|
|
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> Here are my steps:
> 1. Texture filter. Cork texture at Size 50%, rest at defaults.
> Wet Fall Leaves texture at 25% is also interesting.
> 2. Layer duplicate.
> 3. Noise warp of duplicate, Size maximum, Strength 20, Noise 100.
> Click and hold for a few seconds.
> 4. Dilate three times on warped duplicate.
> 5. Motion Blur on dilated layer, 255 degrees, Strength 100.
> 6. Blend mode of motion blurred layer set to Soft Light.
> 7. Layers merged.
> 8. Halftone filter on result. Line, Size 2, Greyscale, Ink grey
> 128, Background white, Screen Angle 135 (to align with motion
> blur), Use As Overlay checked, Blend Mode Soft Light, Opacity
> 67.
> 9. Histogram Adjustment. Defaults except Gamma 1.2.
> 10. Auto Saturation Enhancement at defaults.
> The noise warp and dilation adds some randomness and structure to
> the motion blur. The texture ia visible in the highlights, the
> halftoning lines are visible in the midtones, and neither is very
> perceptible in deep shadows. The combination of motion blur with
> halftoning gives the impression of an extra light source and some
> penciled crosshatching. At least that's what I think :)
The Halftone settings are practically the same as the ones I use in
my tartan scripts. They are good for cloth, the rather difficult
trick of course is to then add or distract from sides while cropping
to make the patterns seamless :-)
I haven't tried this, but what if you were to add another layer with
Halftone in an almost mirrored direction, then warp the whole a
little and lower the opacity of this layer. This might not be
enough, maybe the Halftone needs another color or opacity as well,
but what I'm thinking of is achieving a linen effect (threads
crossing) rather than this denim one.
There is one advantage to your treatment of this image over all the
others I'm seeing: while the cloth texture done by the Halftone is
not what painter canvases look like, it is the most convincing in
lighting and shadow. The scene could actually be in the material.
There is a blend.
With the exception of Buzz Pro, all I'm seeing posted lately in
either paint plugins or imitations thereof, is very much lacking in
logic and therefore appeal. I have no idea why people don't see
this, and say this, or seem to be so easily satisfied.
For instance, I see brush strokes going from a dark wall into a
light saucer, and there is no way a brush can do this - they would
be different strokes.
And I see rough textures clearly overlaid on a photo, barely
mimicking a true canvas painting. This is not just because people
mistakenly seem to like broad canvas textures (so they'd all be
miniature paintings, wouldn't they), but also because the 'paint'
doesn't react to the structure. No bumps, no halts, no lights and
darks, where the paint and brush meet the canvas structure - it's
all flat.
It also seems people don't seem to see that oftentimes the photo
clearly is still recognized through the effects. This always looks
cheap and bad to me, unless done in a deliberate way involving other
effects. Even if no plugin can truly imitate all the finesses of
real painting, it seems people are happy with the results too
quickly and don't think of improving things manually to remove the
obvious photo remnants shining through. Personally I think these
plugins do need that help of a human eye and hand.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
|
|