Reading mode: Light Dark

Is it Photoshop Pencil or Real Pencil???

Go to last post
We can now clearly see the difference between a "pro" and most of us amateurs.. visited your site. Incredible work. We should all aspire to your level of abilities..... in Photoshop. I doubt many of us will ever be able to sketch at your level.

Very impressive.

Jim
shan canfield said:
--A graphite portrait I did of my friend Glenda, on Reeves BFK
(30x40approx) (approx 120 hours of work)



A charcoal portrait I did of my daughter Nora, 12 years ago. Also
on Reeves BFK (24x30approx) (approx 120 hours of work).



Interesting results and opinions, y'all!
Thanks-
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
 
"Don't tell me you like the stop bath, too?"

Naaaah, I'm reminded of THAT smell everytime I make salad dressing ;)

Seriously though, I do miss the smells, darkness and ticking sounds of my GraLab. And the digital darkroom still lacks the pure magic of seeing that print reveal itself in the tray...

Oh well, maybe I'll buy a loud clock, make a bowl of salad, and get a red bulb for my lamp next time I fire up PS ;)
 
You are one extremely talanted person. FWIW I would have voted for Photoshop 'cos of the level of detail (eg in the hair).

We are not worthy etc etc
 
Member said:
Jim Radcliffe wrote:
Click to expand...
...I doubt manyof us will ever be able to sketch at your level.
Member said:
Very impressive.

Jim
Click to expand...
--Thanks Jim...that's stuff I "used to do." I have a background in traditional Fine Art and Photography. I think those basics help me with my new "Tradigital©2000" Photography Retouching and Restorations!
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
 
henryg said:
You are one extremely talanted person. FWIW I would have voted for
Photoshop 'cos of the level of detail (eg in the hair).

We are not worthy etc etc
Click to expand...
--That part was the most fun; I have an electric eraser and a kneaded eraser. I would block in smudged tone and then remove it with either the electric eraser (chiseld the tips to various widths) and pull out the tone for the strands! Using the electric eraser is much like using the Photoshop eraser with a Wacom tablet!
...and you certainly are worthy!
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
 
Shan,
I got both wrong.
Amazing work from you.

Is it possible to post a slightly higher version of those pictures to appreciate the finer details of your work?
Thanks,
Venkat.
shan canfield said:
henryg said:
You are one extremely talanted person. FWIW I would have voted for
Photoshop 'cos of the level of detail (eg in the hair).

We are not worthy etc etc
Click to expand...
--That part was the most fun; I have an electric eraser and a
kneaded eraser. I would block in smudged tone and then remove it
with either the electric eraser (chiseld the tips to various
widths) and pull out the tone for the strands! Using the electric
eraser is much like using the Photoshop eraser with a Wacom tablet!
...and you certainly are worthy!
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
--
Venkat
http://www.pbase.com/ktv
 
They are some of the best images I've ever seen! I wouldn't believe that it would be possible to get that much detail from a pencil or any other fine art image. I'm really impressed. The one thing that made me think that they were conversion was the detail, which is outstanding.

Now, back to the bad images comment... I think you figured it out, but let me expand for a bit. These two works of art show exactly what we should be working for when converting from photographs to fine art. I can tell you that no one can get that quality of an image from a photograph unless that photo is perfectly exposed and properly lit. People can convert their useless 'bad' images all they want, but they are never going to reach that level of quality unless they start with a good image.

I can honestly say, I've never seen a pencil work of art, outside of a museum, which I thought was worth putting on a wall, until today!
shan canfield said:
In reading the "last" post first I see I misunderstood your own
quoting of yourself. The bad images refered to were not the ones I
posted? At least I think that's what happend. Just read your
"earlier post" and see that your observations seem more in line
with the correct guess of both images are fine art! (Sorry, I'm a
bit dyslexic and tend to read from the bottom up! :-)

Shan

--
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
 
Pam R. said:
(Sigh), I miss the smell of hypo, but the digital darkroom is a lot
less expensive ;)
Click to expand...
I don't miss the smell of hypo, that is for sure. I don't miss the heat from those automated processors and being wet all of the time. Nor do I miss the brown stains that hypo leaves on everything it touches, like shirts... or those white crystals that formed everwhere you spillled a little. I don't miss the yellow lights that make it so you can't tell one flavor of your candy from another and I don't miss standing up all of the time to work in the darkroom.

Come to think of it, I don't miss the darkroom much at all. There isn't a single thing I could do in the darkroom that I can't do now with Photoshop and my digital camera much easier... with the exception of prints. I still have my stuff printed. (some stuff I print on my inkjet, but mostly I send it off).
 
Venkat said:
Shan,
I got both wrong.
Amazing work from you.
Is it possible to post a slightly higher version of those pictures
to appreciate the finer details of your work?
Thanks,
Venkat.
Click to expand...
--I don't have higher res ones of the original post. I did originally scanned photos of those for my website: gallery 2. But the final photos of them, I just took, yesterday, so I can post those at a higher res, if you want. Lemme know!
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
 
Hi Shan,

I have two advantages: I´ve been brought up as the son of a childrens book publisher (a lot of illustrators in my life), and I´m myself a digital designer, and an expert in Photoshop and it´s possibilities.

Indeed if any of these drawings were produced by Photoshop, I´d be willing to pay big bucks for the technique, because my handdrawing was never that great.

Beautiful illustration. You are very skilled.

Mathias
shan canfield said:
--Well everyone's entiled to an opinion, but you guessed wrong!
These are the real deal. #1 is a graphite drawing I did on Reeves
BFK paper )30x40 approx. And #2 is actually a Charcoal drawing I
did, also on Reeves BFK 24x30 approx. Each one took me about 3
weeks of working 8 hours a day to complete! So only Mathias and
Reimar guessed correctly. And thanks for all the comments good and
bad!
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com



Click to expand...
 
Shan,

Everytime I look at the pictures in your original post with your answer in mind, it amazes me. I havent seen many fine arts like this( my exp in this field is limited to visiting musuems).

I thought observing these pictures at higher resolutions will give me better idea of such works. If it is too much of work for you, ignore my request. Otherwise I will be happy to see them at higher res.
You can send them at [email protected]

Thanks,
Venkat.
shan canfield said:
Venkat said:
Shan,
I got both wrong.
Amazing work from you.
Is it possible to post a slightly higher version of those pictures
to appreciate the finer details of your work?
Thanks,
Venkat.
Click to expand...
--I don't have higher res ones of the original post. I did
originally scanned photos of those for my website: gallery 2. But
the final photos of them, I just took, yesterday, so I can post
those at a higher res, if you want. Lemme know!
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
--
Venkat
http://www.pbase.com/ktv
 
MagicAngel said:
They are some of the best images I've ever seen! I wouldn't
believe that it would be possible to get that much detail from a
pencil or any other fine art image. I'm really impressed. The one
thing that made me think that they were conversion was the detail,
which is outstanding.

Now, back to the bad images comment... I think you figured it out,
but let me expand for a bit. These two works of art show exactly
what we should be working for when converting from photographs to
fine art. I can tell you that no one can get that quality of an
image from a photograph unless that photo is perfectly exposed and
properly lit. People can convert their useless 'bad' images all
they want, but they are never going to reach that level of quality
unless they start with a good image.

I can honestly say, I've never seen a pencil work of art, outside
of a museum, which I thought was worth putting on a wall, until
today!
Click to expand...
--Thanks Magic Angel! Someone one on this thread had posted a link to Bruce Newmans pencil work. If you have a chance check it out. He's got some fabulous photorealism work not done in Photoshop.

With regards to salvaging images with various techniques... I do believe it's possible but I don't think it can necessarily be achieved with just one "catch all" method or action. Also a certain degree of skill and a good "eye" is a plus! I also think you're right in that if you have a good image to begin with, the task of repurposing it to any other artistic interpretation will have an edge! But truly there are areas on my work there is quite a bit of "white space" where there is nothing but the paper. Most of the sketches on Lisa's Pencil Sketch thread were not sketches at all. They were more of a technique that I can compare with traditional black and white photography, of shooting in a high key lighting situation and printing with a low contrast filter pack , a diffusion filter, a vignette dodging mask and a bit on the over exposed side. However, even though the earlier posts to that thread were more of a photo technique than sketch....some of the later posts were leaning to more sketch like quality because the users took hold of one method and ammended it with other techniques. I love high key diffused photos and I think Lisa's original post would have been more appropriately named as such....but look what the thought of "pencil sketch" insprired and provoked people to discover and do! If the end result is "pleasing" or marketable and it feels satisfying to do....heck if they want to call it a pencil sketch, whether it is or not doesn't matter! I looked at that thread from the beginning and even though I "knew" it wasn't a pencil sketch look at all, I still enjoyed looking at how others applied it to their various work. I basically agree with you...that's what inspired me to post! But don't you find it funny or perhaps ironic, that the majority of voters thought one or both had to be from photoshop because of the detail??? :-)
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
 
shan canfield said:
--A graphite portrait I did of my friend Glenda, on Reeves BFK
(30x40approx) (approx 120 hours of work)



A charcoal portrait I did of my daughter Nora, 12 years ago. Also
on Reeves BFK (24x30approx) (approx 120 hours of work).



Interesting results and opinions, y'all!
Thanks-
Click to expand...
I'm amazed. Thank you for sharing your talent with a fun thead!

Kent
 
shan canfield said:
--Following are two pictures? Whaddayathink? Are one or both
Photoshop or Real Artwork?
Inspired to post because of Magic Angels observations on Photoshop
Sketches on the forum. So take a vote!
Shan

--Hmm.. I guess it becomes clear now why you are so interested and skilled with PS. One would assume that you produced these wonderful drawings (not sketches) from photographs which if you think about it is much the same thing we do with PS. So I guess in the final analysis you are one of the organic original incantations of PS.
Click to expand...
The analog version!!

I didn't vote in your imaginative contest because I have admired these pictures on your website and assumed they were fine art drawings because of the dates you mention in your preamble. But if I were not privy to the information beforehand I would have guess Photoshop.

Beautiful Stuff Shan

Thanks for all your contributions

Gheth
 
shan canfield said:
--Thanks Jim...that's stuff I "used to do." I have a background in
traditional Fine Art and Photography. I think those basics help me
with my new "Tradigital©2000" Photography Retouching and
Restorations!
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
My biggest dissappointment from all of this is that I live too far away (Dallas) to take one or more of your classes in Nashville.

Jim
 
It's quite a compliment for many to think that the top picture is a PS technique. It's that good. However, on closer inspection the strings on the guitar do look a bit on the thick side (unless that's how the pencil technique in PS would have rendered it).
shan canfield said:
--A graphite portrait I did of my friend Glenda, on Reeves BFK
(30x40approx) (approx 120 hours of work)



A charcoal portrait I did of my daughter Nora, 12 years ago. Also
on Reeves BFK (24x30approx) (approx 120 hours of work).



Interesting results and opinions, y'all!
Thanks-
Shan
Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/driving_range
 
Shan if you are telling us you hand did these then you are an awsome Artist as well as amentor of Photoshop. Wow thats talent. If I were a betting man I would have bet alot thta they had to be Photoshop, because of the string spacing and the dots on the blouse. All I can say is wow, I am honored to know you, and I agree with you. I did not think LIsa's was a Pencil Painting, but I use it for B & W enhanced portraits.
 
I have not looked at any replies yet, but I think they both are done in Photoshop.

Gary
shan canfield said:
--Following are two pictures? Whaddayathink? Are one or both
Photoshop or Real Artwork?
Inspired to post because of Magic Angels observations on Photoshop
Sketches on the forum. So take a vote!
Shan

Here's Picture #1



...and here's Picture #2



Visit the home for Photoshopaholics at
http://www.shanzcan.com
Click to expand...
--
Gary
C-700
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top