Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
Thread started 24 Mar 2009 (Tuesday) 20:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Portrait of Child (done in Corel Painter Essentials 4)

 
B-H-P
Senior Member
Avatar
306 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
Mar 24, 2009 20:45 |  #1

This was a photo taken of my son in the driveway. It was taken with a 20D and 70-200 2.8. I they used the trial version or Painter Essentials 4 I downloaded to create this effect. Most of the effect was automated. I did have to touch up the edges of my son, his face and the stripes on his shirt.

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3384024610_09fb8213c4_b.jpg


This was a quick one I did this morning. Different style, but still automated using Painter Essentials. (very little manual work done on this one)
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/3384016876_6a566cbf69_o.jpg

Any CC welcome!

Brian
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
EOS_JD
Goldmember
2,925 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
     
Mar 24, 2009 20:50 |  #2

No1 is much better although seems a little dark. No2 doesn't work for me.

Great program for these arty images :)


All My Gear
5D MkIII & 5D MKII + Grips | 24-70 f2.8L IS | 24-105 f4L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII | 50 f/1.4 | 85 f1.8 | 100 f2.8 | 1.4x MkII | Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
B-H-P
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
306 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
Mar 24, 2009 21:00 |  #3

EOS_JD wrote in post #7591608 (external link)
No1 is much better although seems a little dark. No2 doesn't work for me.

Great program for these arty images :)

Hmm...No. 1 doesn't seem that dark on my monitor. Maybe it is time to re-calibrate. I liked number one better also. The program seems interesting. I really wish I had the talent to do this type of stuff all manual. But at this time, I don't! lol Thanks for the comment.


Brian
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michael ­ Bottoms
Cream of the Crop
6,297 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Whitby Ontario... just outside of Toronto
     
Mar 25, 2009 13:22 |  #4

Like number one... cool effect and your son is still recognizable. The second (of your pregnant wife?) has lost so much detail, that it could be anyone... Just would want to be able to actually see my wife in the shot--not some blurry image of any pregnant woman... Thanks for sharing


Former Pentax & 20D owner... now the pleased owner of the new 50D, 580EX, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro, Canon EFS 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM, Kenko 1.4X Teleplus Pro 300, Sekonic L-508 Zoom Master Meter, Manfrotto and slik tripods, trekpod and other assorted accessories...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
B-H-P
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
306 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
Mar 25, 2009 15:16 |  #5

Michael Bottoms wrote in post #7596313 (external link)
Like number one... cool effect and your son is still recognizable. The second (of your pregnant wife?) has lost so much detail, that it could be anyone... Just would want to be able to actually see my wife in the shot--not some blurry image of any pregnant woman... Thanks for sharing

The 2nd was my sister-in-law. Your right though there wasn't much detail and it could be anyone. I guess there is a balance to find between the painting effect and the photograph. Practice, practice!


Brian
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CassidyBrendan
Member
69 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Apr 04, 2010 23:18 |  #6

I am looking for help with this program which came with my Wacom Bamboo tablet. It seems like the program is very very slow. A painting takes 10 min...is this normal?


BrendanCassidy
Canon XSi 430EXII
18-55 kit 50mm 1.8 II
85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
korrektor
Goldmember
Avatar
4,908 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
     
Apr 05, 2010 01:59 |  #7

just a word of advice... try not to ever use these filter again. They ruin a good shot. Either learn how to paint or take a shot good enough that will not need to be butchered by a cheap looking effect. sorry but these are pretty horrendous to look at.


WEBSITE http://mikhaylovphoto.​com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hunterdace
Member
Avatar
224 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Berea, Ky.
     
Apr 05, 2010 03:27 |  #8

korrektor wrote in post #9934707 (external link)
just a word of advice... try not to ever use these filter again. They ruin a good shot. Either learn how to paint or take a shot good enough that will not need to be butchered by a cheap looking effect. sorry but these are pretty horrendous to look at.

I have to respectfully disagree with you... You most definitely are a gifted person . But I think there is room for other styles and effects. No ; some one who resorts to these filters shouldnt think of themselves as some great artist. However in the world of Art and I'd like to think Photography is a part of that world ....such things are regularly done and called abstacts or modern art or what ever and they are not for everyone and certainly not me most of the time ; but to tell someone to never use a technic... I think ...that may go a little far, No offense meant to you. Just my honest opinion. And please dont hate me for it. :o I like the first; not so much the second. Korrektor ...he was asking for opinions and you had every right to express yours by the way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roman_t
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,271 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Astana, Kazakhstan
     
Apr 05, 2010 05:15 |  #9

personally i dont like sfx, even ones done with lens filters
i guess both shots are not bad to keep unfiltered




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalphotocandy
Member
Avatar
242 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 05, 2010 06:47 |  #10

korrektor wrote in post #9934707 (external link)
just a word of advice... try not to ever use these filter again. They ruin a good shot. Either learn how to paint or take a shot good enough that will not need to be butchered by a cheap looking effect. sorry but these are pretty horrendous to look at.

That's a little harsh. And it is also a very male perspective on photography. Since an overwhelming majority of women actually purchase portrait photography, I would respectfully disagree with you. Women like effects, they like eye enhancement, skin softening, airbrushing,etc. Anything that can be done to make them look better, younger, fresher. That said. I think these are a bit overdone. Effects work, but only when thoughtfully administered and when they contribute rather than detract from the initial image. I think the first one is better, although the hair above his forehead need some attention. Everything seems to be very painted except for his eyes, that needs some attention. It's obvious you are starting in Painter, that's great always push yourself. But find someone who's style you like and really learn how to use the software.


template photoshop (external link)
Our Jesus art Portfolio (external link)
Some of our Portrait Work (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
korrektor
Goldmember
Avatar
4,908 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
     
Apr 05, 2010 13:58 |  #11

digitalphotocandy wrote in post #9935354 (external link)
That's a little harsh. And it is also a very male perspective on photography. Since an overwhelming majority of women actually purchase portrait photography, I would respectfully disagree with you. Women like effects, they like eye enhancement, skin softening, airbrushing,etc. Anything that can be done to make them look better, younger, fresher. That said. I think these are a bit overdone. Effects work, but only when thoughtfully administered and when they contribute rather than detract from the initial image. I think the first one is better, although the hair above his forehead need some attention. Everything seems to be very painted except for his eyes, that needs some attention. It's obvious you are starting in Painter, that's great always push yourself. But find someone who's style you like and really learn how to use the software.


a Male perspective? Really... how about Another perspective? And as a male i ll tell you that any woman would buy a well lit posed and composed photo Without the filtered effects over a Pixilate filtered one. These filteres are there to make everyone who tries them to feel artistic. I find it a little wring, since it is extremely misguiding. Theres nothing even close to self expression here. If anything, these filteres were developed in order to emulate the brush strokes of famous artists.

You mentioned that women would like to look fresher and youunger on photos. Unfortunately the first photo here is a photo of a boy and the second one is of a woman whose face got turned into five bright colored dots. Dontsee any freshness here:)


WEBSITE http://mikhaylovphoto.​com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimmywires
Senior Member
Avatar
539 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Yorktown Va
     
Apr 05, 2010 14:18 |  #12

harsh..... yeah but thats Korrektor. but he's telling the truth




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalphotocandy
Member
Avatar
242 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 05, 2010 14:23 |  #13

korrektor wrote in post #9937550 (external link)
You mentioned that women would like to look fresher and youunger on photos. Unfortunately the first photo here is a photo of a boy and the second one is of a woman whose face got turned into five bright colored dots. Dontsee any freshness here:)

Not sure if you read my whole post, but I did agree that they were overdone. I suggested he learn from someone really proficent in Painter. Everyone starts somewhere and that's cool if you want to hide behind "being brutally honest" I see that's your gig. But I prefer to offer help where I can, in a more supportive way. I think telling someone their images are "horrendous to look at" isn't very constructive. Again, just MHO.


template photoshop (external link)
Our Jesus art Portfolio (external link)
Some of our Portrait Work (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Apr 05, 2010 14:31 |  #14

B-H-P wrote in post #7591580 (external link)
Any CC welcome!

yea, i'd stay away from these types of filters. i'd wager to guess that the photos lying underneath them are much more appealing than what the program has churned it into.

digitalphotocandy wrote in post #9935354 (external link)
That's a little harsh. And it is also a very male perspective on photography. Since an overwhelming majority of women actually purchase portrait photography, I would respectfully disagree with you. Women like effects, they like eye enhancement, skin softening, airbrushing,etc. Anything that can be done to make them look better, younger, fresher. That said. I think these are a bit overdone. Effects work, but only when thoughtfully administered and when they contribute rather than detract from the initial image. I think the first one is better, although the hair above his forehead need some attention. Everything seems to be very painted except for his eyes, that needs some attention. It's obvious you are starting in Painter, that's great always push yourself. But find someone who's style you like and really learn how to use the software.

some skin softening and airbrushing? yes. automated photoshop filters? no.

most of my female friends and clients prefer editing which is subtle.. spot healing to cover blemishes, etc. from what i've gathered, the point of editing, makeup, etc is to look better without letting people know you're trying to look better. the crowd-pleasers are usually the photos which make them look great without realizing that any editing was done at all. these effect filters are the antithesis of that ideal. i think filters in general should be avoided when possible.


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalphotocandy
Member
Avatar
242 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 05, 2010 14:40 |  #15

"Effects work, but only when thoughtfully administered and when they contribute rather than detract from the initial image.

This is the point I am trying to make. Do I think automated painter programs are a great idea? No. I personally do not. I feel like my comments were taken a little out of context. But I love a good debate. :)


template photoshop (external link)
Our Jesus art Portfolio (external link)
Some of our Portrait Work (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,773 views & 0 likes for this thread
Portrait of Child (done in Corel Painter Essentials 4)
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is wkl
982 guests, 182 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.