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...
Jul 05 13 04:04 pm Link
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.
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.
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
Walnut Creek, California, US
Tommy Charles 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.
Jul 06 13 11:24 am Link
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Buy PostWorkShop v3
Jul 06 13 11:31 am Link
Green Bay, Wisconsin, US
There's a filter in Photoshop called Smart Blur.
Jul 06 13 11:32 am Link
Michael Zahra wrote:
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
Joann Empson wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. I'm sure Photoshop *can* do anything Painter can, the question is how . Project DogWaffle is a small paint application with some nice tools.
Jul 06 13 04:08 pm Link
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...)
Jul 07 13 12:10 pm Link
Terrell Gates wrote:
Jul 10 13 02:38 am Link
Thomas Dodd wrote:
Great info, thanks.
Jul 10 13 02:39 am Link