Fake Paintings - Show Your Best - Critique The Rest

Is this with photographs only Greg?

Greg, both images say "cut-out birds on a background."



Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

This was a photograph of a diorama that I cleaned up but decided to turn into a digital oil painting using GIMP artistic filter called oilify. I played around for quite a while both with the underlying photograph and then the filter parameters before I was finally happy with the result.

Gregory: As a painter -- speaking for myself, not for all painters:

The big contrast between foreground treatment, and background treatment doesn't look to me like how most people paint. I think maybe photographers are more used to out-of-focus backgrounds in landscape/outdoor images, so maybe this wouldn't bother a photographer. Painters get taught different background handling techniques than photographers do, probably because focus isn't an issue with paint, a painter can pick and choose which bits of the painting to paint loosely, and which to paint tightly. I notice this disconnect between foreground & background especially in "Female Hummingbird..."

In "Broadbilled..." the background looks more like a background handling that a traditional painter might do.

I wonder how you guys would feel about having a textured canvas with raised simulated brushstrokes, offered by FAA as an alternate print surface?

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Dan T.

Don't get me wrong, I think the images are quite adequate for a number of people who are not keenly attuned to the cues that signal when the bird/background relationship is somehow separated and not woven into the fabric of the same illusion of reality.

Quite a coincidence for me since I just uploaded a Photo with an oil painting treatment plus a canvas texture. The oil painting effect was done via FotoSketcher and the canvas texture via Photoshop.

I've found it very difficult to get the results I would like as well. Last year I talked to a photographer who specializes in this technique while attending the annual Easton Waterfowl Festival on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. His painting effect was perfect to my eyes and I was very envious, so I asked about the software he used. He said he used up to 10 different software programs to get the desired effects. I wouldn't inquire for more details about the kinds of software out of respect for his artistic methods but it was enough to give me the idea that this must be how to do it satisfactorily.

My recent upload "painting effect" as mentioned, only used FotoSketcher which is freeware. Presumably, one could get better results if "you get what you pay for" with purchased software, but maybe that's not always the case. By adjusting controls you may of course vary your result substantially. I will post two examples for contrasting effects...

This is the recent upload about an hour ago. Even if you click on the image to go to the main page, you won't notice a lot of "Painting Effect" unless you view it enlarged or at full size. Clicking the green outlined enlarging box is the only way you can get some idea of the effect unless you buy it and view the original size....



Here is the other FotoSketcher example which I gave a more extreme effect to. I tried to give it a watercolor painting effect. Bare in mind that real watercolor painting techniques can vary greatly, from finely detailed to dry brush with a lot of open/unpainted canvas displayed...

"are invited to comment on which filters are bearable, and which are offensive to you sensibilities. But try to be tactful, maybe."

As tactfully as I can, then: It's not the filters. You simply need to learn how to work the software. That's a minor problem. The bigger problem is your artistic vision, which seems non-existent. You should be able to tell at a glance that those images don't work as intended.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Maybe it's just because I am a "traditional" media painter but it's very rare that I can't spot a photograph that hasn't been post processed with "painterly" effects from a mile off, the images posted here so far are no exception. Broadbill comes the closest to looking like a painting.....until I click on it. I don't understand why photographers pursue painterly effects anyway, just keep the image honest as a photograph. Alternatively I don't understand why some painters try to make "photorealistic" paintings, but I'll admit they fool me a lot easier.

Well David, I can quickly think of a couple of reasons for a photographer adding the effect...

Sometimes the difference between a snapshot and fine art photograph may be the artistic or creative effect one adds to it. Sometimes that might be as simple as a vignette. Personally I keep the original version along with a manipulated version (or two).

Another reason is when a photograph may not be sharp enough or you like the composition but the resolution isn't high enough for printing. Sometimes you can resolve this issue with the re-digitized paint effect version. You can even set the adjustments to zero and sometimes get a result without the paint effect and the image may be given a new print life. (not in all cases of course). I've "salvaged" a few like that on this website.

I've seen people print out photographs that they took, and apply actual paint on top of the photograph. That's the most realistic photo-to-painting transformation technique that I'm aware of.

Dan's comments are fine. I'm looking for a variety of opinions, particularly with regard to the painting "filter" itself. As i said, no thin skins in this thread, please.

Richard, your seabird photo illustrates quite well the resolution loss inherent in these "paint" filters. You've lost so much resolution that I think it detracts substantially from the primary subject. That is partially why, in my examples, I have layered in detail from the original photos.

Brian: You Old Mill Stream example doesn't lose much resolution, but seems close photographic version, and yet I can't see any "improvement" gained from applying the filter. Sometimes such a filter is used in an attempt to hide blurry portions of a photo. Why did you choose to apply the effect in this photo? It doesn't seem especially painterly to me, and I can't guess at an improvement in the rendering. Just asking.

On the other hand, I really like the Wye Mill example. Thanks for naming the software you used. With the dark unpainted corner in the vignetted area, it doesn't quite look like watercolor to me, more like an oil, perhaps. But it still remains strongly photographic in the foreground. Anyway, that one seems to work very well, in my opinion. Did you blend effect with original photo, or is this exactly as rendered by the software?

Okay, I rarely do this but here it goes...thick skin and all that... most painterly photos done with filters I do not like...because it looks like a filter was used....it somehow cheapens the piece Imo... but, I do like digital enhanced artwork that doesn't look like it was run through a program... I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the artist found a new way to do it or added a extra touch of personal creativity to the process...I'm rambling but I think you get the point.

I use gimp, love it, use it outside the box and try to go where no person has gone before...well maybe I'm exaggerating, just a little, okay a lot but please don't tell.

This painting of the horse was originally a photo given to me by a friend. This was her daughter's horse and it died... the photo was bad, blurry and not salvageable for even the best filters... I digitally painted the background, cut out the shape of the horse, re-painted it digitally and here it is...it took me four days, longer then if I would have to physically paint it with a brush but I learned a lot and have now used some of the Technics on other pieces.

What's your take on this digital horse painting, was it worth the effort or not...

Cheers, Barbara

Barbara: That's beautiful, but it's not a simulated painting effect via software. It's a real digital painting! I would be tremendously excited if I saw any digital painting simulation effect that came close to this in quality.

Cheryl: Painting on a print is a great solution, if you are really a painter. If not, then it would be a waste of a print and the paint and thinner.

Gregory,

I think you need to invite MDanl to offer his views on the painting programs and such. I'm sure he'll do so in a congenial manner.

Brian, my gripe isn't about post processing in general, in fact I'm quite aware that most photographs need some work in the digital darkroom to make them look their best and that is in fact an art in and of itself that requires significant time and skill. My beef is with people taking photos and trying to make them look like paintings, that's a whole different deal than enhancing a photo to perfect it. Let a photo be a photo and a painting be a painting!

I think a lot depends on the viewpoint of the artist. The horse is extremely good, Barbara. Very realistic. Personally though if I want a realistic image I will go with a photograph, that's just my choice.

The whole point of my "paint-effect" bird scene was NOT to be realistic, otherwise I would have just cleaned it up as a photograph. Hence I was quite happy with the loss of detail, Gregory.

To Dan's point how do you know that the final result of "those images do[es]n't work as intended"? It is totally subjective.

JMHO, there's no "wrong' or "right" just what you like :D

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

I like what Dynamic Auto Painter does for my pedal car series. This is a layered combination of the Realism and Pencil effects:

"I think a lot depends on the viewpoint of the artist....

...JMHO, there's no "wrong' or "right" just what you like "



Concur 100%, Richard.

Gregory -

As I mentioned, you must view the image enlarged or at full size to see the painterly effect. If I uploaded the original so you could compare the two, you would then see a difference.

As to why, I simply wanted a more artistic appeal to the photograph. I already had uploaded more than several other images of this subject and did not want any to be too similar in appearance. This may be a subjective point of view.

When I used the "filter" the file size was cut in half or more. I then later decided just before uploading to FAA to add more contrast to the already saved JPEG which increased the file size substantially. Of course this deteriorates the image to some degree but I figured it would have to be re-saved more than once for the human eye to tell.

The Wye Mills photo was done a while back and I don't recall all details as to what may or may not have been done. I'm going with the basic concept that the version shown above is strictly software effect. If it helps, this particular image has an untreated photo uploaded to FAA so you would be able to compare the two...

Hi As a photographer and a painter I would say the difference is that with a photo I want the main subject to be in sharp focus and when i paint this isn't important, what is important is that there is some artistic interpretation to my painting. I sometimes take photos of mine which aren't up to scratch and use them as subjects for painting. I think what happens when photographers use a painting filter on a photo is that that you still try to get that sharpness. I know I have been guilty of this when doing family portraits and it just looks a bit strange.



Kate

Very nice

This was done with a couple of Topaz programs, then I used a pen and tablet to "paint" certain portions.


This was also done with different Topaz programs, finished off with Glow.


My most recent upload, Topaz Adjust to boost the detail, then Clean to smooth and finally Oil Painting in Photoshop.


All images are layered, blended or with opacity lowered and software adjusting-never "straight out" of the box or with just presets.

Louise,
I really don't care for Photoshop's Oil Paint filter too much. Even changing all adjustments multiple times and combinations thereof does not produce a realistic brush stroke effect IMO. I know some others have expressed a similar opinion as well.

I got news for you guys, not one of these images as a realistic brushstroke look. The only way you'll get that is to actually "paint" on top of your photo using digital brushes in Photoshop or similar, even then you're just tracing over a photo and you still need to know how to paint to make it look right. Took a look at the other thread about digital paintings of celebrities to get an idea of what a competent digital paint effect really looks like, but his paintings only look that way because he actually does paint them.

You're welcome, Brian. Beautiful work,, Bob.

Brian, thanks so much for the compliments about my sailboats "painting". On this one I also used Topaz Impression (sorry, I forget which setting...I think I actually did two layers with two different settings). I tried to keep the effects pretty subtle.

You're quite welcome Peggy. I love the composition of "Wooden Bench".

Thank you Vanessa..

Here are a couple more AHB paintings....



bob

Bob I really like the looks you get with the AHB I clicked on the link for the tutorial you posted and there is nothing there. I also tried the Steve LeQuier link and just ended on his home page. I guess I will hunt around on youtube and see if I can find anything. I have tried it before long ago using some instructions from a book. I had a lot of trouble getting it to work. As I remember it just kept telling me the equivalent of there was nothing there for it to copy from.

@ann... standby.. I will look into fixing the links if possible...

@Anne

Found the files on my dropbox... go here to download.. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5v2rmfureolkraz/AABeasbMgETyHm6cLHzbcp-ma?dl=0

bob

This is an Impasto 1 preset


This is a type-8 brush custom setup in Impression


...as is this

Here are a couple that I did just for fun... they are not for sale....



Johnny was done with Photoshop Art History Brushes, Drew was done in photoshop using various filters.

Bob

I just uploaded this one... I did it with the oilify filter on gimp... I don't know, what do you all think?



Thanks, Barbara

Not sure what you mean by fake paintings, unless you mean digital.
If so, here are a couple of mine.

Using Studio Artist Freehand and Topaz Impressions.

My latest is treated with a watercolor effect via FotoSketcher...

Photoshop AHB

using DAP realism for a watercolor effect, and touching up with hand painting with Wacom Tablet.

Coming from a traditional painters mentality and attempting to bring those rationales to digital canvases is an on going adventure.

Great to see you Carl, your work is always captivating.

Here is another boating photo that has been digitally alter using filters.

all 3 photographs ran through a painting program the brush strokes really are amazing but not a painting &really not digital art...

This one is 100% DAP...



bob

This one is using DAP then bringing it to another program for more treatments/filters and compositing back with the original photo. Just finished last night. From my Charleston trip last weekend.

I think this photograph was asking for it. (Topaz)

A couple of my recent ones. I use Topaz Impressions

Love this Monet look!

This is another done entirely in Photoshop using the Art History Brushes...



bob

i don no about fake paintins they computer paintins i do computer paintins you want to ckek them out