total newbie asks: Why Painter?
Andrea Balinson
I'm thinking of buying Painter, after being wowed by mere moments of
using the demo version, but I'd like some input from users. I'm
primarily looking to use Painter to do children's book illustrations
(off-line I use colored pencil or sometimes acrylics). From what I've
seen of people's Illustrator work, it's mostly very high-tech/airbrush
looking, which kind of puts me off, whereas Painter work has a more
casual, loose, traditionally artistic style to it. Can anyone give me
more insight? Am I just imagining this, or is this really a factor of
the software? Why did you choose Painter over other software, and are
you glad you did?
--
Andrea R. Balinson
abal...@mindspring.com
Kenny A. Chaffin
In article <34FB7973...@mindspring.com>, abal...@mindspring.com
says...
> the software? Why did you choose Painter over other software, and are
> you glad you did?
>
> --
>
> Andrea R. Balinson
> abal...@mindspring.com
>
>
>
Painter is _the_ natural media graphics program for computers. It was
built from the ground up to simulate as closely as possible artists'
natural brushes, canvas, paints, etc. It is a wonderful program in this
respect. It does have it's quirks though (i.e. the way it deals with
layers and transparency and masks....). If you are a conventional artist
moving to computer I don't think there is any better way to go.
Hope this helps,
--
KAC
Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
ke...@kacweb.com
Sande Nitti
Hi Andrea,
I think Painter would be exactly the program that would fit your needs
I use Illustrator and Photoshop also but for Illustrating with a fine
art style, nothing beats Painter. Adobe Illustrator is a vector
drawing program not a painting program, it operates using a collage type
build up, airbrushig can't even be accomplished in AI. Photoshop would
be a closer comparison. Some of it's features in Illustrator are second
to none but its doubtful that it would suit you, the output is more
suited for commercial-graphic art.
I've been a graphic/fine artist, illustrator for nearly 30 years. For
graphics I would choose Illustrator but for painting. Painter no
contest. I am a watercolorist and also do Oriental Brush painting, I
have only used Painter for a short time (1 month) but it is such a
natural media for a painter I have already rendered an oil, a watercolor
and a Chinese Brush painting. I get as caught up in the painting
process on the screen as I ever did with a brush. I sometimes get
frustrated at the limitations but the advantages balance them out. The
undo's for example or saving different versions, I aways wished I could
do that in traditional watercolor LOL
Keep Creating!
Sande
gruhn
>If you are a conventional artist
>moving to computer I don't think there is any better way to go.
Hey, let's not forget - Get a pressure sensitive tablet. You will thank
yourself.
Mark Borok
In article <34FB7973...@mindspring.com>, Andrea Balinson
<abal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of buying Painter, after being wowed by mere moments of
> using the demo version, but I'd like some input from users. I'm
> primarily looking to use Painter to do children's book illustrations
> (off-line I use colored pencil or sometimes acrylics).
Make sure you can work easily at the resolution you need on your machine.
Try using the demo version at 300 dpi with an image the size you intend
your final image to be. Also, be aware that even with Painter, as great as
it is, your final image will probably have a slightly unnatural look to it
(compared to a traditional artwork)
.
From what I've
> seen of people's Illustrator work, it's mostly very high-tech/airbrush
> looking, which kind of puts me off,
You can use it in combination with Painter. You an create geometric
artwork in Illustrator (say if you wanted a pattern or border in your
image), then bring it into Painter, turn it into a floater and then paint
on it with Painter's tools. Painter also has its own Illustrator-like
tools (called shapes, in case you haven't found them yet) which are not
quite as powerful but still usable.
Why did you choose Painter over other software,
Because it's the only graphics program that comes in a can.
--Mark
>
> --
>
> Andrea R. Balinson
> abal...@mindspring.com
--
Mark Borok
"Restless Graphics"
Animation and multimedia design
http://www.mindspring.com/~mborok
Remove "spamless" from email address to respond
Jason
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 22:31:00 -0500, Andrea Balinson
<abal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm thinking of buying Painter, after being wowed by mere moments of
>using the demo version, but I'd like some input from users. I'm
>primarily looking to use Painter to do children's book illustrations
>(off-line I use colored pencil or sometimes acrylics). From what I've
>seen of people's Illustrator work, it's mostly very high-tech/airbrush
>looking, which kind of puts me off, whereas Painter work has a more
>casual, loose, traditionally artistic style to it. Can anyone give me
>more insight? Am I just imagining this, or is this really a factor of
>the software? Why did you choose Painter over other software, and are
>you glad you did?
>
>--
>
>Andrea R. Balinson
>abal...@mindspring.com
>
>
Painter is great for what you're looking for. In addition, if you
don't have one already, a Wacom tablet is the perfect complement for
it. I used to use a Calcomp. After finally getting too frustrated with
the problems I had with it, I bought a Wacom. Every single thing abuot
it is better. It may cost more, but when you factor in what a joy it
is to use, it's a bargain.
John Hopkins
I don't have a tablet yet and I agree. The only reason I haven't really
gone deep into Painter yet is because drawing with a mouse just ain't
cuttin' it.
Yers,
John
Mike C.
Go to my site and you will see what can be done with a mouse and Painter.
:)
--
Andrea Balinson
I appreciate all the responses--and I only posted yesterday! Thanks,
everyone.
P.S. I *do* have a tablet already, even if it's only the 4 x 5" Wacom.
----
Andrea R. Balinson
abal...@mindspring.com
Martijn Janssen
Mark Borok wrote:
>
>
> Make sure you can work easily at the resolution you need on your machine.
> Try using the demo version at 300 dpi with an image the size you intend
there is a solution for this which (I find) works great. You can draw a
picture at, say 100 dpi, record al your actions in a script and then
replay the script at a higher resolution.
The help program will tell you the details.
(some brushes will not give you exactly what you want, like the image
hose.
For choosing: I used Photoshop to color scanned black&white
cartoon-sketches, now draw them in low-res (high speed)! re-render
them in high-res and finally color them, all don with Painter!
Superb!!!!
M'tijn
synthuser
jehnk wrote:
> You might also take the time to look at metaC's Expression. Makes much
> more natural looking images than Illustrator and not so fussy to learn
> as Painter.
I bought this awhile back and am just staring to use it.
I like it so far, but haven't even begun to get into it!
Not enough hours in the day lol!
Synthuser
gruhn
>Try using the demo version at 300 dpi
To be printed on a 600 lpi four color press?
Mark Borok
I tried the demo version and my first impression was that it was extremely
slow. I opened some of the sample images that came with it and they took a
long time to render it. Is there a work-around? Also, I was using a slower
computer, so that might have something to do with it.
--Mark
Nathan Marciniak
In my Painter usage I have found that editing the Script List is unbearably slow! Opening the script is slow, and when I
click on any of the commands it takes like 30 seconds to open it up. This is in no way acceptable or workable. The
scripting feature in Painter is the best thing I've ever seen as far as dealing with large image sizes but in order for it to
work efficiently you want to go into the script and remove entries that are unecessary. Or perhaps edit things that don't
scale properly.
You may start recording a script, do some experimenting and all of a sudden - Ah! This looks cool! I want to keep this! Ok
fine, so you finish up the masterpiece, save the script and play it back at a higher res. Only problem is now that the
machine is churning away at this big monster file, drawing stuff that you've trashed before you started working on the Good
One. It would be nice to go into the Script List and trash unneeded commands to streamline the script. But the Script List
window is so unreasonably slow it's not even worth bothering with it. I've exported to a text file but it's not easy to see
where things are, and there are long lines of stroke codes making it even harder to find the command you're looking for.
I'm running Painter 4 on a P-166 w\64MB RAM and I don't feel this should be dogging Painter as much as it is where script
editing is concerned. Anyone noticed this?
Nathan Marciniak
Robert D. Skeels
Mar 6, 1998 12:24, Nathan Marciniak <sar...@execpc.com>:
> It would be nice to go into the Script List and trash
> unneeded commands to streamline the script.
Painter 4 lets you export and import the script data as text files. Use the
following to export your script.
Objects Palette > S. List > Open Script... >
[choose script from list] > Export
You can then edit the text file quickly and easily, finally importing it
back into Painter via the same process. The script commands are fairly
straight forward, and the reference is in the "Painter Tech Notes.pdf" file
from the CDROM.
As a side note, I've created several procedures in the Scheme programming
language that generate Painter script files to perform custom routines like
creating panoramas from a series of images. Painter's capability to script
complex image handling saves a great deal of time.
Robert D. Skeels ath...@earthlink.net | "created and sent via the
Los Angeles, CA illustration & design | Cyberdog mail system"
http://home.earthlink.net/~athene | eti kai nun Hellada phileo
IBM 350 MHz PowerPC 604e unveiled: world's fastest microcomputer cpu