PDA

View Full Version : Another Pear - A Test for my SquareMess custom brushes



DarkOwnt
04-13-2018, 02:33 AM
Painted this with 2 of my custom "SquareMess" brushes.

The sketch below was painted from memory only (no reference) as a test for the brushes.

95007

HwyStar
04-13-2018, 08:50 AM
That’s excellent DO! You have the balancing act handled between realism and painterly!

There are two brownish brush strokes below the stem that the square brush, for my taste, stands out a “teency” bit to much but those are the only two two brush strokes that my mind “sees”.

As a rule now I always wait an hour, come back to the painting and then I create a list of no more than Ten items to fix. If I only find five then cool! I wait until the next day to fix my mistakes. Sometimes I see more. Repaint, then do the same process one more time. I usually never have to go to the third day. If I was that sloppy then the painting is probable a bummer anyway.

Great painting Mate!

Robert

DarkOwnt
04-13-2018, 10:21 AM
Thanks Robert! Really liking the power of the custom brushes. Looking forward to doing a proper piece with them!

DarkOwnt
04-13-2018, 11:22 AM
"There are two brownish brush strokes below the stem that the square brush, for my taste, stands out a “teency” bit to much but those are the only two two brush strokes that my mind “sees”."

This is interesting as I have been back and forth on this over the past few years. For a quite a long time I didn't want any brush strokes to be viewable then I thought they should be prominent and interesting. Now I am searching for a balance which if I can pull off when a person looks at the work as a whole then brush strokes disappear and instead simply imply form shading and texture, but as soon as one pays attention to any part of the work or looks closely all they'll see are brush strokes. I have a long way to go but my messy brush helps.

on the subject of brush strokes have you looked closely at
http://www.simonstalenhag.se/

D Akey
04-13-2018, 08:27 PM
Delicious. From your head is impressive. Great memory. . . or you eat a lot of pears.

HwyStar
04-13-2018, 10:12 PM
This is interesting as I have been back and forth on this over the past few years. For a quite a long time I didn't want any brush strokes to be viewable then I thought they should be prominent and interesting. Now I am searching for a balance which if I can pull off when a person looks at the work as a whole then brush strokes disappear and instead simply imply form shading and texture, but as soon as one pays attention to any part of the work or looks closely all they'll see are brush strokes. I have a long way to go but my messy brush helps.


I agree with everything you have said. Right now, my eyesight is such that I paint 80% of the time with my glasses off so that my eyes are naturally blurred. This helps me to not be able to study the fine details that those brush strokes can show up as. When I clean up the painting using my list I put my glasses back on for the fine details.

I do love the Square Canvas 2 custom brush (at 34% grain) when blocking in the paintings; to get the values correct. It blends so nicely. Better than the oil brush can blend to get that painterly feel to it. I think Chad Weatherford, and I know Daniel Ibanez both use the SC2 custom brush.

I have seen Simon's webpage before. He is a total master! The brush strokes are there but the image overwhelms you enough that you don't want to see the strokes. Brillant work!

Thanks again for sharing a great pear work DO!

DarkOwnt
04-13-2018, 10:46 PM
Right now, my eyesight is such that I paint 80% of the time with my glasses off so that my eyes are naturally blurred. This helps me to not be able to study the fine details that those brush strokes can show up as. When I clean up the painting using my list I put my glasses back on for the fine details.

THAT is brilliant. I've asked for a "squint simulation" feature in ArtRage the past... a hotkey to temporarily see the entire image blurred by a preset amount. Given the right eyes, your method sounds perfect.

HwyStar
04-13-2018, 11:01 PM
a hotkey to temporarily see the entire image blurred by a preset amount.

I have thought of asking for the same feature too!

Based on AR's current way of controlling paintings; layer based, I don't think they can perform this feature for us using the overall image. The best we can do is to merge all the layers down to one layer then blur the final layer. I did blur my last painting by one pixel and that helped to soften the image; and it helped to lose the "fine line" details.

My current inspirations come from this juried Oil Painter: https://www.stephanieamato.com/new-landscapes. Painterly yet realistic. She doesn't need a custom brush!

DarkOwnt
04-22-2018, 12:43 PM
Created a version with laborious post processing (with third party software and ArtRage) to "fake" a thick paint effect over the canvas. Since the original used only the custom brush, no thick paint was actually present.

I think it almost works.

95065

Let me know what you think, and whether this improves the original.

HwyStar
04-22-2018, 09:48 PM
I wouldn't say it improves upon it, it's just different. Good in some ways not so good in others (IMHO).

Cons: The line that is to the left and below the light glare stands out for me too much not to focus on it. Pears are so smooth that it might be a bad subject matter to use for texture? An avocado would be better (but not as colorful)?

Pros: I like the texture on the brown table top. I like the slight texture on the bottom right of the pear. That looks real! The shading on the bottom left looks a little better too.

Suggestion: Find your most favorite artist that does still-lifes with the highest quality image you can find. Google Image search something you really like. Then download it and magnify the painting to get the brush strokes then paint the bejesus out of it! Steve Elliot's latest attempts on his YouTube channel of painting like the Masters has really helped him and his artwork. It helped mine too. Fiddling with the brush settings, either oil or custom brushes make a huge difference to the final outcome. I am currently only painting with the Square Canvas 2 custom brush and the Oil brush. It doesn't always get the textured brush strokes like you are going after but it gives me the broken canvas brush strokes that Monet had in his. He had both dry brush strokes; that the canvas broke up, but he also had globs of textured paint. Maybe I need to incorporate some very heavy oil strokes to show depth in my paintings? I may try that on my latest work of a pit-bull dog painting that I am doing for my daughter.

Thanks for sharing DO, and giving us the chance to comment on it!

DarkOwnt
04-23-2018, 12:21 AM
Interesting. This is really quite helpful and has made me think.

I have been interested in using broken or sloppy looking strokes because I want to both be able to suggest texture and get some liveliness from optical blending. Over the years I've been drawn to and also repelled by the oil brush: it has strengths and shortcomings. I also don't want to manually construct a dummy impasto layer although it is trivial to do (set top layer to multiply and go at it with white paint). So I'm exploring the custom brushes as of late because I feel the blending works. My method of adding depth relies on existing local variations in lightness and saturation to generate a texture I apply to the canvas in ArtRage. I also use that texture as a mask in 3rd party software to let the default canvas show through.

The issue you identify is that stroke depth can assist with interest and suggesting texture but it can also be inappropriate. "Bold Strokes" my Mark Weber is an excellent book BTW. Strokes which provide interest and optical blending but not meant to suggest texture likely should not have extreme depth effects while strokes more for suggesting texture can include them. In my final stage of balancing the amount of depth with a plain canvas I could suppress the stroke depth in areas where it would be inappropriate and punch it where it would be good.

Thank you very much, this could prove very useful.

HwyStar
04-23-2018, 04:50 AM
Hey... Donít listen to me! You are much more versed on these subjects than I am.

I donít know where my painting head is at right now. Iím happy with my latest results, but I know there is something missing. I need to get back to painting landscapes instead of portraits. Portraits, IMO, require to much realism otherwise the person you are painting thinks your images arenít real enough. But I love those wild and crazy brush strokes that donít make sense but when viewed again make perfect sense. It brings the eye back to the painting instead of looking at a bad iPhone image.

Who do you admire the most that was one of the masters? Spend a few days copying one of their images and learn from the best. Donít share it with anyone. Just make it a personal journey that you can learn with and what you want to be like when ďyouĒ are a master!

I still need to find my mentor. I have not decided yet. Once I find those paintings and ďtheir styleĒ I need to spend months painting like they did. Then I will get it. It may even be a modern day painter. There are so many good artists these days.

HwyStar
04-24-2018, 12:21 AM
Here is a painting I just painted using the Square Canvas 2 (34% grain) and Oil brushes. This is from a tulip farm in the state of Washington. It does not have the texture; I think, that you are looking for DO, but it does have the grain of the canvas in it like I want :

95075

* The forum does compress the image down quite a bit. This is a 16x20, 300ppi painting. The original png file does display some oil texture, but not over the top in thickness or texture. My next painting I will up the "Loading" of the oil brush to see if it can give it the depth we are looking for.

DarkOwnt
04-24-2018, 02:18 AM
I like this one very much. the top portion most of all.

BTW: I can see the loading on the oil brush if I click fully into the pic (although there is some compression it does not completely obliterate it).


One of the issues I have with the oil brush of ArtRage is that the strokes are predictably similar even though the artist may use subtle variations with brush pressure, variation, and orientation. (Also, I dislike the oil brush blending... saturation color artifacting is simply too extreme)


Can I ask about your choice of strokes for the tulip field? Is this merely evocative of the field orientation and perhaps eye movement or is it simulating motion (as in driving along the field)? In either case, I suspect if you used real world brushes (with naturally resulting less homogeneity of strokes) I would likely find that area slightly more appealing.

Wish I could share my brushes with you, I would be very curious what you thought of them!

EDIT: OK, I've done the tedious and created 8 separate arpacks, 1 for each of my brushes. I've posted them to the art supplies threads. I'd love your feedback.

HwyStar
04-25-2018, 10:39 PM
I like this one very much. the top portion most of all.
Thanks!


BTW: I can see the loading on the oil brush if I click fully into the pic (although there is some compression it does not completely obliterate it).
Uncompressed it's there, barely. I am painting with a fairly dry oil brush.


One of the issues I have with the oil brush of ArtRage is that the strokes are predictably similar even though the artist may use subtle variations with brush pressure, variation, and orientation. (Also, I dislike the oil brush blending... saturation color artifacting is simply too extreme).
Agreed. But it may not be Artrages fault and it may be the computer's input device. If there was a way that real brushes could be sensed by computers... You may want to fiddle with the oil brush at an extremely low setting on the loading option. Two to five percent loading. This setting can give good results.


Can I ask about your choice of strokes for the tulip field? Is this merely evocative of the field orientation and perhaps eye movement or is it simulating motion (as in driving along the field)? In either case, I suspect if you used real world brushes (with naturally resulting less homogeneity of strokes) I would likely find that area slightly more appealing.
LOL! That's a very nice way of saying: "Why the heck did you paint it like that for!". No worries Mate. It was a very windy day there and yes, the tulips were falling over because of the wind.


Wish I could share my brushes with you, I would be very curious what you thought of them!
EDIT: OK, I've done the tedious and created 8 separate arpacks, 1 for each of my brushes. I've posted them to the art supplies threads. I'd love your feedback.
I will try and grab them and try them today. I was busy all day yesterday. I did try and create a Round Canvas 2 brush, but I am not good at creating the grains of the brushes. I hope you have been able to accomplish something wonderful!

Thanks DO! I will give them a test drive.

DarkOwnt
04-26-2018, 01:29 AM
Thank you for the conversation I find it quite useful.

I did not see that the tulips were bending in the wind... probably because I've not personally seen a whole field of tulips on a windy day. Hmm, if you showed some trees or branches in the background bending in the wind... (or shingles coming off the roof) I would have got it! :)


Looking forward to hearing what you think about the brushes!

HwyStar
04-26-2018, 08:21 AM
Daniel just posted this video yesterday. Great timing! Have not watched it yet but thought of our posts here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYbsEpNEM5g&app=desktop

DarkOwnt
04-26-2018, 08:31 AM
Cant use the link... can you repost?

HwyStar
04-26-2018, 11:01 PM
3 Step paint process by Daniel Ibanez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYbsEpNEM5g

D Akey
04-27-2018, 06:49 AM
Very nice demo video. It's nice to see how other people paint on the computer.

"There are no mistakes in painting" (because you can paint over or undo and all that). That's probably the best boon to painters ever. I learned painting in the real world where there in fact were mistakes that could ruin a painting for any number of reasons. As a result of this sort of limitless editability, the process of painting has become very different from the way I used to do it, especially when copying a photo.

Also I was wondering whether he was going to use layers. That's the other thing I have come to depend on and exploit in order to have it fully adjustable. It's a luxury and I have to be careful I don't get caught up in that. Was great seeing someone who was more about direct painting. Also appreciated him saying a few words about the range of brushes available.

So all very cool and thanks for posting it. I can tweak my painting process to make it more direct in a way that exploits the digital medium. Can't wait to mess with all those brushes.

Also I can really appreciate your paintings. So the wind knocked over all the flowers? Heh. Reminds me of shots I saw of the forest around Mount St Helens eruption laying down all the trees in the direction of the blast. I look at your painting and think of painters slightly after the Post Impressionists where they straddled a sort of pointilism and impressionism. Well done. And thanks again. Been following your guys' discussion with interest.

DarkOwnt
04-27-2018, 08:19 AM
D Akey

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about digital art, and what makes art, and what is not art.

Strangely enough, having ultimate control of a layer or an undo button, or the ability to sample colors is not what makes something art or not. Neither is the level of difficulty... painting a masterpiece with a blade of grass or only three colors or in a rainstorm does not make the painting more legit.

First, I think photography, mixed media, or 3d art is one thing, any time you are the author of every stroke though... then I think you can refer to it as a painting.

Now what does one strive for in a painting? I think it must be something more than mere exact copying... that is what photography is for. The aim of the artist is not to turn herself into the equivalent of a perfect set of lenses and CCDs, nor a perfect robot who can reproduce things photographically. An Artist brings something of herself to the work. Perhaps a slight variation in the composition of reality: moving a tree here, or shifting a house there. Perhaps varying the color, or textures of certain things to elicit a feeling of what the artist feels about the things, blurring certain edges, emphasizing others, making other areas blurry or unsaturated... there is something in the way of the unreality in the work's actual shapes, colors and values (in comparison to the subject as it really looks) which makes it more true to the artist and more real to her vision of the subject.

So what IS wrong then with color sampling or tracing or using digital tools is not that it is easy, but that it can encourage a person to create (in a very inefficient way) nothing more than photography... placing the exact same color at point x,y in the reference on the same relative place X,Y in the painting would be a pointless exercise. The tragedy is the absence of the artist's view, the subjective element in the act of seeing, of perceiving, of valuing, or of contemplating the subject. To the extent a digital tool can be used in a way that encourages creativity, exploration of possibility, quite frankly to the creation of happy mistakes, I think the artist is served better. Those happy mistakes although not in line with reality might be closer to the artist's vision, and happily can be kept after the fact.

In the end the digital tools are not the problem and they never have been, it's been the temptation to use them simply to copy something, which replaces the artist's eye with the perfection, inhumanity, and pointlessness of a Xerox machine.

Using layers then is no problem if you use it for your vision of the subject, since THAT creation, whether through happy mistakes, or messy strokes, or careful attention, is all that matters.

HwyStar
04-27-2018, 09:16 AM
I agree with everything you both have said since there really isn't a right or wrong answer - right? :cool:

We sometimes forget that we have spent countless hours watching videos, studying pdf manuals, setting a layers blend mode, tweaking a brushes settings, yada yada yada... The average person does not understand anything that I just wrote except maybe watching videos. And usually, those videos are of a monkey and cat cuddling. There's nothing wrong with those types of videos but we spend "our time" learning our art trade. Just like the "Masters" used to sit around in coffee shops learning from each other 100 years ago. Art is a learned trade or vocation that takes years to understand and apply. You both have heard of the 10,000-hour rule, right? To really do anything properly and with finesse it requires 10,000 hours of practicing your trade until you really learn your craft. Whatever it may be.

We are getting there one step at a time. Let the rest of the people decide what is right or wrong with digital versus media painting.

When I walk away from my art and it expresses to me what I wanted to say in my painting then I am happy. Not everyone is going to get our brush strokes. And that is okay! Look at Van Gogh. I don't always understand all of his brush strokes but somehow they seem to work. But for me, not always. And I do dearly love his work. When I am in the mood for it. I find his work out there. The reason I bring this up is that some of my brush strokes are simple brush strokes like VG used in his paintings. But I struggle with my own brush strokes too. It doesn't always make sense, but sometimes it is better to just let them lie there. Even if they came out; different than you had ever planned for them too.

I never planned on those tulips to fall as they did in my painting. I just left them there because they were interesting. Had they fallen over, was it the wind, was I moving in a fast moving train looking out a window; all provocative questions and any one of those questions could be the answer. It's up to you to decide. I still haven't but I had fun painting them! It was a great release.

Thanks for chatting guys! I have enjoyed it. Great insights.

Now what am I going to paint?

D Akey
04-27-2018, 10:06 AM
D Akey

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about digital art, and what makes art, and what is not art.

Strangely enough, having ultimate control of a layer or an undo button, or the ability to sample colors is not what makes something art or not. Neither is the level of difficulty... painting a masterpiece with a blade of grass or only three colors or in a rainstorm does not make the painting more legit.

First, I think photography, mixed media, or 3d art is one thing, any time you are the author of every stroke though... then I think you can refer to it as a painting.

Now what does one strive for in a painting? I think it must be something more than mere exact copying... that is what photography is for. The aim of the artist is not to turn herself into the equivalent of a perfect set of lenses and CCDs, nor a perfect robot who can reproduce things photographically. An Artist brings something of herself to the work. Perhaps a slight variation in the composition of reality: moving a tree here, or shifting a house there. Perhaps varying the color, or textures of certain things to elicit a feeling of what the artist feels about the things, blurring certain edges, emphasizing others, making other areas blurry or unsaturated... there is something in the way of the unreality in the work's actual shapes, colors and values (in comparison to the subject as it really looks) which makes it more true to the artist and more real to her vision of the subject.

So what IS wrong then with color sampling or tracing or using digital tools is not that it is easy, but that it can encourage a person to create (in a very inefficient way) nothing more than photography... placing the exact same color at point x,y in the reference on the same relative place X,Y in the painting would be a pointless exercise. The tragedy is the absence of the artist's view, the subjective element in the act of seeing, of perceiving, of valuing, or of contemplating the subject. To the extent a digital tool can be used in a way that encourages creativity, exploration of possibility, quite frankly to the creation of happy mistakes, I think the artist is served better. Those happy mistakes although not in line with reality might be closer to the artist's vision, and happily can be kept after the fact.

In the end the digital tools are not the problem and they never have been, it's been the temptation to use them simply to copy something, which replaces the artist's eye with the perfection, inhumanity, and pointlessness of a Xerox machine.

Using layers then is no problem if you use it for your vision of the subject, since THAT creation, whether through happy mistakes, or messy strokes, or careful attention, is all that matters.

Hi DarkOwnt,

Very interesting fine distinctions. I get where you're coming from. And on the whole I agree about just copying photographs. But just because I feel a certain way does not negate what others are doing. I tend to lean in your direction regarding my own work. But I'm a trained artist and have been doing this stuff a long time and as such what I have been out to accomplish has morphed many times. There were times when I copied photos although direct copying was not where I usually aimed except in rendering class and knowing how to make things look photographic that I rolled over into my more original work. As a learning tool it was important for when I did deviate, and as a point of satisfaction it was easy to see if I hit the mark or not.

Personally I've never been terribly judgmental about how others approach their art mechanically. I figure it's all a spot on their artistic journey. I figure if they're doing their process in an artful state of mind, whatever it is, it qualifies as art and it's answering their own questions. Having said that, I do learn a lot of technique from looking at others' process as with this video posted above. Not saying I would necessarily paint that way, but I can pick up bits, without a doubt.

I hold myself to a different standard because of the voices in my head evaluating as I work because I'm aiming at a specific target usually, even if that target is new and hazy. And so I'm looking to see what happy accidents happen. I hear the internal chatter coming out: Is there something new emerging? How does it compare with my previous work or with others' work? Would a potential customer like it? Would the model like it? Is it telling the story I want to tell? Is that blue the right shade? Should I smudge that edge? Is the light working? How much could I sell it for? Have I lost my touch? etc etc etc. And often time I'm not even thinking. These questions come up on their own because I have had to hit a particular standard of professionalism, and if I slip below that I won't make any money. It's an automatic thing for personal evaluation. It's often a noisy business until I get into the groove at which point everything becomes quiet and I can soundlessly ride out the painting. If that quiet spot happens it's almost certainly going to be a good piece. And needless to say I want to get past the noise as early in the process as I can safely do it.

You speak of there existing for artists a temptation in digital to use the photo overmuch and if gone with it runs the risk of losing the humanity or the personal artistic expression. I agree. Then it comes down to how much that personal quality matters to the artist doing the work. Some folks like making the painting look like a beautiful model or location because that's what drew them to it -- because they want to recreate beauty at that level. More power to them. But that's not what it's about for others, including myself. We want to use it as a springboard into the personal. And that level of art is exciting and it is one of the criteria for the more evolved artists who have graduated beyond mechanics.

Being on the internet, specifically in this forum for so many iterations of the various groups of artists who come through, it has really taken me outside my own process to see what others appear to be getting from doing art in so many variations and levels of appreciation for the creative process. And it's developed in me a duality: that there's my personal work on one side of the line which has its parameters where I do judge pretty strongly, and then there's all the rest of the artists on the other side and how to remember what it was like when I was there and I can readjust my viewpoint to try to spot where they're coming from and what they were out to accomplish. It's fascinating and most expansive.

I know I digressed, but I think we're generally talking about the same things and it's a big topic. Yours was a great post by the way and sort of hits big questions facing people who do digital art.

D Akey
04-27-2018, 10:16 AM
I agree with everything you both have said since there really isn't a right or wrong answer - right? :cool:

We sometimes forget that we have spent countless hours watching videos, studying pdf manuals, setting a layers blend mode, tweaking a brushes settings, yada yada yada... The average person does not understand anything that I just wrote except maybe watching videos. And usually, those videos are of a monkey and cat cuddling. There's nothing wrong with those types of videos but we spend "our time" learning our art trade. Just like the "Masters" used to sit around in coffee shops learning from each other 100 years ago. Art is a learned trade or vocation that takes years to understand and apply. You both have heard of the 10,000-hour rule, right? To really do anything properly and with finesse it requires 10,000 hours of practicing your trade until you really learn your craft. Whatever it may be.

We are getting there one step at a time. Let the rest of the people decide what is right or wrong with digital versus media painting.

When I walk away from my art and it expresses to me what I wanted to say in my painting then I am happy. Not everyone is going to get our brush strokes. And that is okay! Look at Van Gogh. I don't always understand all of his brush strokes but somehow they seem to work. But for me, not always. And I do dearly love his work. When I am in the mood for it. I find his work out there. The reason I bring this up is that some of my brush strokes are simple brush strokes like VG used in his paintings. But I struggle with my own brush strokes too. It doesn't always make sense, but sometimes it is better to just let them lie there. Even if they came out; different than you had ever planned for them too.

I never planned on those tulips to fall as they did in my painting. I just left them there because they were interesting. Had they fallen over, was it the wind, was I moving in a fast moving train looking out a window; all provocative questions and any one of those questions could be the answer. It's up to you to decide. I still haven't but I had fun painting them! It was a great release.

Thanks for chatting guys! I have enjoyed it. Great insights.

Now what am I going to paint?


Hi HwyStar,

I think we overlapped when we posted and we covered similar things. I agree with what you're saying on all counts.

As far as what to paint, I don't know about you guys, but I'm painting my kitchen -- on the walls and cupboards. I also spent days stripping the paint and sanding cabinets making all kinds of noise and dust -- all the time wishing I could have just hit [Undo] and I could be back at bare walls. I understand the envy traditional artists have for digital artists. Digital artists don't suffer enough.

HwyStar
04-30-2018, 01:30 AM
Her is another one of Tulip Town. No waving tulips! I finished this right before I got your new brushes DO. I plan on using them when I get back to Virginia next weekend.

95099

DarkOwnt
04-30-2018, 02:07 AM
Wow. Robert, I like this one very much!

Chad Weatherford
04-30-2018, 05:59 AM
Hmm, it does create a bit of an impasto effect, maybe you could combine the two, and keep the thicker paint on the highlite only?

That Simon Stalenhag gallery was such a trip. I've not seen so many detail shots of his work before. Curious about his process. One of the painters I work with, Michael Macrae, does similar work in that it appears really tight, but up close it is a pretty loose network of brushstrokes.

D Akey
04-30-2018, 06:53 AM
Hmm, it does create a bit of an impasto effect, maybe you could combine the two, and keep the thicker paint on the highlite only? . . .

That's the way I was taught when learning to do painterly paintings -- to save putting the thick impasto till the last because in traditional media it was a fight to paint over thick paint as one built their picture. So generally thin to thick. I learned that the hard way since in real life I had been a poor student so I used only as much paint as necessary. In the commercial world, thick paint makes it very difficult to make changes from an art director. The good news is that impasto gives the painting a fine arts look where the artist is the last word.

I defer to Chad on the digital side of things since one doesn't have the same constraints as real world impasto painting, but I think it remains a good rule of thumb. And we can look at his work to see. What I see in digital as the potential problem is that the illusion of impasto is created somewhat by casting a slight shadow to make it look like raised ridges in the streak of a stroke which if one paints thin over it in a different direction, it defies the illusion and feels artificial. So his is a good rule of thumb.

D Akey
04-30-2018, 06:57 AM
Her is another one of Tulip Town. No waving tulips! I finished this right before I got your new brushes DO. I plan on using them when I get back to Virginia next weekend.

95099

Nice painting. What a great thing to be able to paint fields of color that was actually there rather than having to invent it all. Where did you come across these flower farms? Where is Tulip Town?

Chad Weatherford
05-02-2018, 02:47 PM
Sorry, my impasto comment was meant for DO. I didn't see there was a few pages of conversation after the filter experiment with the pear!

Love the tulips, Robert.

HwyStar
05-02-2018, 03:40 PM
Thanks for the positive thumbs up guys! I'm trying my fingers off.

DarkOwnt
05-02-2018, 11:43 PM
Hmm, it does create a bit of an impasto effect, maybe you could combine the two, and keep the thicker paint on the highlite only?

That Simon Stalenhag gallery was such a trip. I've not seen so many detail shots of his work before. Curious about his process. One of the painters I work with, Michael Macrae, does similar work in that it appears really tight, but up close it is a pretty loose network of brushstrokes.

Thanks Chad, I've done more processing, essentially using a mask to blend the impasto version with a canvas texture only version. I found choosing the highlights, edges, and areas where the subject has texture (e.g. table surface) work best. I also use the fake impasto in the process so that the thick strokes naturally give way to the canvas where they are thinner. I have done a lot of playing around with this and other software to try to make them do things they can't do -eg custom brushes simply do not make impasto strokes - been doing it for years with Corel and ArtRage, mostly for experimentation and maybe creating a workflow for something out of the ordinary, but I'm getting tired of it. I think I just need to focus on and work with what is available...

Simon is a genius of perception ... he seems to know exactly what needs detail and what doesn't, what needs texture and how... and it doesn't matter how apparent and stark the brush strokes look ... he knows when we look at the "subject" the brush strokes will disappear.

DarkOwnt
05-02-2018, 11:45 PM
Thanks for the positive thumbs up guys! I'm trying my fingers off.

Fingers? You finger painting like Chad? :)

HwyStar
05-03-2018, 06:21 AM
LOL! Fingers? We don't need no stinking badges! (Blazing Saddles)

I wonder... Could this be another reason that he can command abstraction because he does not have a tool to do detail work with? That may be worth trying on the side? Now if I could just get my non-touch Wacom to recognize my fingers... I'll just whip out my iPad and give that a try.

pat1940
05-06-2018, 07:18 AM
I love this painting for the vibrant colors and the contrast of the tulips against the sky and also the depth, wonderful painting

HwyStar
05-06-2018, 09:00 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Pat!

DarkOwnt
05-11-2018, 02:01 PM
I'm looking at this pear again after watching a few Draw Mix Paint videos by Mark Carder and well I kind of hate this new pear now... and I think I need to rethink the square mess brushes.

It just looks more like messy color pencil scratches to me now...sigh... back to the drawing board.

HwyStar
05-11-2018, 09:44 PM
I have watched all of Mark's videos too so don't despair (get it: despair!). Honestly, I really don't care for his paintings. They are too dark for my tastes. His style to me looks like a 15th-century painting. Dark and dismal. No life to it. Yes, they are accurate but void of life. But that is just my opinion. I have his paints. They really only work well for his style of painting.

It is good that we look at your pear again with fresh eyes. For me, the marination stage is the hardest stage. I want to post my paintings somewhere as quickly as possible without waiting. Maybe it is the excitement of getting it right? I can do this painting thing? Looking at my tulip painting above, from just a week ago there are several things to it now that I dispise. The first and second row of yellow tulips need work still, badly.

I like your pear! The SM brush may need to have the grain set slightly lower. Maybe just 5-10%? Just a pinch! We all go through phases. Don't get discouraged. It's a process we have to go through.