PainShop Pro Graphics - Re: SplitRock in oils? Philosophy

Author

Re: SplitRock in oils? Philosophy

ken45140

2006-02-28, 6:27 pm

Rikk wrote:
> Trying to make this look like an oil painting but am struggling. Any
> techniques I might try?
>
>
The attached took 4 seconds to create (several more to load and save)
using Hoard's SoftPaint script. So what is the philosophy part of the
subject line mean?

I have been thinking about this for some number of days now. After
weeks of trying various programs, reading books on "A beginners guide
to...(fill in the blank) (like Oil Painting)", and looking at hundreds
of examples posted here and on other Photo Art forums, I am struck with
what I will call a "spectrum of creativity/effort".

You can go from putting a photo on your desk and hand painting the scene
of Split Rock (on real or digital canvas), on to cloning software, on to
maybe PSP Art Media (or equivalent) "dabbing" with trace on, on to
clever manual manipulations of various filters and effects, on to
clicking run on Howard's softPaint script (or some other script).

What is going on here? What is the creative effort and what is the
creative payoff? It is fairly unclear, but what is clear is that it
seems that you need a certain amount of inherent painting/drawing skill
to go at things totally by hand, although perhaps even this can be
learned over a long enough period of time. Cloning offers a reasonable
next step, as there is some skill needed to bring out a unique (yet
"copied") version of a good photo scene. Filter/effect manipulation
seems also like a layer of creativity yet does not seem to fall in the
same "league" as working a stylus on a tablet, or certainly not like
wielding a brush dipped in real oils. Where should someone be on this
spectrum....more importantly, where do I want to be?

Sorry for babbling and I am not sure anyone could offer a comment, but I
wanted to state my ruminations on this "philosophy" of art and "spectrum
of creativity/effort". For me, having given up on the real deal (brush
and canvas), I am concentrating on trying to put out something
reasonable in the cloning department--at least for now. The 2-second
script really produces something nice (could print and hang on the wall
perhaps), but very unsatisfying in the creativity and effort department.

Thanks for listening,

Ken

JoeB

2006-02-28, 6:27 pm

ken45140 <closeks@fuse.net> wrote in news:4404b961_2@cnews:

> Rikk wrote:
struggling. Any[color=darkred]
> The attached took 4 seconds to create (several more to load and
save)
> using Hoard's SoftPaint script.

Nice soft effect, Ken. But where did you find the softpaint
script, and would you mind posting it?

Regards,

JoeB

So what is the philosophy part of the
> subject line mean?
>
> I have been thinking about this for some number of days now.
After
> weeks of trying various programs, reading books on "A beginners
guide
> to...(fill in the blank) (like Oil Painting)", and looking at
hundreds
> of examples posted here and on other Photo Art forums, I am
struck with
> what I will call a "spectrum of creativity/effort".
>
> You can go from putting a photo on your desk and hand painting
the scene
> of Split Rock (on real or digital canvas), on to cloning
software, on to
> maybe PSP Art Media (or equivalent) "dabbing" with trace on, on
to
> clever manual manipulations of various filters and effects, on
to
> clicking run on Howard's softPaint script (or some other
script).
>
> What is going on here? What is the creative effort and what is
the
> creative payoff? It is fairly unclear, but what is clear is
that it
> seems that you need a certain amount of inherent
painting/drawing skill
> to go at things totally by hand, although perhaps even this can
be
> learned over a long enough period of time. Cloning offers a
reasonable
> next step, as there is some skill needed to bring out a unique
(yet
> "copied") version of a good photo scene. Filter/effect
manipulation
> seems also like a layer of creativity yet does not seem to fall
in the
> same "league" as working a stylus on a tablet, or certainly not
like
> wielding a brush dipped in real oils. Where should someone be
on this
> spectrum....more importantly, where do I want to be?
>
> Sorry for babbling and I am not sure anyone could offer a
comment, but I
> wanted to state my ruminations on this "philosophy" of art and
"spectrum
> of creativity/effort". For me, having given up on the real
deal (brush
> and canvas), I am concentrating on trying to put out something
> reasonable in the cloning department--at least for now. The 2-
second
> script really produces something nice (could print and hang on
the wall
> perhaps), but very unsatisfying in the creativity and effort
department.
>
> Thanks for listening,
>
> Ken
>
> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --------------050700010807000901030609
>
> Attachment decoded: Splitrock_softpaint.jpg
> --------------050700010807000901030609--

ken45140

2006-02-28, 6:27 pm

JoeB wrote:
> ken45140 <closeks@fuse.net> wrote in news:4404b961_2@cnews:
>
>
>
> struggling. Any
>
>
> save)
>
>
>
>
> Nice soft effect, Ken. But where did you find the softpaint
> script, and would you mind posting it?
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB

Gulp. I should have proofread...it should have said Howard's SoftPaint
script. Howard of Howard Dickson's Sheilsoft website.
http://www.sheilsoft.com/psp.htm
That script is in his special collection, which costs a reasonable
$7.50, I believe. A quick PayPal click and pay and you have some 20 to
25 really great scripts. Howard shares a bunch for free on the
scripting NG, so I recommend a purchase. Needlesstosay, I can not post it.

Ken

Joske

2006-02-28, 6:27 pm

ken45140 wrote:
> Rikk wrote:
[snips]

> Sorry for babbling and I am not sure anyone could offer a
> comment, but I wanted to state my ruminations on this
> "philosophy" of art and "spectrum of creativity/effort". For me,
> having given up on the real deal (brush and canvas), I am
> concentrating on trying to put out something reasonable in the
> cloning department--at least for now. The 2-second script really
> produces something nice (could print and hang on the wall
> perhaps), but very unsatisfying in the creativity and effort
> department.

No babbling, as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad you're coming round
from an earlier message by you calling a plugin (ma)nip "great art".
I had written a reply to that but decided it might be too soon or
unkind to query your judgment :-)

You are so right: where is the satisfaction of putting creativity
and effort into a creation when you merely or mostly let software do
your work. The inexperienced or artless eye may be impressed by the
result for an instant, but for others it soon wears off. Frankly, I
myself never know how to comment when someone presents one - should
I say the plugin did a good job?

I do think paint plugins and filters could be enjoyable to play
with... it might be nice to watch the outcomes while tweaking their
settings. Something might even be learned from them (strokes,
texture). But from there, I think they had best function as a basis
for further creativity.

Joske

RonaldV

2006-02-28, 10:18 pm

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:33:26 -0500, ken45140 <closeks@fuse.net> wrote:

>Rikk wrote:
>The attached took 4 seconds to create (several more to load and save)
>using Hoard's SoftPaint script. So what is the philosophy part of the
>subject line mean?
>
>I have been thinking about this for some number of days now. After
>weeks of trying various programs, reading books on "A beginners guide
>to...(fill in the blank) (like Oil Painting)", and looking at hundreds
>of examples posted here and on other Photo Art forums, I am struck with
>what I will call a "spectrum of creativity/effort".
>
>You can go from putting a photo on your desk and hand painting the scene
>of Split Rock (on real or digital canvas), on to cloning software, on to
>maybe PSP Art Media (or equivalent) "dabbing" with trace on, on to
>clever manual manipulations of various filters and effects, on to
>clicking run on Howard's softPaint script (or some other script).
>
>What is going on here? What is the creative effort and what is the
>creative payoff? It is fairly unclear, but what is clear is that it
>seems that you need a certain amount of inherent painting/drawing skill
>to go at things totally by hand, although perhaps even this can be
>learned over a long enough period of time. Cloning offers a reasonable
>next step, as there is some skill needed to bring out a unique (yet
>"copied") version of a good photo scene. Filter/effect manipulation
>seems also like a layer of creativity yet does not seem to fall in the
>same "league" as working a stylus on a tablet, or certainly not like
>wielding a brush dipped in real oils. Where should someone be on this
>spectrum....more importantly, where do I want to be?

Ah, it's advice you want, eh? Advice is free, but really good advice,
you can't afford.

I don't have a clue as to what you want to do. That's the important
part of the creative process. You must discover what's right for you.
What's right for me, isn't your path and you shouldn't expect it to
be.

I've noticed that you seem to prefer the complex operations, so I'm
pretty certain that just applying any 'canned' process, no matter how
complex that process may be, doesn't give you personal satisfaction.
Therefore, it seems that you're more interested in the process of
doing something, rather than obtaining the results of a process.

My method is to try to create graphics from a variety of processes.
Often, I model in 3d programs, much as a theater director does. I tell
my models how to pose, how to dress, what scenery is around them, and
what lighting effects to use. When I have everything correct, I
render the image and usually about once a week, I post one here.
Sometimes people like them, sometimes they don't.

I also know PSP well enough to make it do what I want it to do.
Often, I can look at an image and think to myself about what I'd like
to do to that image. When it looks like the mental image I had, I'm
finished.

But enough of me, back to you. What is it that you want to
accomplish? Do you want to create images or processes? Both paths
require a lot of knowledge, and in slightly different areas. As a
example, you can create pretty good art without ever using the
scripting language, but to create a script that creates a special
effect requires it. If you want to create plugins, you'll likely need
a course in the creation of the plugin programming, plus an eye for
the effect you want to create.

Back in the sixties, we called this: Finding yourself.

Get a cup of coffee, sit back and think about what you want.

We can point at paths for you to take, but you must know your
destination.

Whew. Gabby old wind bag tonight, aren't I?

Ron

JoeB

2006-03-01, 8:02 pm

ken45140 <closeks@fuse.net> wrote in news:4404b961_2@cnews:

> Rikk wrote:
struggling. Any[color=darkred]
> The attached took 4 seconds to create (several more to load and
save)
> using Hoard's SoftPaint script. So what is the philosophy part
of the
> subject line mean?
>
> I have been thinking about this for some number of days now.
After
> weeks of trying various programs, reading books on "A beginners
guide
> to...(fill in the blank) (like Oil Painting)", and looking at
hundreds
> of examples posted here and on other Photo Art forums, I am
struck with
> what I will call a "spectrum of creativity/effort".
>
> You can go from putting a photo on your desk and hand painting
the scene
> of Split Rock (on real or digital canvas), on to cloning
software, on to
> maybe PSP Art Media (or equivalent) "dabbing" with trace on, on
to
> clever manual manipulations of various filters and effects, on
to
> clicking run on Howard's softPaint script (or some other
script).
>
> What is going on here? What is the creative effort and what is
the
> creative payoff? It is fairly unclear, but what is clear is
that it
> seems that you need a certain amount of inherent
painting/drawing skill
> to go at things totally by hand, although perhaps even this can
be
> learned over a long enough period of time. Cloning offers a
reasonable
> next step, as there is some skill needed to bring out a unique
(yet
> "copied") version of a good photo scene. Filter/effect
manipulation
> seems also like a layer of creativity yet does not seem to fall
in the
> same "league" as working a stylus on a tablet, or certainly not
like
> wielding a brush dipped in real oils. Where should someone be
on this
> spectrum....more importantly, where do I want to be?
>
> Sorry for babbling and I am not sure anyone could offer a
comment, but I
> wanted to state my ruminations on this "philosophy" of art and
"spectrum
> of creativity/effort". For me, having given up on the real
deal (brush
> and canvas), I am concentrating on trying to put out something
> reasonable in the cloning department--at least for now. The 2-
second
> script really produces something nice (could print and hang on
the wall
> perhaps), but very unsatisfying in the creativity and effort
department.
>
> Thanks for listening,

As Ron pointed out, where you want to be has to be your personal
decision based on your own goals. And if you find certain
approaches to achieving those goals unsatisfying in creativity
and effort then - if you want satisfaction - you will have to
continue to experiment with other approaches.

However, "creativity" has differing degrees, and I don't
necessarily think that the more "effort" you have to take makes
the end result more (or less) creative. Some people have a
"natural aptitude" for things, be it artwork, playing or writing
music, writing novels, whatever, and often create remarkably
original, interesting and intriguing works with less effort than
it takes them to do their house cleaning chores. Does that make
their artistic works less "creative" or "satisfying" than their
housework? It might, but for most I doubt it.

>From a practical (and personal) perspective, I took up oil
painting in the 70's, only to discover that I just did not have a
natural talent for producing results that would be of real
intereste to just about anyone, but I did enjoy doing it and
found it satisfying, enjoyable and relaxing. I eventually turned
to photography where I had at least a marginally better "eye" and
ability, but was never going to make a good pro photographer
either.

Now I do stuff digitally, mostly with PSP. And mostly PSP is a
tool I use in my various work areas, and more often than not I'm
working with other people's images. I have a better eye than my
clients for things like exposure problems or composition than
many of them, and use built-in tools or scripts and/or plugins to
do stuff like cloning, perspective correction, exposure
adjustments. I use them to do things like simulate studio
lighting, soften portraiture, exaggerate saturation or contrast
if the final use would benefit from that, etc, All in all,
pretty standard stuff starting with images I didn't even take
myself. Given that I use filters, plugins, scripts, etc., this
would seem to some to be just "rote" work, and perhaps lacking in
satisfaction. In my case, they would be wrong.

Yes, I do collect tools that take the "grunt" work out of it and
make the process faster and more efficient. But the satisfaction
for me is that I recognize the issues with the images I'm given,
understand the processes involved in overcoming them, and learn
(and continue to learn) what tools to acquire and how to use them
as efficiently as possible to achieve a result that I am happy
with and that my client is happy with (which is why I'm always
asking how or with what filter did some poster achieve a certain
result). That's all the creativity I have time to fit into a
busy schedule, and it actually satisfies me quite well.

Today, I would not derive as much "satisfaction" if I had the
time to learn to do oil painting better, or had better equipment
and training to take better photos. I've found a niche I'm comfy
- and satisfied - with, which allows me to achieve satisfaction -
and be creative in my own way - using the abilities I am most
comfortable with (digital imaging stuff) without struggling to
become more "able" in areas that I realize that I just don't have
as much of an aptitude for. (And I'm not all that great with the
digital stuff! :-)

Anyway, I've also "blabbed" on, but I guess it boils down to
saying that you won't get satisfaction by trying to live up to
some particular definition of "creative". Anything you do that
makes something new, or makes something different or expresses it
differently or in a different form from how it started, is a
"creative" activity.

As for the satisfaction, you'll recognize it when you find the
creative activity that suits you best.

Regards,

JoeB

Nightingail

2006-03-01, 8:02 pm

Joske wrote:
> ken45140 wrote:
> [snips]
>
>
> You are so right: where is the satisfaction of putting creativity
> and effort into a creation when you merely or mostly let software do
> your work. The inexperienced or artless eye may be impressed by the
> result for an instant, but for others it soon wears off. Frankly, I
> myself never know how to comment when someone presents one - should
> I say the plugin did a good job?
>
> I do think paint plugins and filters could be enjoyable to play
> with... it might be nice to watch the outcomes while tweaking their
> settings. Something might even be learned from them (strokes,
> texture). But from there, I think they had best function as a basis
> for further creativity.
>
> Joske

First, know that I'm smiling as I type this and I too enjoy discussions of
this sort in the newsgroups - but (and Joske, I'll bet you knew this was
coming!) - my reaction is "Argggggghhhh!!! Not again!" Every time the "What
is Art/Creativity?" question comes up, the 'real artistes' diss those who
use filters as tools. Yes, it's certainly true that many, maybe the
majority, of people who use filters/scripts do so only to make 3-second 'the
computer did it' images, and I agree completely that it offers no personal
satisfaction in terms of creativity. A monkey could push the buttons, right?
;-) In fact, I get rather aggravated (and many of you have seen it), when
folks look at one of my manipulated images and ask "what script or filter
did you use to do this?" as if that's all they need to know in order to
reproduce the look.

However, some of us (she says for the zillionth time), use filters and
scripts as building blocks and starting points - as tools in the creative
process - the *same way* others use brush strokes. A monkey can learn to
pick up a brush, dip it in paint, and apply it to canvas, just as well as it
can learn to push buttons on a keyboard. Recently, I posted a manipulation
of a photo of the Met that I did mainly by combining scripts, filters, PSP
adjustments, etc. It took me over 5 hours to complete, which is a far cry
from a 4-second application of a couple of scripts or filters. I generally
get much more personal satisfaction from that than I do from freehand
painting with a mouse (I don't have a tablet) - which I've done, and still
do on occasion. In fact, I did a couple of freehand pieces that I removed
from my site recently, because in my mind, they just weren't particularly
creative. Not that they weren't done well enough, but *in my mind* anyone
can paint a portrait from looking at a couple of photos (i.e. not
manipulating photos, but using them for reference), where's the creativity
in that?

Most of you have heard all this before and are no doubt thinking "There goes
Gail on her soapbox again." So I'll get to the point: some people use
filters/scripts as their 'brushes and paint' and IMO belong on the same
point on your creative spectrum as those who use more traditional
techniques. People didn't think photography could be an art when cameras
first appeared. Digital art in its many forms is so new and wondrous, has so
much to offer in terms of 'imagination meeting technology,' why must its
artistic merits be compared to the older definitions of art? It's like
comparing apples to iguanas ;-)

<getting off soapbox>

Gail

Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com

Joske

2006-03-01, 8:02 pm

Nightingail wrote:
> Joske wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> First, know that I'm smiling as I type this and I too enjoy
> discussions of this sort in the newsgroups - but (and Joske, I'll
> bet you knew this was coming!) - my reaction is "Argggggghhhh!!!
> Not again!" Every time the "What is Art/Creativity?" question
> comes up, the 'real artistes' diss those who use filters as
> tools.

I got the impression ken45140 didn't consider himself a 'real
artiste', and yet, new to digital art, already finds the '2-second
script' very unsatisfying :-)

> Yes, it's certainly true that many, maybe the majority, of
> people who use filters/scripts do so only to make 3-second 'the
> computer did it' images, and I agree completely that it offers no
> personal satisfaction in terms of creativity. A monkey could push
> the buttons, right? ;-) In fact, I get rather aggravated (and
> many of you have seen it), when folks look at one of my
> manipulated images and ask "what script or filter did you use to
> do this?" as if that's all they need to know in order to
> reproduce the look.

> However, some of us (she says for the zillionth time), use
> filters and scripts as building blocks and starting points - as
> tools in the creative process - the *same way* others use brush
> strokes.

Like I wrote that they had best function as a basis at most :-)

> A monkey can learn to pick up a brush, dip it in paint,
> and apply it to canvas, just as well as it can learn to push
> buttons on a keyboard. Recently, I posted a manipulation of a
> photo of the Met that I did mainly by combining scripts,
> filters, PSP adjustments, etc. It took me over 5 hours to
> complete, which is a far cry from a 4-second application of a
> couple of scripts or filters. I generally get much more personal
> satisfaction from that than I do from freehand painting with a
> mouse (I don't have a tablet) - which I've done, and still do on
> occasion. In fact, I did a couple of freehand pieces that I
> removed from my site recently, because in my mind, they just
> weren't particularly creative. Not that they weren't done well
> enough, but *in my mind* anyone can paint a portrait from looking
> at a couple of photos (i.e. not manipulating photos, but using
> them for reference), where's the creativity in that?

In making what you see yours by rendering your unique interpretation
through the way your brain steers the muscles in your hand?

> Most of you have heard all this before and are no doubt thinking
> "There goes Gail on her soapbox again." So I'll get to the point:
> some people use filters/scripts as their 'brushes and paint' and
> IMO belong on the same point on your creative spectrum as those
> who use more traditional techniques.

Compare it to samplers (Fatboy Slim with 'Praise You' or 'Weapon of
Choice'). Putting a sequence of other people's music fragments on
tape is meaningless. Adding a personal touch by studying them and
then tweaking, arranging, them, becomes meaningful. Doing it well
makes it art.

Yet, back to your real brush strokes-plugin egality concept: the
sampler will never be on the same level as the composers whom he
took the samples from. The inspiration stays with the original
composer, and without it the sampler will be empty-handed.

(Mind you, I like and respect Fatboy Slim's sampling talent. He is a
genius in his own right, but then: he does a lot more than just
arrange some fragments - he hears things we don't until he presents
them to us).

> People didn't think
> photography could be an art when cameras first appeared. Digital
> art in its many forms is so new and wondrous, has so much to
> offer in terms of 'imagination meeting technology,' why must its
> artistic merits be compared to the older definitions of art? It's
> like comparing apples to iguanas ;-)

Because it is the personal element that makes us consider something
art. It is the ideas, skill and views of the maker that amount to
something unique and meaningful.

> <getting off soapbox>

Did you create the soapbox yourself? ;-)

Joske
fatboy slim http://www.astralwerks.com/fbs/ see video gallery

Joske

2006-03-01, 8:02 pm

JoeB wrote:
> ken45140 wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
creativity/effort".
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> However, "creativity" has differing degrees, and I don't
> necessarily think that the more "effort" you have to take makes
> the end result more (or less) creative. Some people have a
> "natural aptitude" for things, be it artwork, playing or writing
> music, writing novels, whatever, and often create remarkably
> original, interesting and intriguing works with less effort than
> it takes them to do their house cleaning chores. Does that make
> their artistic works less "creative" or "satisfying" than their
> housework? It might, but for most I doubt it.

I agree, effort does not equal great results per se. But your
reasoning starts out on a faulty premisse.

I think you severely underestimate the effort going into art. Just
one simple example: I can't sing at all and Kate Bush can. Yet when
we sing, we both spend physical and mental energy. But besides that,
Kate has a lot more to do than I, among which can be:

be original
live up to expectations or dare to change ways
practice
write and remember lyrics and chords
go on tours
be present at promotional events
be nice to the press
sleep well despite odd hours
keep fit
go into studios
deal with audiences and band members and theatre staff
deal with stalkers or jealous people
deal with people after her money
keep up contact with family and friends
look presentable or as the public expects
worry about sales figures
cope with bad press
lots more,
and then... still make room to be creative

Just like slapping a plugin on a photo is not making art, being
talented in itself does not magically produce art. There are just a
few free givens in life, lots of money or nobility titles come to
mind, with which you can move around getting a lot (done) as a
matter of course. The rest is effort, no matter how big your talent
is.

> Now I do stuff digitally, mostly with PSP. And mostly PSP is a
> tool I use in my various work areas, and more often than not I'm
> working with other people's images. I have a better eye than my
> clients for things like exposure problems or composition than
> many of them, and use built-in tools or scripts and/or plugins to
> do stuff like cloning, perspective correction, exposure
> adjustments. I use them to do things like simulate studio
> lighting, soften portraiture, exaggerate saturation or contrast
> if the final use would benefit from that, etc, All in all,
> pretty standard stuff starting with images I didn't even take
> myself. Given that I use filters, plugins, scripts, etc., this
> would seem to some to be just "rote" work, and perhaps lacking in
> satisfaction. In my case, they would be wrong.

But this is the Graphics group, Joe :-) People who come here (want
to learn to) create or have an interest in graphics. You cannot
compare the two or make them seem the same thing.

Joske

Nightingail

2006-03-01, 8:02 pm

Joske wrote:
>
> I got the impression ken45140 didn't consider himself a 'real
> artiste', and yet, new to digital art, already finds the '2-second
> script' very unsatisfying :-)

I agree, and I didn't mean anyone in this forum specifically. Apologies to
Ken if you thought I was referring to you in particular. I was just using
the expression generally for the purposes of discussion - similar to when
filter users are stereotyped as button-pushers or whatever ;-)

> Compare it to samplers (Fatboy Slim with 'Praise You' or 'Weapon of
> Choice'). Putting a sequence of other people's music fragments on
> tape is meaningless. Adding a personal touch by studying them and
> then tweaking, arranging, them, becomes meaningful. Doing it well
> makes it art.
>
> Yet, back to your real brush strokes-plugin egality concept: the
> sampler will never be on the same level as the composers whom he
> took the samples from. The inspiration stays with the original
> composer, and without it the sampler will be empty-handed.
>
> (Mind you, I like and respect Fatboy Slim's sampling talent. He is a
> genius in his own right, but then: he does a lot more than just
> arrange some fragments - he hears things we don't until he presents
> them to us).

> Because it is the personal element that makes us consider something
> art. It is the ideas, skill and views of the maker that amount to
> something unique and meaningful.

Sampling is a good analogy and again, I agree with most of what you've said.
Not all, but that's fine. If everyone had the same definition of art, the
world would be a pretty boring place!

Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com

Terry

2006-03-01, 8:03 pm

Joske said :

> fatboy slim http://www.astralwerks.com/fbs/ see video gallery
>
>

A gem of a site, Joske. Thanks for posting it.

T.

Lori Davis

2006-03-01, 8:03 pm

My position on digital art is somewhere between Gail's and Joske's, I think.
Filters and scripts are tools, like brushes, and paint, and photo equipment,
and scissors, and glue guns. Use them to help get to where you want to go,
but don't think that they'll get you somewhere satisfying on their own.

As far as the sampling analogy goes, sampling *can* be used quite
creatively. Just as there can be artistic collages, there can be artistic
samplings. And the same sort of thing can be said of digital art created
with filters and scripts. The creator's eye and judgment contribute at least
as much as the tools used.

That said, you'll also never find me commenting on something that's simply a
photo run once through a paint filter. It's true that the creator has at
least chosen a certain photo for its composition and other qualities and has
chosen the particular filter settings for their particular effect. But I'd
much rather see something that's not so dependent on the features of a
single tool.

Lori

P.S. As for Art Media's Trace, it can be used either ploddingly or
creatively. I'm no big fan of AM, but I do grant that for those who can put
up with its limitations, there's much you can do with it (Trace mode or
not).

Joske

2006-03-02, 10:21 pm

Lori Davis wrote:

> My position on digital art is somewhere between Gail's and
> Joske's, I think.

I hope you don't feel stuck too tightly between us, because our
positions are pretty close :-)

> Filters and scripts are tools, like brushes,
> and paint, and photo equipment, and scissors, and glue guns. Use
> them to help get to where you want to go, but don't think that
> they'll get you somewhere satisfying on their own.

> As far as the sampling analogy goes, sampling *can* be used quite
> creatively. Just as there can be artistic collages, there can be
> artistic samplings. And the same sort of thing can be said of
> digital art created with filters and scripts. The creator's eye
> and judgment contribute at least as much as the tools used.

> That said, you'll also never find me commenting on something
> that's simply a photo run once through a paint filter. It's true
> that the creator has at least chosen a certain photo for its
> composition and other qualities and has chosen the particular
> filter settings for their particular effect. But I'd much rather
> see something that's not so dependent on the features of a single
> tool.

I could have written this paragraph. But just wait till I've
explored my AV Bros. Page Curl filter, which I chose as my VMassacre
prize. It's quite sophisticated and takes studying. I bet I'll feel
proud once I can produce a good result with it - and I'll post it
too even if it's just a folded bit of tartan :-)

Joske

> P.S. As for Art Media's Trace, it can be used either ploddingly or
> creatively. I'm no big fan of AM, but I do grant that for those
> who can put up with its limitations, there's much you can do with
> it (Trace mode or not).

Lori Davis

2006-03-02, 10:21 pm

"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:440768df$1_2@cnews...
>
> Lori Davis wrote:
>
> I hope you don't feel stuck too tightly between us, because our
> positions are pretty close :-)
>

Hmm, should be nice and cozy. :)

>
>
>
> I could have written this paragraph. But just wait till I've
> explored my AV Bros. Page Curl filter, which I chose as my VMassacre
> prize. It's quite sophisticated and takes studying. I bet I'll feel
> proud once I can produce a good result with it - and I'll post it
> too even if it's just a folded bit of tartan :-)
>

I bet you'll find all kinds of nifty things to do with that filter, Joske,
and I'm looking forward to seeing what you do do with it.

Lori

Joske

2006-03-03, 6:21 pm

Lori Davis wrote:
> "Joske" wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Hmm, should be nice and cozy. :)

Indeed :-) But seriously: I put my views into practice, with the
limited bit of talent I have. I see these soapboxes come round on a
regular basis, but when it comes down to it, what gets posted here
is mostly filter 'nips' and babble. Post something that took a lot
of (manual) work and that may even look good, and chances are it
gets the least or even no responses - as if people are afraid of
their own big words on 'art' put into practice.

[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I bet you'll find all kinds of nifty things to do with that
> filter, Joske, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you do do
> with it.

I was only kidding. It's a good filter, it's taken down my horror of
even just hearing the words 'page curl' :-) Besides that, of course
it's more in the category of our native warp and deform tools than
paint filters. Do you know what's still my favorite filter after all
these years and in spite of its different intention (photography)?
The Halftone. One of the best bases I've ever seen to create ones
own original effects on.

Joske

Nightingail

2006-03-03, 6:21 pm

Joske wrote:
> Indeed :-) But seriously: I put my views into practice, with the
> limited bit of talent I have. I see these soapboxes come round on a
> regular basis, but when it comes down to it, what gets posted here
> is mostly filter 'nips' and babble. Post something that took a lot
> of (manual) work and that may even look good, and chances are it
> gets the least or even no responses - as if people are afraid of
> their own big words on 'art' put into practice.

<snip>

A thought comes to mind after reading your comment. Speaking just for
myself: the images I put the most manual work into often give me a sense of
being skilled at what I'm doing, but not always the sense that I'm doing
artwork. That's what I meant when I talked about my digital paintings from
scratch by looking at photos for reference. When I've done that, I've felt
good about doing an image skillfully - *but* I didn't feel that I was
creating art. On the other hand, something that might not be as manually
intensive and/or might only take an hour or two - not necessarily with
filters, by the way ;-) - can "feel" like art to me when I'm doing it. It's
really hard to explain what I'm trying to say. My "Niagara Faux" for
example, was definitely not an artistic endeavor - it was just something fun
to do since folks have been expressing an interest in oil painting effects.

I really don't understand what you mean about people being afraid of their
own big words on 'art' put into practice. I've posted lots of pictures that
don't get any comments, and I just figure - oh well, maybe people didn't
like it or maybe they were too busy to comment or just didn't feel like it
for whatever reason. I don't read as much into it as you do, Joske ;-)

Gail

--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com

Nightingail

2006-03-03, 6:21 pm

Joske wrote:
> Lori Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Indeed :-) But seriously: I put my views into practice, with the
> limited bit of talent I have. I see these soapboxes come round on a
> regular basis, but when it comes down to it, what gets posted here
> is mostly filter 'nips' and babble. Post something that took a lot
> of (manual) work and that may even look good, and chances are it
> gets the least or even no responses - as if people are afraid of
> their own big words on 'art' put into practice.
>
>
>
>
> I was only kidding. It's a good filter, it's taken down my horror of
> even just hearing the words 'page curl' :-) Besides that, of course
> it's more in the category of our native warp and deform tools than
> paint filters. Do you know what's still my favorite filter after all
> these years and in spite of its different intention (photography)?
> The Halftone. One of the best bases I've ever seen to create ones
> own original effects on.
>
> Joske

To Joske: I am sorry if you feel offended by something that I said. It was
not my intention to be confrontational in any way.

Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com

Lori Davis

2006-03-03, 6:21 pm

"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:440863a1$1_2@cnews...
> I was only kidding. It's a good filter, it's taken down my horror of
> even just hearing the words 'page curl' :-) Besides that, of course
> it's more in the category of our native warp and deform tools than
> paint filters. Do you know what's still my favorite filter after all
> these years and in spite of its different intention (photography)?
> The Halftone. One of the best bases I've ever seen to create ones
> own original effects on.
>

I love Halftone, too. A few others I have fun with are Rotating Mirror,
Feedback, Pattern, Tiles, Polar Coordinates, Offset, Hot Wax Coating, and
Kaleidoscope. There are some nifty non-blinds effects you can get with
Blinds, too, like a log cabin effect or poofy quilting.

And for a whole lot of fun, there's Balls and Bubbles combined with
Geometric or Distortion effects and/or the Warp Brush.

Lori