DOs - SquareMess Brushes (brushes 6-8 of 8)

[DarkOwnt]

My homage to Square Canvas 2 brush of ArtRage5, but messy and loose.

Uses custom heads and grains: 6 brushes and 2 blenders.

Enjoy the mess!

Brushes 6-8 of 8

version 0

95081
95082
95083


Please let me know if you find them useful!

EDIT: In case this was not clear these are custom brushes for ArtRage 5

[HwyStar]

All 8 brushes work really well DO! I like the way you engineered the "cube" of the head/grain of the brush into a rounded corner's square. It gives nice random brush strokes that really seems to be random like real brushes.

The two blenders work really nicely too. The blenders give you the ability to blend with the same style as the brush, but you pull colors back and forth between two adjacent colors. I see more creativity in this style of blending; more so than the first option of the pallet knife, which I find annoying when it leaves an "artifact line" in the paint.

I can see incorporating these brushes into my paintings! Nice job Mate! Thanks for sharing.

[DarkOwnt]

Thanks for the feedback! Hope you find em useful.

[HwyStar]

I do see myself using them. They give a different look and feel than the SC2 brush does, and the blenders are a cool feature. Thanks again!

[HwyStar]

Square Messy brushes are in here this time. Nice job DO!

95102

[DarkOwnt]

Ha thanks... but... where did you use them in the piece?

[HwyStar]

The brushes were used throughout the painting actually. The easiest ones to see are the green strokes in the bottom left. Plus the pink and green row of flowers below the barn. The trees next to the barn, sky, etc. They are all there just blended nicely with the other strokes, which is what I wanted. It is easier to see them in an incompressed image. Thanks again!

[DarkOwnt]

Ah. You are very welcome. I see now what you mean the strokes soften things and add a bit of mess. A good use for them.

I'm pondering a few additions. A rectangular brush head, a version which is less "blendy" and provides better cover, and finally a version with discontinuous and really patchy strokes.

[HwyStar]

Those would be good additions to your collection.

I tried my hand at creating a round canvas 2 (a while ago) but was not able to cut the square into a proper circle and not mess up the edges. I gave up. For landscape painting I really like a round edge brush too. Sqaure or jagged edges are great but so many details in a landscape require round edges too.

My wife and I were looking at all of Chads paintings he has posted in his thread and it is truly amazing how he is using "all" of the textures in ArtRage. Canvas, globs of paint, scratch marks, three dimensional oils, smears, etc. He uses it all and it shows in his work. It makes you stop and look at the painting so you can take in all the variety of textures, values, colors and saturation. When I grow up I want to paint just like him!

Thanks again DO!

[HwyStar]

Question: using my pink tulips painting above as a reference is there any way to have the oil brush not end its stroke to not be sqaure? The starting stroke is round and the ending portion of the stroke should not be flat. It should end round too correct? There is no way to end a round bristle brush with a flat edge in real media painting. Is this the bug you were referring to earlier DO?

[DarkOwnt]

Question: using my pink tulips painting above as a reference is there any way to have the oil brush not end its stroke to not be sqaure? The starting stroke is round and the ending portion of the stroke should not be flat. It should end round too correct? There is no way to end a round bristle brush with a flat edge in real media painting. Is this the bug you were referring to earlier DO?

There are a number of issues with the oil brush: blending divergence and saturation artifacting, paint loading affected by zoom, loading having no effect whatever on wet into wet blending, loading generally not conserving volume of paint, back and forth strokes unexpectedly flipping brush (in real life one simply lifts the brush and places it back down for the next swipe), shape of brush contact not rendered properly etc.

This last one might be what you are encountering. For the oil brush, in the middle of any stroke, the calculation for how paint is laid down and interacts with the canvas is based on a 1D line at right angles to the stroke and having a width based in the "shape" selected and the aspect ratio setting. In real life a thin rectangular brush can be dragged at an acute angle with respect to its orientation (and keeping that orientation fixed), to form what roughly looks like a parallelogram. Try it with the oil brush (make sure rotation is controlled by your stylus so that it is independent of the direction of the stroke, controlled by stylus tilt only , or if you have Wacom's art brush, rotation of the stylus)

I had previously posted something in a thread about this issue but I cannot find it... bottom line is ArtRage oil brushes do not in fact have square or circular brush contact during the middle of a stroke, it is a line at right angles to the stroke.

EDIT: posted new thread in Windows OS

[HwyStar]

My God DO! Are you expecting "me" to keep up with "you" and your engineering mind? No way Man!

Yes, it is the last one you are referring to that has the issue with me and my painting style.

With the Square Head checkbox unchecked, to me that implies that the brush should be rounded on both sides of the stroke, beginning and ending. Which it is not. It is shaped more like the sail of a sailboat. Round at the top, middle is straight and the bottom is flat.

This image I just shot says it all. Notice the flat brush ends flat, and the rounded brush is not ending flat? I just painted those stroke for illustration purposes here.

95116

[DarkOwnt]

Interestingly enough, in the real world you are using a "flat rounded" brush.

Now although it offends me to no end... dab the brush straight down (gently) in the real world and then in ArtRage... do they match? :)


Notice that in ArtRage, without setting aspect to a low setting the brush head in ArtRage is actually circular, not flat rounded.

For a fair test, you really need a circular (round) brush, which is slightly tapered on its surface, so that it makes a circular dab.

PS And make various kinds of hand motions lifting off so it isn't biased one way or the other.

PPS And for me, could you make a parallelogram in one stroke?

:) :)

[HwyStar]

I know you have to have a few brushes laying around there somewhere!

Tomorrow is another day. I will put my flat rounded brush away and look for a "true" round brush. In the past, I only painted with flats and rounded flats and for my presentation, I thought my selection was "good enough" to get my point across for the ArtRage team to see the difference. Depending on the size of ArtRage oil brush used, it looks just like the real oil brush at the begining of the stroke.

I will try and follow your requests to the letter tomorrow and see what kind of picture is painted. Real and Digital. I'll have to refer to your graphic again to visualize what a parallelogram looks like. I'm tired and it's time for bed. I'm staying on East Coast time even though I am on the West Coast.

[DarkOwnt]

Also, since I happen to be tinkering on custom brushes, if you have any ideas for a type of brush stroke or effect, show me (with real paint) and I'll try to make it happen!

[damasocl]

Thanks a lot for brushes...

[DarkOwnt]

Thanks a lot for brushes...

You're welcome!

Do you like them? Have any feedback or suggestions?

[HwyStar]

I have been really busy with work and traveling yesterday. Sorry for not responding.

I had a look at one of my earlier paintings, using the rounded oil ArtRage brush and its tails were rounded. So, this moring I messed with the settings of my saved Monet Oil brush I created a while ago. It wasn't the settings. I thought it may be the "stiffness" setting and it wasn't that either. It is the angle of the Wacom stylus. If I am holding the stylus at a 90 degree angle compared to the display the tail of the stroke is flat. If I hold the stylus at a 45 degree angle compared to the display the stroke is rounded. I need to slow down my strokes and hold the stylus at an angle to get completly rounded brush strokes. This resolves the "major" issues I am having with the brush.

I understand DO that you have many other issues with the brush. And that's cool too!

Here is a quick study that I performed this morning:
95139

The left side is at a 90-degree angle and the right-hand side is a 45-degree angle. My bad!

[DarkOwnt]

Hmmm. If I had to make a guess, your oil brush is probably set so that stylus pressure affects size. With that setting, how you lift the stylus has an effect on how the end of the stroke looks. I suspect holding the stylus at an angle changes how you lift it and hence the pressure which translates into the size of the brush and that tilt is not directly being used by the algorithm to change how the end of the stroke looks.

One way to verify this suspicion is to turn OFF stylus pressure control of the size of the brush. This isolates any effect of tilt on the end of each stroke. I'm not on a device right now with ArtRage to test this...

[DarkOwnt]

Hmmm. If I had to make a guess, your oil brush is probably set so that stylus pressure affects size. With that setting, how you lift the stylus has an effect on how the end of the stroke looks. I suspect holding the stylus at an angle changes how you lift it and hence the pressure which translates into the size of the brush and that tilt is not directly being used by the algorithm to change how the end of the stroke looks.

One way to verify this suspicion is to turn OFF stylus pressure control of the size of the brush. This isolates any effect of tilt on the end of each stroke. I'm not on a device right now with ArtRage to test this...

OK HS I've done the test. Seems like my suspicions are correct.

Strokes with Red Hue have Stylus pressure Size OFF, Strokes in Blue have Stylus pressure Size ON
Dark strokes have stylus at 45 degree tilt, Bright strokes have stylus at 90 degrees to surface (straight up and down)
Low Saturation strokes were made with low-medium lift off speed, High saturation strokes were made with quick lift off speed (while maintaining same tilt angle)


95144

BTW: Thank you very much for engaging in these in-depth discussions of substance. They are far more interesting, useful, stimulating and inspiring than the run of the mill online banter.

I love your work BTW.

[HwyStar]

Hey DO!

Yes, I enjoy our side show too! No one is reading these posts so why not solve all the problems of the art world in one thread or less...

I am swamped right now with work so haven’t had much time to paint.

I will get back here soon to analyze your handy work. Funny side note: I thought your brush strokes were real paint on canvas! ArtRage can be so cool sometimes. Like any medium they all require tweaks to get good results.

Thx for your kind words DO!

[HannahRage]

Hey DO!

Yes, I enjoy our side show too! No one is reading these posts so why not solve all the problems of the art world in one thread or less...


*lurks quietly*

Yes, nobody else is here, continue...

[HwyStar]

You crack me up HR! Thanks for the kind... Word? :cool:

[markw]

It’s not just Hannah lurking! Like you Robert I’m swamped with work too:(
But I try and keep an eye on the forums here (when I can) and interesting threads like this...

[HwyStar]

I have been studying Chad's work; and honestly, it's not just about "the brush". It is how to use the entire software package.

He does use PS or Affinity Photo more than I will ever do. I have tried so many times to warm up to PS/AP and it has too much bloatware for my tastes, in regards to painting.

He is exploiting all the features in AR. Layers, textures, brushes, opacity, maybe even blend modes? He has spent many years using PS and because of that experience, he may be able to do things in AR that we just would not think about at the time of painting brush strokes. There are more things going on in his paintings than we are seeing from afar. Look closely at his images. Fingerpainting or not! There is a lot going on in his images. Use the F11 key in your browser and get in close to the image. You will see hidden things going on in his paintings. He is a magician with paint!

[DarkOwnt]

I agree Chad is a magician, but "with paint" is too limited a characterization of his sorcery, as the substance of the rest of your post aptly describes. His magical bag indeed is full of digital tools.

So, I sit and ponder. If an artist is given countless tools at his/her disposal what is to stop him her from the bounty of wonders he/she can achieve exploiting it all? We might think this is something entirely new, something we are only faced with in the digital age... but it is not.

Before digital, traditional media included a wide disparate range of tools for marking, coloring, texturing, scoring, burning, embossing, papering, welding, combining materials of all sorts into flat, on paper, or canvas and/or non-flat sculptured pieces which could represent an infinite variety of subjects in an infinite variety of ways, and to a greater or lesser degree these various media could be combined or aggregated in countless combinations.

So why DID some artists mostly primarily work, for example, only in oil or only in pastels, or always in watercolor? Why didn't all artists use all of these in every piece, or employ them on demand as required to get the most out of each work? I have no formal education in mixed media, or whether certain disharmonies make mixed media less desirable, but I do think the answer lies in the tastes and affinity of the Artist. One water color artist might get bored and need to try something new like Acrylics, whereas another might simply love water color, and spend time perfecting his artistic expression and interpretation of the endless variety of possible subjects for a lifetime. Such an artist would have found the myriad possibilities of the day, available at the Art Supply Store as "bloatware"... but because of the sheer physical separation of the supplies he takes home with him from those in store, his art studio would not be cluttered with them.

So, you now have in each piece of modern digital art software a plethora of tools, this bloat or clutter now sits at your desk whether you want all of it or not. Luckily, as an artist who is exploring and learning and doing, it poses no problems, and represents no impediment to your work. It can only increase the possibility of further creativity, if ever you get bored, or need to change things up. etc.

As you say, to your tastes, you have a process or a set of tools which you are happy with, but its nice to know the bloat is only standing by, for you to choose IF you want to, not nagging you in any way.


These ponderings are not linear so instead of anything like a real conclusion I will simply say, how lucky to be given the possibility (thank you Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Corel, and Ambient Design) of having an Art Supply Store sitting in a little magic box in your home, and that given enough focus and inspiration one can choose to stop browsing (which could be an endless endeavor) and simply pick a few choice items from the shelf, and start making magic.

[HwyStar]

You are so right, DO. We have everything at our disposal we need to rival any artwork on the planet. If we could just get 3D paintings to print from our computers with real pigmented paint that will last for five hundred years then real media "may be" dead. At least for us...

But, there are so many people who want that brush in their hand, and the smell of the paint, and the bins of tubs of paint at their side. And, not having to worry about the task manager getting in their way of creativity!

These are fun times right now that we are living in, with all of the great tools we have to use. I know that I just get/am lazy. I want to get into the software (ArtRage only), paint my painting, share it on the web, and finally print it and put it in a frame. I do not like loading the images back and forth between software programs to get that perfect desired look.

I think right now, that ArtRage gives me everything I need, except:

1. Give us an easier way to adjust the overall image. Just like we can adjust an individual layer. I know I could copy all the layers then merge the copies down into one layer then adjust the entire image... But once again, I am lazy! Is there an ArtRage feature to merge all layers into a new layer at the top? I don't think so? VAF (value added feature)?

2. I seem lately to usually want to add a simple vignette. I just modify my images in Apple's, iCloud photo edit feature and add the vignette there. I also edit the overall image colors/exposure there too. But it would be nice to just do it in AR. Yes, I am lazy!

That is all that I need to change from ArtRage. I am content with the rest of its functionality. If ArtRage is good enough for professionals to use then it is just fine for this amateur!

(If you are lurking... Don't be shy... Speak up!)

[HwyStar]

Okay, Mr. Techno I bet you can figure this one out:
Different artwork that I am printing sometimes is too dark for the printed output. The difference between backlit work by the monitor and printed works is enough that it is wasting print jobs and ink.

Is there some tool or histogram viewer that can tell the artist what the overall brightness is for a picture to be printed? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in AR that can do this.

I know that PS probably has something in there to do that but I decided to scrap PS because of the subscription cost. I have a license for Affinity on my iMac in Nevada but I have not installed Affinity yet on my Virginia system.

Any ideas? Any internet tools you can think of? My Google searches have come up dry.

I am part of a Facebook group that is all about printing and I will ask there too. If I get a solution I will post it here.

Sorry for the off-topic post. This "is" our thread!

[DarkOwnt]

Topic?? What's that?

Ahem.


Your best bet is two fold:

1. Monitor and Printer calibration, and always use color management.

2. IF possible, use additional "software proofing" provided by some software to simulate on your monitor, how the printed picture will look.


1. Is relatively straightforward. I have DataColor Spyder products for monitor calibration and printer calibration. Essentially, it takes measurements of your device, and makes a profile which is meant to tweak it toward proper color reproduction as possible. So when you finish, you'll have a color profile for your monitor whih you then make windows use to always make your screen as accurate as possible, and you'll have a color profile for your printer which will always make your printer as accurate as possible. All the while you just keep working in the native color space (sRGB) and everything should be taken care of for you.

2. Due to actual differences in color gamut, your printer (a subtractive device) will not be able to display certain colors with the same saturation AND brightness as your monitor (an additive device). So the final step in the matching is soft proofing. This odd little concept takes the color profiles you made for your monitor and your target printer and using them to simulate on your monitor how the print will look once you print it. This works well as long as your monitor is set at a reasonable brightness comparable to a fully lit piece made on your printer (i.e. the white of your monitor should be only as bright as the white canvas under the brightest lights you will be lighting up your displayed work) [ASIDE: note that lighting up your artwork with color balance which is OFF of your monitor will cause trouble - IF you want to work with 2700K light, then calibrate your monitor to 2700K white point, if you like 5300K lights to light up your work, use 5300K for your display calibration]. Now, I know Corel Painter had (has?) this feature, and I suspect so do other advanced photography and art programs which include color management. I'm not sure if there is any stand alone viewer for this... In any case. While soft proofing, use the program to adjust gamma, saturation, brightness etc. until your expected output is acceptable. Try to remember that prints have always looked different from monitor outputs, so concentrate on what could have been achieved with real paints versus what can be displayed on a ridiculously colorful and bright monitor. Programs like Corel PaintShop pro (very useful for all kinds of things) also has a software proofing mode.

[HwyStar]

I knew you would know the technical side (you) and the laymen’s side (me!). I have to think about systems all day long at work and refuse to do the same in my off time. I’m getting to old for the techno-babble.

Ahem!

Okay, calibrate the monitor. Check. I think I have a spyder some where in a drawer that I will dig out and try.

The colors don’t appear to have any issues between my iMac and the Canon printer. It is just the darkness of some prints that need pushing higher with the brightness. Using my k.i.s.s. Technology approach to life at this point I will look around for a tool that can color proof my work. Excellent suggestion! Affinity may support color proofing. I will google that. I don’t remember if PS does, and if it does then Affinity probable does too.

Thanks for the quick answer DO! I did order my favorite paper in 8 x 11 today, to do some proofing with, so I don’t burn through my bigger sheets of paper. You da Man!

[DarkOwnt]

I can't say enough about how awesome Datacolor calibration is especially the printer paper calibration. the interaction of ink with each paper and any different print setting (halftoning or diffuse etc) really creates drastically different results so you need a different calibration for every paper and printer setting combination you use, in order to get accurate results. Spyder print is worth every penny !!

[HannahRage]

Or for a very low tech way, try holding up your printed artwork, and fiddle with the monitor settings until they match ;)

[HwyStar]

Or for a very low tech way, try holding up your printed artwork, and fiddle with the monitor settings until they match


That's a good idea to Hannah! Thanks for sharing.

I just stumbled on this fairly recent YT video about "Make your own damn brushes!" I agree with some of his beliefs but not all. This may give us some insights or ideas. It is provocative that is for sure!


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

[DarkOwnt]

HS are you on a windows machine or a Mac?

[HwyStar]

Apple IMac with a Wacom QHD monitor.

[HwyStar]

Hey, DO!

I have been struggling with health issues and the lack of caffeine my doctor says I can drink. I have been blah-toe boy lately!

I see what you mean about setting the aspect ratio on the oil brush to allow me to have the tail of the stroke be rounded. Setting it very low (even 0%) is what I was looking for. Thanks, Maestro!

[DarkOwnt]

Hey, DO!

I have been struggling with health issues and the lack of caffeine my doctor says I can drink. I have been blah-toe boy lately!

I see what you mean about setting the aspect ratio on the oil brush to allow me to have the tail of the stroke be rounded. Setting it very low (even 0%) is what I was looking for. Thanks, Maestro!

Sorry to hear about your challenges hope things take a better turn for you.

Not sure what you mean or to what I have said you are referring to but I'm glad to hear you have found settings you can use!

[HwyStar]

I was referring to the Aspect Ratio setting of the oil brush that is right below the Square Brush "clickable" option. I set it to 0% Aspect Ratio and that seems to help with the brush strokes. Without it being too technical for my tiny brain.

I re-worked my pink Tulip painting above and printed it to send to my Grand Daughter. Here is the finished painting:

95210

[D Akey]

That's a good idea to Hannah! Thanks for sharing.

I just stumbled on this fairly recent YT video about "Make your own damn brushes!" I agree with some of his beliefs but not all. This may give us some insights or ideas. It is provocative that is for sure!


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


This is a very cool share. I'm not entirely sure about his saying to paint an entire painting using only one brush. I agree that if one introduces into a painting a brush that does something really at odds with the painting it could stand apart from the rest of the painting which would be distracting and look like a flaw or bad choice.

On the other hand, it depends on how you paint and how much any one stroke is a component to the level of finish. I don't think the brush matters in some cases, and could actually enhance the beauty. Plus, using one brush could make a painting's marks redundant. That might be analogous to a musician only playing quarter notes. Fine if you're Bach or Philip Glass or to draw attention to the fact that it's deliberately limited.

In the real world I used many different brushes where the rule of thumb was to use the biggest brush you could get away with and adapt to each step in the process. But they all had their uses. For me, with my style, I got to where the painting mechanics were invisible, and so the point was the illusion of reality rather than a painterly painting. Granted, that's merely one way, but there are stages in all paintings where one builds up a painting to a point and only the last bravura strokes matter. In that case, using one brush would be good, varying the size and so forth, for highlights or to make it look juicy.

None the less, it's always good to be exposed to different techniques and ideas and it's good to give them a go and see what happens in a practical context. Limits are not necessarily a bad thing.

And as to making your own brushes -- I think that's a brilliant idea and may be one of the ways to create a unique look. But for me, I like to have variety and lots of choices, the more the better. It comes from the type of purposes one has for doing art. I have done a goodly amount of photo manipulation and so I use lots of tricks using selections and blending, smearing and adjusting etc what is already there to begin with. So they may not be considered a brush per say, but they are a way to make a mark. I have then used that for paintings as well. And things I do with paintings can have application for messing with photos.

Anyway, I can now see what you were doing with the tulips painting, where it looks as if you used one brush to see where it went. Very cool experiment. It felt sort of Seurat pointillist which is fine if one is Seurat or exploring a concept (optically mixing) rather than merely technique farther down the evolutionary time line. Just as a late comment with a little more of an idea where you were going with it, I might suggest you try maybe introducing some variety. But by all means you're way out in front on this with the brushes. I just downloaded the square brushes and look forward to trying it when I get some time.

Thanks for sharing all this investigation. It is exciting.

[DarkOwnt]

Very nice! I liked your sky before for its realism now I also like the new sky for its slight surrealism! Awesome work!

[DarkOwnt]

This is a very cool share. I'm not entirely sure about his saying to paint an entire painting using only one brush. I agree that if one introduces into a painting a brush that does something really at odds with the painting it could stand apart from the rest of the painting which would be distracting and look like a flaw or bad choice.

On the other hand, it depends on how you paint and how much any one stroke is a component to the level of finish. I don't think the brush matters in some cases, and could actually enhance the beauty. Plus, using one brush could make a painting's marks redundant. That might be analogous to a musician only playing quarter notes. Fine if you're Bach or Philip Glass or to draw attention to the fact that it's deliberately limited.

In the real world I used many different brushes where the rule of thumb was to use the biggest brush you could get away with and adapt to each step in the process. But they all had their uses. For me, with my style, I got to where the painting mechanics were invisible, and so the point was the illusion of reality rather than a painterly painting. Granted, that's merely one way, but there are stages in all paintings where one builds up a painting to a point and only the last bravura strokes matter. In that case, using one brush would be good, varying the size and so forth, for highlights or to make it look juicy.

None the less, it's always good to be exposed to different techniques and ideas and it's good to give them a go and see what happens in a practical context. Limits are not necessarily a bad thing.

And as to making your own brushes -- I think that's a brilliant idea and may be one of the ways to create a unique look. But for me, I like to have variety and lots of choices, the more the better. It comes from the type of purposes one has for doing art. I have done a goodly amount of photo manipulation and so I use lots of tricks using selections and blending, smearing and adjusting etc what is already there to begin with. So they may not be considered a brush per say, but they are a way to make a mark. I have then used that for paintings as well. And things I do with paintings can have application for messing with photos.

Anyway, I can now see what you were doing with the tulips painting, where it looks as if you used one brush to see where it went. Very cool experiment. It felt sort of Seurat pointillist which is fine if one is Seurat or exploring a concept (optically mixing) rather than merely technique farther down the evolutionary time line. Just as a late comment with a little more of an idea where you were going with it, I might suggest you try maybe introducing some variety. But by all means you're way out in front on this with the brushes. I just downloaded the square brushes and look forward to trying it when I get some time.

Thanks for sharing all this investigation. It is exciting.

I have to agree with your analysis here. An unthinking blanket rule of only one brush is unjustified and when the subject and composition could benefit from different brushes the rule is obviously much too limiting. The point to be taken though is that the use of brushes and the results produced should be diligently observed and choice of brushes and how they are used made with care.

These are my first set of brushes and I see now that they need some work but they illustrate in rough form what I am aiming at, which is looser and slightly unpredictable, similar to what happens when you use a real brush and just touch the surface while varying the orientation and surfaces of the brush touching the canvas. I don't know how realistic it can be made using the custom brush system but I'm trying.

[HwyStar]

Thanks for the kind words Guys! I think walking away from it and coming back helped to enhance it this time around. Some of it was new brush strokes and some of it was just using the layer filters to enhance what was already there from before.

One brush for the entire painting kind of rubbed me the wrong way in his video. I can see merit in that approach but it really depends on the style of painting? I can't say I've ever looked at the Master's paintings closely enough to determine if they only painted with one brush. I will need to google that and see if there is any truth in that statement or it is just one YouTubers opinion...

Here is the comment that has the highest ranking on his video:


Someone should paint this character holding a pie and a baby and share it to the internet with no context.

Am I a little inclined to agree with that quote? Maybe! :rolleyes:

Thanks again guys, for the great fireside chats!

[DarkOwnt]

Just wondering, has anyone has found the SquareMess brushes useful?

I am continuing to tweak and add variations, if anyone want them I can post, but if these brushes are truly only for me, that's fine too!