Digital Art
Onideus Mad Hatter
filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
...not to mention an easy A.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
http://www.backwater-productions.net
Steve Leyland
: I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
: filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
:
: Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
:
: ...not to mention an easy A.
looks good to me.
:
: --
:
: Onideus Mad Hatter
: mhm น x น
: http://www.backwater-productions.net
--
Steve Leyland
mhm32x16 Smeeter#24 WSD#41
flower: three 6 four 9 five 8 eight 9
em ess en: my 1st name at purgatory dot org
Alcatroll Labs Inc (bongwater maintenance dept)
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/
http://www.radioxanadu.tk
=^MEOW MEOW ARMY^=
"You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to
skydive twice."
======================================================================
"Warning to all: Steve Leyland is a trolling twat of the highest order.
Killfile the muppet now and move on. Even the briefest of searches on
his past UseNet posts will reveal the truth. You have been warned.
*plonk*"
bear, uk.rec.motorcycles
======================================================================
"This sig is an abomination of all that is good and right about usenet.
Do the entire world a favor and REMOVE YOURSELF FROM USENET ALTOGETHER,
DUMBASS."
miguel, soc.singles
======================================================================
"must you include your 75847548574893579345 gigabyte sig file in every
fucking post? You're very annoying."
projectile vomit chick, alt.music.ozzy
======================================================================
"I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires."
William Blake.
======================================================================
"When the Earth has been ravaged and the animals are dying, a tribe of
people from all races, creeds and colours shall put their faith in
deeds, not words, and make the land green again. They shall be known as
Warriors of the Rainbow, protectors of the environment."
Native American prophecy
|\ _.-'~~""'~`'~)
/, ~-,__,,,.'~ ,-;;--''
|,4) ./ ' ; ;/'
'-~~;'@ ( ; ;
_.--'' _.-_..' .;.'
(,_..----''' (,..--''
Meow
rocky
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>
>Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
why did you use a picture of a baby when you could have used one of
you waring a nappy?
>...not to mention an easy A.
>
> --
>
>Onideus Mad Hatter
Onideus Mad Hatter
<meo...@removethis.meow.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:51:04 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
><use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>>I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>>filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>>
>>Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>
>why did you use a picture of a baby when you could have used one of
>you waring a nappy?
Because I'm not interesting in turning on a sick fucking FREAK like
you, Junior.
Mimic
> I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
> filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>
> Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>
> ...not to mention an easy A.
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm น x น
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
thats an A?
I wish i went to school in america
--
Mimic
"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
"The voices have stopped now. But they had some good ideas."
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]
Onideus Mad Hatter
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
>> I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>> filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>>
>> Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>>
>> ...not to mention an easy A.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter
>> mhm น x น
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net
>
>thats an A?
>I wish i went to school in america
Oh Mimic, there you go talkin shit without anything to back yerself up
with again. You never post links to any of your imaginary websites,
you don't post any examples of any graphic work you've done, you never
post any examples of coding you've done...face it Sunshine, yer full
of shit and EVERYBODY knows it. *shrugs*
fizzgigg
>I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>
>Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>
>...not to mention an easy A.
Erm, you'd earn an "A" for basic photo-maniulation (using three layers,
max) and some tacky Photoshop text effects/layer styles? I bet your
teachers verily *cream* themselves over lens flare.
Sheesh.
Don't get me wrong, technically there's nothing wrong with your image,
but... wow.
BACK IN MY DAY WE MADE OUR *OWN* DROP SHADOWS, AND WE DID IT IN THE
SNOW. BAREFOOT... and possibly naked.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Thus spake Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>:
>
>>I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>>filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>>
>>Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>>
>>...not to mention an easy A.
>
>Erm, you'd earn an "A" for basic photo-maniulation (using three layers,
>max)
You can never have too many layers.
>and some tacky Photoshop text effects/layer styles?
Nope, it was all done by hand (although having a graphic pen makes it
easier...if you've got skill to begin with). The only "cheating" I
did was with layer blending, although it'd be pretty stupid to try and
do it without.
>I bet your teachers verily *cream* themselves over lens flare.
Most people do, does it really surprise you? Of course, the
unfortunate side effect of that is that most people always just ASSume
that you didn't do any work and then you get the dreaded question, the
"What program did you use to make that?" As if the program even had
fuck all to do with it. Photoshop, Paintshop, Corel, makes no
difference if you've actually got skill.
>Sheesh.
>
>Don't get me wrong, technically there's nothing wrong with your image,
>but... wow.
>
>BACK IN MY DAY WE MADE OUR *OWN* DROP SHADOWS, AND WE DID IT IN THE
>SNOW. BAREFOOT... and possibly naked.
No, you really didn't actually. And drop shadows aren't nearly as
important as color shading, which no 2D graphics editing program can
even do.
And to put an even finer point on it, it's not about the effects, it's
about how you use them. I could train a fucking monkey to randomly
click on default filter effects in any graphics proggie and they can
churn out shit rate cliche imges on par with this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mocking.html
However someone who actually has skill KNOWS not only how to use those
filters effectively to achieve a specific technique, but they know how
to use COMBINATIONS of filters to achieve a specific effect. The vast
majority of people simply could not replicate a lot of the stuff I do,
even though it was done with filtes. Simply because I don't use the
default settings. And in fact, a lot of the stuff I do is so complex
that unless I take the time to copy down all the settings for each
filter and so forth that I use, even *I* can't ever accurately
recreate the effect exactly the same.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
fizzgigg
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:42:47 +0930, fizzgigg <fi...@invalid.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Thus spake Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>:
>>
>>>I only needed like 7 credits in order to graduate so I needed an easy
>>>filler course, so I signed up for Digital Imaging 101. `, P
>>>
>>>Here's an image manipulation I did yesterday, pretty fun stuff:
>>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/Digital%20Discovery%20Edit.jpg
>>>
>>>...not to mention an easy A.
>>
>>Erm, you'd earn an "A" for basic photo-maniulation (using three layers,
>>max)
>
>You can never have too many layers.
>
>>and some tacky Photoshop text effects/layer styles?
>
>Nope, it was all done by hand (although having a graphic pen makes it
>easier...if you've got skill to begin with). The only "cheating" I
>did was with layer blending, although it'd be pretty stupid to try and
>do it without.
It's amazing what you can do *without* using blending options. Using
text effects/layer styles and even blending options is only cheating if
you haven't first worked out how to create a similar effect *manually*.
You're cheating yourself out of basic knowledge.
>>I bet your teachers verily *cream* themselves over lens flare.
>
>Most people do, does it really surprise you? Of course, the
>unfortunate side effect of that is that most people always just ASSume
>that you didn't do any work and then you get the dreaded question, the
>"What program did you use to make that?" As if the program even had
>fuck all to do with it. Photoshop, Paintshop, Corel, makes no
>difference if you've actually got skill.
Did you manipulate your image in Photoshop, or not?
>>Sheesh.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, technically there's nothing wrong with your image,
>>but... wow.
>>
>>BACK IN MY DAY WE MADE OUR *OWN* DROP SHADOWS, AND WE DID IT IN THE
>>SNOW. BAREFOOT... and possibly naked.
>
>No, you really didn't actually.
I sense a smidgen of doubt. Barefoot, buddy. *Barefoot*.
>And drop shadows aren't nearly as
>important as color shading, which no 2D graphics editing program can
>even do.
By 'colour shading' do you mean adjusting the colour of the shadows in
relation to the colour of the light source and surrounding environment?
Because you can do that. Easily. Even with blending options.
What you *can't* do in a 2D graphics program is raytrace.
<research>
Actually, even that seems possible:
http://www.vgd.co.uk/pages/notebook/Raytracing%20in%20Photoshop/RayPS.html
>And to put an even finer point on it, it's not about the effects, it's
>about how you use them. I could train a fucking monkey to randomly
>click on default filter effects in any graphics proggie and they can
>churn out shit rate cliche imges on par with this:
>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mocking.html
I agree:
http://www.trojanmedia.org/pub/mocking.jpg
>However someone who actually has skill KNOWS not only how to use those
>filters effectively to achieve a specific technique, but they know how
>to use COMBINATIONS of filters to achieve a specific effect. The vast
>majority of people simply could not replicate a lot of the stuff I do,
>even though it was done with filtes. Simply because I don't use the
>default settings. And in fact, a lot of the stuff I do is so complex
>that unless I take the time to copy down all the settings for each
>filter and so forth that I use, even *I* can't ever accurately
>recreate the effect exactly the same.
That's why Photoshop allows you to save preferences and record actions.
HTH.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>Nope, it was all done by hand (although having a graphic pen makes it
>>easier...if you've got skill to begin with). The only "cheating" I
>>did was with layer blending, although it'd be pretty stupid to try and
>>do it without.
>It's amazing what you can do *without* using blending options.
You know, I don't think you even know what layer blending is.
*shrugs*
>Using text effects/layer styles and even blending options is only cheating if
>you haven't first worked out how to create a similar effect *manually*.
>
>You're cheating yourself out of basic knowledge.
Oh, well tell us 'o great master, just HOW would you manage creating
image transparencies WITHOUT using layer blending? ^_^
>>>I bet your teachers verily *cream* themselves over lens flare.
>>Most people do, does it really surprise you? Of course, the
>>unfortunate side effect of that is that most people always just ASSume
>>that you didn't do any work and then you get the dreaded question, the
>>"What program did you use to make that?" As if the program even had
>>fuck all to do with it. Photoshop, Paintshop, Corel, makes no
>>difference if you've actually got skill.
>Did you manipulate your image in Photoshop, or not?
I'm using a 6 year old version of Paint Shop Pro.
>>No, you really didn't actually.
>I sense a smidgen of doubt. Barefoot, buddy. *Barefoot*.
Well step up and give us all an example of your barefoot drop shadow
technique.
>>And drop shadows aren't nearly as
>>important as color shading, which no 2D graphics editing program can
>>even do.
>By 'colour shading' do you mean adjusting the colour of the shadows in
>relation to the colour of the light source and surrounding environment?
>Because you can do that. Easily. Even with blending options.
No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about this:
http://bleedman.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=0
The shadowing done on the characters. Just being able to draw is only
half the battle, you need to have skill in coloring and adding
shadows. Graphics proggies will let you flood fill an area, even use
gradients, but they simply cannot color shade an object as if it were
3D, you have to do that by hand.
>What you *can't* do in a 2D graphics program is raytrace.
>
><research>
>
>Actually, even that seems possible:
>http://www.vgd.co.uk/pages/notebook/Raytracing%20in%20Photoshop/RayPS.html
On a very simplistic level. I used techniques like that to make this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/bw2/index.html
>>And to put an even finer point on it, it's not about the effects, it's
>>about how you use them. I could train a fucking monkey to randomly
>>click on default filter effects in any graphics proggie and they can
>>churn out shit rate cliche imges on par with this:
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mocking.html
>I agree:
>http://www.trojanmedia.org/pub/mocking.jpg
Unfortunately that's the way most websites are being done...well that
or they fuck Flash straight up the ass in about 8 different
directions.
>>However someone who actually has skill KNOWS not only how to use those
>>filters effectively to achieve a specific technique, but they know how
>>to use COMBINATIONS of filters to achieve a specific effect. The vast
>>majority of people simply could not replicate a lot of the stuff I do,
>>even though it was done with filtes. Simply because I don't use the
>>default settings. And in fact, a lot of the stuff I do is so complex
>>that unless I take the time to copy down all the settings for each
>>filter and so forth that I use, even *I* can't ever accurately
>>recreate the effect exactly the same.
>That's why Photoshop allows you to save preferences and record actions.
>
>HTH.
Back in *MY* day we didn't use no stinkin macros or scripts! Heh,
actually I still don't unless I'm doing it for work with a series of
images for animation purposes. Teh old version of Paint Shop Pro that
I'm using doesn't even have macros or script options (only batch
processing conversion), so if I want to do that sorta stuff I have to
switch over to the newer version, which I fucking hate cause they
ruined the interface and tried to make it look like Photoshop. I
mainly just use the newer version if I want to save stuff as PNG files
with alpha transparencies, cause teh old version can't do that either.
fizzgigg
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:09:18 +0930, fizzgigg <fi...@invalid.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>Nope, it was all done by hand (although having a graphic pen makes it
>>>easier...if you've got skill to begin with). The only "cheating" I
>>>did was with layer blending, although it'd be pretty stupid to try and
>>>do it without.
>
>>It's amazing what you can do *without* using blending options.
>
>You know, I don't think you even know what layer blending is.
>*shrugs*
Granted, I was talking about blending options, not layer blending.
Blending options (under layer styles in Photoshop) allows the user to
apply drop shadows (and other effects) to layers and text.
I'm interested in knowing how you created the text using layer blends
(i.e, dissolve, multiply, hue, etc)? I can see one way you could do it
using two text layers, a colour gradient and the blend mode 'dissolve'.
>>Using text effects/layer styles and even blending options is only cheating if
>>you haven't first worked out how to create a similar effect *manually*.
>>
>>You're cheating yourself out of basic knowledge.
>
>Oh, well tell us 'o great master, just HOW would you manage creating
>image transparencies WITHOUT using layer blending? ^_^
As mentioned above, I was referring to blending options. But you can
easily manipulate the transparency of a layer by changing the opacity.
The default mode is 'normal', you don't need to touch layer blending.
>>>>I bet your teachers verily *cream* themselves over lens flare.
>
>>>Most people do, does it really surprise you? Of course, the
>>>unfortunate side effect of that is that most people always just ASSume
>>>that you didn't do any work and then you get the dreaded question, the
>>>"What program did you use to make that?" As if the program even had
>>>fuck all to do with it. Photoshop, Paintshop, Corel, makes no
>>>difference if you've actually got skill.
>
>>Did you manipulate your image in Photoshop, or not?
>
>I'm using a 6 year old version of Paint Shop Pro.
Heathen.
>>>No, you really didn't actually.
>
>>I sense a smidgen of doubt. Barefoot, buddy. *Barefoot*.
>
>Well step up and give us all an example of your barefoot drop shadow
>technique.
It looks exactly like a drop shadow created in blending options, except
I do it by using two layers, gaussian blur and dropping the opacity.
>>>And drop shadows aren't nearly as
>>>important as color shading, which no 2D graphics editing program can
>>>even do.
>
>>By 'colour shading' do you mean adjusting the colour of the shadows in
>>relation to the colour of the light source and surrounding environment?
>>Because you can do that. Easily. Even with blending options.
>
>No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about this:
>http://bleedman.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=0
>
>The shadowing done on the characters. Just being able to draw is only
>half the battle, you need to have skill in coloring and adding
>shadows. Graphics proggies will let you flood fill an area, even use
>gradients, but they simply cannot color shade an object as if it were
>3D, you have to do that by hand.
Well, yeah. You have to do it by hand. That doesn't mean it's not
possible, just more time consuming. A vector based application would
speed up the process, especially if you vectorise a raster photo of a 3D
object. It's erroneous to claim that a 2D graphics program can't handle
colour shading.
[...]
>>>However someone who actually has skill KNOWS not only how to use those
>>>filters effectively to achieve a specific technique, but they know how
>>>to use COMBINATIONS of filters to achieve a specific effect. The vast
>>>majority of people simply could not replicate a lot of the stuff I do,
>>>even though it was done with filtes. Simply because I don't use the
>>>default settings. And in fact, a lot of the stuff I do is so complex
>>>that unless I take the time to copy down all the settings for each
>>>filter and so forth that I use, even *I* can't ever accurately
>>>recreate the effect exactly the same.
>
>>That's why Photoshop allows you to save preferences and record actions.
>>
>>HTH.
>
>Back in *MY* day we didn't use no stinkin macros or scripts! Heh,
>actually I still don't unless I'm doing it for work with a series of
>images for animation purposes. Teh old version of Paint Shop Pro that
>I'm using doesn't even have macros or script options (only batch
>processing conversion), so if I want to do that sorta stuff I have to
>switch over to the newer version, which I fucking hate cause they
>ruined the interface and tried to make it look like Photoshop. I
>mainly just use the newer version if I want to save stuff as PNG files
>with alpha transparencies, cause teh old version can't do that either.
Why do you use Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop?
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>I'm interested in knowing how you created the text using layer blends
>(i.e, dissolve, multiply, hue, etc)? I can see one way you could do it
>using two text layers, a colour gradient and the blend mode 'dissolve'.
Sorta like that, but I threw in some filters too, blinds to give it a
television interlaced look and some other one I can't recall off the
top of my head.
>>>Did you manipulate your image in Photoshop, or not?
>>I'm using a 6 year old version of Paint Shop Pro.
>Heathen.
Actually quite the opposite, Adobe makes some of the most HORRID user
interfaces ever conceived of.
>>>>No, you really didn't actually.
>>>I sense a smidgen of doubt. Barefoot, buddy. *Barefoot*.
>>Well step up and give us all an example of your barefoot drop shadow
>>technique.
>It looks exactly like a drop shadow created in blending options, except
>I do it by using two layers, gaussian blur and dropping the opacity.
Pffft, layers, that's not barefoot in the snow, that's taking the
school bus.
>Well, yeah. You have to do it by hand. That doesn't mean it's not
>possible, just more time consuming. A vector based application would
>speed up the process, especially if you vectorise a raster photo of a 3D
>object. It's erroneous to claim that a 2D graphics program can't handle
>colour shading.
Not as an automated process.
>>Back in *MY* day we didn't use no stinkin macros or scripts! Heh,
>>actually I still don't unless I'm doing it for work with a series of
>>images for animation purposes. Teh old version of Paint Shop Pro that
>>I'm using doesn't even have macros or script options (only batch
>>processing conversion), so if I want to do that sorta stuff I have to
>>switch over to the newer version, which I fucking hate cause they
>>ruined the interface and tried to make it look like Photoshop. I
>>mainly just use the newer version if I want to save stuff as PNG files
>>with alpha transparencies, cause teh old version can't do that either.
>Why do you use Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop?
...
o_O
You're joking, right? I mean...WOW...the list of incredible fucking
annoyances in Photoshop is just astounding. Not to mention all the
stuff that Paintshop has that it doesn't, like the hue map for
example. Or like when you make a selection and you right click, which
in Paintshop acts as an automatic deselector, in Photoshop it brings
up a fucking MENU and then you gotta scroll down through that shit
just to find where it says "deselect". Menu configuration, Animation
Shop, full support for it's own format AND Photoshop files (whereas
Photoshop doesn't support Paintshop files). And don't even get me
started on their idiot conceived icons. Oh yeah, gotta love that
"lasso selector" icon. It's all like...where's the hot spot again?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
fizzgigg
>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:57:09 +0930, fizzgigg <fi...@invalid.org>
>wrote:
[...]
>>>>Did you manipulate your image in Photoshop, or not?
>
>>>I'm using a 6 year old version of Paint Shop Pro.
>
>>Heathen.
>
>Actually quite the opposite, Adobe makes some of the most HORRID user
>interfaces ever conceived of.
Nah. The interface isn't horrid, the learning curve is steeper.
>>>>>No, you really didn't actually.
>
>>>>I sense a smidgen of doubt. Barefoot, buddy. *Barefoot*.
>
>>>Well step up and give us all an example of your barefoot drop shadow
>>>technique.
>
>>It looks exactly like a drop shadow created in blending options, except
>>I do it by using two layers, gaussian blur and dropping the opacity.
>
>Pffft, layers, that's not barefoot in the snow, that's taking the
>school bus.
I'm sure it can be done without layers. I might fiddle around and see if
I can do it. I think layers were introduced to Photoshop in version
three, which is when I started using it.
>>Well, yeah. You have to do it by hand. That doesn't mean it's not
>>possible, just more time consuming. A vector based application would
>>speed up the process, especially if you vectorise a raster photo of a 3D
>>object. It's erroneous to claim that a 2D graphics program can't handle
>>colour shading.
>
>Not as an automated process.
It's a bit daft to complain that a 2D graphics application can't render
3D objects.
>>>Back in *MY* day we didn't use no stinkin macros or scripts! Heh,
>>>actually I still don't unless I'm doing it for work with a series of
>>>images for animation purposes. Teh old version of Paint Shop Pro that
>>>I'm using doesn't even have macros or script options (only batch
>>>processing conversion), so if I want to do that sorta stuff I have to
>>>switch over to the newer version, which I fucking hate cause they
>>>ruined the interface and tried to make it look like Photoshop. I
>>>mainly just use the newer version if I want to save stuff as PNG files
>>>with alpha transparencies, cause teh old version can't do that either.
>
>>Why do you use Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop?
>
>...
>
>o_O
>
>You're joking, right?
Well, no. It's the industry standard for a reason.
> I mean...WOW...the list of incredible fucking
>annoyances in Photoshop is just astounding. Not to mention all the
>stuff that Paintshop has that it doesn't, like the hue map for
>example.
Photoshop can adjust hue and saturation quite easily. I also recommend
delving into the wonders that are "levels".
>Or like when you make a selection and you right click, which
>in Paintshop acts as an automatic deselector, in Photoshop it brings
>up a fucking MENU and then you gotta scroll down through that shit
>just to find where it says "deselect".
I just left click outside of the selected area.
>Menu configuration, Animation manifold trajectories.
>full support for it's own format AND Photoshop files (whereas
>Photoshop doesn't support Paintshop files).
If Paint Shop Pro supports .psd files then you can work between programs
with absolutely no problem.
>And don't even get me
>started on their idiot conceived icons. Oh yeah, gotta love that
>"lasso selector" icon. It's all like...where's the hot spot again?
If you want help finding the hot spot, try going into "preferences" and
check out "display and cursers", perhaps choose the cross hair.
Photoshop is great, it's just that it takes more time to learn the basic
features. The interface is fairly opaque, although I still think it's
intuitive. I've been using it for nine years and I'm still discovering
new things about it.
If you've ever used 3D Max, Photoshop is a sinch in comparison.
fizzgigg
[...]
>If you've ever used 3D Max, Photoshop is a sinch in comparison.
Cinch, even. I think Photoshop even has a spell check now, which is
vital for spelling challenged people like me.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>>It looks exactly like a drop shadow created in blending options, except
>>>I do it by using two layers, gaussian blur and dropping the opacity.
>>Pffft, layers, that's not barefoot in the snow, that's taking the
>>school bus.
>I'm sure it can be done without layers.
I think the greater question is why would you try? It's like, yeah,
you could probably walk from New Jersey to LA, but why not just take
the bus? Or a plane?
>>Not as an automated process.
>It's a bit daft to complain that a 2D graphics application can't render
>3D objects.
Not really, humans can look at 2D objects and visualize them as 3D, so
why can't a computer do the same?
>>>Why do you use Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop?
>>...
>>
>>o_O
>>
>>You're joking, right?
>Well, no. It's the industry standard for a reason.
...the "industry standard", eh? Who uh, who makes that standard
again? I mean, what is there like a meeting or something? *snicker*
There's no "industry standard" regarding graphics proggies. So long
as teh proggie can output in any of the mainstream formats you can use
whatever the hell you want to.
>> I mean...WOW...the list of incredible fucking
>>annoyances in Photoshop is just astounding. Not to mention all the
>>stuff that Paintshop has that it doesn't, like the hue map for
>>example.
>Photoshop can adjust hue and saturation quite easily.
No, it really can't actually. If you want to dynamically alter the
colors in Photoshop you have to take the bother to calculate additive
and subtractive color combinations, you don't need to do that with
Paint Shop.
>I also recommend delving into the wonders that are "levels".
I recommend staying away from "auto" levels and BTW that's not a
unique feature to Photoshop, Paint Shop has it as well...as well as
Corel and pretty much every other mainstream graphics app out there.
>>Or like when you make a selection and you right click, which
>>in Paintshop acts as an automatic deselector, in Photoshop it brings
>>up a fucking MENU and then you gotta scroll down through that shit
>>just to find where it says "deselect".
>I just left click outside of the selected area.
Which is pretty fuckin stupid since the left button is the active
button and if you're doing something with like the lasso tool you're
more than likely to accidentally shift something in the process. Like
I said, very piss poor interface.
>>Menu configuration, Animation manifold trajectories.
>>full support for it's own format AND Photoshop files (whereas
>>Photoshop doesn't support Paintshop files).
>If Paint Shop Pro supports .psd files then you can work between programs
>with absolutely no problem.
But since Photoshop doesn't support PSP files what would you do if a
client kept sending you everything as PSP files and you couldn't
explain to them how to save in a different format (many clients are
severely tech deficient). Now if you were using Paint Shop Pro, well
you'd be able to handle any format your client throws your way, where
as Photoshop limits you.
>>And don't even get me
>>started on their idiot conceived icons. Oh yeah, gotta love that
>>"lasso selector" icon. It's all like...where's the hot spot again?
>If you want help finding the hot spot, try going into "preferences" and
>check out "display and cursers", perhaps choose the cross hair.
Well 1 point for you, you managed to solve one of the retarded
defaults in Photoshop, but hey, I'll make a deal with ya right now and
give ya one more for every one that you solve.
Ready?
Okay, here goes. Paint Shop Pro allows you to save your selections as
files, Photoshop does not. In Photoshop the selections can only be
saved as a part of the file and ONLY if you use the PSD format.
FURTHER selections can only be shared across images if you have the
PSD image with the saved selections open at the same time. Now how
fuckin stupid is THAT?
>Photoshop is great, it's just that it takes more time to learn the basic
>features.
Not really, it's just "basic features" are all it has.
>The interface is fairly opaque, although I still think it's
>intuitive.
Yes, well, you should get out more (ie try OTHER programs)
>I've been using it for nine years and I'm still discovering
>new things about it.
...which sorta just proves my point about how horrid the interface is,
eh? I mean, WOW, 9 YEARS and you still haven't figured it all out?!
o_O
>If you've ever used 3D Max, Photoshop is a sinch in comparison.
I use 3DS Max all the time, I find it's interface to be quite
slick...maybe not quite as "beginner level" as say Bryce or Poser, but
then it's a program for experienced users, not those who just
"dabble".
fizzgigg
>On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:07:22 +0930, fizzgigg <fi...@invalid.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>>It looks exactly like a drop shadow created in blending options, except
>>>>I do it by using two layers, gaussian blur and dropping the opacity.
>
>>>Pffft, layers, that's not barefoot in the snow, that's taking the
>>>school bus.
>
>>I'm sure it can be done without layers.
>
>I think the greater question is why would you try? It's like, yeah,
>you could probably walk from New Jersey to LA, but why not just take
>the bus? Or a plane?
I guess it depends on your reason for travelling.
>>>Not as an automated process.
>
>>It's a bit daft to complain that a 2D graphics application can't render
>>3D objects.
>
>Not really, humans can look at 2D objects and visualize them as 3D, so
>why can't a computer do the same?
Because a computer is not a human brain. Humans also have applications
*specifically designed* to "visualise" three-dimensional objects on a
computer, i.e. 3D Max.
>>>>Why do you use Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop?
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>o_O
>>>
>>>You're joking, right?
>
>>Well, no. It's the industry standard for a reason.
>
>...the "industry standard", eh? Who uh, who makes that standard
>again? I mean, what is there like a meeting or something? *snicker*
>
>There's no "industry standard" regarding graphics proggies. So long
>as teh proggie can output in any of the mainstream formats you can use
>whatever the hell you want to.
Check out 'positions vacant' ads. You'll find the majority of employers
seek applicants for 2D imaging work who have experience with Photoshop,
not Paint Shop Pro.
This doesn't so much affect people working freelance, but you're going
to have a hard time convincing a company with an established software
license to forfeit their investment in favour of acquiring the
application YOU like.
>>> I mean...WOW...the list of incredible fucking
>>>annoyances in Photoshop is just astounding. Not to mention all the
>>>stuff that Paintshop has that it doesn't, like the hue map for
>>>example.
>
>>Photoshop can adjust hue and saturation quite easily.
>
>No, it really can't actually.
Yes, it really can. I refer you to the "hue/saturation" function.
>If you want to dynamically alter the
>colors in Photoshop you have to take the bother to calculate additive
>and subtractive color combinations, you don't need to do that with
>Paint Shop.
You don't need to calculate additive and subtractive colours in
Photoshop either.
>>I also recommend delving into the wonders that are "levels".
>
>I recommend staying away from "auto" levels and BTW that's not a
>unique feature to Photoshop, Paint Shop has it as well...as well as
>Corel and pretty much every other mainstream graphics app out there.
Thank you for the warning. However "levels" are not "auto levels",
you're conflating the two. That other graphics applications share
similar functions is not in dispute.
>>>Or like when you make a selection and you right click, which
>>>in Paintshop acts as an automatic deselector, in Photoshop it brings
>>>up a fucking MENU and then you gotta scroll down through that shit
>>>just to find where it says "deselect".
>
>>I just left click outside of the selected area.
>
>Which is pretty fuckin stupid since the left button is the active
>button and if you're doing something with like the lasso tool you're
>more than likely to accidentally shift something in the process. Like
>I said, very piss poor interface.
This doesn't change the fact that you can easily deselect an area
without scrolling through a menu (which was your original beef).
You can also hold down Alt or Ctrl to add to or subtract from the
selected area, if so inclined.
>>>Menu configuration, Animation manifold trajectories.
>>>full support for it's own format AND Photoshop files (whereas
>>>Photoshop doesn't support Paintshop files).
>
>>If Paint Shop Pro supports .psd files then you can work between programs
>>with absolutely no problem.
>
>But since Photoshop doesn't support PSP files what would you do if a
>client kept sending you everything as PSP files and you couldn't
>explain to them how to save in a different format (many clients are
>severely tech deficient). Now if you were using Paint Shop Pro, well
>you'd be able to handle any format your client throws your way, where
>as Photoshop limits you.
You've constructed a bit of a straw man here:
For starters, the most common reason a client will send you an image in
an application-specific format (.psd or .psp) is if they've played
around with the image in a specific application.
If a client is so technically challenged as to not be able to "save as",
then it's highly unlikely they would be able to manipulate the image in
the first place.
Most images sent to you by clients will be in non-application-specific
formats and the images that are in application-specific formats presume
some tech knowledge on behalf of the client.
>>>And don't even get me
>>>started on their idiot conceived icons. Oh yeah, gotta love that
>>>"lasso selector" icon. It's all like...where's the hot spot again?
>
>>If you want help finding the hot spot, try going into "preferences" and
>>check out "display and cursers", perhaps choose the cross hair.
>
>Well 1 point for you, you managed to solve one of the retarded
>defaults in Photoshop, but hey, I'll make a deal with ya right now and
>give ya one more for every one that you solve.
>
>Ready?
>
>Okay, here goes. Paint Shop Pro allows you to save your selections as
>files, Photoshop does not. In Photoshop the selections can only be
>saved as a part of the file and ONLY if you use the PSD format.
>FURTHER selections can only be shared across images if you have the
>PSD image with the saved selections open at the same time. Now how
>fuckin stupid is THAT?
Just save your selection as a mask, you then have the choice of saving
the mask as a file.
As to sharing selections across images (without using masks); you only
need to keep both documents open while you drag the alpha channel over.
After the selection channel is loaded you can close the other document.
>>Photoshop is great, it's just that it takes more time to learn the basic
>>features.
>
>Not really, it's just "basic features" are all it has.
If you're accustomed to using Paint Shop Pro, it's understandable that
switching to an application with a different interface and steeper
learning curve might be frustrating.
What's *beyond ignorant* is making statements like "basic features are
all [Photoshop] has" simply because you haven't taken the time to LEARN
how to use it properly.
>>The interface is fairly opaque, although I still think it's
>>intuitive.
>
>Yes, well, you should get out more (ie try OTHER programs)
>
>>I've been using it for nine years and I'm still discovering
>>new things about it.
>
>...which sorta just proves my point about how horrid the interface is,
>eh? I mean, WOW, 9 YEARS and you still haven't figured it all out?!
>o_O
I don't see why I should stop learning now. There's a lot of different
ways you can create similar effects in Photoshop and each version
introduces something new to explore.
It's a fool who claims to know it all.
>>If you've ever used 3D Max, Photoshop is a sinch in comparison.
>
>I use 3DS Max all the time, I find it's interface to be quite
>slick...maybe not quite as "beginner level" as say Bryce or Poser, but
>then it's a program for experienced users, not those who just
>"dabble".
I don't find the 3D Max interface at all slick, but this is because of
the sheer amount of stuff packed into the application. It's huge and has
submenu buried within submenu. It's not a pretty application, but it's
certainly robust.
I haven't used Bryce. Poser has a very slick interface, but limited
functionality. It's easy to use, but that's because you're not actually
building models from the polygon level up, let alone skinning or
animating them.
fizzgigg
[...]
>You can also hold down Alt or Ctrl to add to or subtract from the
>selected area, if so inclined.
Actually, I wouldn't recommend holding down Ctrl, try Shift instead. :D
[...]
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>>It's a bit daft to complain that a 2D graphics application can't render
>>>3D objects.
>>Not really, humans can look at 2D objects and visualize them as 3D, so
>>why can't a computer do the same?
>Because a computer is not a human brain. Humans also have applications
>*specifically designed* to "visualise" three-dimensional objects on a
>computer, i.e. 3D Max.
You know the only thing that actually let's people see in 3D is the
fact that we have two eyes. If you got one of yer eyes poked out
you'd have no depth perception.
>>>Well, no. It's the industry standard for a reason.
>>...the "industry standard", eh? Who uh, who makes that standard
>>again? I mean, what is there like a meeting or something? *snicker*
>>
>>There's no "industry standard" regarding graphics proggies. So long
>>as teh proggie can output in any of the mainstream formats you can use
>>whatever the hell you want to.
>Check out 'positions vacant' ads. You'll find the majority of employers
>seek applicants for 2D imaging work who have experience with Photoshop,
>not Paint Shop Pro.
Actually more and more I'm finding that employers aren't listing
specific applications, they're starting to understand that if you're a
graphic artist it really doesn't matter whether it's Corel, Photoshop,
PaintShop, etc. And most intelligent applicants like myself will
insist upon using our own tools, as long as the end result or file
format is what they need, most all companies don't care.
>This doesn't so much affect people working freelance, but you're going
>to have a hard time convincing a company with an established software
>license to forfeit their investment in favour of acquiring the
>application YOU like.
Not at all, because I simply tell them that I'll use my own hardware
and my own software. If they question it, I never need to go any
farther than the example of a carpenter who owns and uses his own
tools on the job for them to comprehend.
>>>> I mean...WOW...the list of incredible fucking
>>>>annoyances in Photoshop is just astounding. Not to mention all the
>>>>stuff that Paintshop has that it doesn't, like the hue map for
>>>>example.
>>>Photoshop can adjust hue and saturation quite easily.
>>No, it really can't actually.
>Yes, it really can. I refer you to the "hue/saturation" function.
I meant the "easily" part. PaintShop has a superior tool for altering
hue's.
>>If you want to dynamically alter the
>>colors in Photoshop you have to take the bother to calculate additive
>>and subtractive color combinations, you don't need to do that with
>>Paint Shop.
>You don't need to calculate additive and subtractive colours in
>Photoshop either.
Um, yeah, you really do actually. Unless you're going to alter the
hue of every color in the image...I suppose you could use masks, but
it'd still be a bitch. I'm talking about selective color alteration.
Like changing just the shades of green to shades of blue, but leaving
all the other colors alone. Photoshop has a tool for doing that, but
PaintShop has a specialized tool which makes it easier.
>>I recommend staying away from "auto" levels and BTW that's not a
>>unique feature to Photoshop, Paint Shop has it as well...as well as
>>Corel and pretty much every other mainstream graphics app out there.
>Thank you for the warning. However "levels" are not "auto levels",
>you're conflating the two. That other graphics applications share
>similar functions is not in dispute.
No, I'm really not confusing the two actually, I meant just stay away
from "auto" levels, using levels adjustment is perfectly
fine...provided you know what you're doing.
>>Which is pretty fuckin stupid since the left button is the active
>>button and if you're doing something with like the lasso tool you're
>>more than likely to accidentally shift something in the process. Like
>>I said, very piss poor interface.
>This doesn't change the fact that you can easily deselect an area
>without scrolling through a menu (which was your original beef).
But you can't easily deselect an area, because using the method you
described would very likely lead to errors as any little shift of the
mouse could move the selection out of place, in which case it would be
better if you just didn't in the first place.
>You can also hold down Alt or Ctrl to add to or subtract from the
>selected area, if so inclined.
In PaintShop you use Ctrl to delete and shift to add, which is
superior cause that's the way Windows applications work as far as
selecting. Good to have similar methodologies used across the board.
>>>>Menu configuration, Animation manifold trajectories.
>>>>full support for it's own format AND Photoshop files (whereas
>>>>Photoshop doesn't support Paintshop files).
>>>If Paint Shop Pro supports .psd files then you can work between programs
>>>with absolutely no problem.
>>But since Photoshop doesn't support PSP files what would you do if a
>>client kept sending you everything as PSP files and you couldn't
>>explain to them how to save in a different format (many clients are
>>severely tech deficient). Now if you were using Paint Shop Pro, well
>>you'd be able to handle any format your client throws your way, where
>>as Photoshop limits you.
>You've constructed a bit of a straw man here:
>
>For starters, the most common reason a client will send you an image in
>an application-specific format (.psd or .psp) is if they've played
>around with the image in a specific application.
>
>If a client is so technically challenged as to not be able to "save as",
>then it's highly unlikely they would be able to manipulate the image in
>the first place.
>
>Most images sent to you by clients will be in non-application-specific
>formats and the images that are in application-specific formats presume
>some tech knowledge on behalf of the client.
You've constructed a bit of a straw man here:
For starters you presume that all clients are technically deficient
and you further assert that only clients would be sending you graphics
files. When in reality, most companies employ a whole slew of graphic
artists who more often than not will probably be sending files back
and forth to each other. Not to mention the fact that even if yer
client is deficient, the default in most programs like PaintShop and
PhotoShop is to save in their proprietary format and NOT in jpg, bmp,
gif, etc.
>>Well 1 point for you, you managed to solve one of the retarded
>>defaults in Photoshop, but hey, I'll make a deal with ya right now and
>>give ya one more for every one that you solve.
>>
>>Ready?
>>
>>Okay, here goes. Paint Shop Pro allows you to save your selections as
>>files, Photoshop does not. In Photoshop the selections can only be
>>saved as a part of the file and ONLY if you use the PSD format.
>>FURTHER selections can only be shared across images if you have the
>>PSD image with the saved selections open at the same time. Now how
>>fuckin stupid is THAT?
>Just save your selection as a mask, you then have the choice of saving
>the mask as a file.
So you have to go through extra steps to achieve what PaintShop can do
faster and more intuitively.
>As to sharing selections across images (without using masks); you only
>need to keep both documents open while you drag the alpha channel over.
But what if you didn't have both documents? Or didn't want the
clutter. Or only wanted to keep the selection from a file but not the
file itself? Or any of a dozen other reasons that make its inferior
interface that much more difficult to work with.
See you keep suggesting these alternatives, but why go with
alternatives that take more work? Unless PhotoShop can actually do
something MORE, which it can't, what's the point in switching to an
inferior product that can only 'kinda' do what PaintShop can?
>>>Photoshop is great, it's just that it takes more time to learn the basic
>>>features.
>>Not really, it's just "basic features" are all it has.
>If you're accustomed to using Paint Shop Pro, it's understandable that
>switching to an application with a different interface and steeper
>learning curve might be frustrating.
Wrong. VERY wrong in fact. When I first learned how to use PaintShop
it was EXTREMELY intuitive to learn and I picked it up concepts and
uses quite quickly. However after I already had an understanding of
what you could do with a graphics program I used PhotoShop and found
it to be the exact opposite, horrible to work with, completely non
intuitive and backwards in just about every respect imaginable. The
only way your supposition could hold up is if I had used PhotoShop
first and then used PaintShop, in which case you could infer that my
short time with PhotoShop gave me an initial working understanding of
the uses that would have been similar if I had started with PaintShop.
>>>I've been using it for nine years and I'm still discovering
>>>new things about it.
>>...which sorta just proves my point about how horrid the interface is,
>>eh? I mean, WOW, 9 YEARS and you still haven't figured it all out?!
>>o_O
>I don't see why I should stop learning now. There's a lot of different
>ways you can create similar effects in Photoshop and each version
>introduces something new to explore.
>
>It's a fool who claims to know it all.
Wrong, it's a fool who doesn't recognize that knowing functions isn't
the same as knowing technique. You said yourself that you're still
discovering new things "about it", it referring to the program.
Technique is almost always cross program compatible. If you learn a
technique in PhotoShop you can almost always achieve the same affect
in PaintShop. Furthermore, you can actually develop technique without
even using a graphics proggie at all...provided you have a COMPLETE
understanding of ALL its capabilities.
>>>If you've ever used 3D Max, Photoshop is a sinch in comparison.
>>I use 3DS Max all the time, I find it's interface to be quite
>>slick...maybe not quite as "beginner level" as say Bryce or Poser, but
>>then it's a program for experienced users, not those who just
>>"dabble".
>I don't find the 3D Max interface at all slick, but this is because of
>the sheer amount of stuff packed into the application. It's huge and has
>submenu buried within submenu. It's not a pretty application, but it's
>certainly robust.
You only feel that way because you don't understand what all those
menus and submenus do. If you had a COMPLETE understanding of ALL its
capabilities you would find the interface to be quite slick.
>I haven't used Bryce. Poser has a very slick interface, but limited
>functionality. It's easy to use, but that's because you're not actually
>building models from the polygon level up, let alone skinning or
>animating them.
I haven't used Poser in about 8 months, but uh, I'm pretty certain you
can do all that stuff actually. Although not as easily as you can in
say Bryce.
On a side note, speakin of graphics, check this out:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/index.html
The first ever documented perfect liquid site. Resize your browser
any way you like and watch what happens. You can also move the little
stone slabs around too. I'm thinkin I'm actually gonna use that
layout for like a retro gaming site though and use this one for A26:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/quasifuturegreen/
...not really especially keen on teh background though, it needs work.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
Adie
> Actually more and more I'm finding that employers aren't listing
> specific applications, they're starting to understand that if you're a
> graphic artist it really doesn't matter whether it's Corel, Photoshop,
> PaintShop, etc. And most intelligent applicants like myself will
> insist upon using our own tools, as long as the end result or file
> format is what they need, most all companies don't care.
If the employer is the local estate agent youre right, they wont give a
damn, if youre working for the A-typical large organisation you'll need to
know the environment.
--
"Insults to the Gods are the affairs of the Gods" - Emperor Tiberius