Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > Painterly feel effect

Photographer

Terrell Gates

Posts: 1042

Santa Fe, New Mexico, US

I use Photoshop it delivers a pretty good result most of the time ... I wanted to have a painterly look for this image...

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120204/15/4f2db98fd8541.jpg

Jul 05 13 04:04 pm Link

Retoucher

Tommy Charles

Posts: 56

Greensboro, North Carolina, US

Just IMHO:

If you want a true painterly look you need to use a dedicated program (ie, Corel Painter). To get a painterly look from an existing photo in Photoshop requires a lot of training and practice. Lots of hours. That's not to say Painter doesn't require practice to master, it's just that the curve is a lot lower. (and you still need innate artistic ability, maybe more so)

There are Photoshop plugins that can do it, Akvis and Topaz come to mind, but those still require manual post-processing to get a realistic effect.

I would say that the Renaissance example was definitely done in Painter. I would be glad to be wrong though, as that would be amazing. Even so, IMHO, the jewelry is way too bright and still looks a lot like the photo version with a filter applied. And the chain has weird blurring around the edges that rub me the wrong way. Making the chain and medallion so bright is an odd choice to me, since the flower--which was left out--is much brighter and would have provided better balance to the piece.

Camerosity,

I wouldn't call the examples you provided painterly, myself. They're all still pretty photographic. I suspect we just use the term to mean different things, or varying degrees of the same thing.

Joann Empson,

Just IMHO, I think if you want it to look painterly you need a lot more variation in the skin tone. Reds, yellows, blues, pinks. There also needs to be evidence of brush strokes, however subtle.

Jul 05 13 04:13 pm Link

Retoucher

Joann Empson

Posts: 430

Walnut Creek, California, US

Tommy Charles  wrote:
...if you want it to look painterly you need a lot more variation in the skin tone. Reds, yellows, blues, pinks. There also needs to be evidence of brush strokes, however subtle.

Thanks, Tommy! I'll look into ways of adding more variation in the skin tone. I'm going to try to experiment with an extra Overlay layer to add the texture of brush strokes.

To be honest, my ultimate goal is to demonstrate viable alternatives to the very proprietary programs that you mention. Given the massive surveillance that has been revealed in recent weeks, there's more incentive than ever to stop using software that keeps users in the dark about what it's really doing in the background. Proprietary software is a perfect vessel for snooping. Without privacy, there's little chance of democracy because it will be too easy for a tyrant to crush political dissent before it happens. And the dissent will be crushed, of course, in the name of "protecting" us.

Jul 06 13 11:24 am Link

Photographer

Michael Zahra

Posts: 1106

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Buy PostWorkShop v3

Jul 06 13 11:31 am Link

Photographer

Eastfist

Posts: 3544

Green Bay, Wisconsin, US

There's a filter in Photoshop called Smart Blur.

Jul 06 13 11:32 am Link

Retoucher

Tommy Charles

Posts: 56

Greensboro, North Carolina, US

Michael Zahra wrote:
Buy PostWorkShop v3

Looks like a decent option for someone who needs something believable without having to learn the ins and outs of a complex program. Painter is the standard, but you have to actually have an idea of how to paint.

Jul 06 13 04:06 pm Link

Retoucher

Tommy Charles

Posts: 56

Greensboro, North Carolina, US

Joann Empson wrote:

Thanks, Tommy! I'll look into ways of adding more variation in the skin tone. I'm going to try to experiment with an extra Overlay layer to add the texture of brush strokes.

To be honest, my ultimate goal is to demonstrate viable alternatives to the very proprietary programs that you mention. Given the massive surveillance that has been revealed in recent weeks, there's more incentive than ever to stop using software that keeps users in the dark about what it's really doing in the background. Proprietary software is a perfect vessel for snooping. Without privacy, there's little chance of democracy because it will be too easy for a tyrant to crush political dissent before it happens. And the dissent will be crushed, of course, in the name of "protecting" us.

Yeah, I hear you. I'm sure Photoshop *can* do anything Painter can, the question is how tongue. Project DogWaffle is a small paint application with some nice tools.

Jul 06 13 04:08 pm Link

Photographer

Thomas Dodd

Posts: 436

Atlanta, Georgia, US

A large part of the painterly look is achieved BEFORE post.
It helps to have an extensive visual vocabulary and a knowledge of classic paintings and the techniques and lighting styles that artists use (and still use) so you know exactly what it is that you are trying to achieve(for instance look at Caravaggio for lighting effects or look at how Rembrandt rendered skin tones and facial expressions).

Selecting the right model, wardrobe and set is also crucial. (For example- a glamor model with a fake tan and enhanced breasts is never going to look like she stepped out of a PreRaphaelite painting..sorry!!)

And perhaps most important is the lighting . Flat studio lighting is seldom conducive for painting.The play between light and shadow is something that most master paintings depict in minute detail.

Everything done in post should be merely an enhancement of what you captured at the time of principal photography (and all this is coming from someone who is known primarily for "post-processing", but I always set things up in such a way that my post work will be (hopefully) seamless and organic...)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/188359_10151462793564863_1863253520_n.jpg

Jul 07 13 12:10 pm Link

Retoucher

Tommy Charles

Posts: 56

Greensboro, North Carolina, US

Terrell Gates wrote:
I use Photoshop it delivers a pretty good result most of the time ... I wanted to have a painterly look for this image...

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120204/15/4f2db98fd8541.jpg

Hey Terrell,

Send me the source and I'll paint some or all of it in Painter to show you the diff. I'm not trying to promote the product or anything, it's just one of the few programs dedicated solely to digital painting. Paint Tool SAI is another.

Some digital painters swear that Photoshop and Painter can be used interchangeably. I disagree myself, and only use it for post processing. For one thing, Photoshop has much better dodge/burn tools.

Jul 10 13 02:38 am Link

Retoucher

Tommy Charles

Posts: 56

Greensboro, North Carolina, US

Thomas Dodd wrote:
A large part of the painterly look is achieved BEFORE post.
It helps to have an extensive visual vocabulary and a knowledge of classic paintings and the techniques and lighting styles that artists use (and still use) so you know exactly what it is that you are trying to achieve(for instance look at Caravaggio for lighting effects or look at how Rembrandt rendered skin tones and facial expressions).

Selecting the right model, wardrobe and set is also crucial. (For example- a glamor model with a fake tan and enhanced breasts is never going to look like she stepped out of a PreRaphaelite painting..sorry!!)

And perhaps most important is the lighting . Flat studio lighting is seldom conducive for painting.The play between light and shadow is something that most master paintings depict in minute detail.

Everything done in post should be merely an enhancement of what you captured at the time of principal photography (and all this is coming from someone who is known primarily for "post-processing", but I always set things up in such a way that my post work will be (hopefully) seamless and organic...)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/188359_10151462793564863_1863253520_n.jpg

Great info, thanks.

Jul 10 13 02:39 am Link