 New York Times Ad Model (2002), MSPaintbrush drawing
ah, that's really great!!!!
this week I've been fantasizing about painting on the computer. I was wishing there was a program that actually modeled the physics of paint in 3D, allowing you to virtually squeeze tubes of paint onto your desktop, mix and paint over whatever's on your screen. smear, mix with water, model gravity, model the desktop background as inkjet print that bleeds, your brush squishes and has a finite amount of paint on it. are there any programs that do anything like this? man, that would be fun to play with if it were executed well.
really nice. like those Chuck Close paper things...
Really cool drawing. Side question - the low -fi digital representations they use for head shots in the WSJournal - they obviously aren't free-hand - but wondering how they are done. Do they just scan a photo or take the digital image and use some software that generates their standard pixillated look? Any idea what the software might be? Thanks.
In response to Paul, "this week I've been fantasizing about painting on the computer" ... I would heartily reccommend Synthetik Studio Artist 3.0 (Mac only, sorry) and Corel Painter (I think it's up to version 10)... both let you mix & squish etc.... Actually, Studio Artist is about the coolest art program ever, because everything about it's Paint Synthesizer is editable and animatable.
Thanks, all. Answer to SHM's side question: I haven't looked closely at those Journal drawings in a while, but in the past they were done by hand, by an artist, which is one reason the likenesses weren't very good. The technique is called pointillism: every little dot is put in by hand. There are programs that do that automatically, but something tells me the Journal is still using people, maybe with a computer assist to speed up the dot-entering process.
Paul and Abe, more especially Paul, you said softsynths were "bad karma" and I have kind of felt that way about the newer paint programs that "do it all for you." Of course they don't, but there's a whole set of problems of the artist rising above or escaping the programming, to make the art individualistic and just be a rebel. I haven't spent much time investigating those problems, having chosen to go the retro route and push against the inherent limitations of an older program, using so-called "classical" drawing technique.
|
New York Times Ad Model (2002), MSPaintbrush drawing
- tom moody 2-10-2005 12:19 am
ah, that's really great!!!!
this week I've been fantasizing about painting on the computer. I was wishing there was a program that actually modeled the physics of paint in 3D, allowing you to virtually squeeze tubes of paint onto your desktop, mix and paint over whatever's on your screen. smear, mix with water, model gravity, model the desktop background as inkjet print that bleeds, your brush squishes and has a finite amount of paint on it. are there any programs that do anything like this? man, that would be fun to play with if it were executed well.
- paul (guest) 2-10-2005 4:16 am
really nice. like those Chuck Close paper things...
- wcraghead (guest) 2-10-2005 5:22 am
Really cool drawing. Side question - the low -fi digital representations they use for head shots in the WSJournal - they obviously aren't free-hand - but wondering how they are done. Do they just scan a photo or take the digital image and use some software that generates their standard pixillated look? Any idea what the software might be? Thanks.
- SHM (guest) 2-10-2005 5:36 pm
In response to Paul, "this week I've been fantasizing about painting on the computer" ... I would heartily reccommend Synthetik Studio Artist 3.0 (Mac only, sorry) and Corel Painter (I think it's up to version 10)... both let you mix & squish etc.... Actually, Studio Artist is about the coolest art program ever, because everything about it's Paint Synthesizer is editable and animatable.
- Abraham Kalashnikov (guest) 2-11-2005 1:55 am
Thanks, all. Answer to SHM's side question: I haven't looked closely at those Journal drawings in a while, but in the past they were done by hand, by an artist, which is one reason the likenesses weren't very good. The technique is called pointillism: every little dot is put in by hand. There are programs that do that automatically, but something tells me the Journal is still using people, maybe with a computer assist to speed up the dot-entering process.
Paul and Abe, more especially Paul, you said softsynths were "bad karma" and I have kind of felt that way about the newer paint programs that "do it all for you." Of course they don't, but there's a whole set of problems of the artist rising above or escaping the programming, to make the art individualistic and just be a rebel. I haven't spent much time investigating those problems, having chosen to go the retro route and push against the inherent limitations of an older program, using so-called "classical" drawing technique.
- tom moody 2-12-2005 7:58 pm