Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Guinea Pig CS3

I created this guy for fooling around in Flash CS3. I'm still not as far along as I'd like to be (no walking yet), but I haven't posted in awhile, so here's one victim of my diabolical CS3 experiments.
Then I roughed him up in Painter. I like using jpeg artifacts as a texture. I bet this becomes more common in pop art, as does 8 bit color dithering. Yesterday's artifacts are tomorrow's edgy* look.

*or would-be edgy


karenladeeda said...

he's pretty cute

stray g said...

I absolutely love the first one at the top!!!!

Namowal said...

Thanks karenladeeda and stray g. :)

Sally said...

I've been poking through a Painter X book which cost more than $50. I'll blog about it later.

But it gets me thinking, is Painter just kind of goofy old style? I mean developing all kinds of palette knife textures-- it's just make believe. Lighting on the paint thickness? That's over, if you're a digital artist. Even the water color stuff has a foot in "that's over". Develop a new aesthetic. What do you think?

It seemed to me this post was touching on these issues. Why learn all this stuff to make it look like it's physical art when it's totally digital? Go for the vector look? Just rumbling through my mind, curious what you think.

feeling pretty nihilistic this week.

Linda said...

I like that creature. (I know you "roughed him up" in Painter, but did you originally create him in Painter or Flash or Photoshop?) There's something about pixels I love so much that if I were painting with paint, I do think it would be fun to paint in "pixel style." I used to use Painter, and I liked using it for other reasons than the painterly textures. I always used it with flat colors and line, but I had a hard time with it because most of the work I had was for print, and at the time Painter didn't have CMYK--what I mean is, I couldn't look at my holy CMYK bible and type in a color like 60C, 40M and go from there. Then I got my hands on Photoshop. But I always loved the smooth feel of Painter, and probably by now you can use it alongside your CMYK bible. (?)

sally g said...

I love the one dog I drew in Painter. I like the vector look of Illustrator for design, but Painter more nearly approximated the feeling and look of drawing for me -- more natural and less mechanical. I just need to make time to learn it, and then I can answer this question better! I, too, was put off from learning it initially because I had to print the results and worried about the pixelated look. But I got inspired by my newspaper artist friend who achieves great painterly results; newsprint is very forgiving about resolution. I printed my Painter dog on watercolor paper (but it nearly killed us feeding that into our printer).

Namowal said...

hmmm.... I never thought about Painter that way before. I can see how the default brushes can be perceived as hacky and gimmicky, much the same way common photoshop filters gained that rep 10 years ago.
Then again, I do like the fact that I can make something painterly without washing brushes and getting Phthalo Green on the carpet.
Developing a new aesthetic is probably a good idea. Painter does let you make and edit your own brushes. I think that's fun.

Thanks. The creature was created in flash. I drew him with the brush tool.
Painter can be set to use cmyk, but I almost never print my work (my printer hasn't been used for so long that it probably has the heads clogged).

Hi stray g,
I know what you mean about stuffing thick and or fancy paper into the printer. I think most commercial ones are built to crank out emails and low res photos. High end paper or high-rez settings makes 'em choke.

stray g said...

I have the Painter Wow! book a friend strongly recommended, but I haven't gone through it yet.

Namowal said...

stray g, you know linda has some illustrations in that book. I was familiar with the pictures for years, but it was rather recently that I noticed who drew them. I was thinking I wonder who drew that? Looks like something Sally C or Linda would like...