: :cool:

pictogramax
08-13-2012, 11:49 AM
I really should be going to bed, but this is so much fun:-) I revisited the carnival of Venice, using the similar subject to compare what I managed to learn about textures and glazing from Steve:

Tigermoth
08-13-2012, 03:48 PM
@ Tigermoth-
It's all good! :) I like what you're doing in the sky with the imported Texture Overlay. Also, the bit of glowing light (for lack of a better description) at the tip of the lance-- there's a nice bit of blooming going on there. Cool! I also like that you've really muted your background colors-- it reads easily as being distant. I saw you used a Sticker Spray by the way, which is cool! But watch out! Some of them (like yours) are meant to simulate other media, and therefore have height. I can see on your dots (particularly the ones above the knights head) that these have a shadow. I'll be going over some of the Sticker Sprays as well, in another upcoming video.

Re: textures and viewing size--
I think this actually is a really pertinent point you bring up, tigermoth. I think the final size of the image you intend for others to view your painting at is really critical. If you're only planning on having people view your image online, as as a relatively small thumbnail (3" x 4" or something), than I'm unconvinced you need tons of texture. Although I will say that I think those ambient Inner Textures and Rim Textures go a long way towards believability, even when seen at a distance. I think, however, if you're planning on having your images seen in a larger scale-- where someone might click it and open it full screen or where you hope to have it printed out or in a book-- then I think all the texture you can get is of value. Truthfully, if you're planning on having an image seen only at a small size, there are times where I actually think painting more gesturally and on a smaller canvas can help-- I think it helps you compose an image that is appropriate in terms of its detail, linework, and texture for how it is being viewed. Of course, I also have always loved those illustrations that have been shrunk down and just seem to have an amazing amount of detail in them-- old Beatrix Potter books and whatnot. What's your intended purpose for some of the images you're planning on painting?


Yep I love Beatrix Potter too, of course!
I think maybe what I didn't clarify??? was that the dragon was an experiment; a lot of playing around - not intended to be really a 'finished' image. I posted it to show how much fun artrage can be and all the cool, neat textures you can get; and to say "hey, I had a great time testing out ideas from SteveB's videos!" The blog post I made on it was just to show different looks I got while playing around with the tool - while trying to break myself of old habits and being a lot more free.
As for size - yes, I'm not sure why my images would appear in 3x4 or as a thumbnail; I definitely see them larger than that on my screen and I'm on 1920x1080.. :/ Please do let me know which (blog post? here?) images are super-small to you? Much appreciated. ^_^

Oh! Thanks for warning me on the sticker spray - I had forgotten I was playing around with the sticker sprays - and actually thought I had removed that layer - it was just an afterthought playing around with some of the splashes and waves at the bottom.
But yeah, the purpose of the "texture" (for lack of a better term?) in my own stuff is simply visual interest - it's just part of what I do. Then again, I have learned from this thread that "texture" can mean different things to different people! We all "see" differently, in varying degrees. :) The purpose of my work? - well, I do some paintings that vary from small to around 11x17" or higher, depending; some are meant to be just paintings, some are for illustration purposes - ultimately, books, etc. Again.. thanks!
T


PS WOW!!!!!!!!! On many of the above posts!!! If I had more time I'd comment more but I've really got to get back to it. Well done all of you!!!!!! :)

PaperTree
08-13-2012, 11:15 PM
Papertree, the layering of colors is good on the cat too-- the eyes in particular are quite successful. Nice translucent colors blending together! I'm curious though about your Layer Textures and brush size. Your strokes, for example, on the little hairs, as well as at the bottom where you're doing a color fill, look relatively smooth (and small). I was actually wondering if there was a more... "watercolorery" way to achieve the look of the fuzzy hair? I feel like you're still using a pencil kind of technique with the watercolor tool, where perhaps something with rougher, larger, and drier brush strokes might get you a kind of "fuzzy hair" texture that would look more like natural media watercolors. Alternately, you could soften the edges of the form, and use two media instead (watercolors and pencils, for example). That's a nice technique too. Mostly, I feel like you're using the WC tool for the hairs the way you use the Pencil tool. I think that specific technique works marvelously for you with the Pencil, but I think you could leverage the WC tool to greater effect by doing something different. Just a thought. I'd love to see that experiment.

My word you are astute in your analytical curiosity. I love just this type of constructive analysis of my art. I was in fact using the "pencil kind of technique with the watercolor tool", but not until you mentioned it, that I realised it. I suppose old habits are hard to break when you get down to having a bit of fun. I was trying to follow your method in the sense of the layer settings, but then the painting part, all your teaching went to the wall. It was a quick studdy, on my part, like a sketch, and I will most likely now take on board your suggestions and have a go. Thanks for the advice and the encouragement to experiment a little more. Yay! another video has just been uploaded.

maddog
08-15-2012, 05:05 AM
Steve B, thank you so much for your videos at youtube. One of my favorite standard/digital artists shares a lot of his techniques at his blog, http://nathanfowkes-sketch.blogspot.com/ He teaches at an L.A. trade school and works in the animation industry as well, so he is a working artist worth learning from for me. Love your watercolor thread here, but it's going to take me a long time to read through it all and watch all the related videos. Great resource, looking forward to more. Cheers, Guy. :D

Steve B
08-15-2012, 05:31 AM
Hi maddog,
I'm glad the videos are proving helpful! That's what I make 'em for. I viewed the link you posted, btw. That guy is doing some great work! In particular, there are some wonderful black and white wet watercolor works that are really delicious. His retelling how he decided to roughly copy all the work from the book of an artist he loved is wonderful advice. I've done that for a few pieces, and learned some invaluable stuff.

I also find that copying the work of others with your digital watercolors helps you better understand what you'd like to be achieving. Sometimes, with digital work, I find a lot of people (legitimately) just haven't really LOOKED at a watercolor piece with the kind of clinical eye needed to really see what pigment and water and canvas texture are doing. You know, they're looking at the painting and feeling it's vibe, so to speak. They're not thinking about how water moved this way or that, or how pigment built up here or there, or what bleed back really looks like, or how tonal values shift here and there, etc. Really looking at that kind of stuff happens pretty naturally though, when you start to try and duplicate a work digitally.

I actually have an image I did this with in the Fall last year. Hmmmmm..... I've been thinking there needs to be a few "supplementary video tutorials" to sort of fill in a few gaps here and there, besides the continuing of the normal sequence. Perhaps my new introductory video, where I go over some basic settings you need to prep before you get going with anything else, could also feature this sort of "mind set" advice, and this redrawn image I tried out....

Will work on that!

Steve

P.S. Here's the image. It was when I was working on duplicating this that I first figured out how to get some good dry brush results. I doubt I would have ever been pushed to get those results unless I had trying to learn from Wendy Artin. So, I won't bad mouth that process at all!! ;)
69516

Steve B
08-15-2012, 05:47 AM
@ papertree-- Ha! Well, I think learning to apply one thing at a time is a good way to learn. I just saw what you were up to, and thought I'd try to provide some helpful feedback instead of just a "rah rah!" kind of moment. :) I look forward to seeing what you're able to do as you try using the tool more. Report back!

@ chinapete-- I find this technique you're using/exploring with the chalk pretty interesting. If I might as a few questions--
- what sort of color are you applying with the watercolor tool? Or are you only spreading and blending the chalk color, because you're using the Watercolor tool as a 100% thinner?
- on a more esoteric level-- what's your purpose behind the process, instead of another? Was the intent to have the benefits of a line drawing without having a final piece that featured them? If so, why not just layers and hide the layer when done? My guess is that you had something more sophisticated in mind than that, and so I ask.
-I can see something like this would provide interesting grain texture results if the Chalk tool was used at a larger size and then grazed on the surface. Then you could decide where you wanted to take advantage of the dry textural artifacts of the Chalk tool in some spots, and then the Watery blended effects in another. Alternately, I can really see the interesting benefits of using Chalk on top of Watercolors. That's also very interesting, and not something I've done much of.

I don't want to run away with ideas for this technique though, before you've even had a chance to more fully reveal what you're doing and why. Do you have any finished images you could post in this thread that more fully demonstrate how one might use this?

maddog
08-15-2012, 06:36 AM
Hi maddog,
I'm glad the videos are proving helpful! That's what I make 'em for. I viewed the link you posted, btw. That guy is doing some great work! In particular, there are some wonderful black and white wet watercolor works that are really delicious. His retelling how he decided to roughly copy all the work from the book of an artist he loved is wonderful advice. I've done that for a few pieces, and learned some invaluable stuff.

I also find that copying the work of others with your digital watercolors helps you better understand what you'd like to be achieving. Sometimes, with digital work, I find a lot of people (legitimately) just haven't really LOOKED at a watercolor piece with the kind of clinical eye needed to really see what pigment and water and canvas texture are doing. You know, they're looking at the painting and feeling it's vibe, so to speak. They're not thinking about how water moved this way or that, or how pigment built up here or there, or what bleed back really looks like, or how tonal values shift here and there, etc. Really looking at that kind of stuff happens pretty naturally though, when you start to try and duplicate a work digitally.



I am a ravenous fan of the Wyeths and learned a trick from one of AW's watercolors where he would underpaint with an extremely vibrant yellow and after it dried, drybrush over it with a mud color. The result glowed. Imagine what he could do with ArtRage, if he had felt so inclined. BTW, your videos should be required viewing for newbies like myself. I had almost given up on working in digital art until I saw them. Artrage is so powerful, it's like giving a weekend mechanic the tools to tune a fighter jet and saying go have fun! :D

Steve B
08-15-2012, 07:07 AM
Hmmmmm.... that's a very interesting idea. I'll be trying out that technique. It falls right in line with my video on Layers and how to use them. I don't know why I haven't tried laying down a base of yellow yet-- I do it with natural media. As long as you make your paint either 1) transparent enough or 2) of a low chroma value, I could see that you'd get good effects.

I'll be making more video tutorials, so hold on to your hat!

I have to say, your experience with feeling that digital work was out of your reach is pretty common, and disappointing. :( That's part of why I made the tutorials. I wish there were more alternatives that could be easily found. Working digitally does give you a lot of control, but its not as if its THAT easy to get it to work for you. Pretty complex in truth. People take lessons in natural media-- it seems like the sort of thing you'd want to be able to do digitally as well.

eighty+
08-15-2012, 08:18 AM
hi Steve B tried to copy as you said for pratice so tried to copy one of P/Gramix just roughly as not worried about detail just wanted to try W/c ok

do you have to stick to the w/c brush or can u use the lot :confused::confused::confused: as when painting with w/c brush it seems to have a mind of its own :D:D:D

ok I'm gonna have bash at your nude for a laugh ......SLAINTE

Steve B
08-15-2012, 08:47 AM
Oh, I think you can use any tool you want. Though I think you'd need to do a lot more Blending after the fact to make them look "watery". Chinapete got some nice effects by laying down color first with the Chalk tool and then blending that out. I do think the Watercolor tool blends color nicely, and that it reacts nicely to Layer Textures though. So that's something to ponder. I'm not sure what kind of effects you're going after.

Re: copying-- although I think there's stuff to be gained by re-painting images you find here, my point was more that I think there's a lot to learn by re-painting an image made from natural media, that has all those little bits of blending and pigment and grit that we often forget about when working digitally, and yet which help the painting really feel "alive." So, my thought we be more to find a natural media watercolor image you really like, and try and repaint that one. Just a thought.

It's cool you're giving this a go, btw! I haven't really seen you give the Watercolor tool a go before. That's not bad stuff you're producing. :)

eighty+
08-15-2012, 09:21 AM
Thanks Steve effect's I haven't a clue I'll just keep trying as I'll know when I get there thats if the Reaper doesn't get me first :D SLAINTE

chinapete
08-15-2012, 10:01 AM
@ chinapete-- I find this technique you're using/exploring with the chalk pretty interesting. If I might as a few questions--
- what sort of color are you applying with the watercolor tool? Or are you only spreading and blending the chalk color, because you're using the Watercolor tool as a 100% thinner?
- on a more esoteric level-- what's your purpose behind the process, instead of another? Was the intent to have the benefits of a line drawing without having a final piece that featured them? If so, why not just layers and hide the layer when done? My guess is that you had something more sophisticated in mind than that, and so I ask.
-I can see something like this would provide interesting grain texture results if the Chalk tool was used at a larger size and then grazed on the surface. Then you could decide where you wanted to take advantage of the dry textural artifacts of the Chalk tool in some spots, and then the Watery blended effects in another. Alternately, I can really see the interesting benefits of using Chalk on top of Watercolors. That's also very interesting, and not something I've done much of.

I don't want to run away with ideas for this technique though, before you've even had a chance to more fully reveal what you're doing and why. Do you have any finished images you could post in this thread that more fully demonstrate how one might use this?[/QUOTE]


Hi steve,

The thread is looking great! ... recently I put up some notes on "chalk washes," but took them down because they seemed arbitrary -- now that you've asked specifically about them, I'll say a few words and hope they are in theme with your communal blog on watercolors ...

I set for myself the problem of how to integrate drawing (line) with water-based media (ink, but it could be watercolor), so that I could produce certain brushstrokes common in some forms of Chinese painting ... Turns out there are many single-stroke effects that I cannot do with existing digital tools, I began to think it might be interesting to build up the impression of a single brushstroke from many smaller strokes, and this led me to experiment with ways of blending the underdrawing (line) with washes ...

ps: I have just gotten the Adonit Jot Pressure Sensitive stylus, and am able to use it on the iPad, so far with mixed results, maybe I can report back on that soon, or others will share their experiences ... I envy you your Cintiq 18x :-)...

Anyway, in traditional Western-style watercolor, drawing (graphic line) is a preparatory step to a painting ... Line may show through to good effect, but usually it plays a subdued role, and serves more as scaffolding for great brushwork ... When line is prominent or featured, we tend to think of the finished work as illustration (as opposed to fine art), so Rackham and Potter are book illustrators (this is not to judge them as artists, but to define their space), while John Marin, when he suppresses line altogether, is thought to be an (abstract) painter ... With this in mind, it occurred to me that in digital art we have the best of both worlds, because the underdrawing (line) can be blended with the washes, and line can be modulated or even made to disappear, at will, and all this is made possible because, unlike real media, in digital there is no real difference between a pencil stroke and a watercolor wash...

So that was my thinking ... In my post on this thread of the flexed muscle, I showed hastily done cross-hatching in a single hue, but of course the idea is that the cross-hatching can be multi-colored and complex, and results when the wash is overlaid will be that much more blended and complex, yielding better results than repeated applications of wash might produce -- at least, that was my working theory ... Beyond that, all of your points about the technique are well taken, thank you ... I use ~100% thinner with base colors in the cross-hatching, and rely on the color sampler for the highest degree of harmony ... My purpose is limited to a specific effect I'm trying to achieve, but one that I hope later would have greater application ... I was challenging myself (irrationally, as your videos demonstrate) to work in a single layer, to map closely to real world experience ... And chalk on top of watercolor is a side benefit of working digitally, definitely ...

A few months ago, I was able to come close to what I envisioned to be Chinese inks using a "chalk wash" -- and as an example, I've attached here an image of a pomegranate I posted on the forum in June ....

chinapete
08-16-2012, 10:16 AM
steve, I think you are using a pressure sensitive stylus, so you may find this of interest:

I retested the four settings for On/Off Paper Wet and InstaDry, using a Delicate on Dry brush, watercolor on AR Watercolor paper ... the image on the left was done on the iPad with an Adonit Jot Touch Pressure Sensitive stylus, same settings as in the original image (on the right), which was done in AR Studio Pro with a Wacom Bamboo tablet ...

Not surprisingly, the pressure sensitive stylus on the iPad creates very different-looking brushstrokes, even though the settings are identical to those on AR Studio Pro, except for an increase in brush size on the iPad to accommodate different resolution ...

1. With Adonit, the brush does not seem to "hold" as much water, the stroke "dies out" quickly, perhaps as a function of pressure sensitivity -- I kept the pressure constant through the stroke, but obviously lifting off the page is registered as a (gradual) reduction in pressure, and with Paper Dry On, pressure set to 50%, the result is a truncated, rather dry looking, dot-riddled tail-end ...

2. With Paper Wet On, the Adonit brushstroke tapers off into an odd-looking (and for me unwanted) angular pattern ...

3. More dramatically, pressure sensitivity causes the stroke to pale more radically at the turn of the brush (fourth brushstroke in the image on the left, Paper Wet On and InstaDry Off), and creates a "ghost" image outline to the right of the basic stroke ...

4. The Adonit feels like a mechanical pencil, and not at all like a brush (compared with, say, a Nomad Brush), or a Wacom stylus (imperfect in its rather cigar-shaped design and hard nib) ... This tells me that I won't be using the Adonit much for brushwork ...

...btw, when pressure sensitivity is on, regular touch is minimized, and if you try to draw on the iPad screen with your finger nothing happens, or you get tiny dots and strokes, so first you must disable the pressure sensitive brush ... this inhibits workflow, I happen to be left-handed and I use my right hand to assist in design when I draw on the iPad ... also, on the iPad it isn't possible to listen to music when "detect stylus" in ArtRage is selected and ArtRage is active ...

eighty+
08-16-2012, 10:29 PM
Hi M ASTER I like yuh aster :D yeah I must admit I'm just lazy no cleaning up to do ok:cool::cool::cool:

Steve B
08-17-2012, 02:03 AM
How come you all are trying to imitate the real thing? Why not letting the digital “Watercolour” being what it is in it’s own respect? Why trying to fake it and trying to make your audience believe that it is a real watercolor pinting? Why being ashamed of using digital WC as digital tool? Why not letting it’s own uniqueness as tool speak for itself? Why not let the digital “watercolour” tool loose for it to express it’s own potential?



That's a interesting question to ask Aster. Natural media watercolors are a wonderful thing in their own right, or course. I love to do abstracts with them, and find it hard to replicate in Artrage, for example. Playing with water is fun!

However, the same could be said of Oils or the Pencil and Ink tools in Artrage, or the Airbrush tool as well though too, don't you think? Why do any of us here at these forums try to emulate anything that looks like their natural media cousins? Why not just do "digital pixel art"? Why aren't we just going and doing watercolors or oils or pencil or pen and ink work? I mean, it's pretty clear for all of them that they're not exactly like their real world cousins.

I'll admit that personally I think digital watercolors, as I think you are suggesting using them, are aesthetically uninteresting. They're visually and texturally flat, and often muddy with their colors. The truth is I don't feel like I'm doing much out of the normal with some of my suggestions-- bringing in textures is very digital, so is blending. Using Layers and blend modes is digital too. I don't know-- I mean no offense, but I'm having a hard time really seeing what you're thinking is "digital watercolors". Could you provide an example of a compelling piece done digitally that fits what you're thinking and doens't look "watercolory"? I would love to have that shared here. :)

Beyond that esoteric reason, I use digital watercolors instead of just painting with watercolors because
-I'm busy and have a 4 year old, and so can't set up stuff
-I want flexibility in my composition, and working digitally allows me to change things after the fact
-once you get the process down its not very hard at all to get interesting and realistic watercolor effects
-I think its fun to play with a program and see what I can get it to do!

Please share some images Aster that show what you're discussing. It would be nice to understand what you're meaning, and to see why you think those pieces are successful. :)

maddog
08-17-2012, 05:26 AM
I kinda see M. aster's point and would like to respond through an anecdote from my father who was grousing about some fake wood trim in a car, to which the owner told him it was real, real fake plastic wood. Not to wax eloquent, but all art is an artifice. A real master artist convinced me that there cannot be any rules in art and while he felt there were some real posers out there that could never make a living at their trade and therefor went into teaching what they did not know, ultimately the real test of any 'art' was whether someone paid for it. My 2 cents with 1 cent back. :D Sorry to digress, let's get back to more training!

Steve B
08-17-2012, 05:39 AM
Oh, I agree with that in large part-- though I might disagree that it's the market place that has anything to do with judging the artistic "value" of a painting. Beyond that, I agree.

All art is artifice, and that goes both ways. Natural media art is no more "real" than digital art. That's partly why I don't call it "real watercolors" or "watercolors in the real world". It's all the real world.

I'm not against using digital tools to do magic digital things- like mixing media in ways you wouldn't normally be able to do. Look at my self-portrait 2 or 3 pages back. I suppose it's "watercolory", but the truth is that it does all sorts of things we can't really do with natural media watercolors. It's just play.

But I do think interesting art tends to have a feeling of texture and grit to it. There's a lot to be said for the value of seeing two things interact, like a mark-making tool (a pencil, a brush, a crayon) and a surface. As chinapete so astutely observed the other day-- bringing texture and visual grit into your art is interesting to many of us because that technique is reflective of the fact that the world is full of subtly and texture. I like natural media watercolors because I like how aggressively it interacts with paper grain, how the pigment moves and bends to the will of water, how translucent the layers of color are, how you see through it, how soft and ambient a visual can be.

Those are all aesthetic choices that I bring to digital watercolors because they happen to please me regardless of the medium. I don't think it has as much to do with "replicating" natural media watercolors (although much of this thread is couched in that language to help focus conversation), as it does with general aesthetic choices. I'm not really interested in only a "fidelity" to natural media watercolors, like it's a kind of dogma, where, for example, you wouldn't be allowed to do certain things because you couldn't do them with natural media. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in interesting art. These are just techniques, IMO, to achieve some of those results.

If I'm accused (haha!) of using texture in an interesting way that's reflective of how I see the world, and of laying down my color in a translucent layered manner, than I'm guilty as charged!! ;)

.... Ha! Did I just make my Digital Watercolors Manifesto? ;)

maddog
08-17-2012, 07:05 AM
Oh, I agree with that in large part-- though I might disagree that it's the market place that has anything to do with judging the artistic "value" of a painting. Beyond that, I agree.



I hope I stayed away from broaching 'value' in my post. That's dangerously close to philosophy or religion. Upon some further reflection though, I thought of the Lascaux cave paintings and aboriginal 'art' that was not created for a market per se, but had an entirely different 'purpose'. It's all good, as they say. Perhaps that can be a subject of another video, using some cave art as a texture or mask. I'm working on a cartoon where 2 cavemen are studying their cave painting and one says to the other "I don't know, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi...." :D

chinapete
08-18-2012, 02:33 AM
@ maddog: hahahaha, so your "real" master would have judged van Gogh a poser, who sold nothing, and was kicked out of art school because his every brushstroke challenged the worldview of his academically trained teachers ... btw, your "je ne sais quoi" has already been done, see The New Yorker ...


@"master": 死木疙瘩脑袋要开窍!


@steve b: I've attached a quick study that combines a few ideas I gleaned from your videos for more expressive brushwork, and a chalk wash, a technique that is meant to add texture --

eighty+
08-18-2012, 02:44 AM
He He He Pete Your looking cool Man R O M :D:D:D





































r

D Akey
08-18-2012, 02:56 AM
Yeah China Pete. You got game, dude. Very nice sketch.

maddog
08-18-2012, 03:12 AM
btw, your "je ne sais quoi" has already been done, see The New Yorker ...

-

My buddy thought a better punchline would be 'I just don't think it's primitive enough.' He also has a quick deflating line about ANY creative idea, "It's been done."
Good point about Vinnie Van Gogh. What a kidder. :o

Steve B
08-18-2012, 04:55 AM
On the note of what's real--
I can only say that painting with light on a computer is pretty real. It's made of real photons and real electrons. I push the pixels around on a real screen with a real plastic bezel and real glass face that I can really touch. It has real electric parts inside of it, and I use a real electromagnetic pen and real electricity to run it. Heck, I can even print it on a real printer onto a real piece of 140 lb watercolor paper and frame it in a real frame and hang it on a real wall. I could even eat it if I wanted to.

The difference is largely about the process, IMO. Natural media watercolors use water and pigment that relate directly to gravity and evaporation, and the medium has a tactile sensory element to it that is very pleasing to experience. I don't disagree on that point at all. I, too, enjoy natural media watercolors.

Aster, I appreciate your input, but you didn't respond to any of the points I made in my last post. That's frustrating. I agree that natural media watercolors and digital watercolors are not the same thing, and I said as much in that post. I even mentioned that there are things each medium can do that the other can't. I completely agree-- there are wet washes that are very hard to replicate digital, just like there are mixed media results that are near impossible to get with natural media. I mentioned all the functional techniques one could use when doing digital watercolors, and why I liked them aesthetically, independent of the medium (natural media or digital). I also mentioned that all digital art mediums are not the "real" thing-- and that that goes for oils and pencils and charcoal, etc. Why do any of us use any tools that are digital that vaguely relates to their natural media cousins? But you didn't respond to anything I said, all of which I thought were valid, well-thought out points.

I'd love (in truth, honestly) to see a few examples of what you think are evocative pieces done in digital watercolors that meet the basic precepts you're speaking of, and that don't try to "fake" being natural media. For all I know, we agree on what makes a nice piece and are debating a moot point, right? As it is, though, its pretty esoteric, because you haven't given any concrete examples for me to relate to, so I don't really know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I do, however, think the natural media piece you posted is beautiful.

Steve B
08-18-2012, 05:35 AM
I should say, of course, that this is all in good fun. I mean, we are talking about the esoteric comparative benefits and applications of digital versus natural media watercolors. It's not world hunger or abortion. So I think we can do it civilly, eh? ;) haha!

chinapete
08-18-2012, 07:17 AM
maddog, my bad, steve's right ... I think your friend is on to something ... hope you will share how you render the "primitive" in the drawing the cave people are looking at ...

m aster, the chinese says, more or less, don't think too rigidly (about the digital and traditional -- for lack of a better word -- ways of doing art) ...

hey eighty+ and d akey, if you like that little man, all the credit goes to steve, for his loose energetic style and all the great effects he's been sharing in the videos and on this thread ...

Steve B
08-18-2012, 07:47 AM
Now, what am I right about in re: to maddog??? LOL. !!! All this referential talk is starting to confuse me. :)

I like the sketch you did chinapete-- you're putting down the chalk first and then bringing in the thinners, right? Do you feel like what this is offering you has more to do with the process you're using (sketch tone and form first--> blend with thinners and wash away pencil work), or more to do with the result in some way (that this process is giving you different end products)? I'm trying to think about how I might apply this.

I like what you're doing, but I'm trying to figure out if I could be doing it without the chalk, see? I can definitely see the chalk on top. That's clear functionally to me, and very interesting too in terms of how the canvas texture could be showing through on the chalk. I could see a tandem between these two tools being a nice way to bring tone and real tasty grit in to a sketch quickly-- something that can sometimes be laborious with a watercolor process alone, but which comes easy to the Chalk tool. But I'm curious to hear about your opinions on laying the chalk down first, and why you do it-- process oriented choice? or more about effect?

I also like, btw, the pomegranate you showed. That's very nice. What is it about it that's most appealing to you that seemed "special"? You brought it in to talk about the chalk and thinners process, so I figure you must have some thoughts on what you were able to achieve in that pic using the process you used, instead of other less-experimental process. If you have the chance to post a pic of the kind of Chinese media effects you were looking to achieve (I know I know, I keep coming back to that.... but I find it interesting...), that would also be interesting.

******

BTW, I've been very busy the last few days and haven't been able to make a video since last weekend. I'm planning on making 1 or 2 this weekend. I think I've got my fancy Artrage Pen Only Toolbar to a stage where I can demo it's functionality in a video too. I would think it would be very useful to anyone using Artrage that would like to a keyboard less or have more screen real estate in general.

Mick CrocKode
08-18-2012, 08:30 AM
First time I have seen that painting in an exhibition in Paris, I didn't know what to think... beside of a lot
of nice paintings I saw that "not normal" one:

69596 (do a search of "Magritte" => wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images)

Was the title of the label on the wrong place? NO! The same sentence was written directly on the canvas
and this canvas was on the wright place.
Am I the only guy who is as stupid to not anderstand the hidden sens of this sentence? of this picture?
Yes, because no one seemed to be as questionning as I was.
If it's not a pipe, so what is it? A french horn? A spoon? What else?
Could be ART... because I am in an exhibition. Visual art... and the painter is well known! He is a serious painter!
(I payed an entrance to see his work). And he painted "that". Is he dyslexic?
Is he Joking and playing with us, the viewers? (was some one looking at my trouble with a hidden camera?)
I thought that something was wrong in this exhibition place; Everyone is looking at this masterpiece with expert eyes... but not
me. So, I went away, asking no question to no one, and I still stayed with no answer for years. Frustrated! Realy!

Hope I anderstand it today! The only thing I can guess now (with that pipe in my mind), is that "Art" is a representation of reality,
it is not important if the material is real, if made of stone, wood, plastic, painting or what ever you like.
It is just a representation of the reality, not the reality at all.

So if Art, and specialy visual art, is not the reality... why should watercolour (vs digital painting) be real wc, if the reality of art is not real?
If the depicted subject has no reality... why should I, the viewer, take importance to the fact that the media or the material used to create it, is real or artificial?
The only thing that is important is the message that is carried by the painting.

Think that Magritte had the same discussion in the past then "M. Aster" and "Steve B". All in All, it's an interesting subject.

chinapete
08-18-2012, 11:11 AM
“what you see is what you see”

(Magritte revisité par Foucault)

eighty+
08-18-2012, 11:48 AM
Yeah. Pete. As. Long as the light is on:D:D:D

Steve B
08-18-2012, 12:01 PM
Lol. I like your style 80. ;)

chinapete
08-18-2012, 01:45 PM
... this iPhone sketch has an oil base, but mainly is done with w/c overlays, I post it to show some effects steve highlighted in his video on blenders, especially hard smudge to round the apple, unshape the leaves, and fade the branch ... w/c and blending in AR Studio Pro ...

Steve B
08-19-2012, 01:54 AM
That's a nice piece M. Aster-- I like the line work in particular, very spare and direct in choice but with a nice bit of wobble. Thank you for sharing it. It helps clear things up! :)

I agree that its definitely something that feels somewhat like watercolors, though a bit digital, as you suggested, and that it happens to be something you can do in Artrage with that tool. Truthfully, it reminds me a lot of a cell painting for animation, and I mean that as a compliment. Of course, you have more blending going on than a normal cell painting, but your use of blocks of color and a simple, small range of tones and hues reminds me of that approach. I particularly appreciate that you posted the Settings panel wity it as well. I think for others who are interested in achieving results like yours, your post will be very helpful. :)

If you have the opportunity or desire to respond to any of the various points I've made, I think it would be interesting to hear your opinions, as they seem different from mine. Of course, I understand if you're just interested in sharing your technique. Time is of the essence.

Steve B
08-19-2012, 07:40 AM
I'm going to go over this more later on, probably in the General Chat forum, but for now, the video is up on Youtube here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEmKok_70ag). I go over everything the toolbar I've been building can do. I've been the concept designer for the interface as well as the bug hunter, but I've been really impressed with my teammate, Luc, who's been the programmer-- there's stuff I didn't think we'd be able to do, and he figured it out. So, I often feel lucky to be using this myself. So, not to toot my own horn too much, but personally I think this toolbar is fantastic, and I'm really excited to share it with everyone!

I hope others will end up finding this as helpful as I do. I don't use Artrage anymore without using this setup. Literally. It just offers too much for me in terms of how I wish the interface was.

Docsmith626
08-19-2012, 09:37 AM
OOOOOH! I want that for my Eeeslate. I suspect the Rage team will be wanting to add it to their store. :D

chinapete
08-20-2012, 02:59 AM
steve ... congratulations! ... admire your vision and your ability to execute ... (I'm sure similar notes were written in the past to your namesake, a famous personality in visionary technology :))

Steve B
08-20-2012, 04:00 AM
Yeah! I hope its something that others will also find useful, or dare I say..... essential in their Artrage work flow. !!! I built this tool because I wanted to work a certain way in Artrage, but I think it would only be useful to others as well. I __really__ like working with it, and as I say in the video, I don't use Artrage much anymore without booting up this little baby as well. I love being able to Resize and Zoom on the fly. I like being to really use the Clear Canvas mode better. And I love the Hover Icons and how functional they've made things for me. So, mostly as a fanboy... I'm really interested in seeing how this helps other people out. I'm hoping a week or two and we'll be rolling. When the time comes, I'll post here, of course, but I'll also make a more substantial thread with general info, etc.

I really want to just sit down and do some drawing soon. I'd like to try out the Chalk and Thinners method you've been showing here. If you get the chance to respond to my question about process vs. results, that'd be helpful to understand. And interesting besides.

Thanks for watching the video!

chinapete
08-20-2012, 05:55 AM
... the vision is in Clear Canvas, and the power is in ease of workflow ...

... a blank canvas is a terrifying thing ... so we embrace clutter, more tools, more surfaces, more colors all at once and right at hand, we are anxious to fill up the space before we've laid down a single brushstroke ...

... your design invokes the principle of less is more, and is a giant step toward the seamless integration of work and vision, with greater emphasis on vision (deviantart boasts 230 million images, so execution isn't a problem) ...

... a paradox of digital art is that it enables faster execution of an idea but threatens to diminish our feel for things in the world ... revisioned in art ...

edit: forgot to mention the chalk wash you've asked about ... so here's a detail from an image I posted earlier this year on this forum ... the idea was to create a single-stroke classical Chinese landscape mountain that moves in gradation from deep black (ink) to a delicate wash ... after much experimentation (read: frustration), I finally hit upon a thin 1% chalk underdrawing, which I then washed over to produce this effect ... so the advantages of a chalk underdrawing for what I'm trying to do are twofold, thicker body paint that can be washed out into natural-looking gradations, and less work to achieve what I want ... admittedly, as I've said, this technique is inefficient and limited to what I'm trying to do, I only point to it because you asked :-)

Steve B
08-20-2012, 06:43 PM
That's a very cool thing you've got going there. I presumed it was the natural media example you were trying to meet, until you told me otherwise, so it's nice and tasty. :)

Before I got to bed-- a new video is up here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTNT2WowxGc). This ones on how to make Layer Masks, and how to use them for Glazing effects. It's not super sexy, but it can be quite useful for certain pieces. Coming up next will be a video on Sticker Sprays, which can do some very awesome things if done right. I'll be going over the ones I use most, a trick or two I use with the Spray Variations chart, as well as how to make a new Preset that saves your new choices. I think it'll be particularly useful.

maddog
08-21-2012, 05:47 AM
Great job Steve! Will the new toolbar work ok with Studio? I have to upgrade to Studio Pro still. Went to see my aunt's watercolor show this weekend and it made me realize that a lot of what I like about 'real' watercolors are all the 'happy accidents' one gets from the uncontrolled bleeds (that are too controlled or seem forced in digital media). That may create a more visceral reaction from the public plus the knowledge that a lot of unsuccessful work probably got thrown out along the way. The other question I had was in regards to how digital watercolors look when printed. A lot of traditional watercolors glow from the white paper bouncing light back off back through the pigments and one sees that on a monitor, but I haven't seen digital watercolor art printed yet, so am curious what artists here think. Is it better, worse, nada? I am posting a watercolor I did years ago from a famous photo. I really want to be able to work in both traditional and digital medias and that new toolbar (plus a Cintiq) is really going to help. Huzzah! :D

Steve B
08-21-2012, 07:09 AM
Those are some really interesting observations, maddog. I, too, like the translucent quality watercolors have on a paper, how the light pushes through it and back to us, etc. I also agree that those "happy accidents" are one of the great pleasures of natural media watercolors-- both as a painter and a viewer. I like working with water and pigment and gravity. They do really fun things together!

There have been a few threads around here that have talked a lot about "real" painting vs. digital painting, public perception of the two, and the fact that many people find having the object of a painting important (or atleast knowing there's an original)-- I think that has a lot to do with the fact that viewers of art like knowing an artist had to "duke it out" with the medium, so to speak, right? There's no undo button. Crappy versions were thrown away, etc. as you pointed out. Those happy accidents that we love so much are one of the indicators that deals directly with the artist's process in making an object.

A lot of the focus of my video tutorials so far has been about how to attain some control over the Watercolor Tool in Artrage, how to get effects you might like, understanding how to manipulate the Settings and Presets and Layers, etc. The next few lessons should be more about how to sort of "let go" and try to play what you've got digitally, now that you've got some control. The Sticker Sprays can provide some really interesting opportunities for this, as does the use of Blend Modes, and finally as does the use of Stencils (as detailed in some of the wonderful video tutorials with Jon Hodgson that I've linked to earlier in this thread). So, I think there's room for play, even digitally-- an important part of any creative process that I think comes through to a viewer when they see the final product.

I will say, however, that I think you can already get some really interesting "happy accidents" by using, for example, things like Lock Transparency in combination with Blenders set to a very large size. Digital parameters begin to unexpectedly bounce around in those kind of confined spaces, and can create some really neat effects. Same thing goes for doing things like using interesting Layer Textures and pushing the toggles to high percentages.

I mean, happy accidents are all about 2 objects meeting and creating effects, right? Canvas and pigment, water and gravity, etc. And the truth is that those happy accidents are really called into play by the water color artist-- they could have easily kept things very dry and controlled, but instead have deliberately chosen to paint wet and see how things work out. IMO, an experienced watercolorist knows (approximately) what's going to happen when they load their brush with a ton of pigment or lay a ton of water on a canvas, tilt their canvas, or charge a partially dry area with new pigment. They're doing it on purpose to introduce chance and play with water. We can do that digitally too, and deliberately bring Chance or Chaos into play, using things like the Watercolor Brush and Layer Texture, Lock Transparency and Blender, etc. We just play with digital water! :)

edit- I also like that painting! You did that yourself? It's some good control.

Steve B
08-21-2012, 07:41 AM
I happen to be home right now, and so took a few pics of some of the digital watercolor paintings that I've printed out. They're below in this post. It's hard to say. I easily think they look as good as any normal reproduction of an original natural media watercolor that's been printed. That's clear. There's no real difference between digital and natural media in terms of how they're being printed, so on that level there's not much difference. Looking at some of my natural media watercolors that I've got around in the flesh, .....it's also hard to say. The difference.....

I've never really tried, say, scanning an original and then reprinting it on watercolor paper, and then comparing the two. That would be an informative experiment. I'll admit that even though I love natural media watercolors, I'm unconvinced they somehow express color "better" than their digital printed counterparts, if you do it with a good printer and on actual watercolor paper (I use 140 lb in my printer). I think that natural media watercolors have a far wider range of color gamut available to them, compared to the printers we have available. So that's an issue if you're painting very vibrantly. Of course, that's an issue all the time if you want to see your work published or reprinted or copied in any way.

I'm sure there's a difference between the two, but it's not been so much that I've been struck by it. I typically paint with muted hues anyways when doing "illustrative" work, so that may be affecting my opinion. I think you can clearly get certain effects when painting with natural media that I've just never seen done convincingly with digital tools (mostly stuff to do with water, dispersment, tilting, etc-- real gorgeous wet abstract stuff, such as what M.Aster posted a page or two ago), but I'm not convinced that the use of color, as it's commonly used by most people, is one of the major differences. That's my two cents anyways. You definitely need at least a nice printer though, and some real watercolor paper to compare.

6965769658

maddog
08-21-2012, 08:12 AM
Thanks Steve, you can see how I love Wyeth from the painting's subject and process. I will post something from Artrage when I can accomplish something similarly worthwhile, too. I totally agree with your response and feel I just need to learn the tweaks of the software to get the effects I want. Your instructional videos are a tremendous help for that! 3 cheers for them! I wish there were a series as comprehensive and insightful, (yet simple) for all the other media AR has.

Also, I do think there is a 'correct' market for specifically digital art that doesn't need to try to displace or compete with traditionally painted work and that would be in animation, illustration and posters. I originally got excited about Artrage to create 'vintage' looking travel posters. There is no way that commercial work should be done as a fine painting, even though they require the same skills. A quick test for me between digital and 'fine' art is to think whether a museum featuring say, Old Masters would ever buy a digital work, no matter how finely executed. I don't even know if MOMAs like digitally created work. Digital art really seems to have its place with the masses, which is a fully legitimate market, to me. One may be miffed that one is not acknowledged as the true genius one thinks one is, but hopefully one will be crying all the way to the bank. Besides, look at all the fine photography that should have 'killed' fine art. Are artists and the public poorer for that indiscretion? Digital will settle into its rightful place in the historical context.

Oh and chinapete , maybe the caveman muralist says to his friend, "Waddaya mean? My kid DID do that". (Still working on the cartoon.) :)

chinapete
08-21-2012, 01:53 PM
hi maddog, you know, the New Yorker has a famous competition, a cartoon is published without a caption, and readers are asked to send in their own ... If you are drawing two cavemen looking at a painting that one has just completed, my entry would be:

"I like it. It's very Neo-Bison" :):)

chinapete
08-22-2012, 03:04 AM
steve

... "Layers" is another great effort in the series, thank you ... you know, the style of painting I practice is called "xieyi," which basically is done without preparatory line drawing ... I'd really like to see your finished Orchids with the line drawing suppressed ... I know you encourage escaping line when possible, since this enlivens the image and does appear more "painterly" and less like commercial work (as I think maddog was hinting at in his distinction between fine art and other types of artwork) ... ... in the two w/c's you posted to illustrate a point for maddog, the one with the roosters or chickens got my attention, there is a moment (lower middle left) when there is no line at all, just the brushstroke ... freedom in brushwork always is my goal, and I think it must be high on your list too ...

... we iPad users don't have the benefit of selecting layer contents, and I wonder whether you have any further thoughts on masking without selecting layer contents? ... to my mind, a layer by default is a glaze and can be a mask depending on whether and how it is made visible ...

... your treatment of glazing I'm sure will get a lot of folks interested in layers and in the possibilities for increasing light while retaining texture in their digital works ... I've attached a detail of a w/c I posted earlier this year on this forum, done on the iPad in two layers ... having watched your Layers vid, I may return to it on the iPad or in AR Studio Pro, to see what other effects I can get ...

maddog
08-22-2012, 03:36 AM
Checked out your gallery. Stunning! Can you please post some instructional steps on how you accomplish those incredible bleeds?
fyi, This is where I want to head with Artrage for commercial purposes http://tinyurl.com/c2w6pvt.

chinapete
08-22-2012, 05:46 AM
maddog, very impressive site! ... my first thought was ... Tintin! ... but a quick search didn't surface any vintage posters ...

re: bleeds, you know, my post and pic were craftily designed to stimulate steve to talk more about that very subject :D ...

maddog
08-22-2012, 09:38 AM
Chinapete, I guess my idea of vintage is the 1950s +/-! Also found this very helpful thread re: bleeds, http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?39300-wet-on-wet-watercolor-effect Could use a video of the process too. Oh and am reading about a real life Tintin that was involved with controlling ebola and AIDs in Africa. Cheers. :)

Steve B
08-22-2012, 01:00 PM
That's strange and serendipitous-- I'm making a video on sticker sprays that covers just that technique and brush. Will share later on. :)

chinapete
08-22-2012, 02:06 PM
hi steve, I know you're busy making a new video -- really looking forward to it -- but I wanted to add something to the discussion on Layers ... there I said that as iPad users we don't have the benefit of Select Layer Content ... I should have added that in certain Blend modes in ArtRage it is possible to achieve masking -- possibly this is generally known, but I repeat it here because in your Layers video you (rightly) point to Multiply as the best of the blend modes ...

I often use the Overlay blend mode because it sits exactly between light and dark, it imitates Screen mode by lightening light pixels, and it imitates Multiply by darkening dark pixels ... I hadn't really thought of it as a Mask, because I don't have much need for that function, I just like it because it's additive and subtractive simultaneously, and I kind of work that way ...

Anyway, if you have a base image on a white background and apply a (colored) wash in Overlay mode, nothing will appear outside of the borders of the base image, and color in the base image will be darkened as in Multiply, and so a kind of limited purpose Mask is created ...

I've attached two images, one is the base form to be masked, with three washes put to sleep (so only the base color shows), and the second is the final step showing the three overlays that have been applied and awakened, without any change in the underlying form ... Of course, this isn't as powerful a Mask function as yours is in AR Pro, but it is a workaround for me as an iPad user ...

Steve B
08-22-2012, 03:37 PM
So the top 3 layers are set to Overlay, but you're applying paint to them instead of making a layer texture and hiding them? Ohhhhh, I wanna try that. The result looks tasty.

I want to do another Layers video, more extensively covering Blend Modes next, after sticker sprays. These are the sorts of effects I'd like to explore. I'm also testing out using Dodge and Burn techniques in conjunction with sticker sprays to create textures erasures and lifting (like with a tissue). Blend modes are quite powerful and useful.

chinapete
08-22-2012, 03:41 PM
... it's late here and I'm losing altitude ... but from what I understand, Overlay affects the inactive layers below it ... and so controlling the colors you want as opposed to the ones you get can be an interesting exercise in unintended consequences, but that's another definition for art, isn't it? ... :-)

Steve B
08-22-2012, 04:15 PM
I like the idea of doing the orchids without pencil work, but I'm not necessarily convinced the current version works right without them. ?? The image was really built around having the pencils do the tough work of building form for these very pale petals. Still, I like some of the soft washes of color which take a greater visual presence now, and how the petals sort of bleed together in terms of form, but I think other images that I've painted, without any pencils at all from the beginning, have been more successful in terms of how they work without pencils. I've uploaded these before, but for easy reference, here are two examples made that way before.

I'm pooping out as well. It's been a few late nights in a row. I'll check back in later. Ciao.

PaperTree
08-22-2012, 07:11 PM
I like the idea of doing the orchids without pencil work, but I'm not necessarily convinced the current version works right without them. ??

Steve, you have been too close to your work. Seeing it in isolation without the other comparison, it really does work without the pencil marks especially with the blue background framing the Orchid now.

I had an idea. If you are still very worried about the pencil marks needing to have a hint for the detailed shaping especially in the centre of the flower where there is not much contrast, why not show the pencil layer but with the opacity turned down, and rub out some of the pencil lines where it is not necessary, for instance where there are distinct colour differences. Sometimes in "real life" it is not so easy to rub out the pencil in places or you may rub out the paint with it, so the pencil line is gradually faded out but still visible on closer inspection, so it would not be unusual to see some lines here or there, for amateur work at least. It all depends what illusion you are going for, at the end of the day.

chinapete
08-23-2012, 01:20 AM
m aster, if I take a shortcut through your detailed answers to steve, I find you are arguing with yourself, and not with him, or me, or anyone else on this forum who may believe that non-digital art is a standard towards which digital art should (or at least can) aim ... it is difficult to accept that the person who painted "the real thing" on natural media (which, ironically, is seen here in digital), also produced the cartoony parodies you say are representative of digital art ...

... the ultimate irony is in the visual ... "the real thing" is an example of non-representational art, so there we must see it as an abstraction of something that once existed in the real world, while the digital cartoons are based in realism, distorted for comic effect ...


papertree, I asked steve to show his orchids without line because I wanted to focus his attention on the role of line in relation to edges and blending and brushwork and he has said he is heading in that direction ... all that you say about "pencil lines ... still visible" is a confirmation of what I've been trying to show with my "chalk washes," so thank you for that, although I'm not sure what you mean by "amateur" work in relation to visible line ... simply put, line in digital can be modulated with greater ease, and this must bring relief and joy to those who have a heavy hand but want to produce a delicate watercolor ...

Steve B
08-23-2012, 02:03 AM
M. Aster- thank you for responding and posting the tutorial. I saw that in another thread in Tips and Tricks. I also really like a lot of the art you linked to. There's some really great stuff! What I find most interesting is that the art that you did in one of the links is the one that looks the most "real"-- it's got lots of grunge and visual grit. The image at the bottom in particular, with the smoke stack going up out of the image, is very "watercolory" and has lots of ambient mood. Frankly, they're all wonderful images. I love them.

Alternately, I have to say that whats so strange is that the natural media images you shared look no more "special" or "real" to me than some of the images we're posting here.....??? There is some wonderful abstract work done with salt in the "Behance network" link-- that looks like natural media to me, and I really like it. I now know you never like abstract watercolor work, but I do, and that's a reason for doing natural media for me-- it does something that digital watercolors can't do. It seems like you are suggesting that we shouldn't be interested in doing natural media effects, because we could do them with "real" watercolors, but I think the truth should be just the opposite-- why should you be doing natural media to get effects that you can just as easily get digitally, and have more control and flexibility with?

I use a tablet pc with a bright outdoor-viewable screen. I can paint just about wherever I want. I don't have to set up paints or have an easel. I don't have to stretch or wet my paper, and I don't have to clean up. I sketch on the same space I paint and can build my image as I go, removing it later. I can come back later and delete an object. I can shift the position or color of a layer without repainting. I can save it in iterations and go back to an earlier step. It seems so obvious to me why anyone would paint digitally instead of just painting with natural media. I paint specifically in a watercolor style even when I paint digitally, as you yourself do, because its part of the shared artistic vernacular-- people understand the effects and how to read the image. I like the aesthetic.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you're "ok" with the images you're sharing, but seem to disagree with the sort of work we're discussing here. It all seems the same to me. ?? In truth, all of the images you have shared that are done digitally have all kinds of watercolor aspects to them-- you're layering translucent color, you're blending out some edges, you're using some layer texture. How is this different than what we've been discussing? To the untrained eye, frankly, I can assure you that the work you are presenting looks just as much "real" as the images I've been posting. I see no real difference except that the images you've shared are done in a cartoon style, and the current images I've posted are not. I think you could be getting almost the same effects you're getting in Artrage with natural media, and, as you suggest, perhaps it would be faster and easier to do them there with the "real" stuff. No need to even scan your image in!

Perhaps the real question I should be asking is why do you paint digitally in a watercolor style? Then you might be able to better illuminate what's different about the images you are posting, as they seem very much in the same vein as what we're currently doing-- the process of which you yourself seem to be arguing against, even as you use it.

Perhaps there are some specific things we're doing that you're arguing against or don't understand the motivation for? Can you be clearer and more specific? I don't think it's the use of layers of translucent color, or blending for water-like effects, or the use of a canvas texture that your paint interacts with, nor the use of "visual grit" in a Texture Overlay.... as those are things you yourself are doing. Our styles are different, but our techniques are the same. IMO, both of our images look just as "real". Neither looks particularly "digital" to me. Perhaps you can see the reason for my confusion?

Strangely, I feel like we're arguing this point to no purpose, because we're all actually agreeing. I mean, your work looks like our work. I don't see the difference. ???

Steve B
08-23-2012, 02:48 AM
Alternately, I just wanted to share a natural media watercolor image I did last month. This image teeters on the edge of abstract, but it really does something that I don't think digital watercolors can do, therefor I used natural media to do those wonderful things playing only water and pigment and gravity can accomplish. It's for images like this that I paint natural media.

IMO, the stuff we're doing in this thread is different, I think, as we can easily accomplish other natural media watercolor effects digitally, and therefore have far more flexibility in terms of altering the image over time, the place where we paint, how much time we need to dedicate to painting, the creation of new workflows, the ease of sharing with others, etc etc.

69688

chinapete
08-23-2012, 03:40 AM
So the top 3 layers are set to Overlay, but you're applying paint to them instead of making a layer texture and hiding them?

steve,


I didn't fully answer your question about Overlay ... after the base color is laid down, each of the three successive layers is in Overlay mode, and then there is no need for an interim "hiding" of the base image, you simply paint over the area you want to recolor, and assuming your background is lighter than any color you apply in layers, you cannot paint beyond the border of the base image ...


... here is a little more context for the Overlay mode (I can't remember whether the source is ArtRage, but it seems Overlay in AR conforms to the general definition of what it should do), you may find this useful for your forthcoming video on Blending:



One difference between the Overlay blend mode and the other Contrast blend modes, is that it makes its calculations based on the brightness of the layers below the active layer—all of the other Contrast modes make their calculations based on the brightness of the active layer.

Steve B
08-23-2012, 04:33 AM
Thank you, M.Aster. I look forward to seeing you around the forums.

I know you said you "don't like to fake real/natural media", but I honestly think that's exactly what you (and the other digital artists you've linked to) are doing. As before, I think your work, while different in terms of style, is using almost all the same techniques we've been talking about here.

I can only imagine future readers browsing this thread will find viewing all the work and conversation you've provided useful as a learning tool for them to develop their own opinions. So, thanks for stepping in here and giving an alternate look on things. Now, on with the show I suppose!! :)

edit--
Additionally.... just as a thought, for those who are sticking around-- I honestly don't really feel like most of the "real" or natural media paintings on the Behance page, for example, offer much that can't be done in Artrage. Of course, painting with wet watercolors is just plain fun, and it's own visceral experience. A person can't deny that! But I think the final results can be achieved in lots of ways.

In fact, I propose to copy a few of those results in Artrage. I'll keep a general note on how long it takes. I'll post what I can with that extra info, and those who are interested can compare the results. That sounds like a neat and informative experience. Then we can see the limits and powers of the program, as I'm sure there's a lot of both to still discover.

eighty+
08-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Steve Hurry Hurry the Sand is running Low :D :D :D

chinapete
08-24-2012, 03:26 AM
steve,


... very much looking forward to your forthcoming videos, especially one on brushes ...

... in the meantime, further thoughts on digital vs non-digital artworks ... Steven Wright tells a joke about "returning home and finding that everything had been replaced by an exact duplicate" ... maybe he'd been reading too much in Borges, I don't know, but he was telling that joke long before digital art became widely accessible and popular ...

... one point he's making is that we can't easily tell what's real, taking "real" in the sense of original and not copied ... another is that it doesn't really matter, "what we see is what we see" ... a third is that this world is a fake copy of an original ideal idea (sound like Plato?) ... a lot of artwork, non-digital and digital, represents an ideal world as a substitute for the real world we live in, coming very close to Plato's ancient vision of how things are ...

... recently I was showing a Chinese friend, who also happens to be a teacher of Chinese calligraphy and painting, a few of my artworks on the iPad, the ones that imitate Chinese brushwork ... We were discussing them in Chinese -- I mention this because he was very happy to see my paintings and used certain phrases in Chinese to praise them -- until I told him they were done digitally ... His expression changed, and he wanted to change the subject ...

... I fired up ArtRage and handed him a Nomad brush ... He held the brush in the vertical position over a blank screen, but couldn't bring himself to make a brushstroke ... When asked, he said it wasn't real ...

... what I find especially valuable in your videos is that viewers can actually watch you create an original digital artwork ... but more than that (because there are many training or informational videos), you are able to weave into the conversation your insights into what makes a digital watercolor a work of art ... this brings the real and the ideal that much closer ...

maddog
08-24-2012, 04:03 AM
Keanu Reeves was on Tavis Smiley last night, comparing digital film-making v.s. old fashioned 'real' film-film making. Wow! This can get pretty heavy! http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/actor-keanu-reeves/ According to Ray Kurzweil, the singularity is here, http://news.discovery.com/tech/robot-artist-paints-portraits-120220.html I still say carbon-based life is an experiment. ;) In the meantime, looking forward to more training videos as well!

chinapete
08-25-2012, 01:02 AM
maddog, thanks for posting the fascinating keanu reeves interview ... in the dedication to a 1995 book on the digital revolution, Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte wrote, "To Elaine, who has put up with my being digital for exactly 11111 years" :)

maddog
08-25-2012, 04:21 AM
You're welcome Chinapete. I thought it was really interesting, especially as he was digitized in that movie, A Scanner Darkly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXpGaOqb2Z8

Steveb, sorry to have hijacked the thread for a while, but this digital vs real sidetrack really hit a nerve when my non-artist wife also showed her disdain for me pursuing digital art. Anyways, as this is being discussed so much in other threads, I'll stop it here.

I really appreciate all your hard work making the videos and eagerly await the new toolbar. Your toolbar is going to change AR for everyone using a tablet!

Meantime, is there a way to resize a tool's width without reverting to the percentage input? I seem to recall someone saying there was some way to hold a combination of buttons down while right-clicking a tablet pen, but all I can do is resize the canvas using the shift button and pen right-click.

If you need a beta tester for AR Studio and a wacom bamboo splash, I volunteer. Cheers :)

Steve B
08-25-2012, 04:42 AM
Oh, no worries maddog. I've yet to listen to the interview with Keanu, but I've found the conversation exceedingly interesting. I battle with this question myself, and I think it's really good to talk it out and think a bit about what you're doing so you can really go at it with conviction and abandon, when you get down to painting.

I would love to see what sort of work you're producing, if you're using some of the techniques we've been discussing, by the way. It's mean to be a thread to share, not just teach! Or perhaps to teach through sharing? I'm not really interested in only being a pedagogue-- I want peers too, man! :D How else am I gonna learn new stuff?

I'm working on a few new images, etc. I'm hoping to have a video on Sticker Sprays up by this weekend, and some new line sketches and watercolors done as well.

Steve B
08-25-2012, 08:05 AM
Alright folks, I got a new one up on Sticker Sprays, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBRMYPmX1gg). I go into 3-4 Sticker Sprays that I use a lot, as well as how to make a new Preset, etc. I have a general approach to Sticker Sprays in general, as they apply effects, but don't really work as a "paint brush" IMO. So I usually lay down a base coat of paint first, and then use various Sticker Sprays on top of that to achieve certain effects. I go into it more in the video, of course. :)

vapsman88
08-25-2012, 09:35 AM
... recently I was showing a Chinese friend, who also happens to be a teacher of Chinese calligraphy and painting, a few of my artworks on the iPad, the ones that imitate Chinese brushwork ... We were discussing them in Chinese -- I mention this because he was very happy to see my paintings and used certain phrases in Chinese to praise them -- until I told him they were done digitally ... His expression changed, and he wanted to change the subject ...


Chinapete,

That is so typical of many Fine Artists. I'll bet if this technology was available in Leonardo Da Vinci's time, he would have embraced it.

Also I don't really understand the objection to emulation of Natural Media. Artrage is probably the closest I have seen to achieving a Watercolor emulation. Plus the advantage of no paper stretching, no mess, being able to work with layers. Plus being able to do it anywhere if you have access to a tablet. My objection in Digital Art is the proliferation of paint overs as I prefer to start from a blank canvas.

~John

vapsman88
08-25-2012, 09:37 AM
Steve,

Thanks for starting this thread, it is very interesting to see more attention to Watercolors in Artrage.

~John

Steve B
08-25-2012, 10:24 AM
Well, you're welcome vapsman. Thanks for subscribing to my YouTube channel! :)

This thread was cool before, back in the Spring and last Winter, but it's hit a whole new level of fun for me now that 1) I'm doing these videos, and 2) others have engaged in the conversation. So, I'm getting a lot out of it all too.

Clearly, I agree about digital watercolors emulating natural media. I just don't see the issue with it. ???? It's really weird. I haven't been going around somehow suggesting that natural media techniques are inherently better and that that's why we should be emulating them, just that I happen to like them more. Additionally, it's been odd getting critiqued for making my digital watercolors look "real", when all I'm actually doing is using a fuller array of the digital tools available to me. I'm not doing much that's so fancy, really-- Layers, Blend Modes, Palette Knife, Brush Settings, Sticker Sprays, etc. Sure, I'm using them all, but they're all made for us to use, right?

I think the desire for "real" watercolors has more to do with the desire for an object by the viewer of the piece, and a desire for the process by the artist. I've got nothing against the process of natural media-- I love it frankly. But I don't believe that it necessarily means it produces a somehow more valid or "better" final art piece. I think those who are critiquing what we've been discussing here (or other digital media for that matter) are conflating the two desires-- they love the process of natural media so much that they think it invalidates a digital art object, even if they look the same.

And I would pretty vividly critique the concept that natural media is somehow easier or quicker to do. IMO, frankly, that's... not true... or worse a statement based on ignorance. Take the kind of experience a typical natural media watercolor artist has devoted to painting, and apply that same fervor to painting digitally, and I think you can learn to produce quick powerful flexible pieces if you wanted to, or giant, complex, slow-moving pieces too, just like you do with natural media.

What I find particularly peculiar, is that I think this opinion relates most directly to watercolors still. Yes, there's stigma still against digital media in general, but there is, IMO, a far greater acceptance of digital oils than there is of watercolors, for some reason. And outside of the tactile difference of sketching, I think most people would suggest that inking or pencil work is totally appropriate digitally. I mean, that is, to my understanding, the way the entire professional comic book industry works, for example, but no one seems to miss a beat when told that. It's an interesting double standard, but as the tools move forward, and we're able to capture a wider array of techniques and watercolor experiences, I think that divide will shrink.

chinapete
08-26-2012, 01:36 AM
... I've gotta switch to decaf, morning coffee and this thread now bring a rush of ideas and a kind of "can't wait to paint" feeling, also a gnawing sense that there isn't enough time in the day to paint and to talk intelligently about it ... miraculously, steve is able to do both well, and that's inspiring -- thanks, steve, for the sticker spray video ... it's a feature of AR that I've avoided, mostly because it's enabled only in AR Pro, and I prefer the iPad or iPhone, but also because the name "sticker spray" always sounded a bit gimmicky, and I like to do things the old-fashioned human way by working laboriously, like a medieval manuscript illustrator, at painting patterns and motifs :) ...

... what makes repetition so interesting in the visual arts is the chance for error and accident, the eye appreciates motif and looks for deviation from an established pattern ... mechanically precise repetition risks being boring visually, so the greatest visual artists create only the illusion or suggestion of repetition ... thus, mona lisa's famous asymmetrical smile ...

... there is a deeper point, though, in the patterned effects that digital tools allow us easily to produce ... it has to do with an original act and its repetition ... ease of repetition, including duplicating, copying, imitating and reproducing, is a hallmark of digital art, and in many respects does help with workflow, as steve often remarks in his videos, but this raises awkward questions about the role of the individual in the act of creating works or art, and of the privileged place of originality in art ... the rise of social media -- this forum is an example -- speak to a kind of collaboration now possible in the arts on unprecedented levels (touched on in the keanu reeves interview with tavis smiley that maddog posted, along with the "democratization" of the arts -- another threat to professional artists, since if everyone can do it, it will be harder to single out the professional, and the distinction "professional/amateur" soon may disappear) ...

... at the core of the debate over digital and non-digital is the role of the human in technology ... I assume we all feel original (individual carries this sense, as does unique) and not a clone of ourselves ... but we all are aware of the awesome powers of Hal, or Spock, or Blue, and now we can see robots painting or drawing by "looking at" a real model and sketching a face by using traditional art materials ... and suppose you were told that the "b" in steve's name actually stands for "bot" -- and you've been conversing all along with an intelligent, witty, warm and artistically talented robot :) ... would that change how you feel about all you've seen, heard and read? ...

... in the keanu reeves video, tavis asks keanu whether he feels threatened as an actor that one day he will be replaced by a credible animation of himself, basically an avatar ... and keanu doesn't rule out the possibility, but he makes an earnest plea for the human element in all this technology, just as steve is doing in his videos ...

... I'm not having a second cup of coffee, and this spares you, dear readers, my thoughts on the "natural media" watercolor that steve created and posted in this thread not very long ago ... but I'm not switching to decaf, and there is always tomorrow :-)




...

Steve B
08-26-2012, 03:33 AM
edit-- ok, excuse me while I motor off at the mouth for a while. My brain has been working overtime after watching that interview with Keanu Reeves about digital film, and I've just not been able to stop typing. If you're up for a read, plus go over the next few posts, but I won't hold it against 'ya if you skip them and want to get back to looking at pieces of art. ;)
end--

Ok, I just sat down and listened to that Keanu Reeves interview-- what a fascinating watch! And how directly relevant to our discussion. It's such a great frame for a discussion of digital watercolors and digital art in general, because it allows us to discuss the subject "askance".

There's a point in the interview when Keanu discusses the value of an object to the makers of a film, and I thought that very strangely and neatly tied into what I was discussing last night about the physical process of making art. What I thought was missing in the interview was the discussion of the audience as viewers-- the other half of the equation.

What occurred to me was that viewers of film know its not real-- it's all dreams, and we're very educated on that fact, right? That ol' Hollywood Magic. And so, I've found that most viewers of films aren't disturbed in the least by the notion that a film might have been recorded, processed, and projected digitally. The makers of film might be disturbed by the change, but audiences? Who cares? It's all a story, an image of reality, etc. Digital film is just another way to tell a story, sometimes so seamlessly that you can't even tell if the movie is digital or "real" film. And as all movies are dreams or stories, in essence, is a movie filmed on physical film with emulsion somehow more "real" or is the process of its creation a mere accident of history and technology? I mean, what is a "real" movie?

What is "real" art?

I would say that film has the historical oddity as an art form to have been born in an era where mechanical reproduction of an object is expected. I think that gives digital film (and the loss of the object of physical film) a sort of cultural leverage in the eyes of a viewer, compared to something like painting. Painting is obviously much older (LOL!), and (to speak the obvious) was born in an era where you couldn't mechanically (or digitally) reproduce it at will. Therefore, the idea of the totemic object of the art piece becomes very central to our notion of painting on a cultural level. Not so for cinema or it's father, photography, with both which we've always had the presumption that they would be reproduced en mass, so that we could view a work the world over. That difference is, I think, pretty critical to why digital film has achieved a faster level of acceptance publicly, compared to digital art. That, and $. !!

If fine art produced more $ (like movies do), digital fine art would have more power. Of that I'm positive. Currently, art has value commercially because of museums and the purveyors of value, and how they bestow commercial value to art pieces as objects. Of course, commercial value ends up = artistic value in the eyes of most. Perhaps digital art will democratize art making in general, because it will erase the idea of the object as the most important thing in the public's mind, and replace it with the idea of the image being the most important thing-- which is how most of us think of film, whether we recognize it or not. I think one of the big fears with digital art, and the democratization of the making of art, is that it will also democratize the $ in art. You will no longer buy pieces of art for 2 million $. Instead, lots of people will buy the image, or the print of an image, at a reasonable price. I think that's a big problem for certain people.

Finally, on the note of whether or not it is "ok"/a good idea for a digital film to emulate the results you get when using physical film, and whether or not that is an acceptable aesthetic goal-- I think most people would say "yes". Why? Because physical film is part of our tradition. We're educated as an audience to understand it. It's part of our vernacular when we watch a film. We know how to "read" it. It's arbitrary in some sense, when we're discussing digital film, that it's made to look like the results we get when we use physical film, but I don't think that invalidates it in any way-- it's an aesthetic choice that is directly important to some of the makers of film and some of the watchers of film, because it's born from our artistic history. I'm ok with the aesthetic results of history and tradition. Doesn't bother me in the least.

We are culturally trained to read art, or hear music, or understand plays. Thus, a western audience expects one thing from music and an eastern audience another, for example. And even though we produce music digitally, and could produce any possible sound imaginable, we emulate those results we find desirable on a cultural level because it's part of our tradition. It's what we want to hear. It's a beat we understand. A melody with a correct place. And because of that, it gives a western audience pleasure. I mean, it's pure chance that each of us has our specific notion of cultural musical history, but that doesn't invalidate the aesthetic specifics of that experience.

For me, I think that it's rather directly the same with digital art, and digital watercolors specifically. There are some pretty valid reasons for why a person would want to emulate natural media. I know that's a pretty esoteric path to get to that point, but there you go. It's a pretty esoteric question I was asked. :)

Steve B
08-26-2012, 04:10 AM
I also wanted to take a quick moment to discuss the technology they're using to make digital film and how that relates to the technology we're using to make digital art. In the interview they talk about how the sensor reads photons, etc. and correlates a color to it, etc. and how that's not "real". Not as real as the photo-chemical process of emulsion reacting to light on a piece of film. I don't understand that. It makes no sense.

Well, I understand how they might feel that way, but I think it's an inaccurate presumption. I think that perspective purely stems from knowledge of a subject on one hand (physical film and emulsion), and the magic of a technology that's still largely not understood on the other hand (photons hitting a sensor which translates that for us). Film makers, I'm sure, understand how an image is captured on a physical piece of film. They've learned it. But I'll tell you, it's pretty much magic to anyone who isn't into film. Alternately, I think most film makers don't have a clue how an image is recorded digitally, and therefore it's not "real." It's still magic to them.

Well, of course it's real. It's photons. It's light. We just can't touch them with our hands. All the images they're recording are born from light-- whether it's recorded digitally or with a physical piece of film. And it's exactly the same with painting.

I love the idea that we're painting with light when we work digitally, as I've heard it said. What could be more pure visually?

When we work with a material like physical pigment or water, we use them as a medium, through which we express our ideas. We are bound by the physics and limits of the medium, and it is only through the medium that we express ourselves. In truth, through is the really operative word there. For how do we view a painted image but with light, as it passes through an object and returns to us. We are painting with light when we paint with natural media, it just has to pass through the mask of pigment first. When we paint digitally, we bypass that middle man, and deal directly with the source-- light itself, like a plant.

Chinapete, when you brought up the discussion with your friend about painting digitally, and he was so hesitant to do it because it "wasn't real"-- doesn't it seem like the real issue is that he thinks he's painting with ink or pigment instead of light when he uses natural media? I think the disdain many natural media artists have for digital work is less because of the limits of digital art and what it produces as an image (which is there still, I wouldn't deny that-- the technology is still progressing rapidly), and more because of the misconception about what they're actually manipulating when they make an image. They think they're manipulating a physical object. And they are, right? They not only had to learn to make a compelling image, but they had to learn how to master a physical object (the paint medium). But in the end, what they're really manipulating through those marks they make on canvas... is light.

Which is what we're manipulating here.

chinapete
08-26-2012, 06:41 AM
I have tried to write Paradise
- Ezra Pound, notes for Canto CXX


... steve, about the anecdote of my Chinese friend, he and I are a lot closer to the age of 70 than you ... so for that reason alone I understand and forgive him his conservatism in things traditional :-)

... a note on painting light, painting with light ... it's something I've discussed in another thread on this forum, here I just want to say that light = dematerialization (this gets obliquely to your thoughts on "object" and "process," but I'd like to return to that valuable distinction another time) ...

... much of the beauty of watercolor is in its fragility, few other painting mediums can achieve its transparencies, I'm sure this is one reason you are attracted to it, since in your videos you emphasize delicate thin washes, glazes, overlays, the creation of depth through light as if these were second nature to you ... and I applaud your courage in tackling the difficult task of exploring and teaching methods for painting watercolors digitally or non-digitally that are meant to meet standards of "fine art" (defined culturally) ...

... the quote from Pound, poignant in itself, comes after his main Cantos, a long poem some 50 years in the making, and is written from a god-perspective, looking down, if you will, at what he has created ... here on earth all is heavy, dark, obscure to our understanding, but there in Paradise all will be revealed in a light beyond human understanding ... this, at least, was the theme that Dante took up in the Divine Comedy -- its final cantos, in the Paradiso, are written almost entirely in metaphors for light ...

chinapete
08-26-2012, 12:28 PM
Alternately, I just wanted to share a natural media watercolor image I did last month. This image teeters on the edge of abstract, but it really does something that I don't think digital watercolors can do, therefor I used natural media to do those wonderful things playing only water and pigment and gravity can accomplish. It's for images like this that I paint natural media.

hi steve,

I'm bringing back in thumbnail the natural media watercolor image you posted recently, if you have time and interest, could you expand a little your idea that this painting can do things that digital can't do ... if I had to guess, I would say that for some effects here, the paper was held vertically, maybe even upside down, so that the color flowed up to the top of the painting, defying gravity, hehe ... this is a common way to have a watercolor dry more quickly and often more evenly ... having the water/color flow after the basic stroke has been laid down is not easy to achieve in digital (I know of only one program that can do it credibly) ...but I may be wrong about all that, so I thought I'd ask ...

Steve B
08-27-2012, 03:03 AM
This is the image I was working on in the recent video, to share. An idea for a kids book.

69771

Re: the natural media pic I shared-
I did do some tilting of the board upside down, yes. Painter tries to emulate this, but I'll be honest-- it doesn't really look like watercolors to me, it's way to rigid. Their new "flow patterns" allow more variability, but I've not been impressed with the results I've seen on that either. They both look very cool graphically, but I don't know if I'd call them watercolors. I think the Smudge tool in Artrage, being guided by the hand rather than the computer, does a much better job of creating the kind of organic movement you can get with tilts, compared to Painter.

Additionally, I did some splatters by flicking my brush-- you can see this across the "waterfall" and to the lower right, for instance. I can create some splatter-like effects digitally, but they don't have the sense of velocity and movement that you get with natural media, where it's clearly coming from one location and going to another.

Third, for example, on the far left, you can see a lot of bristley dry brush effects. I can get some dry brush effects in Artage, as I go over in the videos (by using a low Loading % and a good rough Layer Texture), but it lacks a bristly quality that I'm after. I've still not seen this done well in other programs, even Painter, honestly- not with watercolors anyways.

Fourth would be blowing-- you can see this on the tree-like organic elements at the top left. I suppose I might be able to get something like this digitally if I worked at it, but I'll be honest-- this is one of those things that's a "breeze" to do with natural media (pardon the pun!).

Basically, this piece is an abstract that I inked on top of. There's a loose, ergonomically engaged quality to abstracts to me-- they involve a lot of the action of the body, as well as the effects of gravity, etc. Atleast mine do. That's the sort of stuff I find difficult/not really possible to do digitally. Besides, doing it digitally, atleast with the current tools we have, would take all the fun out of it-- half the pleasure of doing abstracts for me is the dance of the body. I _was_ just thinking about stuff like the Kinect, which uses motion capture for games. That would be a fun thing to combine with Artrage-- paint with your body movement, etc. Very Pollock! 8)

I would also say there's a slightly gritty, textural quality to the inking here, for which I used a nib pen. I really wish the Artrage inking tools had an ability to interact atleast mildly with textures, but they're all way too smooth for my tastes. As such, if I want a grittier ink feeling, with some action in relation to the paper, I need to do that with natural media.

gxhpainter2
08-27-2012, 03:19 AM
Steve.. I totally agree with you and I have thought for sometime that we are actually painting with light and at somepoint we will be able to tear off some digital paper to display our works ( chinapete and I had this disscussion somewhere along the way also) so I am glad to see you share this point..:):):):)

Steve B
08-27-2012, 03:28 AM
Yeah, isn't it nice when beauty and truth agree?? :)

chinapete
08-27-2012, 03:48 AM
... I don't know which one of you is Beauty or who is Truth, but Old Age also agrees :):)

... did you know that in Auryn Ink, that watercolor program I've mentioned in the past, if you shake the iPhone you get a random splatter? ... I've attached an image ... in it, you can see the initial broad stroke actually received one of the splatter dots on top of it, and faded nicely ...

... also, many months ago I posted in General Chat on LeapMotion, software that will allow kinetic motion .. as there seemed to be little interest, I dropped the thread ... but recently I saw someone posted again on it (without referencing me), so interest may be growing ...

... there's more to say about your natural media, but I'm working on an image using sticker sprays, stimulated by your last ... so I'll come back to this ...

ps: what a joyful image for a children's book :)

Steve B
08-27-2012, 04:00 AM
Auryn Ink can do some pretty cool stuff. Notice though, how the random splats look like splats dropped from above? What they really should have is a bit of velocity- almost like a comets tail. I bet you could atleast simulate this with a sticker spray that had more than one stamp. Have them "aim" in the direction of your pen stroke.... I wish I was better at making sticker sprays. It might be an area for me to work on more. I had another idea for how to bring in salt effects using stencils, but I just haven't made the time yet.

Oh, and yes, the Leap Motion looks quite interesting!!

I await your experiments. :)

chinapete
08-27-2012, 06:03 AM
steve .... good point about splatter effects in Auryn, it's a baby watercolor app, but it can do something AR on iPhone/iPad can't, so I showed it ...


With this image of an iris in the style of Chinese inks, I wanted to:

1. achieve delicacy of line with the Adonit Jot pressure sensitive stylus: in the long main stem, done in a single stroke, and retouched for contrast

2. emulate sticker spray effects on the iPad: in the body of the flower, where lifting of color is similar to tamping down on wet strokes with an absorbent tissue, done with the Nomad brush set to the background color

3. imitate rice paper: by mounting the image on juz fine wc paper

4. produce a pleasing image: fail! :)

edit: scaled down first image, and added a second, done with an oil base on the iPhone applied thinly to emulate inks, and showing sticker spray effects in the body color of the flowers, done with repeated daubs of the Nomad brush ...

maddog
08-28-2012, 04:09 AM
I wasn't going to continue the digital vs traditional theme, but this is too good not to share, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbFZIpNK10&feature=related in which David Hockney determines that the Masters 'cheated' by using a camera obscura to create their paintings quickly and accurately. Well worth reading the book 'Secret Knowledge' too, if you can find it. Not an actual digital process, but it kind of blows apart the argument that 'true' artists would never stoop to using 'technologies' that could cheapen their legacy. Another savings using ArtRage, you don't have to buy this http://www.camera-obscura-lucida-shop.com/lucid-art.php just use the trace pod (judiciously).

Did everyone catch the story of the 'restored' fresco of Jesus in Italy? OMG! You can't make this stuff up!

Steve B
08-28-2012, 04:55 AM
Chinapete,
That's a beautiful understated flower, in my opinion. Less can be more.

The motion and long soft dry brush stroke you're getting on the stem is very nice. So too the very understated color and form of the flower. I do wonder if the color of the paper is pulling too much away from your color choices-- the canvas feels very grey in these images, and that makes it sort of "subdue" the values of the flower. I do like, however, the oil effects you're getting. I've thought about (and read about) using the oil tool to good effect for watercolor results. How are you doing that? Using a lot of thinner and a dry oil brush? What's it providing you that's different in terms of mark-making, compared to the watercolor tool with similar settings?

Can you post a new larger image of the whole flower with the oil and sticker spray effects included? It looks like you've got one version that is "softer" (on the left) but farther away, while the other version is rougher textually (on the right) but is zoomed in. It'd be interesting to see the rougher version, but as a whole composition.


Maddog,
Gotta check out that video. Looks cool! :)

chinapete
08-28-2012, 11:15 AM
hi steve,

... confession: I have never been a true watercolorist, and I was a contrarian in oils, painting very thinly, using very little pigment suspended in lots of thinner, varnish, dryer, etc, building up texture through brushwork done mainly in the surface that was being painted on ... I guess that carries over into my digital style, where I prefer a very thin drybrush oil technique, yielding effects often indistinguishable from watercolor ...

... typically I paint right over what I don't like, but I did preserve a closer view of the distant iris on not-so-greyish paper, the attached may give you a better idea how I was using the Nomad brush for sticker spray effects on the flower (left side) and also to lift out pigment (right side) -- admittedly, what I posted may have gone too far in subduing the colors, but it does look a little crisper on my iPad, and anyway at some point I decided the visual center of interest was the stem, not the flower ... I realize from your comment that if the goal was to illustrate sticker sprays, that image was a poor choice, but in a weird way it saved me from pretending I had anything important to add to your discussion :-)

... of course, on the iPhone there is no watercolor or sticker spray, so in the second image I was trying to illustrate in digital oils what I learned from your video -- some of which I'd already put to use in earlier paintings, without thinking of it as sticker spraying ... as far as I know, on the iPhone you can't "Save As" the current image, and if you are working quickly and constantly revising on the iPhone, as I often do, the last version is the one you get, and that is the image I posted (slightly resized) ...

eighty+
08-29-2012, 08:32 PM
Yep still reading trying to understand :D trouble is brain is having spasms :eek::eek::eek: :D SLAINTE

Steve B
09-03-2012, 02:31 AM
M Aster- I think a lot of your work looks very much like natural media. I don't find much particularly "digital" about it, and it follows a whole host of natural media techniques. And yet, I don't find your work lacking in the least, nor do I think it looks like a sad copy of natural media.

Last time you popped in here, you shared some wonderful links to other digital artists. I also liked them, but also thought they looked rather a lot like natural media as well. You then shared links to natural media artists, which were also wonderful. However, I felt like they didn't offer much that I couldn't relatively easily replicate digitally either.

I don't think Artrage is like a "poor cousin" to natural media, if you know how to use it and know it's limits. You clearly do, on both points. I would say I do as well. I think I'm misunderstanding what you consider a "digital" look and what you consider a natural media look, because your examples look very much the same to me.

chinapete
09-03-2012, 03:11 AM
m aster ... thanks for the link to skip allen ... his "chinese" things are very tight, over-controlled, they look like illustrations of chinese painting ... he favors the "gongbi" (line drawing) over "xieyi" (free brushwork), and for good reason, "xieyi" is difficult to imitate in digital, and he apparently hasn't thought it important to achieve a certain freedom in spirit before brush is set to paper, or digital pen to pad ... in my calligraphics thread, I set for myself the modest goal of attempting freedom of brushwork in digital media in two dimensions, varying line thickness and opacity in a single stroke ...

edit: ps, I think pursuing freedom in brushwork is very much in line with what steve b is presenting in this thread and in his videos, so that's why I mention it ...

Steve B
09-03-2012, 05:55 AM
Re: Skip Allen and Painter specifically-

I took some classes with Skip on Painter 11 at the Digital Art Academy, and I think you're misunderstanding Skip-- I pretty much totally disagree with you on what I think he's trying to achieve. My memory is that he very much likes to separate digital watercolors from natural media. He doesn't like to equate them, IMO, and didn't like the idea of trying to replicate one with the other, whenever I brought that up.

Much like you, in truth!

Honestly, I've seen some beautiful digital images made with Painter 12's wet watercolors and flow maps, where the intent is to have the computer move the paint for you on the canvas. However, I've not really felt like any of them looked much like what I've done with natural media. They're their own beautiful, different expression, IMO-- even though I know that ironically the intent is to mimic natural media, I think Painter gives too much control over the computer and doesn't quite succeed in that goal. That's why I like what Artrage is doing more.

So, no, I don't think Artrage is really going to morph into Painter over time, if that's your question. I don't think Painter is taking the right approach for watercolors, IMO. I think Artrage is doing that. However, I __do__ think Artrage is intended to mimic and recreate the experience of painting with "real world" watercolors, and I would only imagine it will slowly approach that more with time. If you dislike that notion, that's a shame perhaps.

Have you tried Painter 12's watercolors? In some ways, it really agrees with what I think is your watercolor philosophy M.Aster.

Steve B
09-05-2012, 01:28 AM
I have. What's your opinion? I gave you mine.

chinapete
09-05-2012, 10:33 AM
hi,

I'm posting a painting I did recently with traditional Chinese brush and ink on a very expensive ... paper napkin :)

... although this was meant as a throwaway sketch for a painting on rice paper, after I'd digitized it in AR Pro, I thought some of the effects were interesting, especially the "bleed" of pure water that happened as part of the main strokes ... This sort of bleed wouldn't be acceptable on traditional paper (it would mean the brush was too wet), but when digitized the intermediary greys look acceptable ... So some effects in this "hybrid" image are worth trying to understand and duplicate, at least for my purposes ...

... in AR, I've tried "just water" as a base with washes over that, in single and multiple layers, at different blends, but I'm unable to get satisfactory results -- which would be, as the attachment illustrates, a very dark dot as a single stroke that bleeds out in natural looking gradients, without unnecessarily sharp boundaries ...

... thoughts? ...

Caesar
09-05-2012, 08:55 PM
I'm always impressed and stunned by Your brilliant and flexible watercolor studies and paintings.
I wonder if You may reproduce (and with which procedure) Moebius or Milo Manara stylish watercolored drawings in a simple enough way ...:rolleyes:

Steve B
09-06-2012, 02:13 AM
I'm always impressed and stunned by Your brilliant and flexible watercolor studies and paintings.
I wonder if You may reproduce (and with which procedure) Moebius or Milo Manara stylish watercolored drawings in a simple enough way ...:rolleyes:

Ah, Milo Manara!! What's not to like about what that man produced? Easily one of my favorite erotic comic artists. Sigh.... And yeah, Moebius is pretty awesome too. I was just browsing google images, and noticed that there's a reasonable amount of variety though, in terms of how they're using watercolors. Can you find some safe-for-work images of their work that you can share here, that specifically show the sort of version of them you're looking for? That would be helpful, but my guess is that what they're producing we can replicate.

I did find some safe stuff for Manara that still exhibits all of his traits, so it can be done! ;)

Steve B
09-06-2012, 02:17 AM
Still Painter is not the best tool, nor is ArtRage, in making watercolourish digital paintings I think, but both are good :)

That's an interesting statement. What do you think is the best tool for making "watercolorouish digital paintings"? Always nice to be introduced to new software.

Steve B
09-06-2012, 11:21 AM
hi,
... although this was meant as a throwaway sketch for a painting on rice paper, after I'd digitized it in AR Pro, I thought some of the effects were interesting, especially the "bleed" of pure water that happened as part of the main strokes ... This sort of bleed wouldn't be acceptable on traditional paper (it would mean the brush was too wet), but when digitized the intermediary greys look acceptable ... So some effects in this "hybrid" image are worth trying to understand and duplicate, at least for my purposes ...

... in AR, I've tried "just water" as a base with washes over that, in single and multiple layers, at different blends, but I'm unable to get satisfactory results -- which would be, as the attachment illustrates, a very dark dot as a single stroke that bleeds out in natural looking gradients, without unnecessarily sharp boundaries ...

... thoughts? ...

Pete,
This is very tasty texturally. I'd like to get some of these bleeds as well. Will ponder...

I was curious btw, re: your xieyi painting style. How do you build form if not through line? Or is it that you're using line, but it's big and "brushy" and so has a more expressive style? How do you build form on objects that are bigger than the width of the brush? Are you still doing fills?

It sounds like most things are done black and white?

How do you build human forms? How referential is it? It's funny, but being loose with my brush work seems pleasant when doing plant material and landscapes, animals too, but with people I'm used to a more realistic style. I feel like its not so common to have people in Chinese paintings, and if they are they're either small or shown from the back, etc. A different approach to common Western focus on portraits.

I'd like to apply this style to some of my painting in Artrage, and would like some guidance or your thoughts.

chinapete
09-06-2012, 01:40 PM
How do you build human forms? How referential is it? It's funny, but being loose with my brush work seems pleasant when doing plant material and landscapes, animals too, but with people I'm used to a more realistic style. I feel like its not so common to have people in Chinese paintings, and if they are they're either small or shown from the back, etc. A different approach to common Western focus on portraits.

I'd like to apply this style to some of my painting in Artrage, and would like some guidance or your thoughts.


hi steve,

I think people reading this thread want to hear from you, not me, but thank you for asking about the xieyi style, I'll try to be brief ... I've attached two images, both Chinese 17th c., currently in the Met Museum in NY ...

... The portrait (it's of someone's ancestor) may remind you of the formal portraits of emperors, which always were done in very strict outline and high realism in the "gongbi" style (line plus realism) ... This is how people are done, if the goal is to represent a person, and not just something human-looking in a landscape ... On the opposite side is a painting of two eagles by Bada Shanren, a famous practitioner of "xieyi" (the words mean "write ideas") ... The difference is in brushwork, more visible in Bada Shanren, almost invisible in the formal portrait ... it has been said that xieyi is the Chinese equivalent of impressionism, and gongbi is realism ... whatever, xieyi grew out of calligraphy (writing elevated to an artform), while gongbi was considered a formal painting style ... for this reason, paintings in the xieyi style usually are signed "written by" and in the gongbi "done by" ... it is possible to do portraits in the xieyi style -- there are many of Buddhist masters, or immortals, but these are meant to express the artist's reaction at the moment to the person depicted, and so usually are not classified as "realistic" ... what constitutes acceptable "realism" in western watercolor also could be part of this thread ...

... there's much more to say, the tradition is long but space is short, so for now I'll just add that as far as I can tell you already have achieved many of these effects in your watercolors, I see elements of both xieyi and gongbi, especially in your sensitive handling of black, in your transparent washes and in your exquisite line work ... that's why I'm here participating in this thread! ... so I'm looking forward to seeing more examples of your work -- and how about another video soon? (hint hint) :):)

Caesar
09-06-2012, 07:08 PM
Thank You, dear Steve! If and only if You find it interesting to study, I would attach some Moebius examples with different levels of complexities You may possibly select from for an attempt.

Caesar
09-06-2012, 07:09 PM
One more ...

Steve B
09-07-2012, 03:14 PM
Caeser, these are some great images. All of it's Moebius though, right? It's hard to find "safe for work" Manara stuff. See if you can though-- his line work and what not is delicious-- I'd love to get to play with some of his work.

I definitely think a lot of this is doable in Artrage, but not all. There's a lot that can be done with the Airbrush that would work for the Moebius stuff. He is, IMO, more about his linework and color work, and less about his texture, if that makes sense. A good texture overlay, usage of the airbrush, watercolor tool, etc. could get some good results. There's some nice wet bleeds though, particularly on the last shared image from the first post, that you're not going to be able to get with Artrage the way it currently functions. That real wet stuff is the magic of natural media. Additionally, on the cowboy image, there's some tasty bristley dry brush strokes. That sort of stuff needs to be done with the Sticker Sprays.

I have a little back log of art stuff that I want to do, but this idea of seeing what we can do with Milo and Moebius is a great idea. I'm a ok with others trying it out too, and sharing it. I imagine that I'm going to have some time this weekend perhaps to play.

I've had a lot of work recently (which is good), and I've been dedicating most of my free time over the last week or so to the Pen-Only Toolbar and it's beta testing-- there's been a lot of emails and PM's behind the scenes, as well as the two new videos I've made to explain how to use it. So art output has been suffering because of it! :(

byroncallas
09-07-2012, 03:58 PM
This is quite the terrific thread. I shall come back and spend a considerable amount of time with it. Wonderful Steve.

Caesar
09-09-2012, 02:21 AM
I would add here some Milo Manara images which seem to be reasonably doable to me, probably by means of a simple and direct enough procedure.

Caesar
09-09-2012, 02:28 AM
Second lot ...

Caesar
09-09-2012, 02:32 AM
Last two so as to have a wise enough list to select from. Unfortunately they don't have a particularly high resolution.

Steve B
09-09-2012, 02:49 AM
Personally, upper right (lounging on her side) is my favorite. ;)

A lot of this is very achievable to me, with the use of layers, some transparent colors, multiply blend mode, and a nice texture overlay. I imagine they'd all take a bit of time, as he's very detailed with his color and shading. I don't imagine he just cranked them out either. He doesn't have that "free flowing" and loose attitude with his watercolor work. However, again, part of the appeal of Manara (like Moebius) to me is their smooth, liquid linework. Great stuff. There's a something of Matisse in both of them-- very spare with their line work. They don't really use it to build form through shading, but let it go to town in things like hair and clothing straps, lips, etc. They actually both also remind me a lot of Toulouse-Lautrec. So clearly I see a lot of French in their work, so to speak.

The upper left one in particular is very controlled, IMO, and could almost have been done in Photoshop, honestly, though you have these nice translucent layers of color on the clouds. Bottom right (girl sitting on chair) is wetter than some of the other work, and I'm imaging you'd need to use your blender more to create some wet "texture", but I think we could get close it. The tasty wet work in the bottom-most one is harder to achieve currently-- particularly where the blues are getting loose and messy on the wall in the background. I think you'd need to layer your pinks and lavenders, that would help, but I'm having a hard time getting that loose kind of wet "grit" that you can see there.

I thought I was going to have time to do some painting this weekend, but I think I just discovered last night that I'm going away for a weekend with my wife, no computers or cellphone allowed. So, lucky me, I think I'll be back at my laptop sometime in a few days. ;) If anyone else wants to take the project of recreating some of these paintings on themselves, I'd love to have a pictorial "conversation" with some of these things-- I think that's a good way to share and learn.

edit-
Ah, just saw you posted a new post while I posting. (Say that 5 times fast!). I haven't ever seen Manara do work like that last image on the right. Quite different! Interesting to see an artist push into different spaces.

Caesar
09-09-2012, 03:45 AM
I substantially agree on all Your considerations concerning these illustrations and with Your choice. That's the image whos looks like a ink and dry-on-wet watercolor. In Milo Manara drawing comes first, color, when added, mostly give some more atmosphere.

Milo Manara is not French though, just one of the internationally known Italian comics artists, like Hugo Pratt, Paolo Serpieri Eleuteri, Crepax and many more.
Each of them was appreciated in a different area the most, Milo Manara in France in particular, just as Paolo Serpieri Eleuteri in Latin America.
He was certainly influenced by all he experienced artistically, but he cites our millenarian cultural references (The Golden Donkey, by Apuleius for instance), as well as English literature (Gulliver), American western epopee, the Indu mythology etc.
In few words our comics stars and most varied "school" in general is since ever different and independent from either French or Belgian models, full of number one artists, either known abroad or not (btw, Uderzo, one of the Asterix creators was Italian and a cousin of him from Friuli posted his colored drawings here in artrage too). An example of unique comics artist was our great, funny Jacovitti, a national comics star for decades, the only school diaries sold in the 60ies and 70ies at lest were by him. Not to talk about many long lasting Italian comics characters and their series. Even Walt Disney left to our national artists full right to elaborate stories, draw, create new characters for Mickey mouse comics and his band. We've been since and still are an independent subsidiary issuing them all. So, actually we never had to learn from French references, just to interact with them and any evolution. We have our unique patrimony to work on too as well as, in the last couple of centuries, also very close links to the Mitteleuropean Empires and their culture too.
The same applies to our fine art history and painters, often neglected after the XVIII century, whenever the artists didn't get their success elsewhere, in the main European centres. Nonetheless, either abroad, where they were present and then very celebrated and requested (see the Italian painters in Barbizon, but also Boldini, De Nittis, Modigliani in Paris). Our artists they kept a considerably high level and unique contributions even through the XIX and XX century, with some peculiar and anticipatory movements too, like the Macchiaioli, the Metaphysical paintings (see Giorgio De Chirico) or the Futurist paintings and sculptures which influenced respectively, a movement such as the Russian constructivism. Similarly our architectural new solutions of the '20ies and '30ies, in an apparently unnoticed or scarcely known, were models to so many imposing public buildings and muscular statues in Europe and US.

Steve B
09-09-2012, 04:58 AM
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought Milo Manara was French-- no no no! :) Only that I recognized an influence on him from those French artists I happened to know and love. I recognized the confusion my statement might have made after I posted it. Sorry if that came off as insulting to Italians. Not my intent at all.

Your post is actually really interesting and informative Caesar. Lots of great stuff to look up and check out! I'll admit I don't know much about 20th century Italian comic artists. I'm not sure why the French ones seem to have crossed the water, but not the Italian ones. I'm more a fan of Japanese manga, and there seems to be a lot more ties between French animation and anime, as well as manga and French comics, so that's probably why my knowledge is so skewed.

In truth, my experience with more "modern" (I use that term relatively, as I'm talking about the 19th and 20th century in general) Italian culture is more literary- I'm a big fan of Verga's "House by the Medlar Tree" and Lampedusa's "The Leopard", or Pirandello, etc. I've read a few other modernists as well. I've studied a lot of Russian novelists and poets from the 20th century, so I know of the Futurist movement and that it had a dramatic effect on many Modernist Russians (and painters too, I believe), but that's really the extent of my knowledge.

Re: the paintings you've offered up for inspection--
Do you want to choose one to recreate? If you're game, let me know which and I'll pick one too. Then we can reconvene perhaps later this week and compare notes. Does that sound interesting to you? Success is nice, of course, but failures are very instructive as well. I'd probably pick one of the Manara's myself, as I'm a bigger fan of his work, and like his looser line. I'd like to focus on color work, since this is a watercolor thread-- I might even trace out the linework, or desaturate and remove the color work, then go back in and focus on just recreating an interesting watercolor experience. Game?

My vote goes for top right Manara image, or the sleeping one with the strange doll, personally. Both of these are things that aren't too complicated in terms of the detail in the image, and yet are still a bit "watery" and offer a nice challenge that I think Artrage can be successful at. Some of the others are either too clean, IMO, and not really very "watery" or are too dense compositionally, and would take a great deal of time to replicate.

Thanks for sharing all the Italian stuff. I'm going to have a good time educating myself as I look them all up!

Caesar
09-24-2012, 09:25 PM
Sorry to be late back to You, dear Steve. I've been busy with a surgical intervention and a few more tasks.

I agree on Your choice and I'd be curious to see either a reproduction (also a partial one) or a work by You using the same style and looking alike as for the use of watercolor and drawing tools. I'm sure You may set up a simple enough technique perfectly emulating these paintings.

I'm also much favourably impressed by Your vast culture encompassing many places and ages (I'm sure not only modern times). I hope that in Europe, schools will progressively provide a wider European cultural awareness and go beyond what national or local pride would suggest to teach, so as to see both, our many shared elements and the unique, rich variety and contribution of each nation to our common European and western civilization, more and more threathened by vulgarity, ignorance, fake alternatives, regress to outdated traditions and greed either by insiders and outsiders.

copespeak
09-26-2012, 12:13 PM
It has taken me an inordinate amount of time, but I have learned so much about layering colours and attempting to emulate a watercolour/painterly feel. I am really pleased with the result, and will now revisit a set of black and white fairy prints I did in hard copy years ago, and colour them in!! Thanks for making me think! :0)

Steve B
09-26-2012, 04:37 PM
Holy Cow! That's fantastic! 8)

You've gotta say more about how you worked that. Layers, time spent, texture overlays or stencils? etc. I know sometimes these things take time to replicate when you're working on it to learn it, but this turned out REALLY well, IMO. Well enough that I'd like to know more about how you did it. If the YouTube videos or our discussions here have helped you in any specific ways, it'd be nice to see and understand that too-- it always helps when I'm thinking about making new tutorials to help out.

Congrats!

copespeak
09-26-2012, 05:51 PM
Thanks Steve! It really was time consuming, but reasonably simple. I don't use 'watercolour' hardly at all, because it often comes out mushy, slowish and uncontrolled ... and sometime with a greyish tinge.

No overlay or stencils.... just plain old AR.

I started with a clean, flat, white, untextured base layer, then ALWAYS put a new layer on top of that to work on. I imported the reference image as a layer, then penned in the outline, and turned off the reference image. I leave the lined image at the top and start working layers underneath, so that black stays unsullied throughout and I knew where to work to.

Next:

I choose the lightest colour apart from white and build from that ... showing 3 colours on eg.(1).
(1) I lay them down with a nice fat ink pen (let's say yellow) and leave the white where the paper would show through.
(2) Get the WC Blender and roughly mash up the joined edges.
(3) Then a NEW layer with WC texture (Watercolour 4 paper, Texture 77 Roughness, 50 Grain size) and then darker colour Wax Crayon, rough as you like, leaving plenty of undercolour. Pat it down LIGHTLY with the WC Blender, so you can still see the grain.
(4) and (5), and so on with a new (textured) layer each time, otherwise the colours get gluggy.

If you want more light back into an area, choose the next colour down and do the same again, or white on your lightest edge. Eraser here and there, and when you have things working well together, merge some layers down and adjust where necessary. Sometimes I'll use a finer ink pen and put some lines where I want a stronger border and pat it down only on one side, leaving the other side more solid, keeping in mind that WC lines are rarely smooth, so wiggle it up a bit, and maybe erase snippets here and there.

I am a long time natural watercolourist, and love it, so any one who wants to emulate the style needs to look hard at those lovely passages of dribble and drying so they know what they're working towards.

That's all, I think. Any more, just ask..... :0)

P.S. The textured layers, and lots of your other hints have been invaluable!

Caesar
09-26-2012, 08:08 PM
A big applause, dear Copespeak!:eek::cool::):):):):):) You made it just perfect, so full marks IMO.
I would also thank You for the explanation about the procedure You used.
Finally just one question. According to your experience, did it take more or less time doing it with AR than it would have required with real tools? (watercolor, pastel and ink pen, whatever needed)

copespeak
09-27-2012, 12:06 AM
Thank You!! I am glad you are pleased. Of course, the instruction picture was banged out pretty quick, and to get the finesse we would hope for would require a lot more sculpting. But I put it in for those who want to have a play using this method.

Re: the time spent.... If I was doing 'au naturelle', I would draw it up, put it onto my light box, and trace it off, then place my WC paper over the top and work from there. It does take a long time for me to plan one and execute, but the lovely thing about natural WC is that it does follow it's own route to a degree once you're on your way.

The one above was slavishly copied, and that took a long time, where creating my own would take less time, and of course, if I make a mistake I can fix it in AR!

e1two
11-29-2012, 05:41 AM
Hi,

I would really like to try out your technique for watercolors. Your mail give some good information on how to do that, but some of the time i get caught up in the language or the terms you use. For instance where do I find the WC blender. If you have the time for a very short video of you using this technique could help out a lot of us Artrage Newbies.

Thanks for sharing,

e1

Steve B
11-29-2012, 07:24 AM
Hi,
If you're looking for video tutorials, I would check out my YouTube channel. It's linked to in my sig down below. I've got 9 videos up right now I think, and it's about an hour and a half of footage or so. It ought to cover much of what you're looking for. Let me know if you have additional questions, and I'd be happy to try and answer them. :)

katyferrari
01-07-2013, 10:41 AM
I dont have a clue what im doing with Artrage, im an animal artist who usually uses gouache paint and bockingford!
I received a Wacom Bamboo tablet/pen and Artrage2 software for Christmas and this is the first thing I have drawn - ive not used any layers, just the oil paint brush, changed the % size of it and turned insta dry on and off, no other settings at all!! Ive looked at a couple of the tutorials on youtube but im guessing youre using a newer version of Artrage as the menus and options available are different. Can you download Artrage3? or do you have to buy a cd?

hypotaxis
01-07-2013, 11:06 AM
Looks to me katyferrari, as if you know exactly what you are doing in ArtRage! :)

That is a beautiful painting. Thanks!

Brett

Steve B
01-07-2013, 12:07 PM
LOL. I agree. That's not watercolors, but it's fantastic. You obviously have previous experience with art. Re: AR 3-- yes, you have to buy it separately, but it's quite cheap now-- 35-40$ I think. You can either download it directly from the Artrage website, and/or get the CD to have a physical copy. Artrage 3, in my opinion, is well worth the price. A significant upgrade from AR 2 in many ways. :)

Thanks for coming to boards and sharing your stuff!!

katyferrari
01-08-2013, 07:47 AM
LOL. I agree. That's not watercolors, but it's fantastic. You obviously have previous experience with art. Re: AR 3-- yes, you have to buy it separately, but it's quite cheap now-- 35-40$ I think. You can either download it directly from the Artrage website, and/or get the CD to have a physical copy. Artrage 3, in my opinion, is well worth the price. A significant upgrade from AR 2 in many ways. :)

Thanks for coming to boards and sharing your stuff!!

Brilliant, thank you. Ive upgraded and now your tutorials make sense! I usually do a water colour background and just couldnt figure it out (you can see on my portraits www.katyferrari.com) now its really easy with AR 3! Managed to upgrade for just $14! thanks again

screenpainter
01-08-2013, 03:43 PM
I dont have a clue what im doing with Artrage, im an animal artist who usually uses gouache paint and bockingford!
I received a Wacom Bamboo tablet/pen and Artrage2 software for Christmas and this is the first thing I have drawn - ive not used any layers, just the oil paint brush, changed the % size of it and turned insta dry on and off, no other settings at all!! Ive looked at a couple of the tutorials on youtube but im guessing youre using a newer version of Artrage as the menus and options available are different. Can you download Artrage3? or do you have to buy a cd?

super portrait! amazing artwork.http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=72060&stc=1&d=1357508422

screenpainter
01-08-2013, 04:00 PM
It has taken me an inordinate amount of time, but I have learned so much about layering colours and attempting to emulate a watercolour/painterly feel. I am really pleased with the result, and will now revisit a set of black and white fairy prints I did in hard copy years ago, and colour them in!! Thanks for making me think! :0)

amazing piece of watercolor work. you nailed it perfectly!!! excellent.

Steve B
01-21-2013, 08:51 PM
It's been a long quiet Fall for me with art, but I took the time tonight to just play. I love how gritty Artrage can feel. Texture is what it's all about to me.

72393

D Akey
01-21-2013, 11:46 PM
Again another great offering of getting the watercolor to look right on the page. What I particularly am intrigued by is the calligraphy of the signature. It's getting really interesting and hand done looking.

chinapete
01-22-2013, 01:42 AM
well, this is a dramatic return:) ... have to agree with D Akey about the calligraphic feel, it's in the bridge too ... the texture and weight of the paper can be felt ...

justjean
01-22-2013, 04:38 AM
Great drips and runs :)

gxhpainter2
01-22-2013, 04:42 AM
Steve , wow you certainly have gained a mastery of the watercolor look and feel.. this has the look of Arches 140 cold press and nice Windsor Newton colors.... :cool::cool:

Steve B
01-22-2013, 11:49 AM
Thanks guys. :) It was fun.

Re: the calligraphy "style"-- this came from a technique figured out in a thread from a year or so ago. I choose a good bumpy Layer Texture, use the Watercolor Brush, set the Thinners to 0% and check IntraDry to "on". Choose black or a color close to it, and you get a nice, consistently dark line with textured edges. Reduce Loading to somewhere in the 20's or 30's and you'll get that nice "trail" at the end..... This works nicely, but you have to lift your brush between letters, as it "runs out of ink" pretty quick with the Loading that low.

Re: "drips" and drifts- I love grabbing the Blender and using the Hard Out Smear setting. I turn up the Smudge to a pretty high %- maybe the 70's or so, and pull the water down the page. This lets me pull farther with my drifts, and uses less cpu power than when the Smudge % is lower. I like how it mixes the colors as I drag as well.

This was done over about 30-45 minutes. Quick and playful, on 5-6 or 7 layers. Used an overlay like normal. Tried out lots of stuff for fun-
the "Triangular Chaos" brush for that veination of yellow in the upper middle/right
the "Airbrush Splats" and "Blooming" from the Art Brushes Sticker Spray-- painted with white on an upper layer to make erasures
"Veins" from the Series 81 Big Brush Set, to create granulation
Spongy Flat, from the Someonesane's Sponge set
plus some other stuff....

I tried out using Chalk too-- mostly on the left-- for texture on top of another color.

Fun! Lots of tools....

copespeak
01-22-2013, 12:52 PM
I love your Smudge Blender, it works really well. The more you work it, the more interesting the result. You certainly can get some real watercoloury effects there. Thanks for sharing. :D

chinapete
01-22-2013, 12:56 PM
steve, the Pen-Only ToolBar must be increasing your fun quotient if you can get glancing effects like this so quickly:) ... any chance it will ever come to the iPad? ...

screenpainter
01-22-2013, 06:46 PM
wow. loving the bridge. big winner!