Topic awaiting preservation: My first digital oil painting...

I have recently purchase my first Wacom tablet and whilst it was awkward at first to get used to, within a few hours i was hooked.

This is my first ever digital oil painting.

Clicky Here

(Edited by axleclarkeuk on 01-06-2005 19:07)

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Sorry Ini, i actually did this in Painter IX using a photograph for reference.

I will explain more, but am just off to work.

That's a pretty bold statement, InI It's probably best to see the reference(s) used beforehand.

I'm not saying you made any accusations, but it can come off as pretty offensive when the topic clearly says "...oil painting..."

As for the painting itself; it's quite well done - at least it's better than any of my own attempts at such paintings. I'd be interested in seeing the reference photo to compare proportions and such even though they look spot on to me.

I have to admit I am a little skeptical as well, though I don't wish to accuse by any means.

If this is done as you have said, then you certainly have my respect. It looks exceptionally good in regard to color, tone, value, form and texture.

Nice work.

This is your first digital - do you have any traditional pieces you could share?

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-06-2005 20:08)

nice! couple of pet peeves however, when painting you can remove fillings/glare and replace them with teeth, wee! And I've always hated the canvas texture.

That is very well done, especially if you *just* got the tablet. It took me a good long while to get used to mine and I still have a kind of adversarial relationship with it.

There are a few single pixel oddities around the flower headband that seem out of place, I'd like to see some traditional stuff as well!

Oh dear, maybe i should explain a little clearer the methods i used to achieve the portrait.

I am a member of another forum that manipulates photographs and tries to convert them to other mediums using a variety of techniques ie: Water Colour, oils, Impressionist and so fourth.

They use a variety of application to do this, including but not limited to Photosho and Corel Painter.

A few days ago i received my first Wacom graphics tablet and in my eargerness to get stuck in, decided to take one of the posted images from the forum and do my own conversion, more of an exercise really, however after spending a little time testing different brush types and styles, i decided it was time to concentrate and try to recreate that Oil Painting look and feel.

Now i admit, i am by no means one of those people that can sit down with a pen and paper and come up with great masterpieces, but i do know a little it of this and a little that, mainly from researching specifics rather than studying anything in general.

I basically used the photograph on its own layer and painted over the top of it. All i wanted to do was a decent rendition/interprotation of 'The Bride', in order to get it looking 'real' you still have to follow the contours of the face and otherwise brush strokes dont look authentic. I also added the textured canvas paper look in photoshop for added realism.

I'm sorry if i gave the impression that i was some oil painting genius, that is simply not the case.

Perhaps if i had been a little more informative in my original post and maybe titled it 'This is my first ever digital oil painting rendition' it would have made things a little clearer.

Ini

quote:

---

Am I wrong at saying: scanner, smudge tool, and a filter for the material?

---

Yes you are, and i agree with Synax, thats a pretty bold statement to be making, but then i am sure you used your years of experience in graphics to come to that assumption

quote:

---

I'd be interested in seeing the reference photo to compare proportions and such even though they look spot on to me.

---

Currently i am in work and dont have the means of posting the reference picture, however i am trying to sort something out.

DL-44

quote:

---

If this is done as you have said, then you certainly have my respect. It looks exceptionally good in regard to color, tone, value, form and texture.

---

I only wish i had the skill and time to be able to do this kind of work freehand without the need for learning aids. Regards to the colour, there is quite a bit of difference in the reference shot than on my virtual canvas, but i tried to get the shading as best as i could, although i do feel its a bit dark around the eyes ?

Ok was able to upload the reference pic:
Bride Reference Picture

(Edited by axleclarkeuk on 01-06-2005 21:40)

I see. No great achievement there, I'm afraid.

I'd just like to say it is really important that you accuratly describe your works and how they were made from the start. In lots of forums tools try posting filtered images to pass off as their own handy work. They usually end up with absolutely no respect rather than a little extra.

My appologies again for the misunderstanding, but it was never my intention to mislead anyone.

I was merely posting the first piece of work i had done with a Wacom tablet. I was happy with the result and wanted to share it with you guys.

that is kinda neat... almost scary what you can pull off with painter and a good photo.

As far as oils... Me hates em, especially in painter.

bleh.

Sorry guys...I have to agree with INI here. He might have posted prematurely, but there's a fish scent to the "method" used.

The piece wasn't freely painted over in a new layer, as just darkening the brightness brings up *exactly* the same tones in the finished piece as in the "reference pic". As well the tonal trails are faded in values, a pretty clear mark of smudging. I'm sorry axle, it's not a personal attack in the slightest just a long time seeing these things. I can respect you trying to work new mediums, but this is a pretty clear case of smudging and filtering.

My one large marker to look closer was this: Next time you use this method...you might want to check that the glint on the backtooth doesn't stay exactly the same value, with exactly the same pixel structure...





(sarcasm detector turned off for the day...heh)

Peter

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

DarkGarden said:

The piece wasn't freely painted over in a new layer, as just darkening the brightness brings up *exactly* the same tones in the finished piece as in the "reference pic". As well the tonal trails are faded in values, a pretty clear mark of smudging. I'm sorry axle, it's not a personal attack in the slightest just a long time seeing these things. I can respect you trying to work new mediums, but this is a pretty clear case of smudging and filtering.

---

Just to allow me to get this straight in my head, what exactley am i being accused of ? If its misleading people, i already appologised for that and tried to set the record clear by posting as much infomation as i could on how it was acheived, i even tried locating the the original .RIFF file to show the exact process i used, to acheive the result, but either i didnt save the .RIFF file or i am looking in the wrong place, but i will keep looking. i suspect the reason the the tooth is the same is i flattened the image, if i did not paint over the 'entire' image then i imagine thats why it is the way it is

In Corel Painter IX there is a setting called BRUSH CATEGORY and a BRUSH VARIANT called OIL BRUSH CLONER, as it suggests it 'clones' the underlying pixels by taking the values of the colours and depending on how you stroke depends on how the pixels are manipulated.

Now i suppose if you dumb it down, it is a form of 'smudging' i will accept that, but thats just the nature of the brush, the same as a lot of the brushes on Painter that try to mimic other mediums, its just a method i employed, i dont have the same artistic talent as some members on Ozone, i wish i did but i dont, so i do what i can.

quote:

---

axleclarkeuk said:

All i wanted to do was a decent rendition/interprotation of 'The Bride', in order to get it looking 'real' you still have to follow the contours of the face and otherwise brush strokes dont look authentic.

---

Even though this method doesnt require great artistic ability to do, it did help me acheive my goal, and i did feel ( until i posted the image here ) proud, but i have been made to feel like some sort of cheat.

I wasnt after 'respect' by any means, was just merely looking for a platform to show off my what i had i done, but i sincerely appreciate the comments and the time and effort some of you have spent in clarifying certains points, and i WILL go away and try to do something a little bit more creative

This experience has only fueled my desire to learn more, but then i already had that desire in the first place.

Your "paint over the reference photo" phrase was misleading. When I read that I understood you had really painted over it, by chosing the colors yourself, applying several strokes at various opacity and all. But the tool you describe is like an enhanced version of the smudge, or of the Art History Brush.

Yes Poi, when i look back at what i posted i can see where the confusion was, but it was by no means intentional, beleive me, if i wanted to mislead anyone on purpose, i would NOT choose to post in here.