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

[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!

[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!

[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!

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]

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.