Finally, TRUE oil & watercolor painting effect

bijan....

I think....

That the original photos are spectacular as they are....

I think....

You have not improved them

I think....

You are having fun, being challenged and I urge you to continue and keep posting.

I think....

One should never ask what one thinks :-)

MikeF
Let me know what you think...
--
A few of my images... Watch out! there's some nudity about.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~mikefinn/
 
Let me be the first to ask, HOW DID YOU GET THESE RESULTS? Simply
beautiful. Nicely done.
DannyR
Danny, we agree on some things, it seems. ;-) Alas, not on this one. :-(

In each case, I prefer the original I'm afraid. The effect does nothing for me. But hey! That's just me, probably everyone else will love it. Be boring if we all liked the same I suppose!
Frank
 
What is in the upper right corner of the second picture? Is this a
composite? Looks like the interior of some building. Otherwise, I
agree, the originals are the best.
It appears to be a reflection on glass from objects in the room.. specifically recessed overhead lighting.

this appears to be a picture of either a mural or painting taken in a room somewhere... in which case the real "painting" is the first picture of each item.

But.... I could be wrong.

Jim
 
Mike,

Who says you have to "improve" a photo to create art? I think you could make that argument against many great works. Art is a vision. What does improvement have to do with anything?
 
the purpose of my post is to show you how one picture can be turned into real oil painting look. I didn't care what the photo was. I randomly chose those pictures.

I love the originals too, but that's not the point. The point is how real the oil painting effect is.

The second picture is the interor of a retail store in Las Vegas.
What is in the upper right corner of the second picture? Is this a
composite? Looks like the interior of some building. Otherwise, I
agree, the originals are the best.
It appears to be a reflection on glass from objects in the room..
specifically recessed overhead lighting.

this appears to be a picture of either a mural or painting taken in
a room somewhere... in which case the real "painting" is the first
picture of each item.

But.... I could be wrong.

Jim
--
Bijan
http://www.pbase.com/bijan
 
Hi Jack....

When one turns a high quality photo into a simulated painting or whatever and if it does not improve the piece then whats the point?

If by dragging a digital brush around the photo it ends up with more appeal then I say you have improved it. To me thats what "Photo Art" is all about. Lets not pretend that it's any more "Art" than the original photo though.

MikeF
Mike,

Who says you have to "improve" a photo to create art? I think you
could make that argument against many great works. Art is a vision.
What does improvement have to do with anything?
--
A few of my images... Watch out! there's some nudity about.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~mikefinn/
 
The point isn't what we think of the examples Bijan posted but the techniques he used. Just today I got a couple of my old watercolor books out of storage and looked through them. Bijan's watercolor look is very true-to-life compared to real paint and brush examples from my books. That's what he was trying to convey. And I hope he posts how he did it 'cause I'm interested in trying them out on some of my own photos.

Cassandra
When one turns a high quality photo into a simulated painting or
whatever and if it does not improve the piece then whats the point?

If by dragging a digital brush around the photo it ends up with
more appeal then I say you have improved it. To me thats what
"Photo Art" is all about. Lets not pretend that it's any more "Art"
than the original photo though.

MikeF
Mike,

Who says you have to "improve" a photo to create art? I think you
could make that argument against many great works. Art is a vision.
What does improvement have to do with anything?
--
A few of my images... Watch out! there's some nudity about.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~mikefinn/
--
Have you backed up your files lately?
 
Hi Jack....

When one turns a high quality photo into a simulated painting or
whatever and if it does not improve the piece then whats the point?

If by dragging a digital brush around the photo it ends up with
more appeal then I say you have improved it. To me thats what
"Photo Art" is all about. Lets not pretend that it's any more "Art"
than the original photo though.
Come on. What's this? The gestapo definition of art? Where is that hard-and-fast rule defined? If a piece has appeal, it stands on it's own. The only reason you can even make your assertion is because he posted the original pictures to begin with. Who's to say that an artist's rendition of a sunset is more appealing than the original? Certainly not you or me unless we get gigs as art critics.

Besides, you're assertion that he didn't improve upon the originals is just one man's opinion.

If you want to get really anal about it, I would assert that nobody can improve upon nature, therefore why bother with art at all?

Jaz
 
Dont forget there are many styles of traditional painting. The oil looks more like real oil than the second looks like WC to me. Still the oil looks digital. The second WC looks more like oil or gouach to me, and less digital than the first one. I dont care for the blurry soft edges on everything but that is my personal taste. Despite the critisism both look nice as digital art
 
Jack.. Answers inline below.
Come on. What's this? The gestapo definition of art? Where is that
hard-and-fast rule defined?
What Rule? I didn't say it was a rule.

If a piece has appeal, it stands on
it's own.
Exactly

The only reason you can even make your assertion is
because he posted the original pictures to begin with.
Precisely

Who's to say
that an artist's rendition of a sunset is more appealing than the
original? Certainly not you or me unless we get gigs as art critics.
Anyone can say it
Besides, you're assertion that he didn't improve upon the originals
is just one man's opinion
Agreed
If you want to get really anal about it, I would assert that nobody
can improve upon nature, therefore why bother with art at all?
We may not be able to improve nature but we can improve its presentation.. Take a nice garden for example..
MikeF
--
A few of my images... Watch out! there's some nudity about.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~mikefinn/
 
First of all, let me state that your images - both before and after - are gorgeous...

I'd like to see larger images but based on the small images you have presented I'll make a comment. One of the issues surrounding the filter/action approach to creating paintings is that the filter or action cannot know what in the image needs detail and what doesn't. Therefore, the filters typically do not vary the brush-size in ways that a real painter would. There is just no way for the filter to know that a part of an image is someone's eye for example...

Though I'm far from being a master, this is why I like the approach of a tool like Painter or Photoshop 7's pattern brush. It allows YOU to choose which parts of the image to enhance or blur.

Now, perhaps you have done that in your examples and it's just too hard to see because of the size of the images but in general, those are my thoughts on the subject...

Jaz
 
Here is a section of the first one but larger.



Mike,

let me get one thing atrieght. I did NOT try to improve the photo. All I tried to do was creating a real oil painting effect from a photo.
You don't have to like it and no one is forcing you either.

Jack, I am glad you like them.

You are right about filter/action don't know what in the image needs detail and what doesn't.

This wasn't done with any action or filters. It's simply hand painted using the mouse. The image was turned into a simple line art drawing, then I picked up a brush from varies sizes and tips with different pressure and angles, just like real brushes and started painting the image.

If I select an smalll brush, it reveals more details and if I use a large brush, you get less detail. That's how I got almost fine outline around the boat using small brush.

No, it wasn't done in photoshop or painter and I can't tell you what program I used. sorry.
I have both photoshop and painter and none of them can achive this look.

Thanks for the comments :)
Bijan
First of all, let me state that your images - both before and after
  • are gorgeous...
I'd like to see larger images but based on the small images you
have presented I'll make a comment. One of the issues surrounding
the filter/action approach to creating paintings is that the filter
or action cannot know what in the image needs detail and what
doesn't. Therefore, the filters typically do not vary the
brush-size in ways that a real painter would. There is just no way
for the filter to know that a part of an image is someone's eye for
example...

Though I'm far from being a master, this is why I like the approach
of a tool like Painter or Photoshop 7's pattern brush. It allows
YOU to choose which parts of the image to enhance or blur.

Now, perhaps you have done that in your examples and it's just too
hard to see because of the size of the images but in general, those
are my thoughts on the subject...

Jaz
--
Bijan
http://www.pbase.com/bijan
 
...of telling us about "Finally, TRUE oil & watercolor painting effect" if you won't share how you do it?

By the way, I really like the oil very much.

--
Ron
5700
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top