Another newbie amazed at Paint 5!
Tom Tilney
I wouldn't trade Painter 5 in for any other program I'm aware of.
I started with painter way back with version 2 and stuck with it since.
I also use Photo shop but rarely as not much in it that I can't do with
painter. Also painter will let you get at it from the start. Very intuitive.
I've heard that Painter is sometimes bundled with wacom pad and that's the way
to go. I can not think of a better match. Paint shop pro is a
comparable product and is very inexpensive compared to painter but there is a
day and night difference in the to products. But you can download a full working
version of it for free from jasc.com. It 's shareware. Another program I under
use is corel paint. I own it because it comes as part of a suite. I use Corel
draw as a vector graphic program. I've seen Corel version 3 and 4 for sale as
little as $50.00 US. That is a bargain for The fonts that come with it alone.
The paint program in the early Corel versions are basic but usable.
LOL--Tom
Martin Dean wrote:
> Being a newbie like Andrea Balinson, I was simply stunned by the abilities
> of Paint. I'm considering buying it, just for personal use as I think it
> will be great fun. I do have a couple of questions;
>
> It is (for me anyway) quite an expensive program. The price I saw on the
> website was 299$; I don't yet know the pounds sterling UK price or what
> support comes with this. In itself this might not be a problem but I also
> want to use a drawing tablet as I believe this is the way I'll get the most
> out of the program. Can anyone recommend one and say how much they cost?
>
> Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
> to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
> whatever I feel like creating. Are there alternative programs available for
> beginners that are of comparable quality?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Martin Dean
Mark Borok
In article <6dib40$4...@news1-gui.server.cableol.net>, "Martin Dean"
<m.d...@which.net> wrote:
>
> It is (for me anyway) quite an expensive program. The price I saw on the
> website was 299$; I don't yet know the pounds sterling UK price or what
> support comes with this. In itself this might not be a problem but I also
> want to use a drawing tablet as I believe this is the way I'll get the most
> out of the program.
See if you can find a drawing tablet that comes bundled with Painter.
You'll save money that way. Wacom is the favorite tablet as far as I know.
>
> Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
> to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
> whatever I feel like creating. Are there alternative programs available for
> beginners that are of comparable quality?
Painter is okay. Photoshop is better. If you can only afford one program,
go with Painter because it is a bit more versatile.
>
--Mark
>
> Many thanks
>
> Martin Dean
--
Mark Borok
"Restless Graphics"
Animation and multimedia design
http://www.mindspring.com/~mborok
Remove "spamless" from email address to respond
Ray McVay
Martin Dean wrote:
>
> It is (for me anyway) quite an expensive program. The price I saw on the
> website was 299$; I don't yet know the pounds sterling UK price or what
> support comes with this. In itself this might not be a problem but I also
> want to use a drawing tablet as I believe this is the way I'll get the most
Look into a Wacom/Painter bundle; those are usually a good value. The
little
Wacom ArtPad will do the trick nicely in most cases.
> Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
> to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
> whatever I feel like creating.
I do lots of photo processing with Painter and although Photoshop MIGHT
do
some specific adjustment better, I've been quite happy with what Painter
has done for me.
> Are there alternative programs available for
> beginners that are of comparable quality?
No, but you might want to fiddle with whatever the latest version of
Paint Shop Pro is. It's inexpensive and has SOME pressure sensitivity
but it's nowhere near the same league as Painter.
Martin Dean
Being a newbie like Andrea Balinson, I was simply stunned by the abilities
of Paint. I'm considering buying it, just for personal use as I think it
will be great fun. I do have a couple of questions;
It is (for me anyway) quite an expensive program. The price I saw on the
website was 299$; I don't yet know the pounds sterling UK price or what
support comes with this. In itself this might not be a problem but I also
want to use a drawing tablet as I believe this is the way I'll get the most
out of the program. Can anyone recommend one and say how much they cost?
Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
whatever I feel like creating. Are there alternative programs available for
beginners that are of comparable quality?
Many thanks
Martin Dean
John Georgiadis
Speaking of the Wacom/Painter 5 bundle, I just purchased it and I have one
question. Should the package have contained a manul for Painter? The only
manual that came with the bundle was the one for the Wacom tablet. By the way,
By buying the bundle you save approx $100. I haven't messed with it too much,
but from what I've seen so far, I like it.
John G.
Ray McVay wrote:
> Martin Dean wrote:
> >
> > It is (for me anyway) quite an expensive program. The price I saw on the
> > website was 299$; I don't yet know the pounds sterling UK price or what
> > support comes with this. In itself this might not be a problem but I also
> > want to use a drawing tablet as I believe this is the way I'll get the most
> > out of the program. Can anyone recommend one and say how much they cost?
>
> Look into a Wacom/Painter bundle; those are usually a good value. The
> little
> Wacom ArtPad will do the trick nicely in most cases.
>
> > Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
> > to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
> > whatever I feel like creating.
>
> I do lots of photo processing with Painter and although Photoshop MIGHT
> do
> some specific adjustment better, I've been quite happy with what Painter
> has done for me.
>
> > Are there alternative programs available for
> > beginners that are of comparable quality?
>
Nathan Marciniak
_______________________________________________
"Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
beginners that are of comparable quality?"
Considering you are starting from scratch you are in a way, lucky. I would not recommend doing photo montages in Painter
unless of course you enjoy bashing your head against a brick wall! Photoshop humiliates Painter in the layers, masks and
channels department but who knows, you may not even notice the huge shortcomings. Photoshop is about twice the price, but
worth every bit if layering is what you want to do. Neither programs are really for beginners, with "beginner" meaning
someone who has never used art programs on a computer before. But for the price Painter is a good choice. Don't even think
about using it without a pen tablet though, it's like tying your shoes with boxing gloves on.
The best way is to have both Photoshop and Painter but if your goal is to draw original artwork, go with Painter. Although
remember you ARE spending oodles of money on a digital version of "natural media" The REAL "natural media" is a heck of a
lot cheaper! You will also want a computer bursting at the seams with processing power and RAM to run Painter at
print-resolution file sizes. And when you think you've got enough RAM, put more in because you still don't have enough. And
after that you may want to plan on putting some more RAM in soon.
Nathan Marciniak
Kenny A. Chaffin
In article <6dj0jm$i...@newsops.execpc.com>, sar...@execpc.com says...
> _______________________________________________
> The best way is to have both Photoshop and Painter but if your goal is to draw original artwork, go with Painter. Although
> remember you ARE spending oodles of money on a digital version of "natural media" The REAL "natural media" is a heck of a
> lot cheaper! You will also want a computer bursting at the seams with processing power and RAM to run Painter at
Well, if you consider all the paints and canvas and brushes and solvent
and ..... it may not be all _that_ expensive.
> print-resolution file sizes. And when you think you've got enough RAM, put more in because you still don't have enough. And
> after that you may want to plan on putting some more RAM in soon.
>
> Nathan Marciniak
>
>
--
KAC
Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
ke...@kacweb.com
Martin Eager
Nathan Marciniak wrote:
Nathan Marciniak wrote:
>Considering you are starting from scratch you are in a way, lucky.
>I would not recommend doing photo montages in Painter unless of course
>you enjoy bashing your head against a brick wall!
I got Painter some time before I got Photoshop and I've not had the
learning difficulties others have suffered. Indeed, I often find
-Photoshop- to be quirky because I learned Painter first. It's all
down to what you are used to. Most of us aren't good at adapting to
new modes of working, or don't have the time. Painter and Photoshop
are two very different products and we shouldn't expect them to
mimick each other. I admire Painter for not bending too far to the
Photoshop die-hards :) That said, it is important that files can
move easily between the two and I'm pleased that Painter supports
Photoshop .psd format and layers etc.
>Don't even think about using it without a pen tablet though, it's
>like tying your shoes with boxing gloves on.
Whilst I agree that using a pen tablet is ultimately the best way to
use Painter, it's still perfectly possible to produce good stuff with
just a mouse. I've been managing it for years across a wide range of
graphics packages, starting originally with Deluxe Paint on the Amiga
and these days working with Painter on a PC. Painting with a mouse is
just a technique you can learn like painting with a brush. And if you
combine it with working from a scanned sketch (using Painter's
Tracing Paper option) then quite a lot is possible. Once you learn how
to work around the shortcomings of the mouse and to use the tools
provided in Painter to the full it isn't so bad. Don't get me wrong,
graphics tablets are of course the ideal solution, but it is possible
to manage with a mouse if you have to and use a bit of ingenuity.
>The best way is to have both Photoshop and Painter but if your goal is
>to draw original artwork, go with Painter.
I would tend to agree. Both can do things the other can't. However,
if I could only have one I would definitely have Painter as it can
perform adequately in the photo scanning/montage/retouch department
(now that Twain acquire works in version 5) and of course wins hands
down in the natural media stakes. But it all boils down to what sort
of artwork you want to do. Best approach is to try out the demo
versions of both Painter and Photoshop first.
>Although remember you ARE spending oodles of money on a digital
>version of "natural media" The REAL "natural media" is a heck of a
>lot cheaper!
It is?? When was the last time you were in an art supplies shop
looking at the cost of tubes of paint, pots of acrylic, canvas
and paper etc? In the UK here Painter 5 costs just over two
hundred pounds. I could spend that money in next to no time in
an art supplies shop and still not be able to paint in such a
wide range of mediums as Painter allows. And then when all my
paints run out - it's back to the art shop for more!
>You will also want a computer bursting at the seams with processing
>power and RAM to run Painter at print-resolution file sizes.
Well that goes for any graphics package, Photoshop included,
not just Painter. It all depends what your intended output
is though. Not everyone does digital art with the intention of
having it printed back out at 720+dpi. For some, their work
is only intended to be viewed on a computer screen, for others
uutput on a good quality colour inkjet is perfectly adequate.
Probably, if you want your art to print back out to the quality of
natural media then you -would- be better off using natural media
in the first place because of the processing power and ram needed
to work at huge dpi resolutions.
You can get perfectly good results with Painter 5 on a mid
range Pentium with 32 megs of ram. Obviously the more processing
power and memory you can throw at it the easier it becomes,
but not everyone needs to be a power user (although we'd
all love to be). Indeed, I managed to get some pretty nice
graphics done on my old 486 DX2-66 with 16 megs of ram and
Painter 4.
Regards
Martin
@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@
@ Martin Eager Runic Design, Web Design @
@ http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~raindog/ http://www.runic.com @
@ rai...@dircon.co.uk mar...@runic.com @
@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@=@
Ceci
In article <34FCE967...@earthlink.net> , John Georgiadis
<eni...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Speaking of the Wacom/Painter 5 bundle, I just purchased it and I have
one
>question. Should the package have contained a manul for Painter? The
only
>manual that came with the bundle was the one for the Wacom tablet. By
the way,
>By buying the bundle you save approx $100. I haven't messed with it
too much,
>but from what I've seen so far, I like it.
>
>John G.
The documentation is a PDF file on the cdrom. I think it's called
userguide.pdf. It took me awhile also before I decided to peruse the
disc long enough to find it.
Ceci
synthuser
Martin Eager wrote:
<snipped but read>
> You can get perfectly good results with Painter 5 on a mid
> range Pentium with 32 megs of ram. Obviously the more processing
> power and memory you can throw at it the easier it becomes,
> but not everyone needs to be a power user (although we'd
> all love to be).
Haha. :)
> Indeed, I managed to get some pretty nice
> graphics done on my old 486 DX2-66 with 16 megs of ram and
> Painter 4.
Yes!
Though now I have other faster more powerful PC's,
I still use Painter 4 on my old DX2-66 as well :),
(I did add more ram). But hey it's just another tool. :)
Great comments. Enjoyed reading them. :)
Synthuser
gruhn
>Whilst I agree that using a pen tablet is ultimately the best way to
>use Painter, it's still perfectly possible to produce good stuff with
>just a mouse.
I've done some fine stuff (relative fine, of course) with mice over the
years. But soon as I got a tablet, I have found the mouse frustrating to
work with. Tablet is dreamy. It's a you don't know what you are missing
thing in some ways.
>Deluxe Paint on the Amiga
Yay!
>graphics tablets are of course the ideal solution
Dreamy
>but it is possible to manage with a mouse if you have to
Functional.
>>The REAL "natural media" is a heck of a lot cheaper!
Add me to the long list of dissenting opinions.
Maybe if you don't have a computer anyway and don't paint much anyway.
Various other combinations of usage patterns.
But with Painter, I can go through a hundred bucks worth of art supplies
just screwing around for an evening.
But then, when I really want to draw, I get out white paper and a pencil.
And I also just bought new pens. Because, I like them best.
>>You will also want a computer bursting at the seams with processing
>>power and RAM to run Painter at print-resolution file sizes.
Ooo yeah. I threw some heavy processor and memory at Painter 5, and it
almost zings along now. I'd be curious to dig up Painter 2 & X2, just to see
how they behave on equipment a couple generations past when they were
shipping.
>Not everyone does digital art with the intention of
>having it printed back out at 720+dpi.
And please people, remember that your 720 DOTS per inch printer does not in
any way require 720 PIXELS (called dots by both Photoshop and Painter in
their image sizing options) per inch. Not by far.
Similar holds true for the lines per inch on your commercial printer's
press.
>Probably, if you want your art to print back out to the quality of
>natural media then you -would- be better off using natural media
That will very much depend on the work and the reproduction.
Mik Clarke
Nathan Marciniak <sar...@execpc.com> wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>"Finally, what's it like with photo manipulation? I ask this because I want
>to have a program that is versatile and I can produce photo montages or
>whatever I feel like creating. Are there alternative programs available for
>beginners that are of comparable quality?"
>______________________________________________
>
>Considering you are starting from scratch you are in a way, lucky. I would not recommend
>doing photo montages in Painter unless of course you enjoy bashing your head against a
>brick wall! Photoshop humiliates Painter in the layers, masks and channels department but
>who knows, you may not even notice the huge shortcomings.
Hmmm. I seem to get some quite reasonable results. Check out my
gallery at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/2260. Color, Chaos4,
Faces, 21CSMA, Deliverenceand Firequeen all started life as photos (or
sometimes multiple photos). I ran through the tips on the KPT3 disk
and found that most of them, although written for photoshop, also
worked with painter, although it took a little while to work out where
things were. Floaters also meant that I needed a lot less windows than
Kai seemed to use.
> Photoshop is about twice the
>price, but worth every bit if layering is what you want to do. Neither programs are really for
>beginners, with "beginner" meaning someone who has never used art programs on a
>computer before. But for the price Painter is a good choice. Don't even think
>about using it without a pen tablet though, it's like tying your shoes with boxing gloves on.
Painter is probably easier due to it's natural media look. It's draws
on the computer very much like you would draw on paper. It can produce
some amazing effects, far better than any other art program I've seen,
very, very easily. Just try a water color wash or drawing with
charcoal on textured paped...
Martin Dean
Thanks for all the comments re Painter; it's made for an interesting thread
so far. I've tracked down a bundle which includes the WACOM A5 Ultrapad for
410 pounds (incidentally my pound key has disappeared off my keyboard)
which seems a good deal since Painter sells separately for 316 pounds. I
also noticed that the A2 retails for an incredible 1,345.38. What on earth
are the differences between these products? Presumably they both sit on
your desk and perform the same sort of tasks... I also ask because I don't
believe I've ever seen group tests for this sort of peripheral in any
magazine.
Regards
Martin Dean
Nathan Marciniak
What I'm talking about is the idea that Painter promotes the idea of natural media and designs their products to be as close to "traditional" methods as possible. Let me narrow down my original, too-broad statement. It's more than an issue of expense. Let's say the goal is to produce a 20x24 inch painting. You will spend less painting it on paper\canvas with paint and brushes than you will having to drop 2-3 grand for a computer, 300 bucks for Painter, 200 for a tablet and then there is the issue of the 165MB plus (in RGB mind you!) file you will have to deal with. Add on the time and expense of printing this beast and you will probably wish you drew it by hand. I know this may sound ridiculous but the truth is that you need a supercomputer to do what a traditional artist can accomplish effortlessly in real time. I'm talking about one mutual goal: a 20x24" painting. I think it would be cheaper and easier to use the manual way.
I love Painter's brushes and some of the effects, they're really great. You can do wonderful work with them. My point is only that the computer is NOT "natural media" and there are definite limitations, especially to someone accustomed to painting normally. I also have the same feeling about music. We create a fake piano (synthesizer) and then work diligently to try to get it sound like a real piano! And reality isn't good enough, we've got to recreate a "virtual" one! Painter is basically a 300 dollar paint brush! (Ha! Just exaggerating!)
Of course the added flexibility Painter gives you is tremendous and
a world apart from what you can accomplish manually. But the idea
that you can do the same thing in both mediums is unrealistic until our
computer technology makes a quantum leap forward.
Traditional artists often work at sizes that would easily throttle
Painter's throat until it collapses. If we can blur the line (or
shall I say Super Soften?) between Painter's digital power and the real-time
speed of the artist then we'll really have something.
Also, I still use Painter 4 so I don't know if 5's layers\masks are any better but from what I've read, it still seems to be too much to ask to be able to create a new transparent layer and paint on the damn thing. Sure I come from a Photoshop background, but I really and truly believe Painter's implementation is not up to snuff. If it was I might recommend Painter as the lone graphics app, but there's no way I could say that now.
I was going to talk about my ideas for some TRULY "Natural Media" features for Painter, but I'll make a separate post.
Pokke
I agree. I find it incredibly difficult to work with floaters and all,
compared to Photoshop's layers. In PS each layer is a "canvas" and you
can work on the transparent area of the layer with ease. I haven't yet
found how to create a drop shadow on an image floater without first
dropping the floater and thus limiting future changes. (Maybe someone
more experienced can help me out on this ?) So I too use both programs
on the same images.
Question: Are the floaters a bad relic from painter's roots or am I
missing the point?
Kenny A. Chaffin
In article <6dlksu$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, sar...@execpc.com says...
>
> --------------C7CC138698843AB046BA916E
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Howdy again,
>
> What I'm talking about is the idea that Painter promotes the idea of natural media and designs their products to be as close
> to "traditional" methods as possible. Let me narrow down my original, too-broad statement. It's more than an issue of
> expense. Let's say the goal is to produce a 20x24 inch painting. You will spend less painting it on paper\canvas with paint
> and brushes than you will having to drop 2-3 grand for a computer, 300 bucks for Painter, 200 for a tablet and then there is
> the issue of the 165MB plus (in RGB mind you!) file you will have to deal with. Add on the time and expense of printing this
> beast and you will probably wish you drew it by hand. I know this may sound ridiculous but the truth is that you need a
> supercomputer to do what a traditional artist can accomplish effortlessly in real time. I'm talking about one mutual goal: a
> 20x24" painting. I think it would be cheaper and easier to use the manual way.
But Nathan, it's never that simple. You don't go out and buy a full set
of artist supplies to create a single painting. Neither do you go out and
by an new computer for every painting you do digitally.
With Painter you buy it once. period. The only supplies required are
whatever is involved in printing and you can choose your level of expense
from $0 to whatever you care to spend to produce a hard copy of your
work.
>
> I love Painter's brushes and some of the effects, they're really great. You can do wonderful work with them. My point is
> only that the computer is NOT "natural media" and there are definite limitations, especially to someone accustomed to
> painting normally. I also have the same feeling about music. We create a fake piano (synthesizer) and then work diligently
> to try to get it sound like a real piano! And reality isn't good enough, we've got to recreate a "virtual" one! Painter is
> basically a 300 dollar paint brush! (Ha! Just exaggerating!)
And vice versa. Painter can do things you couldn't even consider in real
media. Try erasing watercolor for instance, or just erasing period. They
are different each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
>
> Of course the added flexibility Painter gives you is tremendous and a world apart from what you can accomplish manually. But
> the idea that you can do the same thing in both mediums is unrealistic until our computer technology makes a quantum leap
> forward.
I wouldn't want my computer to be/do _exactly_ the same thing. That's the
point.... I want it to be different/easier/cheaper/better?....
> Traditional artists often work at sizes that would easily throttle Painter's throat until it collapses. If we can blur the
> line (or shall I say Super Soften?) between Painter's digital power and the real-time speed of the artist then we'll really
> have something.
>
> Also, I still use Painter 4 so I don't know if 5's layers\masks are any better but from what I've read, it still seems to be
> too much to ask to be able to create a new transparent layer and paint on the damn thing. Sure I come from a Photoshop
> background, but I really and truly believe Painter's implementation is not up to snuff. If it was I might recommend Painter
> as the lone graphics app, but there's no way I could say that now.
agreed. They should at least provide the ability to do photoshop-like
layers as as addition to the floater/mask capability now offered.
>
> I was going to talk about my ideas for some TRULY "Natural Media" features for Painter, but I'll make a separate post.
I, for one, would like to hear your thoughts on what you consider TRULY
"Natural Media".
>
Best Wishes,
synthuser
gruhn wrote:
> I've done some fine stuff (relative fine, of course) with mice over the
> years. But soon as I got a tablet, I have found the mouse frustrating to
> work with. Tablet is dreamy. It's a you don't know what you are missing
> thing in some ways.
Which tablet do you use? Just curious? I was close to picking up
the Wacom ArtZII last weekend. I have been checking out other's
comments as well as reviews, and it seems this is a very good choice?
> >>The REAL "natural media" is a heck of a lot cheaper!
>
> Add me to the long list of dissenting opinions.
Agreed.
> But with Painter, I can go through a hundred bucks worth of art supplies
> just screwing around for an evening.
Sure
Synthuser
gruhn
>Question: Are the floaters a bad relic from painter's roots or am I
>missing the point?
Floaters are the invention and appearance of multiple floating selections
(layers). They were an add on to Painter 2. They are wonderful. There are
some things Painter could add to make them stunning, but they refuse.
Mik Clarke
po...@ping.be.NOSP*M (Pokke) wrote:
>I agree. I find it incredibly difficult to work with floaters and all,
>compared to Photoshop's layers. In PS each layer is a "canvas" and you
>can work on the transparent area of the layer with ease. I haven't yet
>found how to create a drop shadow on an image floater without first
>dropping the floater and thus limiting future changes. (Maybe someone
>more experienced can help me out on this ?) So I too use both programs
>on the same images.
Ummm. Select Floater. Ensure that transparent bits are transpart (and
not just the same color as the background), then select 'Create drop
shadow' and hit ok. If you've got 'combine' ticked, you end up with
one floater holding both the original image and its (translucent) drop
shadow. If you don't pick combine, you get a group of 2 floaters - the
original and the drop shadow.
Nathan Marciniak
_________________________________________________________
from $0 to whatever you care to spend to produce a hard copy of your work.
All right fine. I will bend like a reed in the wind. I agree, Painter is dirt cheap compared to canvases and brushes. Only a real moron would think the opposite! ;) But I maintain that it's more cost-prohibitive to do a LARGE SCALE painting on the computer than it is to do on paper. And most of all a helluva lot slower! If you made the 165MB image I talked about you would not be able to draw worth a crap because it would be so slow. And what do you need to make it faster? More money! A bigger sheet of paper costs more than another SIMM. Also, if you really whiz on the 'ol Wacom you will get some nasty pointy lines, but that's besides the point.
Kenny also sez:
_________________________________________________
"I, for one, would like to hear your thoughts on what you consider
TRULY
"Natural Media".
_________________________________________________
Thanks man! I'll get right on that...
Nathan Marciniak
Proponent of ROM cards for OS's and software to curb piracy and increase
speed
Dan Dickerson
On my copy of Painter 5, it is \Document\manual.pdf
Dan D.
Pokke
Well, bad example perhaps *g*. What I meant was that I cannot find the
ease of using a plug-in filter with selections as I can in Photoshop.
But as your help pointed out, maybe I do not have to use plug-in
filters but can do it all directly in Painter.
Now that I have your attention: Can you tell me why the floaters have
this tick (unused) border instead of surrounding only the outmost
pixels of the selected object (as it is in PS)?
Please note that I'm not trying to start a "this program is better
than your program" flame war, it's just that it's really terribly
"complicated" if you come from PS.
Thanks,
Pokke.
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 06:12:44 GMT, mik...@ibm.net (Mik Clarke) wrote:
>Ummm. Select Floater. Ensure that transparent bits are transpart (and
>not just the same color as the background), then select 'Create drop
>shadow' and hit ok. If you've got 'combine' ticked, you end up with
>one floater holding both the original image and its (translucent) drop
>shadow. If you don't pick combine, you get a group of 2 floaters - the
>original and the drop shadow.
>
>Mik
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/2260
--------------------------------------
Remove ".NO*SPAM" and you will find...
Mik Clarke
po...@ping.be.NOSP*M (Pokke) wrote:
>Well, bad example perhaps *g*. What I meant was that I cannot find the
>ease of using a plug-in filter with selections as I can in Photoshop.
>But as your help pointed out, maybe I do not have to use plug-in
>filters but can do it all directly in Painter.
>
>Now that I have your attention: Can you tell me why the floaters have
>this tick (unused) border instead of surrounding only the outmost
>pixels of the selected object (as it is in PS)?
>
>Please note that I'm not trying to start a "this program is better
>than your program" flame war, it's just that it's really terribly
>"complicated" if you come from PS.
To be honest I think it's workspace for some of the functions.
Features like Surface Texxture with a mask, seem to have an effect a
way beyond the visual image. I suspect that if the floaters stopped at
the edge of the pixels, the effects wouldn't look right.