Preserved Topic: Candy Bad

When I first started working in Photoshop, 3 was as good as it gets. I learned all the basics, how to do this and that and even a couple of pretty smooth effects. Photoshop 4 came along, and I threw all of my new found knowledge in the trash. I hate to admit it, but I got hooked on Candy. And I had it bad.

EyeCandy is seem everywhere. I've seen the effects on numerous webpages and graphics around the web, and I've seen some that would just downright scare me. The extent that people go through to get these filters seen only bleeds it into the public, and we stop recognizing true talent.

The story from here only gets worse, my friends. I purchased Photoshop 5, and got EyeCandy for free from a friend. Bewildered from all the new stuff in 5 only made me retreat back to EyeCandy, something that was still very familiar to me. And I created picture after picture using old photoshop 3 techniques and EyeCandy. I was pleased until one day I woke up and realized what I had been doing all this time.

I sat in confusing for a while, when the computers at my work bipped and beeped their way into oblivion, eventually having to be reformatted. Needless to say, I used my copy of Photoshop 5 there, but never got around to installing EyeCandy.

After a while, I started realizing that this was a god-send; I didn't need these cheesy effects to do something. I started reading tutorials and walkthroughs on the net, testing things out for myself, and I have come to the level where I haven't touched EyeCandy in over three months, everything I do nowadays is all through good ol' regular Photoshop combined tools. It may not be easier, but the feeling I get from a job well done is a lot better than when I used EyeCandy to do something. And the level of control is awesome without EyeCandy. Sure, you can do certain things in EyeCandy that would take a good 10-15 minutes to do in Photoshop, but being able to know that you did it, that you actually MADE this without any other program's help, it's truely rightous.

So... now that you've reached the end of this epic little post that I've managed to drag out of me, I'd like to hear some stories from other people about their experiences, and mis-experiences with EyeCandy.

--Stevo--

When I first started, I was a heavy user of eye candy as well, but I haven't really touched it in a while now. The only function I like once in a while is perspective shadow...everything else is rather gaudy IMO. I'm currently a fan of flat, clean, professional graphics with simple geographic shapes. Although, I do like some of the plastic/metal work.

anyone else out there draw a parallel between eyecandy/photoshop and wysiwyg/notepad?

i sure do..

cheers.mikey.milker

Yup yup yup....and I have always refused to use either one <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

(editing): uh.....wysiwyg and eyecandy that is....(just noticing that 4 things were mentioned..hehe)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 16-08-2000).]

dl-44: oohhh.. i thought you were saying all you needed to make an 3r337 web page was hot dog pro and eye candy! <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">

cheers.mikey.milker

Hey! Crackin' on WYSIWYG programs now? I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on that level. Sure they may seem to be a little more 'half-baked' than using the old noggin', but that's the way I go.

I'm not a programmer, and have no real desire to become one (yes, I believe making webpages is considered programming, hell you're using a computer langauge to make shtuff, right?), so FrontPage will have to be my own personal bitch for a while.

I know I might sound hypocritical, since I am dead against EyeCandy and other quick-fix programs and filters, but hey, that's life.

Besides, it's all a matter of which one floats your boat. Most people here would rather use Notepad and make their webpages by memory, and that's just fine. So what if people can kick my ass in HTML? All I'm trying to do is present my work. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

--Stevo--

Hey! Crackin' on EYE CANDY and other plug-in programs now? I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on that level. Sure they may seem to be a little more 'half-baked' than using the old noggin', but that's the way I go.

I'm not a DESIGNER, and have no real desire to become one (yes, I believe making GRAPHICS is considered DESIGNING, hell you're using a BRAIN to make shtuff, right?), so EYE CANDY will have to be my own personal bitch for a while.

I know I might sound hypocritical, since I am dead against WYSIWYG and other quick-fix programs and EDITORS, but hey, that's life.

Besides, it's all a matter of which one floats your boat. Most people here would rather use PHOTOSHOP and make their webpages by memory, and that's just fine. So what if people can kick my ass in DESIGN? All I'm trying to do is present my work.

--Milko--

mind you... i should have left for work 5 minutes ago, haha...







[This message has been edited by mikey milker (edited 16-08-2000).]

wow, that was pretty cool...you really ARE an asshole mikey! hehehe....keep at it <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">

Hi, my name's Bill and im a candaholic.

hehe.

I gotta admit that I had can-dytice once.
It was (b4 I came across Doc Ozone) the thing
that sucked me into Photoshop.

The hmmm thrill? Just looking at my name all bevelled-up on fire with 12 different kinds of fur...yowee that *was* cool.

But then I came across the Docs site. His bevels were so smooth. His shadows...so shadowey, His glass was soo....well you get the point...it was nuthin' at all like what I'd seen done, or had been doing myself.

So much like yourself I did the online tutes thing, the asking dumb questions thing, which i still do (and need to!), and eventually came to the conclusion that theres really not much that Eyecandy does
that couldn't be done better 'by hand'.

For sure there is that feeling that *you've*
done this thing yourself - but i also think that the results are always so much better.

Anyways, I'd rather view a grossly malformed light effected bevel than an out of the box Eyecandy one anyday...regardless of fur.

l8r




<smiley> </smiley> Weadah

LOL... mikey, it took ca'hones. Though I can see what you're getting at, and it makes me out to be quite a hypocrite, no? Perhaps one day I'll learn HTML and all that jazz, but until then...

--Stevo--

hahaha... oh it was nothing personal. rather, it was the best way for me to put off going to work for another 5 minutes or so, hehe. learning html is so good though, and now that i've been hand coding for 3 years or whatever.. i could honestly never go back. it can be frusturating, but it's also rather gratifying. plus people are in awe of you when you tell them you bust out all your code in notepad only =)

cheers.mikey.milker

I always get into this kind of argument at work with the print-designer. She uses Quark and Illustrator while I use Dreamweaver and Photoshop. We are both traditional artists as well (although I am only in intermediate drawing in school, got a long way to go). She has a disdain for most computer generated graphics, because they are created so much more quickly and with less attention to detail than an equivalent hand-painted object. To me, a beautiful Bryce or Painter image is just as artistic a work as a canvas oil painting. Both can be done poorly using cheesy techniques (or filters) to create an end-product that looks amateurish and cliched.

I forget who said this, but the quote is:

"The greatest enemy of art is the absence of limitations"

I think that quote brings something very important to light. The greatest artistic work is the most evocative image that could be created given a set of tools. With all these computer programs it makes it entirely too easy to drop the ball and use a procedural effect to generate an eye-pleasing image. We have to push the envelope. How to use these tools to create something UNIQUE and INSPIRED. I myself am guilty of doing things the easy way a lot.

To fight this trend I am going back to basics. Not just the basic Photoshop functions, but to the basics of 2d imaging and design. Good old-fashioned paper drawing my friends. Takes a steadier hand and a much sharper eye (when drawing from a model or still-life), and rarely looks anywhere near as cool as a slick textured graphic, but it is the most primal form of human artistic expression. Understanding these principals that have been developed over thousands of years is an essential key to being able to create that UNIQUE and EVOCATIVE website or wallpaper that has so far eluded me. The way I see it, freehand drawing is to lighting effects as lighting effects is to eyecandy bevels.

Ultimately everything one creates is drawn from one's experience of the world. By decreasing the size of one's building blocks (i.e. breaking down techniques to their constituent parts) and increasing the field of experience (websites, traditional artwork, 3d graphics, sculpture, performance art), I think it becomes possible to offer something truly new and LASTING to the world.

Does this make any sense to anyone or am I just full of shit?

I always say that the first and most important ability an artist needs is the ability to LOOK, really SEE what the world has to offer. If you can actually see the details that surround us, you have at least half a chance of giving this same rich impression to the viewers of your work. They may not undertsand all the details of what you did, probably won't even be able to point them out, but most folks can tell good from bad. Art MOVES people, that's what makes it art. (IMHO, of course!)

I've heard the old argument from more traditional artists who've never taken to the computer, it all goes too fast to be considered "real" art! I've heard the same arguments used to belittle the work of photographers as well. Art and Design is something that happens inside of you. The techniques of getting it out may vary, but the results are what's important. Paints and brushes are tools. Pen and ink are tools. Computers and wacom pads are tools. Cameras and darkrooms are tools. Separate the work we do from the tools and it's still art. Good art, bad art, that's not for me to judge, really. (I judge anyway! :-)

Eye Candy and KPT and (...)? Well, I don't use them, I need the control, I see these details in daily life, and then I have to duplicate the details I saw. If it all goes *too* fast, I can't even tell if I got them there or not, I want to KNOW, I want to be sure that my vision gets on screen like I planned in my minds eye.

Reading back on this post I realized I might be giving the impression that realistic art is the only "art". Not so, not so! I do feel it's important to be *able* to do realistic art, how else an we train our eyes properly to see the details that makes a work great? We can reak the rules, but we should have a clue as to what they are. I started out as a traditional artist, drawing, first with charcoals and Pen & ink, and later with oils and acrylics. I've studied sculpture and modelling, I've worked *years* in a photographic darkroom learning all of the old school effects and tricks. Photoshop for me is just a tool, a really *great* tool, that allows me to do what I need to do faster. Since it's faster, I become more able to abandon a work that's going nowhere and move on. The more prolific I am, the better, no?

Enough of this for now. To re-cap, CREATIVITY is something that lives inside of us. TECHNIQUE is the methods we learn to get it out of ourselves and visible to others. Technique can be learned. ART is what we get when a creative soul manages to use some technique to produce a piece that can make us feel some strong emotion, good bad or ugly.

I was one of those people that had a head full to busting with ideas and images I wanted to share. The ability to get them out didn't come naturally, I had to *learn* to draw, learn to paint, learn to *see*. Learn to see. You'll be better for it.

Your pal, -doc-



[This message has been edited by DocOzone (edited 17-08-2000).]

Oh yeah! I just checked, I don't even have Eye Candy loaded on my machine right now, even though I own a licence to them. Take my advice, take the money you might have spent on the filters and buy yourself some books instead. They don't need to be how-to books, better if they weren't, really. Buy some inspirational works, collections of great master paintings perhaps, or a collection of fine art prints, maybe some works on great architecture. Learn to be an artist first, then learn the right techniques, you'll do fine.

Your pal, -doc-

hm, buy a couple tom robbins books and blow the rest of the cash at the pub with your friends <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">

The more I think about it, I don't dis-like EyeCandy because it's easy, or I find it cheating or something like that. I just think that most of the effects (i.e. fire, smoke, fir etc) are really cheap looking. That's not to say they all look cheap, 'Carve' is an awesome tool that I've seen many people use with great results.

I think it could be looked at like this: if you have one of those water-coloring books that were made for 8 year olds, you could either 'paint' the water on it in an orderly fashion, or throw it in the tub and laugh at the funny colors it makes.

Whenever I create something, I have an overbearing sense that it is incomplete, and that something very vital is missing. Needless to say (but I'm going to anyways), I have no self esteem as far as critiquing my own work goes. But whenever I make something through EyeCandy, that feeling is worse. I find that if I have ultimate control over my projects that I can stand back and say, "No, that doesn't look good, let me change this over here..." I cannot do that with EyeCandy.

EyeCandy is essentially WYSIWYG programming, and in a broad sense, is no different from FrontPage. There are a number of people who will use EyeCandy to make shoddy graphics, but build some really kick ass webpages to display those shoddy graphics on the net. Then again, there are people that make really cool photoshop images, take their time and all that then throw it up on a FrontPage document.

What I'm trying to get at here (bear with me, unless you've stopped reading this a long time ago and are replying with 'Shut up Stevo') is that EyeCandy, FrontPage and all the rest of those WYSIWYG programs and filters are, essentially, training wheels on your bike. When you start out, you want results and stuff that looks good to get you interrested, to help you along with the process. And, after a while, you'll get more and more interrested in that field and decide that you want to learn all the details, and all the workings behind the goods. You want to put the EyeCandy down and start doing things the harder, but better way.

Does making webpages through HTML in Notepad work best? Probably. In fact, from what I've heard and seen on the web (I can't get over you guys being able to do that stuff through NotePad!!!!) I'd have to say that it kicks the crap out of FrontPage. It's because you have more control, you've learned to ride the bike. I, on the other hand, will stick with the reflective red moped for a while. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">

Respect the photoshop, tame the WYSIWYG.

--Stevo--

IMO, the filter packs are just tools. I dislike the fact that they always include the 'cheesy' effects (fire, fur) with the basic tools (bevel, carve), but I'm perfectly willing to use a filter pack for something basic.

These days, if I want a quick bevel while experimenting, I'll use a layer effect. Way back when, I'd probably have used Eye Candy's inner/outer bevel. When I'm playing around with a look, speed is king. I don't want to do a 8 step procedure just to see if a basic effect would look good in a certain situation (I'd probably do the 8 stop procedure for the final image, though).

The problem with Eye Candy is that all the basic effects are now doable with layer effects within Photoshop, and the other effects are just cheesy. I still might fire up Eye Candy for that plastic-looking bevel, if that was what I really needed in a specific circumstance. I haven't used EC in at least a year, though.

I do still use KPT5's ShapeShifter from time to time. Within certain constraints, it can generate a bevel as good as the classic Guassian Blur/Emboss/Overlay technique, but it takes seconds and has good preview adjustments.

Only EC Filter I'll use is 'Carve', because it just looks really good.

Now... let me think of another way to sound even MORE hypocritical...

--Stevo--

Allz I have to say iz that i like eye candy whats your beef with eye candy?? I mean itz better than lookin' at ugly crap! EYE CANDY!
peace
- <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/cool.gif"> Absolute Zero <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/cool.gif">

Absolute, you're right. Looking at nice pictures and pretty little logos is great! And EyeCandy *can* bring out some pretty neat-oh results. HOWEVER...

I refer back to my last post, where I put EyeCandy in the same category as training wheels. If you're starting out and want effects done fast, with good results to make you feel good, by all means go for it. Use EyeCandy and use the hell out of it. I can only hope that you'll one day want to take your level of design up a notch.

I ain't got no beef with it, homey. And itz always better than looking at crap, so don't front on me, yo. Don't be saying shiat I didn't be sayin', you know what I'm sayin', yo? Hehehe... lookit me, I'm talking jive.

--Stevo--

See, that point sounds contradictory to me, since when I look at almost all images created with Eye Candy, they look exactly like "ugly crap" to me.

Third Party filters can save people a lot of time, I'm sure, but if you're aiming to make something that is a completely controlled piece, then all they are is a hindrance to the design.

See, filters like Eye Candy, KPT, Xenofex, they all pander to the lowest common denominator. They make the same effect...over..and over..and over. It's cookie cutter work (as mentioned before, time saving for some, so I note the merit). BUT, as cookie cutter work, it's boring, dull, mostly lifeless, and lacking in reality...because, in case noone mentioned it..."real" has flaws.

So, in my ambivalence of stated purpose, but personal disgust, I can say this. If you can't make it, and never want to learn how, then by all means, buy and use Eye Candy (et. al) for as long as you want. If, however, you actually want to "create" graphics, and learn how it's done....then maybe you should be listening to a couple people around here.

Then again, what the hell would we know right?

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

Good point i am a "lame newbie" and i've asked alot of dumb questions because I DO want to know how it works, and I also do like eye candy. The reason i like eye candy iz cuz i used to be on programming and havking an i wanted to be leet and all my leet peers had eyecandy for everything, but now I am coming to this side and I am slowly realizing that eye candy does get old. (pretty dang fast.)

I see where your coming from eye candy does kind of cheapen it a little. I have a lot to learn from you guys so when you here me asking dumb questions pleaze just humor me and help me.
Thankz
-Absolute Zero

I just realized are you peeps talking about extra filters that PS doesn't already have?
i don't have any of those.
-absolute zero

Absolute, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Just because you don't know something, or how to make this look like that, ask away! When I started, oh man, I couldn't even make a black circle on a white background. It was sad, but I grew in time watching other people and going through trial and error.

And yes, EyeCandy is a filtration program that is third-party (not released with Photoshop, but made for it... costs extra.... quite a lot extra actually). It's funny, but you remind me so much of a friend I have.

--Stevo--

Oh well then hell eye candy sucks! LMAO By eye candy i thought....nevermind <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/tongue.gif"> I'm stupid!
peace
-Absolute Zero

'sokay.

--Stevo--

It's seems that this thread has been dead for a bit, but I'll toss in my 2 cents worth.

I use text editors for HTML and I hardly ever use 3rd party stuff for Photoshop.

EyeCandy? I'm glad it's finally almost completely dead on the net. I haven't seen fire in quite some time.

But I do have an interesting use for EC. Use it in an alpha channel. I've gotten some pretty nifty stuff from experimenting. Like using smoke in an alpha and then using that for lighting effects. That's just a simple example. Explore and break the rules, damn it!

warjournal

I'm curious. Those of you who are violently against Eye Candy - is it just Eye Candy, or all the filter packs. I admit, Eye Candy is pretty dated, and all the filters I used to use have been supplanted by Layer Effects and such.

I still use KPT5 sometimes.
When I wanted a metal Biohazard, I knocked this out in about 15 minutes:


I can't imagine how I would get the same effect without that particular filter.

[This message has been edited by Das (edited 18-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Das (edited 18-08-2000).]

That is fucking awesome! Sorry for the language...

Ok, I gotta go with you on this. Whatever works best for you, is the way to go.

..damn.. I wish I could do that.

- Dan -

Wow, that looks awesome! It can be done without KPT's or EyeCandy (im not sure what you said you used) but it could be time consumming. I think the real problem a lot of people have with these 3rd Party Programs is that they produce ugly results. When the programs used properly like you used it, then its fine I suppose. EyeCandy(and other 3rd party progs) can produce awesome results like you proved here. However, I remember when I was new to this stuff, and sadly into those AOL proggies, going to websites and seeing logos with Fire, Fire, and whatever else applied to it. Those were consided awesome to. I guess then you grow up and get a little more advanced and realise that those just werent designed well. You come to sites like the Doc's, Phongs, and Marks and learn to do things for yourself and realise there is art outside Eye Candy.

As far as WYSIWYG editors, I dont see anything wrong with them. Ill be honest, I coded by hand for a while and then within the last month bought a copy of Dreamweaver. I still do most of my code by hand, but I found stuff like adding rollovers and preloading saved HOURS. Im not the best with dHTML. I can read it no problem. Writting it is another story. It takes me a LONG time to write a simple thing. As long as the end result is fine, whats the problem with using one of these editors? My sites were never impressive to begin with but I dont feel the quality has gone down since using Dreamweaver. I think I have more time to work on other stuff instead of writting my rollover code.

Besides that, where do you draw the line between doing your own work or using a machine to do it? How many of us used the Doc's rollover script when we first saw it? I know I did. Technically its the same thing as using a WYSIWYG editor. How about Phongs ePlastic tut? I learned from it. How did I learn? I copied what it said word for word then changed things around to what best suited me. Thats the way everyone learns.

Gee I hope I didnt go too off topic with this one ....

Jestah
ieJestah@hotmail.com
ICQ - 77252449

Dan's a potty mouth <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Jestah
ieJestah@hotmail.com
ICQ - 77252449

You must tell me how you did that biohazard symbol!! I want to do that so damned badly! Haha!!!

--Stevo--

I just realized, I'm no longer maniacle. I'm a lunatic. A LUNATIC I SAY! LOOOOOOOOONATICK!

Jestah-you're right, it could be done without KPT, but it would take hours of work...Not to mention a graphical genius, I don't know many people who can make something that realistic just off the top of their heads.

mbridge: Graphic genius? No I dont think so, maybe someone thats patient enuff to actually sit there and do it. I mean Im by no means a graphical genius but I think given the time and inspiration I or anyone in this forum could do it. But yeah, why not write a step by step tutorial on what you did for us? Its an awesome looking image!

Jestah
ieJestah@hotmail.com
ICQ - 77252449

That could be done with the air brush and smudge tool. As DocCyber showed with his engine picture a while back. But it definately would take hours of work.

Which plug-in / filters did you use for that?

- Dan -

Thanks for the compliments <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">
I'll try to put a Shapeshifter tutorial on my website (assuming I get my site up - never enough time ...).

Jestah-
I'm not so sure this image is realistically doable without a specialty filter.
Keep in mind that that's a real reflection there, not carefully applied gradients.
Look carefully, and you can see the tiled floor reflected at the bottom of all the chrome pieces, and the kitchen appliances reflected in the lower one. A photographic reflection is incredibly effective at fooling the eye.
I suppose you could manually distort a photo to mimic a complex reflection like that, but I don't think many people could get it realistic (i.e. get all the surfaces 'reflecting' in precisely the right directions), and blend all the different reflection/distortions together smoothly. I sure wouldn't want to try <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

KPT5 does it in two minutes.

On the topic of the thread, I agree that Fur and Fire and such are often overused and trite. I do maintain, though, that general purpose aftermarket filters (like Shapeshifter) can let you do things that are incredibly difficult (if not virtually impossible) with Photoshop's native tools.
Heck, imagine if Lighting Effects was third-party, rather than built-in. I sure wouldn't do without just to be a purist <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">
Unfortunately, they seem to sell the good, general-purpose filters in packs with all the cheesy ones (KPT5 has a Fur filter too :P)

I dunno I still think it can be done without a 3rd party plugin. I mean there isnt a plugin that does anything that cant be done using other photoshop filters. Like whoever it was said DocCyber does it all the time. Take a look at his work.

Jestah
ieJestah@hotmail.com
ICQ - 77252449

See, I'd agree on the issue of saved time, except I'm a control freak. I don't use Eye Candy, or KPT, but I've tried them before....and hated the fact that I didn't have individual control of every layer of what went into it.

If I wanted texture under a burn in, well I was screwed...wanted to distort the irridescence a bit more later in the graphic...again, bent over and takin' it.

I think the image above is stunningly well done, as it's integrated with an actual design knowledge, but there's no way I could relinquish that much control of my graphics, or my art. I don't care for grabbing other people's actions, for the same reason. When I have snagged an action in the past, it's to break it down and see each layer by layer function.

I know, anyone attempting to work any sort of realistic metal effect in PS without thrid party filters must be an idiot.

And certainly a complete moron if they expect to do it in 17 minutes, or try to play with the texturing and shading after it's done.

And of course they'd better not care about the functionality of the layers or the ability to swap out layering once it's complete.


I'd hate to see the poor bastard who tries to work in a reflection burn as well, that could be disastrous.


Conclusory for me...the Biohazard image is quite nice, (more so than what I'm posting) I like it a lot...what does it mean? That KPT is a nice filter, for people who feel a need to use third party filters, or those who don't mind giving up control for what they gain in time.

Is it necessary though? Nope..because if someone spent more than 17 minutes, or half their brainpower while multitasking, studying and rebuilding the same graphic, I doubt anyone would see a difference...other than how simple it would be for one person to fully customize and rework the image no matter what stage it was on.

Gods bless the multilayered PSD, and now I'm shutting the f*** up.

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">


Peter

~awaiting the outcries~

heh



ICQ:# 10237808

[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 19-08-2000).]

Show off.. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">
Mind giving instructions on how you made that? Or is it just airbrushed?

- Dan -

I think the bottom line is that results are not EVERYTHING. Certainly they are the thing that brings you recognition and social approval for what you do. But think about it, everyone likes nice art or graphics, but that doesn't mean that they want to do it. What sets the designer/artist apart is the joy of CREATION. If you're in the biz just to make a buck and sell a website, then of course you should use Eyecandy and anything else that can maximize your output/time ratio.

However, if you take joy from the PROCESS of creation, then you will quickly exhaust Eyecandy's possibilities. I don't think Eyecandy is any less artistic than using a gaussian blur or a gradient, but it is a more complex process which inherently limits what you can do with it.

Eventually as an artist you will keep breaking things down. The vision of your desired result may drive you, but without a thirst for deeper knowledge of the process, you can not move forward.

Sadly, as material beings we can not give ourselves up to the art and spend an infinite amount of time on one piece, so shortcuts must be taken. But taking every shortcut leads to what I dub 'bad art'.

I think the best way to check yourself is simply to ask "Am I having fun doing this? Or is it rote graphics production?". When you complete something new that really pushes your skills, the joy you feel will be the creative joy that far too few humans get a chance to experience fully.

Try something new right now.

Sheesh, what did I start?

Jestah -
I'm gonna quote you here, hope you don't mind:
"I mean there isnt a plugin that does anything that cant be done using other photoshop filters"
See, that's why I used that particular image - I was trying to prove the opposite. There are filters that do things that you can't do with Photoshop's default tools and filters.
When I made that image, I wanted a reflection map for that extra bit of realism, since the symbol was going to be large (the original is 768px high, for my wallpaper). You can do a very convincing metal without a reflection map, using an airbrush, or distorted gradients, or any of several other tricks. But a reflection map looks very very nice on large images. I like reflection maps, when they're not overdone (admittedly, that image is pushing the limit .. it borders on gaudy).
There is not any way (that I know of) to do a physically accurate reflection map in Photoshop without a specialty filter; you'd have to use a 3D program (that's what shapeshifter is - a baby 3D program that plugs into Photoshop).
I was trying to illustrate that there are some filters that do things that just plain can't be done 'by hand' in Photoshop, thus strengthening my argument that not all 3rd-party filters are bad.
Not flaming here, just trying to explain what my point was.
Btw, what is DocCyber's URL? Sounds like someone who's work I'd like to see.

Darkgarden -
Your little metal widgets look very nice. What's your point? I was trying to show that KPT can make very impressive reflection maps, and that that ability makes the filter worthwhile. I didn't try to imply that you can't do nice metal without it, just that you can't do a realistic reflection map with just Photoshop.
I thought I was clear in my last post that I was talking specifically about reflection maps, not metal in general. Proving you can do some very nice metal (and those widgets are impressive) doesn't address the issue.
You would normally need a 3D program if you really wanted a photo-quality reflection map for a specific effect. Shapeshifter lets you get similar effects (albeit in limited situations) without doing any 3D modeling. That makes the filter worthwhile, imo, and that was my point.

Maybe it's just because it's late, but your comments above the photos sure look like you're flaming me (or at least mocking me). I don't think I did anything to deserve that.

I say again to the purists to whom '3rd-party' = 'crutch': if Lighting Effects was a 3rd-party effect, would you mock people who use it? What about Stylize

Dan:
No problem, like I said, it really was incredibly simple..that's why it's not as pretty..heh.

Bottom Layer, medium grey. Make a selection of it, make a channel using the standard gaussian blur effect over and over.

Contract your selection until it's very thin, fill with white, Select the bottom Layer selection again, and do a couple more blurs (that will make for the central "seams" in the image)

Lighting effects, mountainous, two directional lights, shiny and metallic, use the Alpha channel you created.

There's your base.

Next Layer, same selection, but fill with a lighter grey, do the lighting effects, making the light more intense. Set the layer blend to multiply, and adjust the curves, as well as brightness and contrast.

Duplicate this layer, and set it to Overlay to get a bit more highlight area.

Next Layer, same method as the last, but filled with black first, and then set to color dodge. Play with the opacity a little as well.

Next Layer, same selection, but this time have your foreground color set to black, go to EDIT>>>STROKE and stroke it interior with a few pixels....set to multiply, and do a gaussian blur (just a few pixels on the blur so it looks like an outlined shadow)

Then a colour layer for whatever shade you want it to be, set the Layer to soft light or overlay depending on what type of gloss you want. (Or using Color Dodge or Color Burn can be nice)

The Brushed texture is just another layer, filled with white, then Noise added, the brightness and contrast adjusted, then a radial blur done, and the Layer set to Multiply.

The irridescent "squiggles" are just a layer where I made the selection, stroked it, then subtracted, stroked again, then subtracted etc. Then used a Distort Zig Zag to screw around with them, then set to Dodge, or Burn, and the opacity quite low.

The reflection in the last one. Photograph, Polar Coordinates, Spherize, Distortion, Mask, Overlay.

Just that simple. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Hope it helps a bit. Like I said, take a little more than a few minutes, and you can have something that's gorgeous instead <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

Oh, looky what I did... could it be that I'v egiven DG even more work to do for Guru's Network? c'mon man, thats an awesome effect, and you know it.

- Dan -

Das:
You must be reading wrong, or it came across wrong <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

I don't see third party filters as a crutch..I see them as a lack of proper control over what's being created at times. Like I said, your image is stunning, but not impossible by other methods.

Your comparison to "lighting effects" is valid. If lighting effects was thrid party, I'd use it...if it lost layer control in a large way for me, I'd ditch it.

Time is the key saver there, and it's the balance of what you save, with what you lose. I agree that there is a place for third party filters, but only in that I agree there's a place for 3D Max. Not absolutely necessary, but a hell of a way to save time.

None of my post was meant as a shot at all, or to mock your work. Just to illustrate that when OTHER people close their mind to other possibilities of how it can be done, they're cutting themselves off from becoming a more accomplished artist/designer.

It's the same argument I'd use for people who use premixed airbrush inks and saying it can't be done any other way.

DaVinci crushed berries to make paint to create what we can in Photoshop...So we know Photoshop isn't the only way.

As for the rest, write me off as a zealot who actually likes the idea of people learning from the ground up, instead of trying to hang out at the top before walking the stairs of knowledge.

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

(btw: you'll note where I said in the one post "..with design knowledge". I was meriting your skill, and the quality of the graphic, not besmirching it)


Peter

~clearing up the desk~




ICQ:# 10237808

Uh...DG doesn't need any more work thanks..~smack~

heh

As for the effect..it's not great..it's simple..but that was the whole point of it. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">

To lay my part of this issue to rest (after being annoyingly cocky <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/tongue.gif"> ) Third Party Filters can be a useful tool...or a useless hack. I don't care for most of them, due to listed reasons of control, but the ability to incorporate one into a well thought out, laid out, executed graphic or piece of art, is a skill of itself.


So there we go....open minded ambivalence..and ever the Devil's Advocate. Hoping desperately that the words "can't be done" get abolished.

Peter

for the last friggin time we hope..heh



ICQ:# 10237808

Hey, if you want, I'll write it for you, take screen shots of my work, put it all together in HTML, and sign YOUR name on it.

I'm offering this because I'm going to get tossed off the gurus network team soon, according to Pugzly, enless I can think of something to write a tutorial on. So I figured, I could just do it for someone else.

Yeah, I know, pretty sad. Especially since you'd be ashamed to have your name on something I did (you'd understand if you saw some of my work).

Thought it was worth offering though <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

- Dan -

I meant that the comments sounded like you were mocking my argument ("I know, anyone attempting to work any sort of realistic metal effect in PS without thrid party filters must be an idiot", etc), not my work. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

The image wasn't posted as a pride piece. Like I said, it took about 2 minutes to make (and 15 to clean up, add drop shadow, colorize the ring, etc). I made it while playing around to see what exactly KPT5 offered (result: shapeshifter does cool reflection maps and adequate bevels, and the rest of the filters suck :P).

I just get sick of people who think that using any non-Adobe filter is "cheating", or "not putting in their dues". Sure, if you use Layer Effects for all your bevels, and don't know how to use a layer in overlay or hard light mode to do the same thing, you did miss something.

But some third-party filters are not automated wonder-tools. They offer excellent control, and are roughly the equivilent to Lighting Effects or Stylize

~breaks the silence rule~
Dan, we'll see what we can do big guy. I can't leave another Albertan out in the cold <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

Das:
See, I'm not a purist in that way though, or I'd be espousing my new website made entirely in MS PAINT...hehe.

No worries, hopefully the points all got across now.

Lots of ways to do things. Lots of reasons to do so. Lots of bad filter effects that should never be used again because they're just damned ugly. Lots of filters that deserve respect.

Ahhh....peaceful.

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

Haha Dark Garden, I wasn't completely being serious there. Like I said, my work, no matter how good the instructions are, would not turn out to be good enough to have your name on it.

About the cold.. yeah, it's startin to get colder here.. only supposed to be 22ºC tomarrow =[

- Dan -

Das:
I dont think using a 3rd Party Plugin is cheating, I just think most of the time its not a good idea. Like Dark Garden said you lose a lot of control with some of the different features. I dont see a difference between using the Lighting Effects filter or KPT's except you have a little bit more control with Lighting Effects. To me that image you made was fine. Whether or not use used KPT's in it makes no difference. It still was awesome. Theres just a lot of people just beginning who get there hands on a warez copy of EyeCandy and just goto town with the Fire filter. BTW, havent seen that lately. I miss it, sorta brings back memories. Most of the time you can tell a 3rd Party Plugin image from an image that didnt use it. In your case you cant. If you didnt say anything everyone would just assume you did it by hand, which I still think is very possible. Like I said theres nothing that a 3rd Party Plugin can do that cant be done with the standard Photoshop filters and tools.

BTW Dark Garden, why do you hafta be so amazing? Your like Bat-Man without the cape...

Jestah
ieJestah@hotmail.com
ICQ - 77252449

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 19-08-2000).]

Maybe I chose a poor image to illustrate my point. I admit you could make an image that looks as 'cool' as the biohazard without KPT5. I just don't think many people could do a photo-quality physically accurate reflection map with just Photoshop's tools.

Ignore the overall image for the moment.
Look into one of the chrome pieces. You can actually see what the room looks like. See the reflection of the tile floor, curving just as it should in a real reflection in an object that shape? See where the floor meets the far wall? See how the square window is misshapen so accurately in the upper-left chrome piece? How would you do that with just Photoshop's default filters? I could do it on a pure sphere (just distort

I believe in using all the tools that are available. Use whichever method creates a better result. I agree with DarkGarden in that filters definitely lack control, but I'm not so rigidly against them. Then again, I'll probably never use Eye Candy because it's so overused and its results are generally ugly. On the other hand, KPT, BladePro and some others can create some nice metallic effects (or so they say, I don't have either of these so I can't say for sure). Use whatever works, but I think you'll find that the better designers do not use any third-party plugins.





[This message has been edited by mbridge (edited 19-08-2000).]

I guess it's time for me to put in a few pennies of my thoughts about third party filters...*sigh*

Anything that can be done in non-adobe-standard filters is theoretically possible to do without them.

That being said, lets move on to the side points:

1) Third party filters do what needs to be done in a matter of moments, rather than the seemingly endless amount of time spend without them. So, they're time-savers.

2) Creating an effect outside of third-party filters leaves a great deal of room for manipulation. As a professional graphic artist, I have clients I need to please. If they want something changed with an image that I've utilized third-party filters to create the bulk of, chances are quite good that I am screwed and have to start all over again. So, by that example, third-party filters are not a time saver, but rather a time-waster.

3) Many filters available (KPT, EyeCandy, etc) create effects that are overused and not really interesting anymore. If you wanted to see a pair of DocMarten's somewhere in the world, you wouldn't have to travel very far; ergo, they're really not that interesting anymore. In that regard, third-party filters aren't really useful in the graphic design world.

4) Continuing that statement, DocMarten's makes their shoes and boots in multiple styles with embosses, colors and other decoration on them to make them more interesting. Third party filters can be used to create the hard stuff and refinement can be added at a later time (though not much, granted). Ergo, these filters are good.

That's 2 for filters, 2 for the olde fashioned approach. So, the tie breaker has to be this:

5) If another graphic artist sees your work and can only see merit in the filters used, then you've not created a work of art: Kai has, or EyeCandy has. So, if you overuse them, you've taken the artistic control out of your hands and placed in a nameless large corporation.

So, the final score is 2.5 to 2.5. Shit. I guess the jury is still out on this one, kids. You either use them or don't. But as far as the professional opinion on filters goes, I'd try to stay away from them of you want to be considered professional. If you're doing this solely for fun and intend to not make any money doing it, you're just fine. Anyone can create a stunning image using filters, hence the metal biohazard logo. But not everyone can create four different metal glyphs that have the same shape and are easy to manipulate, and thank you dg for that.

The moral of this story is always eat your pancakes. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">