PDA

View Full Version : How to blend smoothly using oil brush?



drawn
01-29-2013, 10:22 PM
I just started to play with artrage on an ipad. Since I'm taking oil painting lessons, I decided to use the oil brush to draw a classic sphere.

I only used about 7 grey values to create the initial painting, and then tried to blend the adjacent grays into a smooth gradient.

After playing around with the brush settings, I still couldn't smooth out the gradient so that no contour lines are visible. When painting with real paint, all I have to do is load the brush lightly or none and then paint on the contour line -- kind of like mixing color on canvas instead of on the palette. I tried the same in artrage but it just creates new contour line at the edge of the brush.

I don't have a pressure sensitive stylus; just using finger.

Any suggestions? I don't want to "cheat" and use other drawing tools; just the oil brush. Is it possible?
72670

Someonesane
01-30-2013, 01:59 AM
I wouldn't consider it cheating. To use the tools at hand to your advantage is a part of what art is about. When you do traditional oil painting, you'll likely use linseed oil and thinners to change the viscosity of the paint, or to prolong the drying time, or to create a glaze. You'd also probably have a number of different brush types to use. Is all of that cheating? I wouldn't think so. Considering that we lack much of these items while using only the oil brush tool, I think it's perfectly fine to look to the other tools for help with certain areas.

Anyway, if you must stick to only the oil brush (meaning no Palette Knife, and no eraser), then I suggest setting the Thinners up to about 90% or higher so that the paint becomes nearly transparent, and then set the tool to use Insta-dry (yep, dry so it won't take up paint). Then lay down glazes over the harsh edges to gradate them.


EDIT - Wanted to add some links in, since I'm not in rush to get to work now. The following examples weren't made on the iPad, but they the technique used in them would work just the same.

Blue Bird: Video LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTWbR05YNA)

http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57912&d=1311032396

Ah Ha! Face Study: Video LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_LWqW3DSqg)

http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59223&d=1313891717

James Jean painting Study: Thread LINK (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?32448-Hello-another-newbie!)

http://members.artrage.com/gallery_images/13917/original.png

Someonesane
01-30-2013, 12:45 PM
Just a bump, to note that I added some examples to my original post.

kenmo
01-31-2013, 06:31 AM
The Bluebird video was a joy to watch.... Thanks for sharing.....:cool:

Lima
01-31-2013, 11:17 AM
Hi Draw, in a painting, you will want to keep in mind "what type of edge do I need" for every stroke you place on the traditional canvas. You'll have to construct the softness or hardness of edges with your brush, fingers, palette knife or any effective means.

I got interested in this subject and here is my answer: It is possible to blend soften edges using only the AR oil brush as SOS pointed out, working with the settings he indicated, as well as using other settings; It is a tricky and boring stuff to do, but it is possible! as you can see in the image.

Therefore, SOS advice applies and is the best and easiest thing to do. Just use the AR tools broad possibilities!!! It is the same ratonale...or not? except for the finger.

Draw, that is the way to go... nice start in your sphere of values. Values are judged in terms of a grey scale usually 2 to 9 steps (1 black and 10 white, can't be obtained); you've used 7 steps, out of nine possible. See the image of sphere below for you to compare. Good luck.

Steve B
02-02-2013, 05:24 AM
I would also just say that Artrage happens to separate out into different categories tools which blend versus tools that lay down color (thus, say Oil or Chalk or Pencil or Crayon versus the Blender tool). In a program such as Corel Painter, these different functions (laying down color and blending it) are actually combined into one label or brush set. This may make one feel that one is doing it more "realistically". I'm not sure. But in Artrage, those functions are intentionally separated for greater control and ease of use. Their locations in different categories is really just a fluke of programming and labeling desire, not intended function.

Artrage also separates out tools which it thinks you'll use for different functions, even if its quite "flexible" in what it emulates (thus, for example, the Felt Tip Pen can often be used as a Watercolor tool, even though it's not labeled as such). These are intended to be helpful labels, but in truth are totally arbitrary. I would not let the labels decide how you use the various tools. It's only my opinion, but after using the program for a few years, it in fact seems to me that, say, the Oil or Watercolor tool is clearly NOT intended to do everything an oil brush can do. The Blender, for example, is utterly critical, and is clearly intended to accomplish many of the things you would normally do with your brush (or with water, in the case of the Watecolor tool). They're just separated for clearer navigation of a complicated set of tools.

I used to think using tools from other categories was "cheating" too, but once I understood that all these functions could have been in the category I was working in if the AR team had just preferred to label it that way (and in fact were, in different programs), my opinion changed. IMO, I'd use them all, for what it's worth if it creates the mark you want to create. They're all just digital marks.

chinapete
02-02-2013, 02:27 PM
Steve B, I highly recommend your YouTube ArtRage video #5 for anyone who wants to see AR's blenders in action :) ... I will say, though, that separating out the blender and its functions from the w/c and other tools always seemed to me a bit counterintuitive, because for my style of painting, I want a single brush stroke to accomplish everything at once, pressure, blend, opacity etc all should be set beforehand ... But that's just me, I guess ... Still, since we recently have been alerted to a beta AR 4.0, I wonder if the separation of function and stroke will persist ...

Steve B
02-03-2013, 08:30 AM
Chinapete,
Your point about multiple actions combined in a single tool is valid (as in, applying pain and blending it), as this is what natural media tools do. It also allows a lot of flexibility and in-the-moment decisions. I like that too. However, if one looks at the experience of using Painter, the problem is that the controls become over bearing. Imagine trying to combine all the controls of the Blender tool with all the controls of the Watercolor or Oils tool. You'd have 10-15 controls to try and work out just to make one brush. Mutate what you get in Painter, and although that allows some sophisticated brushes that both apply and blend color, it ironically seemed to suck the life out of the experience instead of improving it. Atleast that's been my experience so far. Maybe that'll change some day. But I find people go around hunting for that perfect. brush a lot in Painter. That's not something you gt in the AR community as much, where people just seem to get down to painting more.

Lima
02-03-2013, 01:37 PM
ArtRage tools are not intended to do everything traditional art tools do, for sure.
The fundamentals of any painting are no different even though any unique medium requires a different technique that includes: good drawing skills, good color theory and good composition no matter the medium you choose.

Most digital artists get caught up in mimicking the look and feel of traditional paints. I have no restrictions on this, although many people do not like it. In my humble opinion, we should rather learn how to emulate the many diferent aspects of a traditional painting. This trains you and over time, you can create your own style of painting digital and/or traditional, so that you can use them as complementary techniques in your benefit.

For me, I just believe that ArtRage is it's own unique medium with it's own unique look and it's own unique workflow.

But you can use ArtRage in its extreme limits, as for example, trying to soften edges. So, I would like to emphasize that it is indeed possible to do it with the ArtRage brush tool (although tricky and boring as I said before) See figures.

Lima
02-03-2013, 01:38 PM
continuing...
For sure you can mix colors with the brush, everyone does it; and still get the resulting mix loaded in the brush to continuing painting.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSK7n9rZegU

byroncallas
03-04-2013, 07:28 AM
Terrific thread. I'm not sure what the AR developers are always intending. But the result seems much in line with Steve's perspective, intended or not. It's the perspective I've found has made it much easier to put the AR tools to good use in a reliable and predictable work flow. I find I completely ignore the names of the tools, and use them, from discovery, for what each actually accomplishes. Somehow, it all works out much better, for me, than any of the other painting programs I've tried. I'm sure this must be a "different strokes for different folks" world when it comes to these things. But Steve's observations, also summed up by Lima's observations, ring true for me - they are a backdrop for how AR has become almost the only digital painting tool I use. :)

Lima
03-08-2013, 10:30 AM
Byron, dear friend, you are right about Steve's clever observations....certainly to keep in mind...I totally agree with your thinking, it worked much the same on my side.

When forum user drawn asked how to blend smoothly using a digital oil brush ...clearly his intent was to emulate the real thing, and probably show the result to his traditional class teacher and his class mates, maybe!!!???

As far as his question goes, I would say that painting a smoothly edge transition scale of values in the form of a sphere with a brush is a valuable traditional exercise that gives you confidence in dealing with form, volume and edge values correctly, one of the most important oil painting lessons to learn and practice.If you can control edge transition then you paintings will improve quite significantly. Painting and blending edges on a sphere is not the same thing as blending edges on distinct patchs of colors, it requires time and lot of practicing to learn the methods that work best for you.

In the digital ArtRage set it is the same, using the brush involves a tricky, boring and time consuming technique (how to digitally blend edges with a brush?) full of undos/redos... The technique is not at all easy and also requires lots of time to learn.

If drawn reads the posted answers, he will learn that using the digital brush to paint and blend smooth edges in a sphere is not the best choice... the use of the knife is important... and it is not cheating at all. But than, here too, smoothing edges with a knife might not be easy at all. And technical frustration occurs, even to the point of blaming the software for your own technical difficulties. In another thread MattRage calls attention to the stack flow of paint, a very tricky technique that can save the blend. Only repetition will give the necessary experience.

"From the script you sent earlier, it looks like the blend you're not happy with could be avoided by avoiding overblending 'bad' results back in to good ones, which is primarily caused by the limitations of 8 bit channels which exacerbate even the tiniest imperfection when that imperfection is blended back in to the stack. It's not perfect, but in normal use it doesn't really pop up as a problem, it's only when a slightly darker/lighter/more or less saturated result gets blended repeatedly back in to the paint volume and takes over as the top colour in the volume stack."

byroncallas
03-08-2013, 01:57 PM
Hi Lima, old friend. I think we share a similar perspective.

It's interesting when we step back and be sensible. Take the AR oil brush. There are a large number of settings that simulate a "real" oil brush.

But wait! What did I just say? We know that different brands of paint and brands of brushes with the same name will behave differently. The differences, even minor, require the artist to make subtle adjustments with brain and muscles to get the desired effect.

Yet, there are general principles to learn to accomplish getting a bunch of paint applied to a canvas to appear to look like, for example, a real sphere, regardless of the tool.

With the AR oil brush, we note a peculiar thing. We can find particular settings and use them to simulate getting a sphere in a way reminiscent of what it is like doing it with any number of different types of real oil brushes and different brands of paint. In fact, we can make adjustments that turn the AR oil brush into a thousand tools of varying sizes, thicknesses, weights, stiffness, etc. With them we can have a thousand mixes of paints and thinners. And we have a pallet of infinite color variations. The AR oil brush is equivalent, then, to purchasing thousands of dollars of different, real brushes that each do different things.

Yet, we can't paint a proper sphere, if we desire it to be "proper", without understanding the principles and applying them through practice. We can't paint portraits without learning the basic principles for making a face look like a face, whether we use an oil brush, an old rusty nail, a fly swatter, or any of the thousands of settings combinations of an AR digital tool.

We can say the same for pencils. The single AR pencil is the equivalent to owning several thousand different pencils with different thicknesses, hardnesses, colors, etc. Yet, the AR thousands-of-pencils pencil is no better or worse than a common #2 pencil for drawing a face until we learn universal principles applied through practice, practice, practice.

I suppose everyone will approach this kind of thing a bit differently. But when I look at AR, and see the name "oil brush", it provides a grounding that, from experience using real oil brushes, says to me, "This AR oil brush is going to give me an output that is somewhat on the order of X." That is darn helpful to know. But after using the AR oil brush I'll learn quickly that, wow, not only will it give me something like X, I can get A, R, D, Q, P, Z, W, K, and T. I'd have to buy a lot of different "real" oil brushes to do that. A little more experimenting and I'll learn that the AR oil brush can do stuff that no group of realoil brushes could ever do. The same is true for all the AR tools.

Still, I have to take the tools as they are and apply them correctly, through observation and practice, to get an ever expanding cornucopia of desired results.

After a while, it becomes natural, I think, to stop thinking of the digital tool as an oil brush, or a water color brush or an ink pen, etc., and become familiar with the "what" that the particular digital tool really is, and that the paint program is as a whole. At some point it is just natural to get accustomed to the broad range of outputs possible, and that I can, with practice, practice, practice, intentionally produce at will to achieve visual goals.

In the beginning we might say "this AR water color brush does not simulate this or that exactly the way I'm accustomed with a real water color brush". It is also true, however, that no water color brush will ever accomplish all the variety that can be accomplished with an AR water color brush or the varying combination of juggled digital tools.

Yet, there is great value in trying to, as the Ambient guys do, to create a brush that comes as close to what a real water color brush will do, and keep struggling to get ever closer. The benefits of the effort are compounded far beyond those that can have been originally conceived. I am confident that if we interviewed the Ambient team, who have done an incredible job at creating a tool that gets ever closer to mimicking "real tools", they will share that they are astonished how people have used AR in ways that they could not have imagined. That is likely true, too, of the guy who invented the oil brush.

All that aside, you are dead right. Regardless of the tool, I've got to learn how to apply it. Just like the oil brush allows me to create effects that burnt charcoal could not, so too, digital tools allow us to create effects no oil brush ever will. Still, learning to draw a human body with burnt charcoal is a learning and maturing process that will enrich the competence and experience of anyone engaging in the visual arts. And you can't create a sphere without learning how with the tool you are using. The principles of what makes a sphere look like a sphere on a two-dimensional surface are the same, no matter the tool. The satisfying value is learning the principles and, through observation and practice, learning to apply them to accomplish our artistic purposes however meager or grand. We cannot escape thinking and observation, accompanied by practice, practice, practice. The engagement of thinking and practice in a context of principles is where all the real, personal, fulfillment of discovery and achievement is experienced. That's where the fun is. The particular value of new tools is that they expand the boundaries of what can be accomplished and all the joy people get from accomplishment.

Anyway, my over-bloated 2 cents of blather. It's fun to engage one of these conversations with you Lima - we haven't for a while, old friend. It's fun to touch these bases. :D:D:D

Steve B
03-08-2013, 04:06 PM
On the note of this topic, and blending with the Oil brush specifically-

Today I just downloaded Fashmirs Oil Brushes set in the Art Supplies forum. There are some great settings there. One of the things I recognized is that he has a "blender" that is an Oil Brush setting. It's the "Badger Hair Blender". This settings has 100% Pressure, 0% Thinners, and 0% Loading. This allows you to smoothly blend color with the Oil Brush without adding additional color-- as if you had a relatively dry, unloaded brush, and were using it basically to mix together 2 colors and smooth out the transition. It works, IMO, exceptionally well, and doesn't push things around as much as the Blenders do. A great tool for putting down soft edges with your Oil tool.

Just wanted to share. It's a very simple answer, but seems to give very good results.

byroncallas
03-08-2013, 06:05 PM
Steve, thanks. I'm gonna go get those. David always comes up with the best tools. :)

Lima
03-16-2013, 11:17 AM
Byron, your ability to interpret these various aspects of the program roll's up. I underline this: "I am confident that if we interviewed the Ambient team, who have done an incredible job at creating a tool that gets ever closer to mimicking "real tools", they will share that they are astonished how people have used AR in ways that they could not have imagined."............the artists!!! incredible artists...

I was totally hooked by digital form of art when I tried AR2 back in 2008 . I was experimenting with brush strokes of colors images for my wife's chocolate page (http://donamartabombons.wordpress.com/) .

Brush (oil paint loaded or not) Paint (thinned or not), ability to load the Knife, Paint Tube, the paint pallete and the Color Mixing System are all fascinating AR tools, we all agree on that. It allows for the making of virtual (and Giclee and Canvas) art at a high standart level (Misterpaint, Skechtchism...and others). Paintings having a fine art aspect...smooth oil paintings, glazes, scumbles and also sudden painterly effects, including heavy impasto textures, effects that never before where so easy to accomplish with a digital program, if ever. We can see these great art wonders here in the forum everyday.

There is no doubt that this software will improve in the future, and many new fancy features will be developed, enriching its painting emulating power. I wish that the ambient team could employ their smart intelligence and a bit of time to further tweak digital oil paint rheology - viscosity (liquidity of the paint) - as dispensed right from the tube paint tool. The thinner as it works of now, just flat thin the paint (IMHO).

See this small video "Mixing Black" with three paints showing viscous characteristics; Alizarin, Blue and Yellow (Sienna). The black mixture is succesful (verified) by cutting it down to gray with white paint.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhTXtB-7bow

Lima
03-16-2013, 11:19 AM
continuing..........

I few years ago I PM DaveRage about this issue, viscosity, and, at that time, I did not get a promising response. But time passes, and old ideas resurfaces, so???

It seems that the program has oil paint with viscous features. The soft knife tool (pushes around oil paint that shows a viscous draggable aspect)... viscous paint could be dispensed right from the tube paint tool and miscibility among paints could be improved.

I've made some mixing and blending tests using the soft knife together with non loaded blending knife showing this possibility. The soft knife tool drags the paint which presents a viscous aspect. The problem here is that the draggable paints does not prompt mix and blend very well, and also other odd small things that happens when you mix the paints with the soft knife. So if these factors "mixing" and "blending" are worked out, here's a tool (soft knife) that works with paints showing viscous draggable miscible characteristics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stlnqZ_ibVY

Sorry for my english and if I'm totally wrong

Be weel Byron See this video.

byroncallas
03-16-2013, 04:48 PM
An interesting exploration Lima. Sadly, your video displays a notice that it is private (?).

Exploring your thoughts, the AR knife tool is surely a sophisticated digital manipulator. It allows us, through practice, to discover a seemingly infinite variety of outputs depending on settings applied to a broad range of starting conditions (the previously applied digital paint and its application settings). Like most AR tools, many of these fall in a spectrum that can loosely be described as mimicking real media. Examples: you can blend oil colors and get them more or less right; you can spread three oil colors across the canvas and have them gradate and blend in a beautiful rainbow of color, etc.

And then, the tool ventures far outside the spectrum. It allows outputs that, while in most cases achievable with real tools of some sort, we would never use the knife to do it in real life. Some other tool or combination of tools, as reviewed in posts above, would be used. The tool being used digitally just happens to be the knife. Example: With bump paints trapped in a select space, the blur-knife tool will render beautiful 3-D shapes subject to the program's lighting features. You can accomplish the same thing in real media. But you would never use something called a blur blender to do it. Similarly, it is true with many of the so-called wet blender features and its wild and wonderful outputs.

The smudge tool, with a wide range of settings, is phenomenal. You can push seemingly different viscosities of medium and have it retain different rheology (flow-in-time) properties. While the ranges are limited, it is nevertheless impressive. The trick is experimenting within the limitations with what, for artists, eventually become the infinite possibilities - the never anticipated - the leaps beyond the tool's imagined intentions, as well as its routine, reliable results.

I'm not sure I'm addressing your thoughts. Please redirect me if I'm off base. The itch you seem to wish to scratch is to bring ever more realism to the tactile experience along with predicable, real-world media results. Desirable is a Holy Grail with two objectives: 1) that the output matches a real-life tool with varied real-life mediums and their rheology, and 2) that the physical experience moving the digital tool through the digital medium registers similarly in the senses. This would, logically, be a Holy Grail of a digital tool whose claim is to mimic reality. It feels just like real life. The results are just like real life. [As an aside, I'll suggest that requires as-yet undeveloped hardware, not just software.]

The technological hurdles are formidable. To achieve a true map on human experience I'd wager is a development process of scores of years and hundreds of millions of dollars. In the interim, of necessity, we settle for the quite impressive incremental achievements. What is developed is what can be currently accomplished with the technology and resources available. It evolves as technology evolves, more resources are available, and, as an interested, paying market demands. The more people who say "I want this" vs. those who say "I want that", will get, after achievability assessments (cost, time, ROI), the most development attention. It's good that we express what we would like.

The more people who want AR to be able to do this or that, the more likely it will get attention for development inclusion if it is realistically achievable.

Achievability is a critical issue. What does it take to do it? What kind of investment in time, money and talent for what return? I feel confident the talent behind AR has its ear to the ground ever intent to make the product more and more what people want. The restraints will be the usual ones: what is technologically feasible, time, money, and realistic ROI.

Matt and team of course can weigh in more objectively as the creators of this little wonder called AR. They know what they are talking about and the hurdles they face in making us happy. I'm more or less bumbling about, probably bordering on nonsense. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I'd love to see your video. Buzz me when you have the fix. Meanwhile, thanks for your always inspired engagements. And let me know if I took this somewhere in left field that had nothing to do with your thoughts. It wouldn't be the first time I missed the boat. :D

Lima
03-17-2013, 11:55 AM
Hi Byron, fixed the video and here is another correlated video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd7aYtt_S98

Lima
03-17-2013, 11:56 AM
and still another one...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jv4UElCy3I

Please, watch the movies

byroncallas
03-17-2013, 09:12 PM
Hi Byron, fixed the video and here is another correlated video.

LOL: Lima: Well, I think maybe my post wasn't much related to what you were trying to show in your videos. I should delete it before I'm laughed out of the forum. :D:D:D

Of course we'll need Matt&Team to say: but the two videos blending with the smudge tool and switching to the flat knife looks like a bug. I can replicate it here exactly, instantly. I thought it might be your tool settings. But I can replicate it with most any of the flat knife and smudge tool settings with a little more or less manipulation of the paint. Terrific illustration. Let's see what the Ambient technical team has to say (?). EDIT. I suggest you post the anomaly videos in technical support, because I think you've found a bug. (?)

And the black-blend example is divine - an example of AR being rather impressive to get such a clean black. Nice job old boy. :)

Lima
03-18-2013, 03:58 PM
Hi Byron, thanks for the input. Being pragmatic: viscous oil paints are moved around and mixed with the soft knife in a sort of extrusion pattern. The mixing behavior seems to be different from the mixing done with the knife blending tool, which has a kind of negative anti-extrusion pattern.


I really don't know if there is a bug or not. It might be related with software program, things that we don't understand such as stack flow, layers, pipeline, rastering, and things alike.


Interesting is that when you move the paint, any oil color paint, against the white background canvas occurrs a sequential tinting of the hue (Why?). The opposite, shading, does not occurs.


However the original pigment is there in all phases of this tint sequence. That can be shown using the blending knife... observe this... nonloaded blending knife... that rescues the original employed hue... but oddly the knife continues moving the paint along as if it where loaded (Why?). Even more interesting it moves on the stack the other colors pigments automatically, without sampling the changed hue (Why?).

Will post some photos about this.

take fare friend

byroncallas
03-18-2013, 04:43 PM
Lima, I might well be wrong, but I believe the answer to of those "why" is a bug. I can see explanations why it might NOT be one, but it looks suspicious. I suggest to query in the technical forum and am pasting my illustration there along with a link to your video here. Now I'm curious and would like to understand one way or the other.
EDIT: Here is the link to the incident report. http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?44038-AR4-0-2-Smudge-and-Flat-Knife-Bug-(-)&p=441922#post441922

Lima
03-19-2013, 10:14 AM
Byron, nice of you to take the discussion to the technical forum.


Hi! I think IMHO that this is the soft to learn (and teach) color mixing. Mixing and blending colors with the flat knife tool, gives one the visual sensation of manualy making it, for real!!!

The use of a viscous paint would increase this feeling. Digital paint viscosity is being researched by many...

one example:
https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~geom/papers/documents/dissertations/baxter04.pdf (https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/%7Egeom/papers/documents/dissertations/baxter04.pdf)

well, AR has this kind of viscous paint. Viscous paint this is the point with this post. I than started to experiment with the soft knife tool. These experiments are momentaneously focused on color mixing. There seems to be many possibilities, and also different findings that where not seem before.

... continues on the technical forum

byroncallas
03-19-2013, 01:22 PM
Hi Lima.

I recall reading Baxter's dissertation several years ago. It was published in 2004. While still relevant in its principles, the technologies he had available to him I imagine, after nine years, are supplanted by greater opportunities. But I'm not aware to what degree anyone has taken advantage of them.

The dissertation, while long, reflects the two main points I was suggesting in the post above: the Holy Grail of a digital painting program mimicking real tools must satisfy two criteria: 1) It must feel like real media during the process of applying paint; and 2) the results must be the same. I mentioned that it couldn't be accomplished without addressing hardware components. It is not just a programming challenge. It is a physical tool- building challenge that encompasses software integrations. In principle and practice, Baxter's dissertation had that singular product-development focus.

I don't know whatever happened to Baxter. I understand he sold some kind of patent to Microsoft around 2010. I don't know what the patent covered. I lost track of him. I'm not inside the industry. I'm no connected guy. I don't know if Baxter or others have moved the marble forward in some substantial way in the direction that Baxter envisioned. I've no idea if the technology requirements are anywhere near where they need to be to satisfy his core objective. The guys at Ambient Design are probably more up to date, by leaps and bounds, on related developments and directions.

As time passes one wonders if a vision like Baxter's can be successfully (profitably) pursued. As younger generations are introduced to digital painting programs, including great ones like ArtRage that they can begin to explore at two or three years of age, it is fair to ask if the Holy Grail Baxter envisioned is a sensible pursuit. It isn't unfair to ask if younger generations might fairly say, as would you and I, "I am not interested in an automobile that feels like driving a horse and buggy. I want a vehicle that allows me to go much farther, much faster, with more comfort and less cost."

You and I are born to an earlier environment where we might be forgiven our nostalgia. But younger generations may lack interest and prefer, instead, a really fast car, or an interplanetary space rocket. ;):D

I wish I were going to be around a couple of hundred years from now to see how it all turned out.

Steve B
03-19-2013, 05:23 PM
I agree with this concept in many ways. I remember a contentious conversation with M.Aster in my Watercolor WIPs thread, where he asked "Why should we want our digital watercolors to look like natural media, when it's not?" A valid question. I don't care for watercolors that try to look and act like Oils. I like watercolors that really play with water. Similarly, perhaps younger generations will paint digitally, and will think "I don't want digital art to act like , I want it to act like [I]digital art."

My issue has been that I have a hard time really thinking about what "digital" art looks like, beyond pixel art. Digital art lives in a physical vacuum unlike any kind of art previous to it, IMO. Other forms of art are largely dictated by the limitations and opportunities provided by the various media they are made of. Oils are opaque and viscous, watercolors wet, transparent, and granular, etc. What is digital art?

In a thread many months ago, someone mentioned that importing granular watercolor backgrounds to a digital watercolor seemed valid-- not because digital watercolors should look just like its natural media counterpart, but because all the world is made of texture and variety, and all art should have that, digital or otherwise. This makes me wonder- if part of what makes digital art digital art the fact that you can import anything and everything? I don't know. But its element of textural pastiche (much like modern artists sampling songs) is part of what seems to make it special.

Anyways, this is really, really tangential, but your comment sparked this thought, and I thought I'd share. I wonder-- what does make digital art digital art, and not simply a bad copy of something else? I would imagine that kind of vision will come, perhaps, some day, from younger artists who learn to paint digitally and never think twice about it, and end up not wanting "a car that acts and looks like a horse and buggy", as you so elegantly put it!

byroncallas
03-19-2013, 08:09 PM
Steve,

It seems a terrifically valid contemplation. Maybe one way of getting at a perspective is to take a point you made and focus on one word in it, i.e. "opportunity". You said:


"Other forms of art are largely dictated by the limitations and opportunities provided by the various media they are made of. Oils are opaque and viscous, watercolors wet, transparent, and granular, etc. What is digital art?"

Digital art, at least compared to previous media, removes the word "limitations". By comparison, digital art presents nearly limitless opportunities. What we can do is subject only to the limits of our imagination and skill. With enough fiddling, we can make a piece look like anything we want. Digital art, in that context, is an art medium that allows the artist to imagine a desired outcome that can look like any other medium, or something no other medium has ever made possible, and with skill and perseverance, achieve it. In the most skillful hands, using any number of printing techniques available, observing a painting at a typical viewing distance, the viewer may not be able to discern how it was produced. He won't know if it is digitally produced or not, unless of course it is something not likely possible to produce by any of the normally recognized "real" media, though it is pretty astounding what people can do with "real" media.

Another way to think of digital art is as a watershed or transforming event in a cultural convention. People who live during a transformation live with an experience of what was. You and I are living through a transformation. We are inclined, having the past as a visceral experiential reference, as well as a nostalgia for it, to be almost compelled to ask in the context of your statement, "What is digital art?" But people born on the other side of the transformation, growing up with digital art all around them, would not think to ask the question. Someone reading our forum exchange 100 years from now might be astonished that people used to think like you and me, similar to when as a child I read that they used to try to cure diseases by bloodletting.

Those of us who have an investment in the media we spent some time learning to love and master are likely inclined to ask new things to validate our investment rather than to suggest that we may be obsolete. This may be the source of passionate defenses as well as denigrations. But when our generation is long gone, those passions will have gone with us just as the passions of the old Linotype unions in the late 1960's are non-existent when then, people were prepared to shoot people walking across picket lines to run the first cold type machines at major newspaper corporations. I was there for those encounters. Hardly anyone even remembers it now. In retrospect it seems absurd that such passions existed and such events took place.

This might seem a flight of fancy (???). But I think each of these is somewhere in the ballpark even if not home runs. I suppose a simple way of saying it is that we are bound, by human nature, to cling to those things we identify with, and that in many ways identify us. Something that comes along that challenges our identity, and for many people their livelihood, can be befuddling and threatening. My view is that we are in the midst of a technological transformation in how art is produced. It is sweeping aside all past conventions. In another two generations the shift will be accomplished. There won't be people living who would think to have the conversation that you and I are having here. They will be worried that people have found the technological means to simply think of an art idea and have it magically appear on a screen. There will be those who will argue it is not really art because they didn't use a stylus or a touch screen to generate the image.

I know this waxes a bit philosophical. But I suspect standing back, looking with some distance, these notions touch on the discussions about digital vs. real media that sometimes raise the passions. Reasonable people might stand back and wonder what is making the blood so hot. Young people don't have time to be bothered. They are out there doing incredible new things with incredible new things.

Masa mana,
: - )
b

Someonesane
03-20-2013, 01:45 AM
The end result is all that matters to me. I could wake up tomorrow and find that my favorite type of oil paints are no longer available. What then? Stop painting, because the rest of paint doesnt flow the same way, or adapt to meet my new criteria? The tools only become relavent, when an artist makes use of them. Experiment with what's at hand and write your own rules. That is art.

Steve B
03-20-2013, 06:10 AM
That's interesting to hear, SOS. Are you a working professional, as an artist?

I ask because, to me, as a non-pro, I would say that process is paramount. If I don't enjoy the process of making art, the rest doesn't matter at all. Additionally, for me, the tools I use to make an image are absolutely part of the process. So, I would say that the _experience_ of using Acrylics on a big mural, or watercolors on a stretched piece of paper while painting outside, or working digitally at a desk matters to me, most definitely. I admit I often find myself less interested in an image once I've made it. The result matters to me, but not as much. It's the making that I find exciting.

Simultaneously, I would say the _way_ in which you view a work matters as well. On a 10" computer screen? On a 20' tall mural at a restaurant? Mounted on a wall a living room wall? Resting on someone's desk? Absolutely, I would say, the _way_ in which I would view it would matter, and change my experience.

I guess my point is that the image isn't the only thing that matters. The how of it matters too-- both in the making and viewing of.


I could wake up tomorrow and find that my favorite type of oil paints are no longer available. What then? Stop painting, because the rest of paint doesnt flow the same way, or adapt to meet my new criteria? The tools only become relavent, when an artist makes use of them. Experiment with what's at hand and write your own rules. That is art.

True, but if your favorite paints went away, the way you painted would need to change, and probably the final image too. Of course you wouldn't stop making images, but I think it's a valid point to people can grow to like making an image in a certain way, that it gives them pleasure.

You like a certain hamburger made at your favorite restaurant. It goes out of business. Are you going to stop eating hamburgers? No. But that doesn't mean you won't miss your old favorite hamburger, and that you might not hunt out a new hamburger that tastes similar.

chinapete
03-20-2013, 08:39 AM
This thread is fascinating and contains many useful tips and techniques for all sorts of painting traditional and digital ... Many thanks to everyone for their remarks and insights, I've learned a few new things about digital painting, and ArtRage ...


I am sure no one will disagree that the discussion is Western-centric ... I say this with the greatest respect for our tradition, no other culture has a similar history of continual creative innovation -- among them oil painting itself, various methods for the mechanical reproduction of images, all kinds of ingenious forms of analytic and synthetic perspective, revolutionary ideas such as art for art's sake, abstract art, conceptual art and so on ...

Yet it is interesting to reflect that from the Chinese perspective, art looks a little different ... The objective of most Western artists, even into the modern era, is to map artistic representation to a visible aspect of reality -- and generally speaking, the more closely the representation is mapped to reality, the higher the praise for the artist ... So there is much concern about shading, about getting the shape of the thing right ... And that is what, I think, the OP was looking for, and the replies have been helpful, even while exposing limitations in the current digital state-of-the-art ...

In this regard, most digital art I see, especially the kind that self-consciously eliminates any reference to natural media, reminds me of the ancient Chinese painter who was asked by the emperor, What is the hardest thing to paint? Horses and dogs, he said ... Why? Because everyone can see these things and it is known how they should look in a painting ... What then is the easiest thing to paint? Ghosts ... Why? Because no one has seen them, and therefore everyone can have an opinion about what they should look like ... So the amusing thing about most digital art is that it takes a ghost -- let's call this "imagination" -- and renders it with hyper-realism ...

But this form of realism is alien to the traditional Chinese artist ... In certain styles of calligraphy and ink painting, the only reality to be reproduced is the artist's presence ... Truth in painting is established when the painter is able to express the totality of the actual moment when something was perceived, felt, interpreted and reproduced ... There is no lag time, all happens instantaneously ... In the highest forms of calligraphy, the basic brush stroke is the only truth, and often the content of the written character (what the character "means") is treated as secondary or of no importance at all ...

For this reason, as I see it, the litmus test, the real Turing test of digital art, must be the ability to reproduce a basic brush stroke in Chinese calligraphy or ink painting indistinguishable from a human being performing the same act ... The test is incredibly simple: All that is needed is the means to control direction, pressure, opacity of ink, tip and side of brush in a single stroke, on paper that is textured and absorbent -- and after each stroke, to have the brush return to its original shape, with that much less ink, ready for the the next stroke ...

More than thousand years ago, a simple brush stroke of ink on paper or silk, when executed properly, was recognized as having "litigan" (立体感) -- the phrase means "three-dimensionality" ... As with most concepts in Chinese art, it is difficult to translate, but in relation to brushwork in calligraphy, it denotes the roundness that results from the interaction of one medium (ink) with another (paper), and also the force or energy of the artist's character ... It is this third dimension that is missing in digital art, and it is the reason why, after more than a year of experimenting with all the wonderful tools that AR and other digital software offer, I have increasingly turned to digital mixed media as the basis for my art -- I want to preserve the sensual feel of a brush resisting and stimulating each stroke, and at the same time, I want to create something that cannot be reproduced, digitally or otherwise, because that moment has passed ...

Apologies to the OP, as what I've just said no doubt strays very far from his or her immediate problem ...

byroncallas
03-20-2013, 10:15 AM
I tend to lean in SOS's direction while tipping a hat to the truth, Steve, that our experience of creating art is for most artists also part of the fulfillment. I should not speak for SOS, but I don't think he would disagree. The leap is that satisfaction and fulfillment can be had during the process regardless of the medium used. If oil paints disappeared, we'll take pleasure in the process of making art with flyswatters and bean paste. If that is all that is available to me, OK, let's get busy.

I think this translates to creativity and productive labor in most endeavors for engaged people, not just the arts. Bricklayers, accountants, and pasty chefs can share the same fulfillments in both the creative and production aspects of their labor.

It is, of course, always different strokes for different folks. It seems one of the good things about the human spirit is that if their particular stroke (let's say oils or watercolors) just isn't around any more, people will find something else or invent something new to work with. The possibilities for fulfillment in a work process in life are not limited to the availability of water colors. I guess I can say I've had quite a few burger joints that I loved that went out of business. It was sad for day I must admit. But man, I've found some other really terrific joints that are even better. I might never have ventured into them if Bobby's Burgers around the corner had not burnt to the ground. In retrospect, the best thing that ever happened was that place went up in flames. :)

Chinapete, thanks so much for reminding us to broaden our perspective. Your points in this conversation seem particularly relevant. I love your idea of the Turing Test for a digital calligraphy tool. The way you describe it, it maps exactly (yes?) for the two criteria outlined above for the Holy Grail of a digital painting tool whose goal is to mimic natural media. I lean to the case that it is the correct criteria, while reiterating there doesn't seem to be a long term cultural demand for it. There is only an interim one for those nostalgic for their current tools wishing to seem them embodied in the new rather than made obsolete. As digital tools evolve to do most anything, and current generations pass on, the new tools will prevail while buggy whips will only be found in museums. Even whole cultures will morph to something else as our global connectedness transforms and integrates Western and Eastern cultures into something entirely new and unpredictable. Most likely the artistic expressions that come forth will be richer for it. If I could have a wish fulfilled, it is to be around a century from now to see how it unfolded. :)

Someonesane
03-20-2013, 11:40 AM
That's interesting to hear, SOS. Are you a working professional, as an artist?

I wouldn't label myself as a "Pro". I've been commissioned before, but never anything I could make a long term steady job.


I ask because, to me, as a non-pro, I would say that process is paramount. If I don't enjoy the process of making art, the rest doesn't matter at all. Additionally, for me, the tools I use to make an image are absolutely part of the process. So, I would say that the _experience_ of using Acrylics on a big mural, or watercolors on a stretched piece of paper while painting outside, or working digitally at a desk matters to me, most definitely. I admit I often find myself less interested in an image once I've made it. The result matters to me, but not as much. It's the making that I find exciting.

Ah, but there's the catch... To me, learning new ways of creating is the "exciting" aspect. Why stick to the known, when I can explore? Not being bound by a commissions expectation allows for that freedom and I enjoy it whenever I can. Sure I have set methods that I always return to, but what I know about ArtRage didn't happen because I settled for what I already knew. When I see a question in the forums, I try to answer it for them and for myself.



Simultaneously, I would say the _way_ in which you view a work matters as well. On a 10" computer screen? On a 20' tall mural at a restaurant? Mounted on a wall a living room wall? Resting on someone's desk? Absolutely, I would say, the _way_ in which I would view it would matter, and change my experience.

I guess my point is that the image isn't the only thing that matters. The how of it matters too-- both in the making and viewing of.

That's more focused on getting a specific result for a purpose. How one goes about creating art for that purpose, will depend greatly on ones experiences with different media. That comes from experience, which stems from experimenting while learning.


True, but if your favorite paints went away, the way you painted would need to change, and probably the final image too. Of course you wouldn't stop making images, but I think it's a valid point to people can grow to like making an image in a certain way, that it gives them pleasure.

You like a certain hamburger made at your favorite restaurant. It goes out of business. Are you going to stop eating hamburgers? No. But that doesn't mean you won't miss your old favorite hamburger, and that you might not hunt out a new hamburger that tastes similar.

Yes, but if you know you're eating at different restaurant, then you know to expect a change in taste. We know we are not using actual oil paints, thus we should expect a change in how the tools work. I just find it's easier to use a tool for what is has to offer, than to expect the tool to bend to my will and be what's it's not. This isn't to say that things can't be improved upon. I just feel that the expectations of what a tool could do, were it true to its traditional counterpart, should not ultimately limit someone from using it for what can offer right now.

chinapete
03-20-2013, 12:03 PM
I must say it is hard to imagine a more spectacular name/handle, Byron, the very type of Romantic rebel, and Callas, equally brooding and powerful in her expression, the unsurpassed diva of the 20th century :)

In all of my years of living in China, I never saw anyone other than calligraphists write with a brush ... Everyone of course used a ballpoint pen, or chalk, and later a computer or a cell phone -- whatever digital device made it easiest to choose a character :)

But for calligraphy, one must use a brush, there can be no substitute ... Calligraphy has to be written in the traditional full-form characters, a skill lost to most Chinese who live on the mainland and read/write the simplified characters ... For these reasons, technically calligraphy already is a thing of the past, and while I agree that nostalgia plays a role in contemporary interest, it also is true that there are some things that ought to be preserved, and in China calligraphy is among them, especially if there is to be any truth to the claim of thousands of years of cultural continuity ... But calligraphy is founded upon a small but unchanging set of conventions which must be obeyed if the result is to be called calligraphy ...

I remember that in 2008 or so, a famous calligraphist, professor Tian Yunzhang (田蕴章), recorded "a character a day" for a year on tv, I think I watched about 70 of his sessions on YouKu (it's the Chinese version of YouTube) ... In one, he said all the ancients agreed that the most important thing when learning calligraphy is how to hold the brush ... But, he added, the ancients themselves claimed there were no rules about this, and could not agree on how it should be done ... And yet--he said this with great emphasis--they all could write well ... It is this implied and yet real and verifiable standard that sets calligraphy apart from other art forms ...

In my own work, I have tried for a fusion style -- so far the results please no one, Westerners can't read it and the Chinese ignore it :)

ps: in the "Bluish" brush strokes to illustrate blending that Lima posted, has anyone noticed the whitish fringe that persists as part of each stroke? It is a tint that differs noticeably from the paper/background ... I have not found a way to eliminate it ... yet another reason to believe that calligraphy is all but impossible to recreate in AR at the moment ...

Lima
03-21-2013, 11:27 AM
Hi there, after all these nice thoughts, I have to slowly digest everything that’s been said, so I read, read, read and will try to pass my ideas through, hoping that I'm not talking nonsense.

I focused on the objective visual observation that paint with a viscous aspect is smeared and daubed with the soft knife, which can be seen visually. The consistency of this viscous oil paint could be tweaked by the thinner function? In a way that paint released by the tube tool paint could show different states of viscosity? i.e. pasty, gummy, stiff, buttery, creamy, oily... ?

Now, a correlated thinking. The program has among other things:
• a pencil function – that looks like pencil.
• eraser - works like an eraser
• watercolor – that looks like watercolor
• oil paint - and thinner – that looks like oil paint... in this case the thinner, however, just flattens the paint.

Than, oil viscous paint in a state of being pasty with variations in consistency could be a new feature? Why not? It would be just an AR variant tool!, an improvement.

Byron you are right about Baxter thesis year of publication. However it seems that his thesis calculations still apply today and it is a sort of mandatory lecture reference for the guys that work in this area. You mentioned he sold a patent to Microsoft in 2010… interesting, Microsoft in 2010 published this work and Baxter is a solid reference. Really nice read. (http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fpubs%2F1 21930%2FPaintModel_NPAR_2010.pdf&ei=55tJUdGkFoLA4AOryoCYCA&usg=AFQjCNGfqYf06s-I3XSDbeVsMF-I6f8c-w&sig2=BY1Nqzojy). Baxter extensively studied this sort of subject and is involved with Project Gustav (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1837080). Baxter explains some of the developments of his studies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP0LKpGt9LQ). His work is pretty much referenced in other works too, as can be seen in this thorough and nice multimedia platform revision work (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~eliens/ma/media/media-4.html) dated from 2009. And also, some of Baxter Publications (http://www.billbaxter.com/publications/) and recent work (http://www.dlyr.fr/papers/DSSP/) and also this (http://www.irit.fr/~David.Vanderhaeghe/dlyr.fr/papers/DSSP/Vanderhaeghe2011.pdf) and this (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=YjXlTPFYGEYC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Baxter+and+Govindaraju+2010&source=bl&ots=bSdg3x3FWB&sig=pJwKDNtZ4TTZNIraji5sTV-_6G0&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=06ZJUdSnMZO88wSwm4FI&ved=0CC0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Baxter%20and%20Govindaraju%202010&) where you can see Ambient Design ArtRage mentioned. Here is some new developments that can be seen here Reality Based Interaction and Simulation in Painting 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2IW4koT7Gw)

Ambient Design is certainly on the border of this matter (paint viscosity, liquidy paint). But so far they have not said a word about it.

Imho the various AR digital tools are not to copy real world and make bad art, but to make art! As I commented before, most digital artists get caught up in mimicking the look and feel of traditional paints. I have no restrictions on this, although many people do not like it. In my opinion, we should rather learn how to emulate the many aspects of a traditional painting. This teaches you and over time, you can create your own style of painting digital and/or traditional, so you can use them as complementary techniques in your benefit.

[I would imagine that kind of vision will come, perhaps, some day, from younger artists who learn to paint digitally and never think twice about it, and end up not wanting "a car that acts and looks like a horse and buggy"], as you so elegantly put it!

At the present time and also in the future solid foundations is the core for whatever essential activity one is involved with.
In 1983 I participated in the first successful lung transplant performed in the world, at the Toronto General Hospital. The fundamental technical aspects have not changed .. what has changed is the infrastructure of hospitals, new medicines, gained experience, etc…

So, I think, in painting art, for centuries to come, foundations will still apply be it traditional or digital art.

• Line,
• Organic and geometric shapes
• Value
• Scale body
• Space perception Negative space Positive space
• Form, volume, structure, proportion
• Use sketchbook as tool for visual thinking
• Drawing from imagination, from memory
• Composition
• Linear perspective
• Color theory and color mixing
• Hue, Value and Chroma
• Color harmony
• Contrast tone and textures
• Light
• Painting techniques: direct and indirect painting, scumbling, glazing, transparency/opacity
• Sduty of the masters and contemporary art (http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&ved=0CIoBEBYwDA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecuad.ca%2F~vsager%2Fdrawing% 2FDrawing%2520in%2520Style.pdf&ei=OJhJUf2JC4bA9gTJ8YCQDA&usg=AFQjCNEwBs7iwKB7GxqeUkVqoVkBH6monQ&sig2=-bxxHzSiGPRv-M)
• Self critical judgement, etc…


Gaeton ,

"I just feel that the expectations of what a tool could do, were it true to its traditional counterpart, should not ultimately limit someone from using it for what can offer right now." Vary true, but in this case, ArtRage, there are 2 possibilities available regarding paint and one of them is viscous paint. It is there and it is a wonderful way (also) to learn how to mix paints.
I also tested it for fun in some sort of art as you can see in the image below.

"I could wake up tomorrow and find that my favorite type of oil paints are no longer available. What then?" Regarding paint, The great spanish master José Parramon (https://www.dropbox.com/s/iz77uzm3k2l6hr0/Parramon%20Jose%20-%20Teoria%20Y%20Practica%20Del%20Color.pdf) (in spanish) showed how you can mix all hues using just 3 basic colors plus white... I did a digital study about this (http://aboutcolors.webnode.com.pt/mixing-colors/) that is published here. Although chroma decreases with the mixing, this is the way to go.

"Stop painting, because the rest of paint doesnt flow the same way, or adapt to meet my new criteria? " As you know in the real world, "flow" can be regulated by adding linseed oil and thinner to the paints. And that's all that's required. Just use a 50/50 mix of linseed oil and solvent), and add just enough to the paint to make it flow.

Pete, they are the impression of the brush strokes I used as a base for the blending. They are light reflexes of the program inner light.

Nice of you all.

chinapete
03-22-2013, 01:41 AM
Hi Lima,

I'm sure everyone will join me in thanking you for this exhaustive "summa" of the state of the art, for the useful links you've provided (I happen to have the 1989 edition of Parramon's Color Theory), and for the time and effort it must have taken to set down your wisdom gained through years of experience and passion for painting :) I can only hope that isn't a portrait of yourself after writing that you appended :)

You have said everything of importance about the physical properties of oil paint, especially viscosity, and I have nothing to add ... To your list of foundational elements of art, I wonder if you would also want to include the physical interaction of the elements you describe, because in addition to viscosity you mention glazing, scumbling, transparency/opacity, and it is just this physical dimension that is lacking in the digital realm...

As I have been saying for some time on this forum, what is being subtracted from the experience of art is the physical interaction of the elements (support, ground, medium, brush and so forth) and by extension the artist's physical presence ... So I predict that one day there will be a movement against digital art, a "Salon des Refusés" of artists whose work is rejected as not being digital enough, haha ... These artists, one day in the not too distant future, will insist that no art can be made on a computer, "true" art can only be made with physical elements that interact in the real world, etc. etc. ... You can imagine the manifesto ... :)

For example, a credible gesso is missing (I suggested it on this forum but got no response) ... This is important because the preparation of the ground determines to a large extent what will happen on the surface ... Right now I must use the oil tool for underpainting (it doesn't quite work for the all the reasons you mentioned related to viscosity), or search for textured papers and figure out how to import them into AR (for use on the iPad, my preferred platform, along with the lowly iPhone) ... I don't think this is nostalgia for older forms of art, instead, it could be thought of as part of the craft of making something that exists in the real world ... Who knows, maybe the advent of 3-D printers will change the paradigm again? ...

I also want to ask if you could clarify your statement about the whitish fringe that accompanies most brush strokes in ArtRage (in the attachment, you can see that a simple charcoal pencil stroke on toned paper produces that fringe, it is most obvious in the center dark stroke, I've blown the image up a little for clarity) ... You said "They are light reflexes of the program inner light" ... I'm not sure what that means, but I wish there were a way to eliminate or reduce it substantially ... (It may have something to do with anti-aliasing, at least Dave Rage explained it that way back in June of 2010, I'm not sure but there isn't an anti-aliasing feature for the pencil as far as I can tell)...

Thanks again to you, and to everyone, I have learned a lot from this thread ...

- Pete

Lima
03-23-2013, 10:30 AM
Pete, that is a Viscous face

A viscous and sticky methaphoric face. The transparent smoke is just a rethorical image that I wanted to make to show viscous transparency againts the sphere. In other words, viscous paint and transparency trying to be a digital reallity contrasting with a solid air brushed red sphere. The surrounded darkness is just what is not yet known!

I'm including another viscous paintings images, an experiment made with available viscous oil paint, hoping that maybe viscosity will be tweeked for good in the near future by ABD team. Images below.

Pete, it is possible to glaze and scumble with ArtRage, I'll talk about in another thread, OK?

I misunderstood your question about the whitish fringe. I think it has to do with pixalation, see this site here (http://www.telacommunications.com/nutshell/pixelation.htm). It happens with all AR tools... I made these examples in Photoshop, observe, in long horizontal end vertical lines it also occurs, kind of black and gray sequence pattern... but inside the lines!!! maybe it is a limitation... Matt will explain this to us. See the images, as size increases pixalation increases.

Pete, thank you for your words.

Mick CrocKode
03-23-2013, 12:47 PM
Well...! Terrific thread, but so involving. I only hope that "drawn", our recent new member who came with his first post... won't run away :D. Please drawn, stay with us; your question is really interesting. You are Welcome.You asked in your post:"Any suggestions?".
Just after the debat shifted to the question about realistic or digital art (and that is a question that I stopped to ask to myself), were I agree with everyone in your approach (SOS: "the end result is all that matters"; Steve B: "If I don't enjoy the process of making art, the rest does not matter at all", and so on...) I was remembering that since the primitive cave wall paintings, through the middle age, artists were waiting, integrating and sometime steeling what come out of "new technologies" in there time. The discovering of new tints (chemical colorant replacing expensive old colors...), acids in the engraving, new long lasting pigments, and other things that I forgot, they all never asked themselfs any question when they made those new discoverings there owne. Does that new invention simplify their work? Yes. They use it. Point.Does that new "tool" called ArtRage simplifies my work? I use it. Point.ArtRage can simplify my process to discover and enjoy being creative? Yes. Is the way full of joy? Yes. Is the target a joy? Yes. So: I use it. Point.;)
But I like, I love, I appreciate to read your comments and discover your different points of view. For me, all that mixing: you, me, the way, the target, the past, the present... your point of view, the mine... all "that"... IS "ART". Is real, living, loving, everlasting, universal, personnal, only "ART". You name it.

So, Someonesane gave to drawn a first suggestion in #2 about how to make a "gradation" between two flat values of grey. Drawn, I am a newbie like you and I will try SOS's technique. I will also try Lima's approach. And thank's also to Steve B who pointed the use of Fashmir's Oil Brush set "Badger Hair Blender": I will try it to.But like Steve B mentioned it, he uses "non conventional tools", even those who are not "well named" to achieve a picture as the felt pen. So do I. I use for that approach a non-conventionnal tool.
My suggestion: (and I hope I won't have to run away after my suggestion :cool:, it's a simple suggestion written for dawn, please boys don't hit me :rolleyes:)...is to use.... TaDahhh, the airbrush.! A non-conventionnal tool, a motor driven air flow who pushes the pigment, a non-classical tool, never teached or used by the classical masters from the past, a technological underground wall weapon usualy used by modern cavemen. Sorryyyyyy, I won't do it again.

First step: draw a sphere with the airbrush using a grey only color to fixe the "value" of the spheric form.
74400

Second step: create a new layer over that sphere and set in on "color mode". Select the sphere (in the layer under the new one) and activate the new one so the painting
will stay in the circle.
74401

after that: it is possible to use other tools like watercolor and a mix of tints.
74402

and also use the chalk and apply a texture (stencil).
74403

Hope that helps.
And a last word for dawn whom I wish a great Welcome like "jibes" welcomed me at my first post. I do remember.

Lima
03-23-2013, 03:19 PM
From my point of view all those that come to the forum are more than welcome. This is the place to be, for sure.

This was drawn question:

1st intention - After playing around with the brush settings, I still couldn't smooth out the gradient so that no contour lines are visible. When painting with real paint, all I have to do is load the brush lightly or none and then paint on the contour line -- kind of like mixing color on canvas instead of on the palette. I tried the same in artrage but it just creates new contour line at the edge of the brush.

2nd intention: Any suggestions? I don't want to "cheat" and use other drawing tools; just the oil brush. Is it possible?

I welcomed drawn in this way: “Draw, that is the way to go... nice start in your sphere of values”... Good luck and having said that, I feel really good.

SOS and myself, we gave drawn solid answers, for example:
But you can use ArtRage in its extreme limits, as for example, trying to soften edges. So, I would like to emphasize that it is indeed possible to do it with the ArtRage brush tool (although tricky and boring as I said before), observe, the ArtRage Brush Tool.

Than I made the following comment: When forum user drawn asked how to blend smoothly using a digital oil brush ...clearly his intent was to emulate the real thing, and probably show the result to his traditional class teacher and his class mates, maybe!!!???

Even than, drawn never reapeared!!!
O1/29/2013... today, 03/22/2013.

Drawn 2nd intention pushed all of us to a parallel spontaneous fantastic conversation where I can reassure you, I learned a lot, specially concerning the concept of oil paint viscosity.

I only hope that "drawn", our recent new member who came with his first post... won't run away . Please drawn, stay with us; your question is really interesting. You are Welcome. (again and a mon avis drawn was and will be always very much welcomed, I am sure this is the same feeling from all those brilliant minds that participate sofar in this maybe vanishing thread) ... …….You asked in your post:"Any suggestions?",... note that the 2nd intention can not be isolated from the 1st intention, correct? But, by the way, why should he run from a profound, full of terrific new insights in digital way of rational thinking? and, by the way why should he run off if his questions where prompt answered?

Being a polite old guy, and after reading your words, I would sugest to our fellow forum user drawn (If he did run away, but still reads us once and while) that he consult the following links: forum user GMS shading practice thread (http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/showthread.php?43941-Shading-practice) and the spectacular Mike Mahon movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMAgdS2SPk) posted by forum user, great artist Juz...and also some of my work about the subject. HERE (http://munsellcolor.webnode.pt/light-form-and-shadow/) AND HERE (http://munsellcolor.webnode.pt/light-form-and-shadow-2/)

Mike I know your wonderful watercolor work, I read before today. Your spheres are beautiful, well done, and in all is a good work, but desolé, they don't answer drawn intentions.

Regards
Oriane Lima

chinapete
03-24-2013, 03:49 PM
Hi Lima,

Thanks for the further demonstration of viscosity, I also hope and expect that changes will be made in the AR platform to accord with your views, it will be a benefit to all of us ... Also very much appreciate the links to the Munsell color charts and interactive tests, I've discovered I'm tone blind :):)

And yes, what you describe as pixel-based distortion is what I think has also been called anti-aliasing ... I hope more explanation by the AR team will be forthcoming ...

About glazing, please don't trouble yourself with any further explanations there, unless you feel you have something you want to say to the general forum audience ... What I meant was that in traditional media, say with oil paints, there are chemical reactions at work that affect, and are affected by, what's underneath and what's above each successive layer ... I meant to say that these chemical reactions aren't really captured in the digital software ... We get a good proxy for light (and color) as it might appear to change when a digital "glaze" is applied, but it's all light driven, of course it can't really be "chemical" and that's understood ... Maybe there's no reason quick drying versus slow drying mediums should be carried over into digital -- but then again, maybe there's something to learn there, and if so, we should hope for improvements in the tools we use ... In some programs, watercolor can be made to evaporate slowly or quickly for example ... My working motto when painting is "surface and depth" -- but that's only my personal preference, others of course will not feel a need to explore those dimensions, or sense any lack in the current state of the art ...

- Pete

ps: Thank you Mick for your insights, it's all good, even if drawn has withdrawn :)